Imperial III finishes - AARs

GM: Waterice Man. 4-way draw - Flatley (France) / Pedros (Mexico) / cs (Turkey) / kininvie (USA)

Re: Imperial III finishes - AARs

Postby Pedros » 19 Feb 2011, 10:30

Flatley wrote:Just to reiterate, my point is not that my strategy is a guaranteed winner, nor that it's "better" than consolidating into a regional power. It's certainly a higher risk/reward threshold, and the results certainly show as much. The message I hoped to convey to players, both first-timers and veterans, is that the tried and true formula is not the only way to go. There were a lot of assumptions on how things MUST be in this game. Many of them are false assumptions. I've debunked a number of them in this last game, and I hope people are encouraged to think outside the box a bit more as a result. Even as much as I had done, there's still much envelope-pushing to be done. "

This cheers me up a little, Flatley. But maybe you don't go far enough - you still went with the assumption that a solo win wasn't viable. Until very late in the game I expected you to turn on USA and Mexico (me) following our alliance - which was why I opposed the formation of the alliance so strongly until unfunfunt went missing. And certainly in the Atlantic and South America you were close to developing a position which would have allowed this (hence my touchiness over your entry to South America and subsequent expansion); don't forget our alliance was defined as temporary with one season's notice. I was very pleased to finish up around the winning table (after all, my position before the start was as a new player given one of the minnows), but even so, I'd have liked to see you go for it!
"Sooner or later, one of us will stab the other. But for now we're both better off as allies" (kininvie)
User avatar
Pedros
 
Posts: 12465
Joined: 25 Jan 2009, 12:59
Location: Somewhere full of gorse and brambles, West Cornwall
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1085)
All-game rating: (1314)
Timezone: GMT

Re: Imperial III finishes - AARs

Postby cs » 21 Feb 2011, 08:03

My overdue AAR, which is really quite simple.

It was apparent to me early on that Turkey was a minor power that required a strong ally--a sponsor, if you will--to survive. My strategy was essentially to become such a loyal and indispensable minion to a great power that I would make it to the end game with sufficient clout to insure a spot in the final draw.

Based on my communications early on, France appeared to be the most generous of sponsors, offering me Damascus and a free hand in the Middle East in exchange for help against Britain and Italy. At the same time, I entered into a strong NAP with Persia. [As an aside in response to Flatley's post, I actually viewed France as a more important ally than Persia. But a strong relationship with Persia made me a better ally for France, as I could then turn my attention to neutralizing Italy, which would only be good for France.]

Once set on that course of action, my moves were pretty straightforward. I was able to be opportunitistic--I was able to take advantage of Persia's resignation to get out of my NAP, and Russia's move into CAU, in violation of a DMZ, gave me an excuse I desparately sought to attack Russia. Overall, however, I prostrated myself at the foot of France and did Flatley's bidding. I figured (correctly, I think) that he needed on completely reliable ally to prevail, so I did all I could to be that ally.

Once I reached a critical mass, I did begin to reach out to some third parties. An endgame that involved on France and me was not tenable (it would soon have involved only France), so I needed a third leg. My initial outreach was to China, but he was somewhat non-commital. It quickly became clear that my alternatives were either China or the American alliance, and an alliance with China and France gave me nowhere to expand. When the Americans came calling, therefore, I saw it as the obvious answer to my dilemma, and I happily signed up for the alliance. I briefly tried to persuade USA to stab Mexico, with no success, so I accepted the four-way.

Honestly, this game was rather simple from my point of view, largely due to my good luck in picking the right ally in France. I didn't face the difficulty most powers face of having widely dispersed supply centers, and I never found myself with more than one or two enemies at a given time. I wish I could claim credit for some brilliant master-stroke that led to victory, but the truth is I simply chose a good partner and established trust. Of course, that's enough to succeed in Dip more often than not, isn't it?
User avatar
cs
 
Posts: 1003
Joined: 24 Apr 2009, 23:24
Location: Venice, but moving to Trieste in 1901
Class: Diplomat
All-game rating: (1000)
Timezone: GMT-5

Previous

Return to Game 2

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests