AARs

GM: Pedros. Winner: asudevil (Russia)

Re: AARs

Postby Morg » 31 Dec 2011, 10:37

Flatley wrote:
Morg wrote:Also a quick question for Flatley if he's still reading, were you serious about being ready to walk away from the game when Russia had 11 SCs or was that a ruse to get everyone cooperating against Russia?


It was a ruse. I hate to lose, hate hate hate it with a passion. But I had to do it, because, as you mentioned, I could not directly engage with Russia myself. To preserve the balance in the game, I had to change the hearts and minds of those who were in a position to act. If I had waited until Russia and I shared a border, one of us would have been doing very well, indeed... and I didn't have Russia's wealth of NMRs to hasten my ascension. But my persuasive arguments weren't convincing enough, so I thought a different kind of threat might work.


Oh thank goodness. If you had been serious it really would've ticked me off as I usually see that kind of action as "leaving and taking one's ball with them," but as a ruse it's at least in good sportmanship, if still irritating ;) . As it was it was quite a successful ruse. As you said, it got Turkey to make his across the board ALA appeal, and as Asudevil said in a different thread it sparked Russia's stab of Norway, giving Norway really little choice about joining the ALA.

Asudevil wrote:Way to not put it in the AAR section Morg...lol...

But glad to see it on the other side. You're right though, that stab in 05 was a risk I never would have done, except for people trying to give me the game...


I'd call that a doubly successful ruse. Kudos to you.
"He says there are no easy answers. I say he's not looking hard enough!"
User avatar
Morg
 
Posts: 3105
Joined: 25 Feb 2011, 22:50
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (1428)
All-game rating: (1561)
Timezone: GMT-8

Re: AARs

Postby Morg » 31 Dec 2011, 10:55

Also, not to keep focusing on this tidbit, but I'm not sure Britain would've been left at 6 SCs the whole time if he hadn't stabbed when he did.

At the time Britain held London, Liverpool, Edinburgh, Ireland, Hollad & Belgium (6). The ALA had pretty much guaranteed Britain StP (7), if not formally. And if anyone denied Britain's next logical step of moving on to Moscow (8), they would have been asking for a fight. Now Moscow might not have been easy to take but with the right placement for the alliance it potentially could've fallen.

But let's assume Britain only gets StP. At this point Britain would have fleets in Norwegian, Barents and a unit in StP. Add one more fleet in the North Sea and it really doesn't matter how well Norway is prepared for a fight with Britain, Scandinavia is caught in a vise and will fall to a British offensive.

As Flatley pointed out, I don't think anyone is surprised that Britain ended up stabbing Norway (or if Norway had stabbed Britain), it's just that the choice to stab at that particular moment was surprising to almost everyone.

And even more surprising was Britain stabbing Turkey for Munich. If Britain had stabbed only Norway, it would've forced Spain and Turkey to accept that Britain was taking over Norway. But at that point Britain would've have also been much more important to the ALA than Norway and no matter how much they might've disliked Britain for stabbing Norway, they would've quickly worked with Britain to help him take out the rest of Norway as quickly as possible in order to keep Norway from helping Russia. It also would've kept Russia stalled in east Germany while Norway disappears as quickly as the ALA can make it happen.
"He says there are no easy answers. I say he's not looking hard enough!"
User avatar
Morg
 
Posts: 3105
Joined: 25 Feb 2011, 22:50
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (1428)
All-game rating: (1561)
Timezone: GMT-8

Re: AARs

Postby stalin813 » 31 Dec 2011, 11:30

I think the point we are missing with this ALA was that we were not set up to succeed and trust each other. Too many nations had to "go through" other nations or get help up. For me the ALA was of no value as it allowed Austria to survive which put me back at square one, squashed between nations with no way out. I think England felt the same way. As much as we wanted to help out, I wasn't about to work for an ALA only to be the smaller party once Russia was knocked down a peg to then be swept aside while the new big boys fought it out. Knowing I had no chance of winning, I fought to secure Russia the win as I felt it was his most deserving. Maybe this is a misguided thought, but what is my motivation to fight for many years when I know at first chance, I am going to get brushed aside. The ALA needed to happen sooner for everyone to feel better about it.
Best to get me at night (8pm to 12pm EDT)
User avatar
stalin813
 
Posts: 912
Joined: 23 Jan 2011, 10:42
Location: Georgia, USA
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (982)
All-game rating: (1279)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: AARs

Postby Pedros » 31 Dec 2011, 12:37

I was just goint to write a final note saying that what all of this showed was a magnificent piece of diplomacy on asudevil's part more than anything else - setting England and Norway at each others' throats to the extent that England was still attacking Norway when he could have stopped the solo (SKA-Swe rather than SKA-Den, which could achieve nothing anyway).

But stalin813's post has undermined that. I can understand using the threat of giving the game to another player when it's the only negotiating tool left as you're about to be eliminated by one of the two candidates for a solo (for instance) - if you're reduced to making the threat then you have to carry it out. But nobody's claiming that here. The aim is to win. If somebody else solos you can't win. You might be able to survive, you might get a draw, on rare occasions you might get through to a solo. But helping a player to win just because you don't like the position you're in?

Sorry, but for me that's a different game. Russian Roulette maybe?
"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: AARs

Postby BoomstickS » 31 Dec 2011, 12:54

Pedros wrote:Did you actually mean "get a solo" BoomstickS? If so, respect - I certainly didn't spot it.


I haven't read beyond this, but I wanted to say;
No, I didn't ever think about getting a solo. Not only in this game, but in every game. All I wanted was no inevitable defeat. But I guess my stab was waaay to early, but stabbing powers twice as big as you isn't really nice either. For me it felt as if I was a animal in a cage trying to get out. ;)
BoomstickS
 
Posts: 394
Joined: 03 Jun 2010, 19:16
Class: Ambassador
All-game rating: (1000)
Timezone: GMT+1

Re: AARs

Postby BoomstickS » 31 Dec 2011, 13:06

Morg wrote:Also, not to keep focusing on this tidbit, but I'm not sure Britain would've been left at 6 SCs the whole time if he hadn't stabbed when he did.

At the time Britain held London, Liverpool, Edinburgh, Ireland, Hollad & Belgium (6). The ALA had pretty much guaranteed Britain StP (7), if not formally. And if anyone denied Britain's next logical step of moving on to Moscow (8), they would have been asking for a fight. Now Moscow might not have been easy to take but with the right placement for the alliance it potentially could've fallen.

But let's assume Britain only gets StP. At this point Britain would have fleets in Norwegian, Barents and a unit in StP. Add one more fleet in the North Sea and it really doesn't matter how well Norway is prepared for a fight with Britain, Scandinavia is caught in a vise and will fall to a British offensive.

As Flatley pointed out, I don't think anyone is surprised that Britain ended up stabbing Norway (or if Norway had stabbed Britain), it's just that the choice to stab at that particular moment was surprising to almost everyone.



If I had Stp and Moscow, you would probably have had: Ber, Mun, Sil, Pru, Kiel, War, and possibly Moscow. That would make to around 10 SC's. If Russia was close to being defeated you could have easily spammed fleets in your Home SC's. With Spanish support you could easily get Stp and Moscow, and for you it would be easy as hell to break in the North Sea, don't forget that my German holdings would be woefully undefended. So then you would easily get:
Stp, Hol, Bel, Edi, Lon. While I would probably get Norway, maybe Sweden if I'm lucky. Well, I don't see how I can still survive with only 3-4 SC's left, while you would have another 5 at your disposal. Except if Flatley would have helped me, I would have been defeated very fast.
BoomstickS
 
Posts: 394
Joined: 03 Jun 2010, 19:16
Class: Ambassador
All-game rating: (1000)
Timezone: GMT+1

Re: AARs

Postby stalin813 » 31 Dec 2011, 14:47

Pedros wrote:I was just goint to write a final note saying that what all of this showed was a magnificent piece of diplomacy on asudevil's part more than anything else - setting England and Norway at each others' throats to the extent that England was still attacking Norway when he could have stopped the solo (SKA-Swe rather than SKA-Den, which could achieve nothing anyway).

But stalin813's post has undermined that. I can understand using the threat of giving the game to another player when it's the only negotiating tool left as you're about to be eliminated by one of the two candidates for a solo (for instance) - if you're reduced to making the threat then you have to carry it out. But nobody's claiming that here. The aim is to win. If somebody else solos you can't win. You might be able to survive, you might get a draw, on rare occasions you might get through to a solo. But helping a player to win just because you don't like the position you're in?

Sorry, but for me that's a different game. Russian Roulette maybe?



It wasn't about winning or not for myself or in my opinion England. Players concede draw proposals all the time, when they can see the writing on the wall. I had accepted the draw proposal to concede victory to Russia, however others felt to fight on. Looking at the proposal for the ALA, I saw that even if we were to succeed in stopping Russia, highly unlikely with 6 players trying to coordinate, I would be left in an equal or possibly worse situation that couldn't result in a victory or draw for me, because as soon as Russia started going down, I would be easy pickings. Why work to supplant one winner with a different winner if it isn't going to be me?
Best to get me at night (8pm to 12pm EDT)
User avatar
stalin813
 
Posts: 912
Joined: 23 Jan 2011, 10:42
Location: Georgia, USA
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (982)
All-game rating: (1279)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: AARs

Postby asudevil » 31 Dec 2011, 16:01

Morg wrote:

And even more surprising was Britain stabbing Turkey for Munich. If Britain had stabbed only Norway, it would've forced Spain and Turkey to accept that Britain was taking over Norway. But at that point Britain would've have also been much more important to the ALA than Norway and no matter how much they might've disliked Britain for stabbing Norway, they would've quickly worked with Britain to help him take out the rest of Norway as quickly as possible in order to keep Norway from helping Russia. It also would've kept Russia stalled in east Germany while Norway disappears as quickly as the ALA can make it happen.


This last part is why I offered him everything. I knew the more people he stabbed, the stronger he would be, but more importantly the more people he would piss off and the less trust you guys would have.

I tried to get him to go back into MAO as well, but that he either didnt do...or couldnt do, I dont remember the map.
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
Premium Member
 
Posts: 16606
Joined: 18 Jul 2011, 02:20
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1351)
All-game rating: (1437)
Timezone: GMT-7

Re: AARs

Postby Pedros » 31 Dec 2011, 16:03

Well stalin, each to their own I guess. But I'd use the example of Heptarchy 5, where Palin and I joined a game with two players very close to annihilating the rest of us; Palin and I were on about 4-5 centres and being reduced by a couple wach year. Yhanthlei in Scotland had one, not a home one, and wouldn't last the year out. It would have been easy to say "OK, nothing to play for", but I don't think I've ever been eliminated from a Forum Game yet and didn't intend to start then! (And now I know what to expect next time!)

Only hope was to split the big two, which we managed. We (including Kian's Wales, who joined us) gave absolute guarantees to each other about support not stabbing. Obviously it needed huge trust, but when you're losing what other option have you (except suicide!); and I kept a close eye on Kian in case he looked like using the opportunity for his own solo. It worked.
"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: AARs

Postby BoomstickS » 31 Dec 2011, 18:13

asudevil wrote:
Morg wrote:
I tried to get him to go back into MAO as well, but that he either didnt do...or couldnt do, I dont remember the map.


It's actually funny how you are saying that you tried to make me do more things than proposed. I have never gotten the proposal to attack Spain, go to the MAO, or something else.
I can quote the message I got:

(...) So here is what I would like to offer you.

I will support you into MUN from RUHR with SIL and BOH, only BURG is supporting it, because its 2v2.

I will also support you into NWY from STP. And NTH can take DEN.

If you play it cool, they will never see it coming since you have been fighting for me to lose since the beginning. We would have Norway knocked down to just SWE, BERL and KIEL, which I would want to split with you (you take SWE/KIEL I take BERL)...and we could work south like we discussed back in 01.

Let me know what you think. (...)


I think you are either overexaggerating, or you were planning to say that... ;)
BoomstickS
 
Posts: 394
Joined: 03 Jun 2010, 19:16
Class: Ambassador
All-game rating: (1000)
Timezone: GMT+1

PreviousNext

Return to Loeb 9-player Game 2

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest