|
MAKO END-GAME STATEMENTS
GM:
Andy Scott [EGS]
Started: 20 January, 2006
Finished: 23 June, 2006 (Autumn 1910 Tournament game)
Result: Four way draw between Austria, England, France and Turkey
| Country | Player | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | Result | | Austria | Sebastion Egerton-Read | 4 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | Drew | | England | Jonathan Langman | 5 | 6 | 8 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 11 | 12 | 14 | Drew | | France | Alfred Differ | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 13 | Drew | | Germany | Craig Cunningham | 4 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Anarchy(A03) | | Italy | Lars Topholm | 4 | 6 | 8 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | /Eliminated (A08) | | Russia | Doug Stewart | 6 | 9 | 7 | 8 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 0 | Eliminated (A10) | | Turkey | Christopher Yaure | 5 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 6 | Drew |
AUSTRIA (Sebastion Egerton-Read) Austria.
Thank you to all for a good game. It was a struggle from my perspective but my reward is a survival, I owe thanks to Doug and Chris for that. Congratulations to Jonathan for board top and also to Al for a very well played game.
Special thanks to GM Andy who I thought did a great job GMing, certainly a good example to other GM's like me :-).
Seb.Return to Top
ENGLAND (Jonathan Langman) England.
Although this was a well-run and hard-fought game, I have to admit that I found it a bit disappointing, simply because the tournament context meant that much of the challenge of a typical game was absent.
When I saw the line-up, it was immediately obvious what my strategy should be: Lars, who led the tournament, was Italy. The only other player, apart from Lars and I, who was in the top twenty was Seb (Austria) who was some way behind us both. So clearly, to have any chance of winning the tourney, I had to ensure Italy went out, and preferably early. Then, as long as I stayed ahead of Austria and achieved a decent position, I would have done everything I could to finish well in the tournament.
So there really was only one option strategically: a long term alliance with France, since no other plan was likely to lead to an early Italian elimination. As that strategy was unlikely to lead to an English solo, and since I could therefore promise Alfred (France) a "good" draw (and a substantial Eagle Point haul) it was fairly easy to convince him that I had no motive to stab him. Moreover, given Al's position in the tournament, he had nothing to lose by letting me finish first as long as I didn't solo. So we united and rolled across the board in the sort of game-long unbreakable alliance that takes nearly all the excitement out of the game. I could never see any real chance of a solo (which is a tribute to Al's careful play) so I was never in a position in which attacking France made sense.
I also have to say that the absence of updated tournament standings was a disappointment. However my main point would be that whilst the scoring system used for the tourney works well over two rounds (and would probably be successful over three if the final round divided contestants on the basis of their standings), as it was, it didn't make for exciting games in the third round - which has also been my experience when similar systems have been used at conventions.
Of course, the result of "Wobbegong" (which looked as if it involved some sort of metagaming) made it all academic; congratulations to James, though, as the tournament winner.
So apologies to everyone for the lack of excitement, thanks to Al for an excellent alliance and particular thanks to Andy for doing a great job as GM - none of these comments, of course, are aimed at him, and indeed some of his press suggested that he was finding the game a bit less interesting than is usually the case towards the end." Return to Top
FRANCE (Alfred Differ) France.
I want to start by thanking Andy for running this game and being flexible for some people with holidays off work. I've reffed other kinds of games and it's usually a thankless job, so thank you, thank you, thank you. 8)
Next up is a thank you to every other player. I'm new enough to Dip2000 that I didn't know most of you (played two games with Lars as GM), so it has been quite a kick working with and against people who take this game seriously. To each of you I apologize for my NMR slip-up early on. Understand that I self-administered a few lashes and then got back to work trying to make things challenging.
My original strategy for this game fell apart pretty quickly. I wasn't sure if I could team up with England to eliminate Germany or the other way around, but I tested the waters for both. Jonathan was luke-warm to the idea of a larger team involving all three of us (who wouldn't be if one has any ambition for winning) and pushed for an early EF to remove Germany. I was luke-warm to that idea and only went for it when Germany NMR'd early on. His slide into anarchy pretty much fixed my early strategy and inertia did the rest. I will admit that I considered stabbing Jonathan as I started moving fleets south to take on Italy, but by then Jonathan had stabbed Doug and made it clear what he wanted so I decided to try it. The only other time I put much analysis in to that option was after eliminating Lars and I saw that it really wasn't worth the effort because the game would end in 1910 before everything could work itself out.
The one part of my original strategy that did hold was my complete dishonesty toward Lars in Italy. I apologize for that Lars, but I spoke the truth when I said I would have been embarrassed to help someone so high up the tournament board make any further progress. If things had not gone well for me working with England, I never would have admitted my dishonesty, but I'm also pretty sure you would have hit me in Iberia shortly after mopping up in Austria, so I don't feel all that bad. I would like to take some credit for eliminating Italy, but I don't think I deserve much. I walked into the vacuum created by the collapse when Austria and Turkey struck back at Lars. I tried every bit of trickery I knew to get Italy to collapse faster, but I got the feeling I was up against someone who knew the tricks better. I have to imagine Lars tried to convince the others to support him against me, so I kept communications at a tame level for awhile, but if he did foretell of doom they should have listened.
For Doug in Russia, what can I say? I very much wanted to keep Jonathan focused on tearing you apart, so your diplomacy never had a chance with me. I had all sorts of nasty plans to speed your demise and then screwed them up with my NMR. My Berlin unit was headed for Prussia to distract Livonia and make a threat for Warsaw. Munich and St Petersburg would have fallen faster that way I think. Any hostility I had toward you was only there to keep my ally interested in you instead of me though. In hind sight I probably could have toned things down a bit, so I'll try to make it up to you in some future game.
For Seb in Austria I will say I was serious about a three way finish. Of course we offered the same thing to Chris in Turkey and the later option would have been easier to execute. The move to Galacia in 1907 to create a stalling defense made up my mind to work hardest to eliminate you no matter what I said in email. You were the only one I could reach at that point and there was the possibility that both Jonathan and I could get to you at the end. You survived, but you could have had Chris' place. I spoke the truth before 1907. No one playing Austria can afford to be all that trusting, though, so I look forward to a chance to face you or work with you again next time.
For Chris in Turkey, my hat is off to you. You didn't crumble when things looked bad early and you didn't put up with any of my garbage later. You demonstrated that you have a spine and I respect that. Jonathan and I were serious, though. Third place would have been yours with no fuss. I don't know if you lead the ART defense alliance, but if you did the slip was letting me take the Ionian to eliminate Lars. I looked up stalemate lines and knew that an AIRT could have stopped us. THAT was my motivation for focusing so much on Lars. Once I had the Ionian I knew we could grind you all down. The only question after that was who would be left at the end. Finally, I would like to thank you for helping us finish at four instead of five. If Seb doesn't know how generous you were I'll say it here. Our final plan originally had Seb eliminated since we could actually control that without help from Chris. Chris asked for Doug's head on the final block to save Seb. Jonathan and I agreed to the swap.
And finally for Jonathan, thank you for the education. You were dead right about a number of things we discussed including how E and F can't really stay allied to the end without violating the spirit of the game. I've decided that any attempt to try that leaves England with the stabbing advantage after about 1906 or 1907, so I won't be having to re-learn this lesson now in non-tournament games. I really, really did try to find a way to prevent you from taking board top, but I couldn't see a solution that didn't also leave too many players on the board in the draw. If I had managed to coax Chris into a final stab of Seb, though, I would have at least forced the tie. That was the best I could find since it also involved a three way finish. It was close, but I couldn't beat down Chris' inclination to be nice.
It would be a pleasure to play again with any of you... even Lars who I probably owe now. I think I'm going to stick with longer turn times for awhile, though, since life seems to distract me on occasion from the fun here. I'll clean up my knives and promise to do my best to make it interesting for any willing do it all again.
See you all next time.
-al
Return to Top
ITALY (Lars Topholm) Italy.
I was sad to draw Italy in Mako, not "just" because it was a Tournament game and I play a lousy Italy, but "particularly" because it was a Tournament game and I was leading the tournament standings before round 3 (Mako was a round 3 game) and wanted to have a shot at the title, missing it in last season in 2004 as well.
I knew a few of the other players from past experience, either as opponents or as players in games I've GM'ed, and had heard about the rest apart from Chris in Turkey, so I had an early feeling it could be an extremely good game, and that there might not be a "gang-up-on-the-leader" situation as there were simply too may strong players on the board.
My opening strategy was to behave and possibly ally with Seb (Austria) while striking a DMZ deal with Alfred (France). First of all, that would mean avoiding the fuzz around Ven/Tri, and it would also create a platform for an attack on Turkey, should Chris prove to be the weak card (which he wasn't).
And then the game started, and Doug (Russia) opened with possibly the most
aggressive opening I've ever seen from Russia, which took us all by surprise. It did create extreme pressure on my ally, Austria - to the point where I thought he was dying, especially since Turkey didn't want to commit himself to a "stop Russia" campaign - even thought it was apparent that Doug had expanded too fast and forgotten to consolidate his position.
I was squeezed, Seb was dying (I thought) by 1903, France was behaving well, so at this stage I took the decision to stab Seb (since I thought he would die anyway), and at the same time try to make Turkey and Russia stab each other. It all went extremely well, my Italy was blooming for a few seasons, but unfortunately Austria, Russia and Turkey got their act together and ganged up on me - as they really should, I had been lying blatantly to them for a few seasons and almost, almost made it ;o).
After that, it was all downhill and a matter of time. Alfred started moving in on me althoiugh I begged him not to - of course he should move in on me, he had little other ways to expand unless he seeked conflict with England, but unfortunately it meant I got squeezed and eventually eliminated.
So...an early end to me, unfortunately, I took a chance at a crucial time and almost made it, and had I not stirred up the Southeast, I think Seb would have fallen, and then I'd have followed him, so no regrets from here. And I have to admit that although I lost completely and utterly, Mako was a fine game to play in, with lots of Macchiavellian stuff, some very rare - and good - moves in between, especially the Russian opening, and the way England and France slowly but steadily colored the map pink/blue. Also phenomenal come back by Chris, who was definitely not the weakest link; actually, I don't think there were any weak links, not even me - as said, I took a calculated risk and almost succeeded.
Andy, as always excellent GM'ing, but that comes as no surprise - neither that you are an excellent GM nor that I think you are an excellent GM.
Guys in the game: Thanks to all of you for one of the better games of Dip I've played - I loved every part of it, except the outcome. Hope to play with you again in the future - a future in which it is someone else controlling Italy, I'm just so damn bad at playing the green!
Cheers,
LarsReturn to Top
GM (Andy Scott) GM.
I have to say that I only reluctantly agreed to GM Mako for Grizzy as i was playing in the tournament myself and felt a little dubious about GM'ing a game for it as well.
From my perspective the game was highly predictable and the outcome was the one I expected. Not to say that there weren't surprises along the way, Doug's hugely offensive opening offensive! :-)
Craig going into Anarchy, which I should point out was down to ill health and is the reason he wasn't greylisted. He also apologised profusely for it but it was obvious it was beyond his control.
Still that left a vacuum that just sucked the E/F alliance onwards to the inevitable end.
Jonathan remarks that he thinks I lost interest, well not quite. By running this game and therefore being a privvy to the likely outcome of the game I then could make some accurate guesses about what would happen and that lost me my concentration and enjoyment on the tournament as a whole. Learning curve here was that for me personally I either GM or play in a tournament but not both!
Thanks to all the players, the level of play was exceptional which generally speaking made it easy to GM. Besides as always it helps to see Lars get his backside kicked, now if only I could do it to him whenI play him as well!!! :-))
Regards,
Andy
Return to Top
|