World War IV: AAR's

GM: BigBert. Winners: DOI (Canada), AardvarkArmy (California), asudevil (Amazon empire), Girion (Argentina), paulus (Kenya), thewysecat (Nigeria), and Chelonoidis (Song Empire)

Re: World War IV: AAR's

Postby thewysecat » 13 Mar 2013, 19:39

AardvarkArmy wrote:I never considered a draw before 2116....

... and hindsight shows that I was correct in deeming that my status as the 4th or 5th ranked power was unlikely to change much beyond that date. The stalemate line between Cal/Can vs Arg/Ama was just too ossified.


From earlier in this AAR:
thewysecat wrote:...as we have seen from AA's message to you in Winter 2116 he was very much playing the game at that point. He was broadly right too - to move you both on the time was right for you to link up and take on Girion. After you didn't do that I kind of date him 'giving up' from this point or around this time. In Winter 2116 he posted a 10-player draw citing his math.

I think there was more you might do after 2116 but with Asudevil not playing ball the scope of what that was certainly substantially narrowed. The main question of interest is not what was right about the analysis in Winter 2116 but what might have been done before 2116 to not get to that spot. I cannot definitively answer that Q for you, but it is the same question I ask of myself about Fall 2126 which is really where my last best hope fell. In my case as in yours we have to work back from there...
"Of all the things I have known myself to be, I never recognized the fool."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atuNdPgM8eY
User avatar
thewysecat
 
Posts: 3875
Joined: 04 Oct 2008, 04:04
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1518)
All-game rating: (1526)
Timezone: GMT-4

Re: World War IV: AAR's

Postby thewysecat » 13 Mar 2013, 20:19

AardvarkArmy wrote:
Imperatrix wrote: I schemed for an inclusive draw while I still had units. The only exciting moment came toward the end, when Song and I strategically accepted a draw from which we had been excluded. (Sorry, California, this was not a triumph of manipulation on your part. You did not, as you claimed above, come close to “the brilliant stroke of defeating [us] through pure diplomacy.” We knew exactly what we were doing, what risk we were taking, and it played out exactly as we expected it to. Your messages had nothing to do with it. If anything, your relentless condescension nearly drove me to spitefully not do what you wanted.) We deliberately waited until just before the draw was set to expire, on the theory that Nigeria and Kenya, the remaining holdouts, would not be able to accept quickly enough – or at least that Nigeria would use this as his excuse for not accepting. And that’s what happened. The draw expired, but only after Song and I had shown ourselves to be public-spirited citizens. And so the road was clear for us to say, “we tried it your way, so now we are entitled to refuse anything but a draw that includes us”, while still maintaining friendly contact with some of Nigeria’s increasingly nervous allies.


Really? That was your strategy? I don't think ANYONE had the reaction to your efforts that you presume. Your "accepting" of the draw at the 11th hour and submitting of orders to end the phase more or less simultaneously was quite transparently either an utterly disingenuous act or an utterly incompetent one - neither of which won you any votes for inclusion in any future draw.

I guess it is time to talk about this phase of the game too. Like I say, time has given me perspective and so I hope this is not a cause for re-igniting feuds, nonetheless if anything set me on tilt and made me want to play out every last drop of my solo chance it was this period of the game. So it is relevant to my state of mind and game choices.

I think the main thing that has to be said to contextualise things is that DOI and Girion clearly did not want to draw - we were in constant contact as a trio at this time - and they used me as a shield to both continue the game and win themselves kudos from those who wanted a draw. That is fine. I knew that, but it also gave me the clear view that my solo was not dead because others still had 'aspirations' of whatever kind that could be leveraged to my potential profit.

I was also in deep negotiation with Thai and Song trying to put together the agreements that ultimately brought Song into alliance with me and led to the Fall 2125 attack on Can-Cal. In short, I was very much playing the game and was still very much at step 1) in my pursuit of my VCs.

Now that others are not there and want a draw since they are at step 2) is ok. However some things were not that ok for me at the time.

Now all is fair in love, war and Diplomacy. They are not tools I use, but I was certainly abused in messages in this game (nothing that unusual) and also spammed and trolled about the various draws (that is unusual in my experience). That's fine up to a point and I've certainly got over it, but the fact that some folks are bored in a game is not my problem or concern beyond the extent to which it limits by ability to win the game. There is no reasonable expectation that I should end a game when I am actively still trying to win it. It was naturally unseen by many of the players involved but this was an incredibly active part of the game for me. When you sign up for a game you are tying your fate to others with regards to whether they want to continue or not. That is a known known. If they want to play on then so do you. No griping.

asudevil wrote: But I will not apologize for being frustrated with you and using anything I can to get you to accept the 7 man draw...

And he meant it. Nothing too outrageous but the repetition was wearisome to be sure. A few lies about me thrown in too - all's fair of course. Is that legitimate? Sure I guess, but...it certainly made me less-minded to watch all of my ps and qs in my PMs. My bad. I typed lots of messages, but never sent them. That helped. But to be open, I guess it worked too. My morale did dip and I was less minded to communicate or come up with tactical plans. I lost Siberia because of inattention to a land bridge I 'forgot' was there and ultimately that cost me SHE and any chance of advancing further east past that point. Even as the game ended I probably could have tried harder with Girion but just couldn't be bothered. My bad again and I have already described how I lost patience with him to my own self-harm in 2126 or so. Another my bad.

That AA & Asudevil were bored is unquestionable, but once it has got to the stage where they are posting in the forum for replacements (sort of) I think they need to resign and leave it to the GM to find someone to take their seat. I mean it's tough to go and you might feel bad for BB, but this is voluntary activity and if you don't want to play that's fine.

I think it's a fair analogy to say that if I am hosting a games night and we are 3 hours into a 5 hour game when one or more of the players just start saying how bored they are and how we should all stop playing and they say it again and then again and...well...at a certain point I will respectfully ask them to leave and perhaps consider not coming back. Some (long) strategy games are indeed flawed that way. Your game is effectively over long before that of others, but that is attributable in my view to the merit system of your playing choices. So, play it out and make the best of it. Or indeed do quit, but don't go on.

As to the Thai-Song scheme in accepting a 7-way draw - that was indeed her scheme though I only learnt about it after the fact. I was PMing Imperatrix to say: "have you truly given up?" Because if they both truly had no more stomach for the game then my solo was over and I would accept a DIAS draw because I could not get them to help attack Can-Cal later. She deliberately didn't reply because of course she hadn't given up and it was a 'trick' to use my not accepting the draw to somehow curry favour with the peanut gallery. I can't see how that would ever really work, but hey...Anyway, the plan - evidently - was also for them to get their retreats in promptly and have the draw elapse when BB processed the retreat orders as per speed deadline rules.

Well this led to another aspect that I misliked greatly at the time. Folks were PMing the GM about this and that's not right as he is the metagame and needs to be left out of stuff like this. Worse, Asudevil then immediately PMed everyone to imply that this was my doing. Well that did prompt the only time I responded to all players just to clarify that point. In no way did I or would I ever approach the GM trying to influence how - for example - he processed a deadline. To me that is out of line and in the context of everything else - I confess - that did irk me.
"Of all the things I have known myself to be, I never recognized the fool."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atuNdPgM8eY
User avatar
thewysecat
 
Posts: 3875
Joined: 04 Oct 2008, 04:04
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1518)
All-game rating: (1526)
Timezone: GMT-4

Re: World War IV: AAR's

Postby VGhost » 13 Mar 2013, 21:38

TWC - I said "take it or leave it" not in an attempt to be disingenuous, but because I genuinely think we are looking at this from very different perspectives, so that I am not sure if there has been any use to our dialogue. For that, I probably have to apologize: my initial comments were made as casual observations, not anticipating the full length of your replies. I'm sure if I went over the discussion in detail I would find errors on my part, either of fact or emphasis (in fact I found and admitted one in my last message), but you don't seem open to admitting you might be inaccurate, even when I quote you: either you mean something very different than what I'm reading, or you're just determined to be right. At this point, I'm not even sure where I would start with a reply to your latest - so I guess if that counts as winning the debate, good job.

If I have the time - and I may, next week, over Spring break - I may attempt to assemble a response that meets the standards you seem to expect. Until then, I'll go back to doing what I probably should have done to start with: observing the discussion. I was just a minor power for a minor amount of time, anyway.
"When you absolutely don't know what to do any more, then it's time to panic." - Johann van der Wiel
"I'm not panicking, I'm watching you panic. It's more entertaining." - Elli Quinn
"[Diplomacy:] No dice or chance. Just calculated insincerity." - Counter Trap
User avatar
VGhost
Premium Member
 
Posts: 1868
Joined: 10 Aug 2008, 04:56
Location: Baltimore
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (987)
All-game rating: (901)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: World War IV: AAR's

Postby marsman57 » 13 Mar 2013, 22:05

Wow this has blown up...
marsman57
 
Posts: 1473
Joined: 05 Oct 2009, 21:42
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1118)
All-game rating: (1128)
Timezone: GMT

Re: World War IV: AAR's

Postby AardvarkArmy » 14 Mar 2013, 00:02

thewysecat wrote: That AA & Asudevil were bored is unquestionable, but once it has got to the stage where they are posting in the forum for replacements (sort of) I think they need to resign and leave it to the GM to find someone to take their seat. I mean it's tough to go and you might feel bad for BB, but this is voluntary activity and if you don't want to play that's fine.


I would completely agree with this if I had, in fact, continued with a "I want out NOW" attitude. I do always strive to put my best into a game so as not to ruin it for others. (I have previously noted that it was, in part, my fear that some major players WOULD drop out that accelerated my sense of urgency for a draw).

Interestingly, it was the abject exasperation of dealing with Song and Thai in that now-disputed bit about the draw that excluded them that got me fired up to continue the game - with the goal of putting them out!!! LOL!
SOLOS
ICE&FIRE.1-Martell/EXCALIBUR.1-Angles/EXCALIBUR.2-Scots/EMERALD-Sno/MOD.4-Italy/SENGOKU.1-OdaNobu/S.AMERICA.1-Peru

DRAWS
1930-China/BattleIsleA-Winterfell/S&S-Turkey/WORLD INFL-Venezuela/LECRAE-Dublin/WWIV.2-Cali/IMPERIAL1861.1-Trky/YNGSTWN.1-Grmny/AMERICAS.2-Mex/AFRICAN.2-S.Arabia
User avatar
AardvarkArmy
Premium Member
 
Posts: 2294
Joined: 27 Feb 2009, 04:37
Location: Medellin. Colombia!!
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 1066
All-game rating: 1575
Timezone: GMT-8

Re: World War IV: AAR's

Postby AardvarkArmy » 14 Mar 2013, 00:04

thewysecat wrote:
AardvarkArmy wrote:I never considered a draw before 2116....

... and hindsight shows that I was correct in deeming that my status as the 4th or 5th ranked power was unlikely to change much beyond that date. The stalemate line between Cal/Can vs Arg/Ama was just too ossified.


From earlier in this AAR:
thewysecat wrote:...as we have seen from AA's message to you in Winter 2116 he was very much playing the game at that point. He was broadly right too - to move you both on the time was right for you to link up and take on Girion. After you didn't do that I kind of date him 'giving up' from this point or around this time. In Winter 2116 he posted a 10-player draw citing his math.

I think there was more you might do after 2116 but with Asudevil not playing ball the scope of what that was certainly substantially narrowed. The main question of interest is not what was right about the analysis in Winter 2116 but what might have been done before 2116 to not get to that spot. I cannot definitively answer that Q for you, but it is the same question I ask of myself about Fall 2126 which is really where my last best hope fell. In my case as in yours we have to work back from there...



I agree completely with this. I do always look back (often with regret!!!) at what coulda/shoulda/mighta been. Like life, we don't get do-overs... we are stuck with the choices we made. And like life, we may conclude that we had few better options given all the curcumstances. But it's ALWAYS a good learning exercise to play out other paths in our mind and where they may have led (Hmmmm.... if I had swallowed canada in 2005.....?????)
SOLOS
ICE&FIRE.1-Martell/EXCALIBUR.1-Angles/EXCALIBUR.2-Scots/EMERALD-Sno/MOD.4-Italy/SENGOKU.1-OdaNobu/S.AMERICA.1-Peru

DRAWS
1930-China/BattleIsleA-Winterfell/S&S-Turkey/WORLD INFL-Venezuela/LECRAE-Dublin/WWIV.2-Cali/IMPERIAL1861.1-Trky/YNGSTWN.1-Grmny/AMERICAS.2-Mex/AFRICAN.2-S.Arabia
User avatar
AardvarkArmy
Premium Member
 
Posts: 2294
Joined: 27 Feb 2009, 04:37
Location: Medellin. Colombia!!
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 1066
All-game rating: 1575
Timezone: GMT-8

Re: World War IV: AAR's

Postby Imperatrix » 14 Mar 2013, 00:50

AardvarkArmy wrote:
Imperatrix wrote: I schemed for an inclusive draw while I still had units. The only exciting moment came toward the end, when Song and I strategically accepted a draw from which we had been excluded. (Sorry, California, this was not a triumph of manipulation on your part. You did not, as you claimed above, come close to “the brilliant stroke of defeating [us] through pure diplomacy.” We knew exactly what we were doing, what risk we were taking, and it played out exactly as we expected it to. Your messages had nothing to do with it. If anything, your relentless condescension nearly drove me to spitefully not do what you wanted.) We deliberately waited until just before the draw was set to expire, on the theory that Nigeria and Kenya, the remaining holdouts, would not be able to accept quickly enough – or at least that Nigeria would use this as his excuse for not accepting. And that’s what happened. The draw expired, but only after Song and I had shown ourselves to be public-spirited citizens. And so the road was clear for us to say, “we tried it your way, so now we are entitled to refuse anything but a draw that includes us”, while still maintaining friendly contact with some of Nigeria’s increasingly nervous allies.


Really? That was your strategy? I don't think ANYONE had the reaction to your efforts that you presume. Your "accepting" of the draw at the 11th hour and submitting of orders to end the phase more or less simultaneously was quite transparently either an utterly disingenuous act or an utterly incompetent one - neither of which won you any votes for inclusion in any future draw.


I've simplified somewhat for readability. No one really wants to hear all the details of what was a very minor feint in a very long game. There was a second step to the plan, but that got short-circuited by Kenya's unexpectedly swift veto of my DIAS proposal, and the fact that I was then traveling for two weeks and didn't have time to log in and make any real diplomatic efforts. By the time I returned, the moment had passed.

Anyway, I didn't expect the plan to get us into the draw. All I expected was that it just slightly increased our chances of getting into the draw, from close to zero to slightly above zero. There was no better plan on offer. And it was fun: it was clever, it was manipulative, and it caused paroxysms among some of those preparing to kill us (especially you!). It was in fact the only fun I had in the last four months of this game. That the plan was extremely unlikely to get us the DIAS was of course known to us, but it wasn't particularly relevant.
Imperatrix
 
Posts: 25
Joined: 27 Sep 2008, 14:22
Class: Diplomat
All-game rating: (1000)
Timezone: GMT

Re: World War IV: AAR's

Postby asudevil » 14 Mar 2013, 00:50

AardvarkArmy wrote:
thewysecat wrote: That AA & Asudevil were bored is unquestionable, but once it has got to the stage where they are posting in the forum for replacements (sort of) I think they need to resign and leave it to the GM to find someone to take their seat. I mean it's tough to go and you might feel bad for BB, but this is voluntary activity and if you don't want to play that's fine.


I would completely agree with this if I had, in fact, continued with a "I want out NOW" attitude. I do always strive to put my best into a game so as not to ruin it for others. (I have previously noted that it was, in part, my fear that some major players WOULD drop out that accelerated my sense of urgency for a draw).


Seconded on this...I still figured I was the best player for the spot because I had minimal confidence in a sub staying in the game

TWC wrote:Well this led to another aspect that I misliked greatly at the time. Folks were PMing the GM about this and that's not right as he is the metagame and needs to be left out of stuff like this. Worse, Asudevil then immediately PMed everyone to imply that this was my doing. Well that did prompt the only time I responded to all players just to clarify that point. In no way did I or would I ever approach the GM trying to influence how - for example - he processed a deadline. To me that is out of line and in the context of everything else - I confess - that did irk me.


Apologies for this

Also, I have GREATLY learned much from this AAR TWC (although I did skim your last 2 mega-posts thats more because of time, I plan to come back and read them later). It will affect how I play forum games on this site moving forward
Captain FANG, forum team championships WINNER
Part of the surviving nations of WW4/Haven

Unless I am in the cheater's subforum. 99% of what I say is NOT as a mod.
User avatar
asudevil
 
Posts: 16606
Joined: 18 Jul 2011, 02:20
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1351)
All-game rating: (1437)
Timezone: GMT-7

Re: World War IV: AAR's

Postby VGhost » 16 Mar 2013, 22:26

When I made my initial comments about thewysecat's AAR, that AAR had already stretched across four posts (five, if we count the original "videologue" AAR), and by briefly spattering my opinions in a few paragraphs, I did not do that effort justice. The discussion was therefore hamstrung from the beginning from my own hasty generalizations. Also, as thewysecat has pointed out, I did not make much if any allowance for changes in the game over time, another point that should have been considered.

In this compensatory post, then, I would like to answer the following questions:

I. What, reduced to its essence, was my complaint about TWC's attitude in his AAR posts?
II. What comments of his gave me this impression?
III. On more thoughtful consideration, how valid do I still think my concerns were?

I am going to (largely) ignore the discussion that followed from my post for points I & II. I think the reasons are obvious, but in case not: they are largely points of clarification, not new discussion. Going back to the time posted seems most helpful.

I. The Argument

I made the following post (my first contribution outside a brief summary of my own part in the game:

GhostEcho wrote:Although each bit seems valid enough, TWC, I find your AAR, in summary, rather amusing.

- You could not possibly solo (reasonable, with solid play from everyone)
- You believe in always playing for the solo, anyway (completely agreed)
- But worry over your reaching a solo-capable point was unjustified (why, if everyone knows it's your goal?)
- So the end result was probably a draw (fine)
- But continuing the game would have been better because there was still play in the position (I guess, for a draw-whittler)
- But people who just want to cut down on the number in the final draw are weak players (erm...)

While it would be all to the good if everyone would stop calling draws "wins", I don't really follow the rest of the argument. Nigeria was almost as far ahead of your nearest competitor as you were far away from the solo target: if you couldn't win, what was anyone else supposed to do? If a primary reason any solo opportunity was limited was that the other alliances were too stable, why would anyone want to risk disturbing that inertia at the risk of giving up a solo - to you? No one else was remotely in striking distance. I agree you weren't, really, either. But still.

TWC, you can talk about "risk-aversion" on everybody else's part - and to some extent it seems justified - but it does sound odd coming from the biggest power on the board. You yourself analyze some of your possible moves and conclude it would go badly (e.g. the hypothetical South American invasion), and posit that as a reason for not attempting things. Relatively, though, you had nothing to lose - and a lot to gain by disturbing the balance, since you had the most stuff. In short, your chief complaint seems to be that no one else was willing to mix things up enough for you to take some further advantage.


Let me say now that the word "amusing" was a poor choice of word. The effort TWC put in, if nothing else, makes his work not a subject to dismiss lightly.

My argument was put badly, but what I was trying to say does come out at the end, in the section I bolded, which I will quote again now, rephrased as a thesis, not an address:

GhostEcho wrote:[TWC] analyze[s] some of [his] possible moves and conclude[s] it would go badly (e.g. the hypothetical South American invasion), and posit[s] that as a reason for not attempting things. Relatively, though, [TWC] had nothing to lose - and a lot to gain by disturbing the balance, since [he] had the most stuff. In short, [his] chief complaint seems to be that no one else was willing to mix things up enough for [him] to take some further advantage.


This is the core of what bothered me about thewysecat's attitude in his AAR pieces. Allowing that the "South American invasion" in question was a single moment in time, from which the game moved on, it seemed to me that TWC thought other players were not doing enough, especially not taking enough risks: but he was the largest power on the board, and seemed equally intent on demonstrating that he shouldn't be taking risks.

II. The Evidence

I was on board with TWC's analysis through his first text post. Not difficult, as it was simply a factual refutation of a claim by asudevil. (By far the most interesting part of this post is actually the included message from AardvarkArmy.)

However, this post does contain the first hint of what would seem trouble later:

thewysecat wrote:I called you on both your fishing and your lack of courage straight away. And with that from me - your courage only diminished further as you thought about the prospect of doing it because you knew I would have nothing to do with supporting you in such a play and likely would look to punish you for your sins if you tried it. AA's analysis is quite wrong in his attempt to ensnare you. I would have worked with Girion to crush you and been mighty happy in my work. This you suspected and it was confirmed with the terse nature of my replies.


Here is a case, it seemed to me, where TWC clearly indicated that he was not willing to reconsider alliance structures. He says that "AA's analysis is quite wrong", but does not demonstrate how (though he may have by PM during the game).

In the next post, TWC makes a good point about the aim of the game. Then came this:

thewysecat wrote:Well hypothetically I tend to think of it as 7 or so SCs shy of victory. That I should stress is that is still actually a fair way from a solo. Also the figure was somewhat distorted by Kenya's peculiar approach to the last few years of the game. Any actual stab of Paulus (he never was stabbed by me) in a more 'normal' game context from say 2126 onwards would have surely meant the loss of Sth and Reu. And Mds would not have fallen to Nigeria either. That means that number likely would/should have been 10 or more away in any theoretical stab-of-Kenya situation whereas that was not true in 2129 (at game end) when Reu, Sth and Mds were likely secured if I stabbed Kenya.

Anyway, Song had 12 SCs of which 10 I must take while I am highly unlikely to take Tai and especially Oki even if Song was trying to help me win (and I had no reason to expect he would). That would take me to 91

Then of Kenya's 29 remaining SCs it seems likely that at least 24-25 would have fallen to Nigeria. Let's be generous and say Nigeria could take NIO and thus Die, but not Plm, Sng, Kua or Mdn. Again assuming at least a moderately unco-operative Kenya which is a fair approximation to how Paulus would respond to such a context.

That makes 116 whereas a solo sat at 123


I think I read this incorrectly, at first. When I made my initial post, I read the beginning of the post as emphasizing that the solo was not happening as part of his argument about asudevil's attitude. I now believe this was just intended as factual analysis of the end-game.

However, keeping in mind that I had mis-read the context of the statement, many of TWC's later statements came across as trying to minimize the reality of his own position. Take this, for example:

thewysecat wrote:Always the nuance is lost. A solo was theoretically manageable in this game for anyone although very hard to achieve. Even as the game ended it was alive though I would argue Girion likely had the best shot at it. True, to go for it he would have had to risk a loss - but then it was ever thus with Diplomacy if you truly are playing to your VCs.


Girion was the most likely soloist at the end? How? Ah, well that was answered:

thewysecat wrote:Girion wanted to whittle Song out of the draw. A most ignoble motive in my view. Anyway, I was trying (not that hard I admit since at the point I considered it Girion's responsibility to decide whether he wanted to invest in this game's potential) to manipulate that motive so that the draw proposal would lapse so that I could keep the game going. I would 'invade' Song in Spring 2130 while ensuring no retreats and hoping that we would skip a retreat phase altogether and move straight into Fall. The draw would thus immediately elapse and in Fall 2130 I would withdraw from Song's terrain (as I had done before in 2127) and maybe even try a little shenanigans in the South Atlantic since South America were finally down to 2 saved builds between them and had been persistently sloppy in their ordering.

(That I needed to post the draw is all about Kenya, but I will have to tell that tale later)

Beyond that, likely I would have to throw DOI sufficient SCs to persude Girion of the 'safety' of him stabbing Asudevil so that I could break into the Carribbean (and hear Asudevil scream). Likewise so that DOI had enough ammo to take on an 'outraged' AA. As Girion and I discussed, it was perfectly possible to reduce this to 3 - him, me and a 'winner' in North America. At that point Girion + North American would be well over 50% of the board and thus with access to enough resources to solo. I would not. However, in going for the solo against the winner of DOI/AA (or possibly both) Girion would then have to risk my making a comeback to solo if DOI had to collapse in Asia and return all the SCs I had thrown to him. This would take many more game years to resolve and though DOI was willing, Girion had no will power to such a task not least because he would not risk a loss to go for a win.


But this created other impressions. Let me quote the relevant sentences:

"Anyway, I was trying (not that hard I admit since at the point I considered it Girion's responsibility to decide whether he wanted to invest in this game's potential) to manipulate that motive so that the draw proposal would lapse so that I could keep the game going."

Here, it seemed to me, TWC straight-up admitted he was not interested in risking his own position on his own initiative.

"...likely I would have to throw DOI sufficient SCs... At that point Girion + North American would be well over 50% of the board and thus with access to enough resources to solo. I would not."

I found this the most damning statement when I made my original post, because when the game ended TWC was in the lead by a good margin. The following all seemed incredible: 1) that in a shaking-up of these proportions, TWC wouldn't profit eventually (even if he started by yielding SCs; 2) that "Girion + North American" constituted a solo threat, what with that being at least two players; 3) that even if "Girion + North American" had >50% of the board, Girion by himself (TWC's predicted possible soloist) would have gotten maybe, say, to 35%: against TWC, "North American", and assorted remnants, does that constitute a solo threat?

But to cap it off:

"Girion had no will power to such a task not least because he would not risk a loss to go for a win."

I'd assume there must have been some discussion, but with none of it presented, this looked like another unnecessary shot at Girion.

III. Evaluation

The chief take-away from re-reading TWC's posts carefully in order to write this re-consideration was that I had paid - as thewysecat pointed out repeatedly - very little attention to the time-context of the various discussions.

The second thing I noticed is that much of the discussion was based on missing context I simply had no access to - as a result I should not have been making snap judgments in the first place.

The third thing I considered is that, in criticizing thewysecat for not taking initiative himself, I was doing what I had said he was not doing in his AAR: namely, not considering his position as board leader as it looked to the other players. How, ah, "amusing" of me.

In short, my post was made on bad premises: I withdraw previous criticisms.

I do have a rather weighty question left, however (for anybody): how else would the game have really ended, other than a draw of some sort? Some of my potential thoughts on the matter TWC already answered here, which I had skipped over as not really addressed to me. By the same token, the appearance which initially bothered me - that TWC expected others to be taking the initiative, not himself, still appears here - but then, I am re-reading carefully, and I have noticed I did not really bother with the end of the post. Or above, TWC mentioned an end-game scenario favoring Girion, but I don't see how he envisions getting from point A (the actual game) to point B.

Was there plausible worthwhile play left in the game or not? My analysis, such as it is, suggests not. Nigeria - with much weaker allies - dominates the board. One player holds most of South America and Australia/Oceania. North America is split. The wild card is Amazonia, spread out across the Americas and between Nigeria and The Others - but what can he try, short of king-making for Nigeria, without being badly damaged himself? Any major shakeup, I think, would have involved the non-African powers getting something out of Kenya (but would Kenya go for it) or taking out Amazonia (but how to do this without allowing Nigeria room)? I haven't done any detailed analysis or even SC-counting: this is just big-picture stuff.

One Final Answer

thewysecat wrote:
GhostEcho wrote: You have essentially admitted you were unwilling at least in my case to risk making an ally of me in the statement I quoted above, and just planned to eliminate my Russia.

Then you have a different understanding of the word “risk” from me (and I'd suggest the dictionary). That word implies a potential danger taken in exchange for the potential to gain reward. What danger was there to me in allying with you that I avoided as seemingly too scary and risky? Likewise, what potential advantage there was to me?


Well, the danger was leaving me alive - another joker in the deck of jokers. The benefit would be getting allied armies on Thailand's border immediately. That seems a pretty clear risk/reward scenario to me. This much I consider obvious. As it was - because you continued the attack, because even your idea of reasonable terms was the loss of another five centers - this took you several years to accomplish.

One Final Lesson

I have been considering this AAR in some detail: I think if I were to take away one lesson, it is that details are important. I normally hate giving away details of plans, so I end up trying to discuss any non-immediately-pertinent ideas as little as possible. Yet the consensus of the players here seems to be that trust - and therefore detail - is almost as important, or moreso, than tactical realpolitik.
Last edited by VGhost on 16 Mar 2013, 23:06, edited 1 time in total.
"When you absolutely don't know what to do any more, then it's time to panic." - Johann van der Wiel
"I'm not panicking, I'm watching you panic. It's more entertaining." - Elli Quinn
"[Diplomacy:] No dice or chance. Just calculated insincerity." - Counter Trap
User avatar
VGhost
Premium Member
 
Posts: 1868
Joined: 10 Aug 2008, 04:56
Location: Baltimore
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (987)
All-game rating: (901)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: World War IV: AAR's

Postby AardvarkArmy » 16 Mar 2013, 22:39

small correction, GhostEcho. In your final few paragraphs, you make several references to "USA," but it is clear that you are refering to asudevil's "Amazonia"
SOLOS
ICE&FIRE.1-Martell/EXCALIBUR.1-Angles/EXCALIBUR.2-Scots/EMERALD-Sno/MOD.4-Italy/SENGOKU.1-OdaNobu/S.AMERICA.1-Peru

DRAWS
1930-China/BattleIsleA-Winterfell/S&S-Turkey/WORLD INFL-Venezuela/LECRAE-Dublin/WWIV.2-Cali/IMPERIAL1861.1-Trky/YNGSTWN.1-Grmny/AMERICAS.2-Mex/AFRICAN.2-S.Arabia
User avatar
AardvarkArmy
Premium Member
 
Posts: 2294
Joined: 27 Feb 2009, 04:37
Location: Medellin. Colombia!!
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 1066
All-game rating: 1575
Timezone: GMT-8

PreviousNext

Return to Game 2

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest