|
BANE END-GAME STATEMENTS
GM:
Andy Scott [EGS]
Started: 04 July 2006
Finished: 15 January, 2007 (Autumn 1907)
Result: Three way draw between Austria, England, and France
| Country | Player | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | Result | | Austria | James Ogle: | 5 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 11 | 13 | Drew | | England | Christopher Houston: | 4 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 6 | 7 | Drew | | France | Richard Mansfield: | 3 | 5 | 6 | 5 | 6 | 8 | Drew | | Germany | Thomas Maddox: | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 1 | ANARCHY(S07) | | Italy | Peter Moran: | 5 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | Eliminated (A06) | | Russia | Mark Prichard: | 6 | 7 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | Survived | | Turkey | Wesley Jakeman: | 4 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ANARCHY(S03) |
AUSTRIA (James Ogle:) Firstly I would like to thank everyone who continued to the end for a good game. But also most importantly I'd like to thank Andy for being the GM for this game.
I'm sorry to Chris and Richard for ending the game when I did, when I'm sure they thought it was getting interesting, but it wasn't intentional. I had problems over the weekend with my internet connection having failed, so I had to ask my girlfriend to spend in orders for me from my email account. Which she did a very good job of! It was a shame I'd forgotten about the EGP as I couldn't check the last adjudication on the website, and so forgot to vote for or against it. But, I do think the end result was an accurate representation of the game, as I doubt I could have forced a win unless Richard and Chris really messed up.
1901
The game started with Peter and me being very talkative, with both of us indicating we were in favour of an AI alliance, I don't like the idea of AI fighting and getting nowhere for a few years, only to be picked off by the others later. I was in favour of Italy heading east with me against Turkey, meanwhile Peter was in favour of an alliance with Germany against France. With both of us being allied with Peter, if became natural to talk to Tom as part of a central alliance. Wesley was hardly talkative and so immediately I was in communication with Mark(Russia) about taking him out, which we both agreed to.
Things in the first year went well, neither me nor peter double crossed the other, and both me and Mark moved against Turkey. Peter tricked Richard into letting him move into Marseilles, but tom was blocked by both England and France from getting Denmark and Bel. Me and peter agreed on my fleet build to help combat Turkeys fleet as Peter would be busy with France.
Also unknown to everyone else me and Chris already knew each other vaguely from playing games on a diplomacy forum on weekend nights, though we didn't meet until the week before the game was initiated. We agreed to keep this secret as we couldn't work together in the beginning, but there could be possibilities later on.
1902
At this point Richard could feel the walls closing in, and was begging for help against Italy. At first look the Italian position seemed strong, but with building so many fleets to attack France, he was concentrated on his west coast leaving Venice unprotected. The alliance with Russia was good and meant I had plenty of units spare, and so were relations with France who offered all of Italy for my stab. Peter I felt was trying to be quite demanding with me and Tom, giving us our orders for the turn, demanding I attack Russia ASAP before he could take Turkey. I could foresee problems with him later and decided this was my best time to strike, so I stabbed in 1902 taking Venice with France retaking Marseilles.
By this time Turkey hadn't handed in any orders since 1901 and went into anarchy. I had promised most of turkey to mark except Smyrna, but had planned it would take him some time to break Turkey down, with England also harassing him.
Peter wasn't impressed with my stab and went into a 'game' of pass the proxy, which I always thought was either France's or Russia's.
As for what Tom thought, well communication went downhill after the stab and I hardly heard much from him, a trend that was to continue with his server problems throughout the game.
Chris was badgering me to try and make a move on Russia, but that was unfeasible at this point.
1903
Things get a bit hazy after this point, with Italy falling and contained to two armies on the mainland, I could finish peter off, but then who should I attack next? Being the current leader, I felt sure that if I attacked Russia then France would move in behind me, and possibly the same visa versa as Russia was racing through the anarchic Turkey and being nicely contained in the north by England. Another option was Germany who was withdrawing from France. But by this point France and Russia were communicating heavily about how to attack Germany and I could only see me getting Munich and having the same problem again, but being sandwiched between to stronger neighbours. So I decided I had to stab now, but I also had to take a risk and leave Italy where it was until I had more units. Germany offered an alliance against Russia with England, and I also agreed with England to stab France.
1904
Me and England attacked France simultaneously, and Richard didn't have a chance to defend himself. Everything went amazingly well. I took Rumania, and Spain, with Marseilles sure to follow, and held Italy in place. I did feel very bad about stabbing France at this point, as we had communicated so well throughout the game and it just didn't feel right. I think Richard knew I felt like this and still stayed in contact, unlike Russia who never spoke to me again!
However what I didn't plan for was Richard telling me it was him who held the proxy for Italy. I also played a game online with Chris in which I had to stab him to stop him winning the game. He became more distant after that commenting that he was finally realising how the game is supposed to be played. Which got me worried!
This all threw me a bit, and I hesitated about what to do and carried on talking to Richard. This lost me the solo for the game really. I should have carried on attacking France, like was my gut instinct. Instead I listened to Richard because I felt guilty about stabbing him in the first place. Also I was worried about Russia sending fleets into the Med through Con and England was no longer attacking Russia at this point which was what I needed to break Russia easily. And Germany's communication was nearly non existent. I guess the others were beginning to worry about me growing so quickly at this point.
In hindsight it would have been interesting if I'd taken the risk, but I played safe and had to stab England by not completing my part of the deal in the process. Who consequently never spoke to me again for the whole game.
1905 & 1906
By the end of 1905 I knew a 3-way draw was likely with EF, but Russia could also be a 4th member of a possible draw, but I wanted to at least try and get rid of as many people as possible, especially Russia and England.
I continued to fight Russia, forcing him out of Bul, Sev and Con, but still not being able to disband his fleet. Russia, England and France were all working together, with only Richard communicating with me to feed me lies, but I think we both knew we were just going through the motions or pretending that we could work together. I blocked both the English and French fleets from the med using a combination of England's misorders (which seemed to be a big part of his game) and good educated guesses. By the end, I doubted I would get a solo unless Richard and Chris fell out or there were several misorders. My set of orders for spring included moving eastern fleet west making sure the Med was doomed to be come a stalemate but it would have slowed my progress down so much in the east that I think this was the right result. I was surprised that Russia voted for the draw, and didn't want to be part of it as well but maybe he thought things had gone far to down hill by that stage.
England - Chris is an interesting player, who I think has learnt a lot from this game. I apologise for stabbing you but France had put me in a bit of a position, but you came out the better for it in the end!
France - Richard is a good player, who would have undoubtedly done better if Peter hadn't decided to attack him from the beginning. Very persuasive and calculating. I enjoyed our exchanges and would like to play with you again.
Germany - Well. I don't know much about Tom. Not sure anyone does with his internet problems messing up any exchanges that we could have possibly have had. I understand he had email problems, but it wasn't a sudden onset and as far as I remember you had them from the beginning. You would have been better off asking Andy if someone else could play in your place! Apart from that we had a few moves going, but you never really seemed sure about what you were going to do next. I was very confused as to how France managed to persuade you to abandon your attack on him when he was under so much pressure!
Italy - Sorry again Peter, but the opportunity was there and I took it. The central alliance might have worked, but I felt I was always going to have to deal with you at some point.
Turkey - Not much to say, but wasn't surprised when he went into anarchy after he hardly spoke to me at all in 1901
Russia - Again another sorry Mark. I hope I've explained my reasons above, it definitely wasn't personal. Maybe I just got a little power crazed?
Thanks again to Andy for GMing. You did a great job throughout. Well played everyone, and I hope I can play with most of you again!
James(Austria)
Return to Top
ENGLAND (Christopher Houston:) Thanks guys, especially our GM. It was sad to see two outright 'anarchies' and whatever the hell Moron thought he was playing at (apart from losing quickly) - keep taking the medicine, nutball. I would like to congratulate Richard, in particular for surviving two stabs during the game and I hope that Austria was suitably pleased with snatching a draw from the jaws of victory, due to an interesting focus upon treachery above all else. I shall now retire from Diplomacy undefeated, to concentrate on the grand-strategy on offer via gunboat.
Chris Houston
Return to Top
FRANCE (Richard Mansfield:) I made a disastrous start with an immediate attack from Italy and a German leader who would not or could not communicate. Furthermore there was a confusion as to the correct Italian orders as Peter Moran tried, without success, to have a different version of the his orders ( less anti French ) take precedent. This involved trying to evoke the 9am deadline. So I lost Marseilles. But my alliance with England was strong and would last to the game end ( with 1 minor blip )
After a lot of patience and diplomacy with Italy ( whose interest in Bane was already waning ) Italy was persuaded to turn round but by then Germany was in Burgundy and still uncommunicative. Also England had launched a fleet into MAO, help bent on whacking Italy.!! But more importantly I had persuaded Austria to stab his Italian ally. I was later to learn of a AGI alliance formed at the start of the game.
1903 saw the Italian proxy which, actively, was of little benefit to me as Austria had swarmed into Italy and I could not get near the remaining Italian centres. I managed to persuade German to retreat and with my Eastern border secure decided to follow his retreat and move North. 1903 saw the rebirth of France with 6 centres. But..............
1904 saw stabs by both England and Austria and the loss of Spain and Brest but I managed to pinch Holland. I failed to put in retreats and this meant my defences ( Army Bur got disbanded ) were weakened as a result.
1905 saw more patience and diplomacy and I managed to persuade both Austria and England to retreat and there was the possibility of strong and lasting alliances with either or both of them. I was spoilt for choice. At times it seemed Chris was losing interest ( he confided he wanted to play Gun Boat ) and would help achieve a French solo. Austria offered a 2 way draw as a goal, although he was by far the strongest Power.
1906 by now Austria had 13 centres and I felt he would go for the solo with a weakened Russia at his mercy. So I decided I had to get off the fence and maintain the strong alliance with England ( who could prop up Russia in the North ) and try and stop Austria. I think James recognised this and we will never know whether he would have made it to 18 centres. Chris and I were confident we could stop this but perhaps only just. And then along came the Draw proposal and it seemed the best way to draw a line under Bane.
So my thanks to Chris and James, I enjoyed the toing and froing, in the early part of the game I also exchanged a lot of mail with Peter ( despite our difficult start ) and was interested in all 3 different view points and attitude towards Dippy and life in general.
The game was of course marred by the Turkish anarchy early on, to some degree by the Italian proxy which was nevertheless an interesting phase in the game, trying to cause confusion as to who had the power. Then there were the communication problems with Tom and his final anarchy was perhaps the last nail in the coffin for Bane.
So for me mixed feelings, I was pleased to survived and make the draw after a disastrous start but in reality only 4 of the Powers showed any real commitment to helping and seeing the game develop to a conclusion. A bit sad really, but my thanks again to Chris and James and Mark for staying the course.
Andy, my thanks also to you. For me the game also raised one or two interesting points about deadlines and which versions of orders should be adjudicated, the proxy situation and what you as a GM has to do when there are communication problems etc. between the Powers.
Regards to all.
RICHARDReturn to Top
ITALY (Peter Moran:)
Playing Italy, I was approached by James Ogle in a friendly manner and worked out a plan to be allies. It was working pretty well at first, with Italy working itself into Piedmont and subsequently Marseilles. Austria, in the meantime, was gong the usual route and conquering the Balkans post haste.
At some point though, and this is where I messed up, I became frustrated by Germany's lack of communication and intimated to Austria that we should negate the three-way alliance earlier rather than later. My initial concerns about Germany being out of touch proved correct later on, with Tom not really being involved in the game from the time I became concerned onward.
This "aside" to Austria did me no favors, despite the fact that my concerns were proven correct. Regardless of that fact, telling this to Ogle made Austria think that I was an unreliable ally and started his wheels turning regarding the back stab. To be honest, Ogle picked the perfect time to stab Italy. My hat is off to him for being well organized with his forces and making the decision at the perfect time.
While the stab was quite frustrating to me, I can recognize a good move when I see one, but I was very disappointed that our alliance (which would have held on my end) was in tatters. It is, after all, very difficult to do anything in this game without the help of someone else.
After being stabbed by Austria, I sided with France and elected to permanently proxy my units over to Richard Mansfield. I told the field of players, however, that my units would proxy on a "raffle basis," with a different player getting control of those units each season. I think this is where people thought I was crazy, poco loco, insanity personified, or a total nutjob. Still, I didn't really want to play anymore due to my busy schedule and the totally strength sapping stab by Ogle.
Anyway, as we all know with proxies, the proxied country is always second choice when it comes to benefiting one's home centers. Because of that, I expected that Italy would eventually be eliminated, which is exactly what occurred in the end.
No harm, no foul...it's just a game.
Return to Top
GM (Andy Scott)
Well what can I say about Bane that hasn't already been said...
Though to be fair the game got off to a bad start when a player failed to confirm the start up which meant a re-run and the start overspilling into my holidays!
It is also true that I had several software problems due to me changeing my computer and therefore operating system, virus checker and spam filter which played bloody havoc for a while. Still these things are sadly part of life and we must make the best of it we can. However I don't remember ever adjudicating more then a day late and given the circumstances at the time I was quite happy with that.
However the main point of contention between Peter and myself came in 1901 when he submitted orders after the deadline expecting me not to use them. However I clearly state in my gamestart in point 11] that I will accept orders up until the point I adjudicate, so I accepted them as I had not adjudicated. He then wrote to me because he had got the receipt asking me not to use them? I pointedly wrote to him explaining that I couldn't do that for the simple reason the rules state I will use the most recent set of orders!" I could not understand why he would send in orders he didn't want to use? But it is not my job to understand the intent of orders but to adjudicate with what I am sent. So I delayed the game awaiting the next set of orders from him as it was the beginning of the game. A few hours later I still had not received new orders so at this point I adjudicated having I had thought been more then accommodating.
I pointed out that I had to be unbiased and treat him the same as everyone else, he claimed that this faulty adjudication was a major point as it would affect the way the game went and that I was in fact interfearing in the game.
Then I thought I realised what he was up to, namely running a con and he had included me which really irritated me. I am not sure to this day if it was aimed at Richard in France or James in Austria and whether or not he did get the right orders used or not? To be frank, I did not and still don't care to be used in such a way and in a private e-mail told him so and that he was skirting dangerously close to the decieving the GM banning rule. He unsurprisingly denied it but it rather set the tone for how our relationship developed. To be fair to Peter he still deny's it to this day and so I am more prepared to accept it now as he has nothing to gain from not telling the truth now the game is over.
Things sadly went down hill from there, I had more then one complaint from other players over his "Style" and the way he personalised some comments. I refused to use some of his press. I refused to allow him to impersonate Turkey on the turn Turkey anarchied to avoid wholesale confusion. The list goes on but it is full of stupid trivialities which should never have been issues but by this stage it seemed we were butting heads over every thing. I did my best to answer such queries and explain where possible my decision's but at no time did I change my mind or apply different rules to him then any other player. When Austria stabbed him he lost all patience and wanted to leave the game (A1902). Here I admit I made a mistake, I allowed him to proxy his forces indefinately to Richard. I should not have allowed it and forced him to continue playing but sadly I didn't. I can only apologise for that misjudgement and promise that I will not allow any indefinate proxies in future games I run.
Sadly that has overshadowed the whole game for me, and because of it I'm sure the game has sufferred in many ways. I do however want to express my thanks and gratitude to the four surviving players who not only played well in less then ideal circumstances but stuck in there when lesser players would have walked away, well done guys.
Regards,
Andy Scott
Return to Top
|