AARs

GM: Morg. Winner: attitudes (Britain)

Re: AARs

Postby stalin813 » 15 Feb 2013, 05:54

asudevil wrote:I LOVED earthquake...but of course I had it...

Ill keep all these in mind as I go from here...but IF Im the next to run it...it will be a while, cause I already have my 2 games going...



And we need to finish the dictionary
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 Morg » 15 Feb 2013, 06:30

So a couple of things from my perspective.

1. Thank you all for putting up with me and all the hectic chaos of the first several years. Kudos to Asudevil and Stalin813, I don't know how you did it so well I'm going to pretend it's because you had easier powers to deal with, I know it's just pretense, but ... yeah.

2. I was really disappointed in the interaction and alliances between old timers and newbies. It makes more sense of why it happened the way it did know that I hear more about what happened, but the initial game play looked really biased against new players. This game has a learning curve, but let's be sure not to hold it against newer players or they'll never get a chance to get a grip on the curve.

3. I can see whay Stalin felt like he couldn't turn around to face Turkey right away. Once you commit to something it's really hard to disengage and turn around. I'm not saying that it was impossible, just really difficult. When given a choice between following through on what they already committed to and abandoning their commitments to face a new threat, lots of good players will stay focused on what they've already committed to.

4. Rhyss, I'd like to say I knew what you were doing when you attacked your fellow ALA allies and I'm not going to call you an idiot, but it clearly wasn't the best timing. I'll be honest, in your position I probably would've been looking at whittling down the draw as well, but the execution was poorly done. First you have to accept the 6-player draw, not because you think it's possible or desirable, but because you needed Britain to be the one that rejects it. Second even though you're whittling the draw, you can't whittle the players, you have to be swift, ruthless, overwhelming and complete when you attack them, then the rest of your allies will have to accept it as a done deal or fait accompli. If you don't eliminate them completely in 1 season, you risk them turning on the ALA and handing the victor his solo just to spite the ALA for cutting him out. That's how Asudevil got his first forum solo.

On the power selection, I saw a lot of potential for the Ornithoper/Bully combination although they did seem a bit disjointed from each other. I thought Petrol Rationing/Ameoba and Insect/Stab combinations both complemented each other extremely closely. I thought Amphibian/Hopper and Negator/Spring Raid were fantastic tactical combinations. I was intrigued by the GW/Hyperspace Jumper combination, two good powers, but what was the strategic rationale. Considering Presser only bid on 4 powers total I was even more interested to see what he was thinking. King Key/Defensive Armies felt a little underwhelming especially for Turkey who is already strong defensively. Overall I was very impressed by the powerful combinations and thought that anyone could have won based on their powers at play.
"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 presser84 » 15 Feb 2013, 07:55

Morg wrote:So a couple of things from my perspective.

1. Thank you all for putting up with me and all the hectic chaos of the first several years. Kudos to Asudevil and Stalin813, I don't know how you did it so well I'm going to pretend it's because you had easier powers to deal with, I know it's just pretense, but ... yeah.
actually I should really say thank you for putting up with me...Not sure how I'd handle me as a GM but you kept your cool so thank you.


2. I was really disappointed in the interaction and alliances between old timers and newbies. It makes more sense of why it happened the way it did know that I hear more about what happened, but the initial game play looked really biased against new players. This game has a learning curve, but let's be sure not to hold it against newer players or they'll never get a chance to get a grip on the curve.

First, this is my first time at this variant so technically I'm a noobie too.Russia/Austria is one of those things that, for the most part will have tension, almost regardless of the variant. So that tension was not related to be new. I had a good discussion with Diadem but as R/F there wasn't much or I balked at helping him and using my hyperspace against England early. I got pigeoned into an alliance with mambam and then he stabbed me out of the blue... So I wouldn't exactly say I attacked the newbies. Austria opening to Rumania wasn't exactly going to make me work with him and he didn't exactly communicate well either.

3. I can see whay Stalin felt like he couldn't turn around to face Turkey right away. Once you commit to something it's really hard to disengage and turn around. I'm not saying that it was impossible, just really difficult. When given a choice between following through on what they already committed to and abandoning their commitments to face a new threat, lots of good players will stay focused on what they've already committed to.
I agree. Though with a hopping amphibian he could have hopped back. He misdirected Turkey and I at Austria and then attacked France leaving us in a lurch.

4. Rhyss, I'd like to say I knew what you were doing when you attacked your fellow ALA allies and I'm not going to call you an idiot, but it clearly wasn't the best timing. I'll be honest, in your position I probably would've been looking at whittling down the draw as well, but the execution was poorly done. First you have to accept the 6-player draw, not because you think it's possible or desirable, but because you needed Britain to be the one that rejects it. Second even though you're whittling the draw, you can't whittle the players, you have to be swift, ruthless, overwhelming and complete when you attack them, then the rest of your allies will have to accept it as a done deal or fait accompli. If you don't eliminate them completely in 1 season, you risk them turning on the ALA and handing the victor his solo just to spite the ALA for cutting him out. That's how Asudevil got his first forum solo.

This was basically what I said in the PMs. His 1-6 analysis was based on 1) being poisoned by England 2) stupidity. He seemed to think that players would hold grudges from the mid/end game. Though this happens there was really no indication of this as fact. Secondally, he could have let the natural whittle happen. I thought that was what he was doing with Germany into St Pete. Then when he lost St Pete it would be "oh well, you got naturally whittled from the game." France was going to be tougher but with my ability and his ability together he could have. His stupidity comes from not leveraging what England was saying to get a better deal with the power players of the ALA. He just assumed (probably based on attitudes propaganda as well) that we would be against it. It was really newbie diplomacy by him not just VR newbie play.


On the power selection, I saw a lot of potential for the Ornithoper/Bully combination although they did seem a bit disjointed from each other. I thought Petrol Rationing/Ameoba and Insect/Stab combinations both complemented each other extremely closely. I thought Amphibian/Hopper and Negator/Spring Raid were fantastic tactical combinations. I was intrigued by the GW/Hyperspace Jumper combination, two good powers, but what was the strategic rationale. Considering Presser only bid on 4 powers total I was even more interested to see what he was thinking. King Key/Defensive Armies felt a little underwhelming especially for Turkey who is already strong defensively. Overall I was very impressed by the powerful combinations and thought that anyone could have won based on their powers at play.
I came into the game late, didn't choose my country or read the amendments to the rules...so I read the powers and thought I'd wing it and throw in two that I thought looked cool. Luckily I got both. The plan was to use 2 GW units in one theater and just cause general chaos there (turned out to be the south). I also thought once I used 1 GW unit there was a chance I could bluff that the second one was Norway and use that to keep a tentative peace. As you may recall I did not understand how my power worked. I thought the destroy was instantaneous as opposed to processed during retreats/builds. So that completely messed me up. Combine that with no counter pressure from Italy and then Turkey stabbing me out of the blue things did not go as I planned and I was always putting out fires. Then E/G...so I was constantly putting out fires and never used the units as I envisioned it to start. I don't think I ever got more than 7 centers the whole game.

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

Previous

Return to Game 3

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests