Manifest Destiny, AAR

GMd by Morg. Play test, 4-way draw between presser84 (Texas), asudevil (Mexico), haroonriaz , Great Britain), mat.gopack (Spain)

Manifest Destiny, AAR

Postby Morg » 21 Mar 2012, 04:39

Well, speaking of sudden 4-way Draws that come unexpectedly, I was just in one and now I GM one. Asudevil, we're even :) .


Well, I'm actually going to start two threads. The first one is for standard AARs, the second one is for Game Mechanics, Map issues, and Variant improvement ideas.

Feel free to get going.

First off, GM awards.

The first two are a little weak, but then I had the idea for them from before the game started running.

Liberator Award-Open to Texas, USA, Mexico- Awarded based on the number of provinces relieved from the former historical empire. In this case Texas is treated as culturally American.
Texas, for liberating Winnepeg from an empire

Reconquista Award- Open to Mexico, Spain, Great Britain-Awarded based on number of territories reclaimed for the historical empire.
Spain, for retaking Florida for the Empire.

Alamo Award-Texas
For surviving the combined assault of Mexico, USA and Canada early on

Slip-N-Slide Award-Texas
For usually setting up his orders to either avoid retreats or have a pre-designated place to retreat to.

Sea to Shining Sea Award-Mexico
For being the only player to have both a Pacific Fleet and an Atlantic Fleet

Wilderness Explorer Award-Great Britain (Yhanthlei)
For exploring more wild territory than anyone else

Wilderness Tamer Award- Mexico,
For settling more SCs than anyone else

Razzle Dazzle Award-Mexico
For using his Pacific Fleet to force the destruction of a Spanish Army, guaranteeing the gain of CAM in the Fall of 1846

Swing Voter Award-Spain
For seemingly always being ready to switch alliances in order to gain ground/SCs/profit

National Savior Award-Great Britain (Haroonriaz)
For stepping in and leading leaderless troops

Finally: the Victory Award
Goes to Great Britain, Mexico, Spain & Texas

I'll let you guys get started.
"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: Manifest Destiny, AAR

Postby asudevil » 21 Mar 2012, 05:14

First off, I would like to say that the fact that this game ended in a 4way draw with a 5man game...and that most of the game was a gunboat game, was pretty disappointing.

I barely got 4 messages from anyone other than presser. So my perception of THIS game is pretty low, but the game itself I kinda liked. Thank you to haroonriaz for stepping in, trying to get an ALA organized, and attempting something here.

That said, I think its a pretty cool variant. But I think Texas has by far and away the easiest time at the beginning. He is all but guaranteed to take LOU from USA. When I looked at the map, I saw the same opening he did (in fact, I suggested that opening to him)

Also, he almost can guarantee SAN. So while everyone else gets no builds in the first year, he is almost guaranteed two. I also think that it takes too long to get the settlers down. So I settle in 1850, then build a settler in 1851, then settle in 1852, and FINALLY in 1853, I can build an actual unit, and a settler to be able to continue exploring (unless I knock an SC out from someone else.)

This is why I think Texas has a huge advantage because of the free SC next to him, and the ability to take LOU.

So, solution in my mind would be to move a US unit closer to LOU so he can support LOU and make sure not to lose it...

Other than that, I think the game is great...but I really dont think the US ever stands a chance.

Could I have gone further and possibly solo'd....maybe...but would presser have been able to turn my denial of the draw into a rallying point for him and Spain...ABSOLUTELY.

Also, with the fact I never really got into a good rhythm with Spain answering messages, or initiating any, I had no faith in my ability to sway him to continue fighting Texas.

Side note, I dont know why Yanthei left, but at least he acknowledged his limited time and left rather than staying and not really playing.

mat.gopack, I love you dearly as a person, but if you are taking on too much stuff on the site, think about it and back off some things. I know I struggle with this myself because so many AWESOME variants are out there and I want to play them all. I just had to back off of Conquest of America...and I dont even do the mafia/CYOC that you do...just think about it next time, because I honestly dont think any of us really let this variant have a fair shake.
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: Manifest Destiny, AAR

Postby presser84 » 21 Mar 2012, 06:57

asudevil wrote:First off, I would like to say that the fact that this game ended in a 4way draw with a 5man game...and that most of the game was a gunboat game, was pretty disappointing.


agreed, i took an un-needed gamble there at the end and it cost both of us an exciting ending. Part of the problem was that there was little discussion from the mid-game on. Again in this one NMR's created some unbalanced play.


Morg wrote:Slip-N-Slide Award-Texas
For usually setting up his orders to either avoid retreats or have a pre-designated place to retreat to.


I'm very proud of this one.

asudevil wrote:mat.gopack, I love you dearly as a person, but if you are taking on too much stuff on the site, think about it and back off some things. I know I struggle with this myself because so many AWESOME variants are out there and I want to play them all. I just had to back off of Conquest of America...and I dont even do the mafia/CYOC that you do...just think about it next time, because I honestly dont think any of us really let this variant have a fair shake.

No offense intended but I would like to second this notion. I recently had too many going at once and have been slowly parring them down. I know what's that like and I think you were prompt in getting back if you happened to be online at the time a message was sent (and not doing Mafia or something else) but other than that this game got pushed to the back burner.

asudevil wrote:Side note, I dont know why Yanthei left, but at least he acknowledged his limited time and left rather than staying and not really playing.


Left because he was losing and because he didn't want to fight with me over the meaning of ownership in diplomacy.

Could I have gone further and possibly solo'd....maybe...but would presser have been able to turn my denial of the draw into a rallying point for him and Spain...ABSOLUTELY.


Right. I saw the game playing out as either you or me. That's why it was a 50/50 shot throwing the draw proposal out there and I felt if Spain was so much of a wild card since he talked so little I had no idea what to do. I hate getting called out as the solo threat as a ploy. Not that that was what you were doing because I was in great shape but the geography of the north was making it impossible. Those lakes are impossible to maneuver and GB has a natural bunker if NYK is locked down. I really found it funny that I blew up the game on he assumption that you were allied with Spain. Goes to show what happens when you stop talking to people and start playing gunboat. I mean I was just used to a no response. Had the dialogue with mat been fuller I likely don't blow up like that.


My synopsis:

I try to ally with Mexico right away and he suggests I open against the US. I'm thinking that will be inevitable that I fight the USA but maybe I can stall early. In talking to the US he says in our first message "everyone wants me to attack you." This is an obvious passive aggressive way to make me make some kind of early concession. When I said "so what if that's what everyone wants I don't want that" and he responded "well I'd like to be neutral with Spain, Mexico and GB" (I'm paraphrasing) that means USA is my enemy. No Doubt. So I started a war right away with the USA. GB allied right away with the USA and instantly they were butt buddies. I knew I needed two things. Peace with Mexico and an alliance with Spain to keep Mexico honest. Getting Spain to attack the US was easy. Getting Mexico to stay allied with me was pretty rocky. I don't remember how I worked that out. Do you ASU? GB resisted working with me all game. He simply refused to help me despite the lions share of the USA going to him in my offers. Instead he started supporting the USA against me. This seems counter intuitive and I never understand why players enter into alliances that are against their long term best interest. Once Spain started attacking the east coast for the US was obviously going to get crushed. GB had a chance to make it worth his while and build an alliance with me but he scoffed at my offers. Instead he canalized his ally with no discussion from me. At that point the price to work with me had gone up given how he has treated me earlier. Then when I attacked him later to take the kill I HAD ORCHESTRATED without his help he acted like a wounded bird and quit the game. He had a chance to really make a play with me early. All i wanted then was LOU and to be able to settle ALA freely later. He could have had ILL and OHI attacked Spain on the coast and settled the whole North West. In the end he got none of that and just left the game. Poorly placed blind loyalty and poor diplomacy imo.

The rest of the time was making sure Spain would keep attacking Mexico which I did a decent job at but my responses from mat were vague. Never more than 1 sentence and often 1 word. "OK" or "Yup." Then they just stopped and I stopped trying.

We've gone over the end game a few times but I'm ok with the outcome because I think this variant deserves to be replayed by a new crop. It's still in Beta but needs a slightly more attentive group.
Westeros Diplomacy - GM/creator
Diplomacy of Ice and Fire 2 - GM
Keirador wrote:Stop being a dickasaurus rex.
User avatar
presser84
 
Posts: 4327
Joined: 21 Dec 2010, 23:05
Location: New Jersey, USA
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1460)
All-game rating: (1678)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Manifest Destiny, AAR

Postby haroonriaz » 21 Mar 2012, 09:23

Not sure what I was doing here, but here goes.

I think it's a superb variant but like asudevil, I have noticed that this particular game has been pretty lackluster. Strangely.

Also, I could make a living by ending up in draws taking over abandoned nations.

The National Savior Award, haha, well thank you. Thanks Morg for moderating this wonderful variant. You have been very creative as a GM I must say. Thoroughly enjoyed the theme of the variant.

My only regret is that it would have been even better had I been in the starting lineup. Been eyeing it since the initial thread, was too late to sign up.

Joined the game pretty late, Mexico and Texas were in an apparently strange hate-love alliance and Spain was going nowhere. I threatened to throw the game to Texas should no one had taken action against his growing threat of continental domination. Enthusiasm kept on dying however, maybe lack of communication. I had literally nowhere to go with the missed Build. That really destroyed Britain's chances of coming back. Texas was after Britain anyway, so it was hopeless talking to him. You can't stop him in that sort of situation, so I knew the only guy who could was Mexico.

I was a bit surprised to see a 4 way draw offered. Hopeless Britain accepted instantly of course. And yes a 4 way draw in a 5 way game is lame, but I don't mind.

In the end, Great Britain concedes its dying colonial power in the North America and recognizes the new forces of liberty, wishing them well.

I would like to see another round of Manifest Destiny one of these days.
More than half of Diplomacy games are ruined because players leave them half-way.
Silver Member Classicist, Cavalry, Captain CLD, Winner: War in the Americas, Joint: GoT I, 1792 Napoleonic Diplomacy 1, Zeus 3, Stew 2, East Asia 2, Loeb-9 3, Manifest Destiny I, 1905 2.0, Napoleonic E&C, Seismic 6
User avatar
haroonriaz
 
Posts: 266
Joined: 18 Mar 2009, 23:06
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (921)
All-game rating: (923)
Timezone: GMT+5

Re: Manifest Destiny, AAR

Postby asudevil » 21 Mar 2012, 14:34

presser84 wrote:Getting Mexico to stay allied with me was pretty rocky. I don't remember how I worked that out. Do you ASU?


I remember I tried to stab you early when you were fully embroiled with USA, and failed...then I pulled back because Spain had started making runs into my territory (took CAM as we agreed, but then headed north)

Then I went for another stab later when haroonriaz showed up (and finally a message was returned)

Yeah, I never really wanted to ally with you, but I never really could get rid of you.

Also, that dam Pacific fleet SUCKED...I had to build it at the time, but it was utterly useless after that.
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: Manifest Destiny, AAR

Postby Yhanthlei » 22 Mar 2012, 07:37

Thanks again for GMing, Morg. I quite enjoyed the variant, although I think that some adjustments probably should be made to settler functioning, and quite enjoyed the game, although I will agree that there was somewhat too little communication (I was as guilty of this as anymore, to my shame). Anyway, here's how things looked from the Canadian/British perspective. You may notice some differences from the Texan account of things, to put it mildly.

From the start I saw two options, either joining Texas against the US or joining the US and moving east. Looking at my position it appeared that my growth opportunities would be better settling the west than invading and that a joint invasion of the US would result in the lion's share of supply centers going to Texas due to the province layout. I quickly decided to join with the US, and happily the US was peaceable to me in return. Soon enough the US and Texas got involved in a close war, and I made it a policy to help the US where I could but to focus on settling new supply centers as much as possible, hoping that even if I backed the wrong side I would have enough supply centers to still have a chance of alliances. A Texan victory still looked like a strong possibility, especially since I was doing poor work of figuring out Spain's intentions and feared a Spanish attack on the east coast of the US.

Eventually Texas did get the upper hand, and I spent too long trying to figure out how to intervene. I made a policy of remaining somewhat neutral but sympathetic to the US, and hoped to forge an alliance with Texas at the end of their conflict. The US' offer to deliberately cede me Illinois, among the US' other centers. I moved in and made an offer to Texas where we would refrain from attacking each other and find a common enemy to work against. Texas agreed, as far as I can remember. In the next phase I was surprised to find that Texas had invaded Illinois, and felt that I had been betrayed. Texas explained his view that the Illinois supply center was by right his and that I was stealing his kill, so that his invasion of Illinois didn't constitute breaking our agreement. I explained my view that an agreement to not attack each other is an agreement not to attack each other and that the invasion of Illinois was a clear violation of this clause. I made an offer again, and Texas agreed. Apparently I started opening a last message from him before deciding to go to sleep instead, and the system showed Texas that the message had been read. The message said that Texas stood by his previous interpretation and was still going to invade centers that he considered his by right. Not having read this message, I was greatly annoyed to find myself invaded by Texas again. I saw this as a second betrayal and said so. Texas accused me of pretending that I had not read the message so as falsify a pretense for war with him. I found this odd, since in my view we were already at war due to his invasions. We more or less parted ways snarling. Not my finest diplomacy, I admit. I started to put up a defense, but sadly soon my computer encountered hardware problems preventing me from inputting orders, a problem that persisted for a few days and ended up removing me from the game. It is a slanderous lie that I "Left because he was losing and because he didn't want to fight with me over the meaning of ownership in diplomacy". I play games to the end and frankly do not particularly care to debate your strange idea of natural claims to supply centers. Perhaps you also think that I deliberately abstained from communication in WW4 to perpetuate a lie out of fear of you, and that I kept supplying orders to the end in that game when I was able to return because I particularly feared you over a several dozen supply center Nigeria? It is a silly conspiracy theory, but if it makes you feel any better go ahead and keep believing it.

Anyway, disagreements with Texas aside good game to everyone. I agree that it should be tried again with a new crop of players, this game has soured me on the variant a bit but it is still a good and unique one.

Edit: Oh yes, and I almost forgot to thank haroonriaz in particular for taking up the British cause.
Anglia in Heptarchy test game A
Yhanthlei
 
Posts: 238
Joined: 27 Aug 2010, 21:36
Class: Diplomat
All-game rating: (1000)
Timezone: GMT-8

Re: Manifest Destiny, AAR

Postby presser84 » 22 Mar 2012, 10:57

Yhanthlei wrote:I made a policy of remaining somewhat neutral but sympathetic to the US, and hoped to forge an alliance with Texas at the end of their conflict. The US' offer to deliberately cede me Illinois, among the US' other centers. I moved in and made an offer to Texas where we would refrain from attacking each other and find a common enemy to work against. Texas agreed, as far as I can remember. In the next phase I was surprised to find that Texas had invaded Illinois, and felt that I had been betrayed. Texas explained his view that the Illinois supply center was by right his and that I was stealing his kill, so that his invasion of Illinois didn't constitute breaking our agreement.


Your "alliance" offer was "I get everything I want and you can take what you can get. Then maybe I'll throw you a bone. Go have fun in the south while I mop up the whole north". I never responded to the last message agreeing to any of that. You had been loyal to the US and let me be the bad guy the whole time. There was no way I was letting you have that kind of leverage in our alliance or position. On top of that you stopped talking to me after the restart. Read below (from bottom up).

Re: so I guess
Sent: 27 Dec 2011, 08:13
by Yhanthlei

As for the US centers, for now I'd say whichever ones we can get. If I end up with Illinois and stuff to the east I'll cede Illinois to you, I don't intend to block off your expansion.

As for a DMZ, it depends on what US centers we pick up, but I think that Iowa and Wyoming should probably be DMZs, and that I should stay out of Missouri.

Happy Holidays to you too.
Re: so I guess
Sent: 25 Dec 2011, 05:37
by presser84

I am glad to hear that. With only 3 centers left how do you see the division going? I would also like to hear if you have any proposals for DMZs.

Have a wonderful Holiday

-Press
Re: so I guess
Sent: 25 Dec 2011, 05:30
by Yhanthlei

It's a good diplomatic line to go with, certainly. I'm just catching up on communications and strategy now, my apologies for the delay. Christmas arrangements and travel got the better of me in my games, it turns out. I'd like to end any hostilities between us, such as they were, and I'm certainly interested in cooperation into US territory and into the frontier, if you end up sending settlers west.
Re: so I guess
Sent: 19 Dec 2011, 14:25
by presser84

I basically said the same thing to Spain as I did to you. They grow faster attacking the US than they do helping the US against me. Have they joined me? I dont know. I think they are just playing to win the game.
Re: so I guess
Sent: 19 Dec 2011, 06:26
by Yhanthlei

So, would I be correct in guessing that you've talked Spain into joining you in the war against the US? That would greatly change strategic calculations, if true.
Re: so I guess
Sent: 15 Dec 2011, 02:57
by Yhanthlei

Of course.
Re: so I guess
Sent: 15 Dec 2011, 02:46
by presser84

Disappointing but fair enough. Not like I have much leverage in our discussions at this point. However, I hope you will continue to maintain a dialog with me. I'm sure we may still yet have some of use to say to one another.
Re: so I guess
Sent: 15 Dec 2011, 02:17
by Yhanthlei

It may not be directly in my interest to see the US expand, but it is in my interest to maintain an alliance with the US, and as such I will not agree to that at this time, although I'm not ruling it out altogether.
Re: so I guess
Sent: 15 Dec 2011, 00:30
by presser84

Fair enough but it doesn't benefit you that greatly to see them grow either. Sometimes limiting your ally is beneficial. Can you agree to just not assist the US against me?
Re: so I guess
Sent: 14 Dec 2011, 21:40
by Yhanthlei

Sorry, my non-response wasn't an indication that I was turning down the request, it was just an indication that I was off of the site for a while. My apologies for the delay. Here is my answer:

At present I think that the US will make a strong enough ally against the US that that long term issues of Spain and Mexico don't too greatly concern me. As for my rate4 of growth I'm currently prioritizing low risk growth and stable alliances over rapid growth. I'll keep your proposal in mind, and the issues of growth safety and long term alliance strength can change, but for right now I must amicably decline.
so I guess
Sent: 14 Dec 2011, 14:41
by presser84

you have no interest in working with me in manifest destiny?


When we came back from break and restarted I started my discussions with everyone else and you didn't even send me a message. When is a non-response an agreement of terms? With no agreement on center division, DMZ or a framework of an alliance. Moving on ILL seemed acceptable (al beit agressive) move. I was pretty upset that the US just gave you his centers while I had to maneuver and work my way for everything I had. I was frustrated by the fact that I had orchestrated the coo that brought the USA down and you were the one poised to lap up all the rewards. Your vagueness annoyed me and I knew you were too cautious of a player to make a good ally. There was never a direct answer from you. Everything was "something you would consider or we could maybe do." Additionally, You couldn't help me against Mexico or Spain not to mention that Mexico was in good position to counter should I move against them. Attacking ILL was the low hanging fruit and your inability to manage an alliance (or communicate at all) was the defining line. It's a 5 player game. I didn't have the luxury of waiting it out like you did all cozy in your corner.

After I moved on ILL and during our subsequent war we had the following dialog (again from bottom up).

Re: I gave you several chances to work with me
Sent: 03 Feb 2012, 16:32
by presser84

I told you that I would work with you if you moved off of ILL. You ignored the message, as I suspect you had no intention of working with me. My orders were based on knowing you read my message and then ignoring it. Also, placing your unit on an other players center is MORE of an act of War than me attacking you to retake it. Especially if diplomatically no agreement had yet been made regarding who should have that center.
Re: I gave you several chances to work with me
Sent: 03 Feb 2012, 16:27
by Yhanthlei

No, I haven't been terribly prompt in communications this game. I've been busy. The fact remains that the idea of Illinois being yours was only in your head, not a fact of the board, and that you attacked my position instead of holding in peace. You attacked my center, not your own, and I can in fact say that my sitting on any center before the winter makes it mine. That's how the game works. Unless you have an actual proposal of peace, once which would involve ceding a territory back to me and which I would have any reason to trust, I believe that out negotiations are concluded.
Re: I gave you several chances to work with me
Sent: 03 Feb 2012, 16:26
by presser84

Let me also add this...

Re: I gave you several chances to work with me
Sent: 31 Jan 2012, 15:24
by presser84

What about ILL? You failed to mention that. I will not attack you and pursue a two way if you agree to pull out of MY center.


How was this not crystal clear where I stood?
Re: I gave you several chances to work with me
Sent: 03 Feb 2012, 16:21
by presser84

You have to be joking. I'm not going to get into how horrible you have been at communicating this entire game and stick specifically with what happened. I asked you to give back ILL. It was my center. You keeping that was a non-starting in our discussion. I asked for it back. You read the message (it left my out box) and ignored it. I attacked MY OWN CENTER. You can not say that you sitting on my center before the Winter makes it yours.

I did not attack your center I attacked my own to retake it.
Re: I gave you several chances to work with me
Sent: 03 Feb 2012, 16:13
by Yhanthlei

You don't seem to understand that attacking a center held by another power is an act of war, whatever claim to it you think you have. You attacked me, to hell with these negotiations. You have shown yourself repeatedly to not even be slightly trustworthy in refraining from attack.
Re: I gave you several chances to work with me
Sent: 31 Jan 2012, 15:24
by presser84

What about ILL? You failed to mention that. I will not attack you and pursue a two way if you agree to pull out of MY center.
Re: I gave you several chances to work with me
Sent: 31 Jan 2012, 06:42
by Yhanthlei

The NMR was my bad, I admit. You haven't given a firm answer to my question, though. Do I have your word that if I agree to and do refrain from attacking you and cooperate with you against Spain and Mexico, you'll not attack me either starting this phase and we'll end this game with a two-way draw? I've got two sets of orders prepared depending on your answer.
Re: I gave you several chances to work with me
Sent: 29 Jan 2012, 16:04
by presser84

You never responded to me and NMR'd!!!! I had to assume some kind of aggression!

You could have drawn if you allied with me, attacked Spain in the south and settled the west. YOU STILL CAN!!!!! Gaining those centers makes you formidable ally and opponent. Attacking you becomes foolish. That was the crux of my argument to you. You never responded. I had to take action and I purposely attacked the US's center to show you how we can push east together. The northern attack I did not expect to work since I thought you were going to hit KAN and cut my support. HOw was I supposed to know you would NMR?
Re: I gave you several chances to work with me
Sent: 29 Jan 2012, 09:08
by Yhanthlei

I can't solo without attacking you, I can't draw without attacking you or you agreeing to it, you aren't clearly right to resent the USA repaying a favor, and hey, you attacked me, so there's that. I'm sorry to say that you're doing a pretty bad job at presenting a case for me not doing everything I can to attack you. I'm still open to such a case, but you would have to be more persuasive than you have been so far.
Re: I gave you several chances to work with me
Sent: 27 Jan 2012, 09:46
by presser84

I knew the US gave you the center and I rightfully resent that.

As far as the end game, we are far from that point. You can still win this game, draw or solo, without attacking me. Im offering you the coastal centers in the east and all of the western settlements (remember as you settle the more centers needed for a solo). Plus getting stronger by gaining centers gives you your best chance to be part of the end game. Period! I am offering you that.
Re: I gave you several chances to work with me
Sent: 27 Jan 2012, 06:09
by Yhanthlei

There are certainly things that we could do without destroying each other. If I could disband an army with your assistance or take Ohio, I could restart a settlement program in the west. We could cooperate against Spain, or against Mexico. These are all possibilities. Here is my concern: you have apparently dismissed the idea of a three way draw, and also have indicated that you wish to pursue an alliance with Spain, at least for now. Under which of those plans do we end up in a winning draw together? Would in happen in any of them? If not, then why shouldn't I continue to attack you with all of my capability, and rally others against you when I can? I'm not saying that as a declaration of any hostile intent, and I would in fact be enthusiastic about perusing any of those options. I'm trying to convey that my interest isn't in securing a respite but in securing an endgame.

As a side note on the Illinois issue, the US deliberately ceded me the province in gratitude for my assistance. We can disagree over who rightfully should have taken the province, but it was not an act of happenstance.
Re: I gave you several chances to work with me
Sent: 25 Jan 2012, 23:06
by presser84

Can you see anything on the board that might allow the two of us to work together here? I see some things but I need you to see them as well. Are there any centers you might be in position to pick up that arn't Texan? If so I think we can put something together that benefits us both.
Re: I gave you several chances to work with me
Sent: 22 Jan 2012, 17:25
by presser84

THE US was MY kill. They attacked me from the start and I undermined them with the help of Spain. I tried to tell you this and you resisted me when I asked you to attack them with me. Then you just fell into ILL which should have rightfully been mine and I took it back I was and still am willing to let you conquer the entire western corner unopposed. If you fall back I will not attack you any further north.
Re: I gave you several chances to work with me
Sent: 22 Jan 2012, 06:45
by Yhanthlei

What would working with me entail? Recently you've taken Illinois without informing me and moved into Iowa, actions i couldn't regard as anything but hostile. It also looks like you're allied with Spain, and you've dismissed the idea of a three way draw in a five player game. All of these point to you still opposing Canadian independence. What is your proposal? Until I hear further I won't make an effort to take any centers from you, but neither will I necessarily move away from my current defensive lines.
Re: I gave you several chances to work with me
Sent: 22 Jan 2012, 06:39
by presser84

Like i said I was trying to work with you I can't work with you until you move off my lines and away from centers.
Re: I gave you several chances to work with me
Sent: 22 Jan 2012, 06:33
by Yhanthlei

You attacked me. If you would like an alliance instead I'd be entirely in favor of it, but if you're going to attack me then don't be surprised when I try to stop you. Incidentally I didn't fail to respond out of spite or callousness, it was because I was busy at the time and failed to answer several messages. So, would you want an alliance?
I gave you several chances to work with me
Sent: 20 Jan 2012, 15:37
by presser84

I gave you several chances to work with me against the US and you just waited and vultured them up. I was the one who put in the kill shot with Spain and you are trying to take over their centers for yourself like you are some military genius. I tried to ally with you and I tried to be fair asking you how you wanted to divide them up. You ignored me. Now I hear you are trying to rally a three way alliance against me!!

not really appreciating that you are trying to rally the entire board against me. It wont work. Are you really going to play a 5 player game to a three way draw? What a joke!


You see what happened there? When you had leverage (the whole board concentrating on me) you didn't want to work with me to help against the USA. You chose to support the US against me. However, I proved the better diplomat in that situation and I undermined your plans. Now I had leverage you still would not work with me. Like a good diplomat I was still looking to find some kind of common ground with you. You refused to even suggest something and I had to make the offer, an offer that I think was very strong for you, maybe even too strong. I was offering the Spanish held NYK and VIR and anything you wanted to settle in the north west. That was 5 centers for 1. You instead got caught up with holding ILL.

Now I had the leverage and I pressed it. That's Diplomacy. You failed to adjust besides just saying "everyone let's play for a 3 way draw and kill Texas." Don't you think both of those players had wanted more out of the game than a three way draw? Don't you think I'm a strong enough player to manage my way through that kind of ****? And even after you did that, I used it to try to build something with you. You ended up limited all because you refused to negotiate without leverage.

Was I right to claim the ILL and the rest of the USA? I'm 50/50 on that. Had the shoe been on the other foot I would have responded the way you did. However, I do feel justified attacking you because of how you treated me when I needed your help. I'll cede that you did get that center legitimately and that my insistence on ILL was a bit of a show but it was easily the low hanging fruit after that. I knew I could take it myself and I did not have the luxury of being a corner power like you. I had to make a bold move and you offered me the least compared to Mexico and Spain in terms of allies.

Re Texas' strength: I don't like the toot my own horn but my early success was also due to strong diplomacy. A weak or "neutral" player would not have succeed as Texas. I quickly realized that being the center of the board made me the easy target and the eventual natural expansion of everyone. That's why I disagree that Texas is so strong. It's more balanced that you think. It's like Austria in regular dip. I'm sure we are all aware of both the potential and the pitfalls of playing as Austria. You have the opportunity to grow very nicely early but there is risk involved if you take that strategy you may have to make enemies early. Mexico, Spain, and Great Britain fight out of a corner, in a 5 player game. By the beginning of year three I had all 4 players surrounding me.

Look at the map

Image

It requires something more than that nice easy center in SAN early to work your way out of that as Texas. I'm only running at +1 in an increasingly strangled position.
Westeros Diplomacy - GM/creator
Diplomacy of Ice and Fire 2 - GM
Keirador wrote:Stop being a dickasaurus rex.
User avatar
presser84
 
Posts: 4327
Joined: 21 Dec 2010, 23:05
Location: New Jersey, USA
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1460)
All-game rating: (1678)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Manifest Destiny, AAR

Postby Yhanthlei » 22 Mar 2012, 12:40

I'm going to be honest, I stopped reading that when I realized that it was a continuation of our different views on what happened. I doubt that a continued discussion would resolve much of anything and with the game done I would like to leave the issue closed. I do apologize that it ended with such ill will.
Anglia in Heptarchy test game A
Yhanthlei
 
Posts: 238
Joined: 27 Aug 2010, 21:36
Class: Diplomat
All-game rating: (1000)
Timezone: GMT-8


Return to Game 1

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest