AAR PDET 2017: Top Board

Discussion of finished games.

Re: AAR PDET 2017: Top Board

Postby Conq » 02 May 2018, 18:38

Marking this.

I'll come back and respond in detail when I have time.

As a placeholder for now:

Big thank you to Carebear, WHSeward, Playdip, the ODC originator ghug from Webdip, and all the participants in what was a fantastic diplomacy event. I'm especially glad it drew friends from the face-to-face community, as I think there is so much to learn both ways from cross-pollination.

Big congratulations to the victors, Lebigmac and Bravo Papa Alpha. I certainly did not lose for lack of effort. I tried very hard, and these guys came together in an unorthodox alliance and soundly defeated me. They have my respect for that.

As you may imagine, my perspective on many of the subjects here will differ from what has been said. In defeat, I try very hard to focus on the things that I did wrong and that I can improve. It is so tempting to rush to the AAR and blame others and point out their mistakes. I certainly feel that temptation now. But, when I have a moment to write here, I'm going to do my best to focus on my own failings. Thankfully, that will give me no shortage of subject-matter.
User avatar
Conq
Premium Member
 
Posts: 2734
Joined: 06 Mar 2014, 01:46
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 2410
All-game rating: 2575
Timezone: GMT-8

Re: AAR PDET 2017: Top Board

Postby gsmx » 03 May 2018, 10:04

I'm curious about a question for our co-champions.

The stalemate line in it's final placement looks fairly secure, although admittedly i haven't really gone through the effort of looking for holes. If now that it was down to two that you felt you had an opportunity to gain your solo would you have gone for it or was a "co-winner" title with your partner a more then satisfactory outcome? Was there not enough incentive to want to fight on?

This is both for personal curiosity and a desire to follow this thread in a more creative fashion then just dropping a boring "marking this" message. 8-)
The first quality that is needed is audacity.
User avatar
gsmx
 
Posts: 1477
Joined: 22 Aug 2011, 14:50
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 2088
All-game rating: 2424
Timezone: GMT-8

Re: AAR PDET 2017: Top Board

Postby Buachaille » 03 May 2018, 16:11

Fatmo wrote:One thing I'm kind of wondering is about the relationship between Austria and Italy very early on, before the Austrian player was replaced. Were they very close? Did they have any solid base and understanding? It's a pretty big commitment for Italy to open west like that, and obviously you don't see that most of the time. I happen to be a fan of doing so, but only when I think I have things set up in the east so that either the action is moving away from me (everyone is going for Russia or Turkey. If Turkey, send a token fleet to help in the effort and not give Austria a reason to build another) or if I get the feeling that the three of them are just going to spend a few years trying to get the upper hand in the Balkans. Got to have a solid understanding with at least one or two of them that in the midgame we will team up and dominate the east. Or some kind of agreement to go after an eastern country who has become a big threat.

If it was Austria that Italy had become closest with early on (and that makes perfect sense), I bet the replacement was kind of a blow to his plans. Because, as lebigmac says, you are playing the players when all is said and done. Every player will have different vibes and be inclined to want to do different things with different people. Obviously he was close with Germany as well. I'd love to hear from Italy and I guess either Austria about that dynamic. Maybe England and Germany also are privy to some of the Italian dynamics, since they all must have been talking together when attacking France. I know lebigmac says that Italy refused to help against Turkey on one specific turn, but there must have been more to that.


It feels very little to do with with me but since you asked me directly and in an effort to keep the momentum of this AAR going:

I only had a year before 'bang/crash/wallop', so relationships were still at the formative stages. I did and generally do work very hard on the I/A partnership but how much more so than A/T or R/A, I'm not sure. It makes no sense to hit Italy early without absolute certainty that there's a wedge between RT. I can't see the messages to confirm it but iirc things maybe weren't as smooth as they could've been with Russia at the start, which in turn, would've made me extra careful about the I/A relationship. It was obvious to me who Russia and Germany were right from the start and again, from (failing) memory, I think I attributed Italy's move West more to him having fallen under Conq's spell, than anything I'd done, at the time. BullCall would have to answer that to give an accurate response.
Classicist.
User avatar
Buachaille
 
Posts: 854
Joined: 28 Aug 2013, 00:29
Location: Glen Coe
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1580)
All-game rating: (1635)
Timezone: GMT

Re: AAR PDET 2017: Top Board

Postby Lebigmac » 03 May 2018, 18:04

gsmx wrote:I'm curious about a question for our co-champions.

The stalemate line in it's final placement looks fairly secure, although admittedly i haven't really gone through the effort of looking for holes. If now that it was down to two that you felt you had an opportunity to gain your solo would you have gone for it or was a "co-winner" title with your partner a more then satisfactory outcome? Was there not enough incentive to want to fight on?

This is both for personal curiosity and a desire to follow this thread in a more creative fashion then just dropping a boring "marking this" message. 8-)


It would take more work than I'd care to do to try and find a way to break it.

Over and over again, my message to Turkey was this: the best way to put a thumb in the eye of those who said we could not do it (including Germany and some observers in the forum) was to do it. When the game was still very much in doubt, Conq wrote me, in a very non-bragging way that his record was very good (it is!), but the one thing he wished he could get was a 17/17 draw. He expressed a desire to do so, hoped it might be with me, then noted previous attempts had failed because the other player(s) were not strong enough.

I thought the best way to demonstrate it "could be done" was just to do it.

Was it difficult? Yes!

I agonized over turning over Venice. It gave a lot of control to Turkey--too much, I think. Keeping it would have put me in the position he was in. I would have been able to determine the endgame. On the other hand, he might have bailed on the 2-way.

I also looked hard at moving to Serbia so I could hold Bulgaria. I was frustrated because Turkey frequently (toward the end) presented "take it or leave it" non-decisions for me.

However, after the last turn, I also recognized that we both knew he could have taken the win and didn't. That was enough for me. As soon as he proposed the 2-way, I instantly voted for it.

Maybe the worst part of the endgame was I could see where it was going. Every one of Conq's "proposals" was very one-way. I was to give him dots and we would attack Turkey (in some undefined way). Conq kept moving in my direction, even when he didn't have to. I could see he was eventually going to have the opportunity to throw the game to Turkey. He never took the time to propose something that might put me in position to win--and there were times I might have been tempted, like when Turkey refused to let me go to Nth, even though the designed stalemate line had my fleet in Ska. However, I had few options. Furthermore, the amount of shared press in this game made it less likely that I was going to propose some wild plot to Conq. If he wanted it, he'd have to propose it.

It was telling that when Conq had the chance to retreat to Edi and guarantee he would have at least one more turn in the game, he didn't do so. I asked him to do that. What I told him was unacceptable was retreats to Bal and Hel. So, where did he retreat? Bal and Hel!!! From that moment on, I didn't care what he said. He could have sent money and I would not have changed my mind. In fact, I refused to lie to him. It's that point where you just look at the other player and say, "Do whatever you want. I don't care." I didn't. I was either going to lose or not based on what Turkey did, and I'd rather have that than have to trust Germany for anything. He had lied too many times, done too many shady things, and nothing was going to make him a remotely reliable partner.

If I had supported Bel with Bur, Conq would still own Paris. He would have kept Hel and hand two more turns to convince Turkey to take the win. It wasn't worth it to me. I went "all in" on Bravo Papa Alpha. It was the right play. In my mind, it was the only play.

Realistically, and I don't want to dredge everything up by posting all the press from the game, Conq had burned our bridge of communication one too many times. Even when he made a nice gesture, like rewriting "Hey Delilah" to "Hey Austria," it made me grin but did not move me. It could not. He said we would both surely lose if we did not band together.

My response was that "we will not lose." In my gut, I knew only Conq would lose.

I wanted the 2-way. It seemed like the right ending. We went through a lot. We managed to work things out. One of us, even me, soloing, would have felt hollow--and it also would have given Conq a moral victory. I don't think either one of us wanted that. I sure didn't.
Lebigmac
 
Posts: 44
Joined: 16 Feb 2017, 21:17
Location: The Former Home of the American Revolution
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (1265)
All-game rating: (1256)
Timezone: GMT

Re: AAR PDET 2017: Top Board

Postby Groo » 03 May 2018, 18:44

jay65536 wrote:First off, congratulations to Lebigmac and BPA!

Groo: Misorders on top boards aren't as rare as you might expect. On the 2016 WDC top board there was one by the guy who would go on to win the tournament.



Yeah, I watched DQ's videos - I really was disappointed with the number of errors made there. I remember thinking to myself - "Wait, what, these guys are pros? I could take them heads on..." However, they had very limited time and had to manually write the orders etc. It's much easier to make a mistake in those circumstances, but forgetting to build in a game where you have, what, 24 hours, while playing on the top board of PDET is just frivolous and kind of disrespectful to the game.
"If you have a garden and a library, you have everything you need."

Cornubia in Heptarchy 14 - 3WD
Front Range in Emergence - 3WD
Holland in Colonial 7 - 3WD
House Baratheon in Diplomacy of Ice and Fire - Mad King SOLO
Mexico in WiTA 7 - stabbed to death
Thebes in Greek City States IV
User avatar
Groo
 
Posts: 237
Joined: 14 Nov 2016, 18:13
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 1608
All-game rating: 1887
Timezone: GMT

Re: AAR PDET 2017: Top Board

Postby boldblade » 08 May 2018, 02:56

Whelp that was a fun AAR. Short and sweet.
boldblade
 
Posts: 338
Joined: 05 Feb 2014, 17:33
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1474)
All-game rating: (1488)
Timezone: GMT

Re: AAR PDET 2017: Top Board

Postby Lebigmac » 08 May 2018, 17:18

boldblade wrote:Whelp that was a fun AAR. Short and sweet.


Kinda disappointing, given the behind the scenes fireworks.
Lebigmac
 
Posts: 44
Joined: 16 Feb 2017, 21:17
Location: The Former Home of the American Revolution
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (1265)
All-game rating: (1256)
Timezone: GMT

Re: AAR PDET 2017: Top Board

Postby boldblade » 08 May 2018, 17:22

Only 2/7 have meaningfully contributed. It is unfortunate. So much drama I was looking forward to hearing about.
boldblade
 
Posts: 338
Joined: 05 Feb 2014, 17:33
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1474)
All-game rating: (1488)
Timezone: GMT

Re: AAR PDET 2017: Top Board

Postby Lebigmac » 08 May 2018, 19:10

boldblade wrote:Only 2/7 have meaningfully contributed. It is unfortunate. So much drama I was looking forward to hearing about.


At the very least, I'd like to hear from Turkey. :?

That said, in a game that is observed by many and is so hard-fought, more AAR would be nice. I could write more, but that's just the game from my perspective, even if it's the right perspective. :lol:
Lebigmac
 
Posts: 44
Joined: 16 Feb 2017, 21:17
Location: The Former Home of the American Revolution
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (1265)
All-game rating: (1256)
Timezone: GMT

Re: AAR PDET 2017: Top Board

Postby WHSeward » 08 May 2018, 20:37

The winners write the history...

...though in this case it will just be the drawers. :mrgreen:
"As a general truth, communities prosper and flourish, or droop and decline, in just the degree that they practice or neglect to practice the primary duties of justice and humanity." WHS

A member of the Classicists.

Ask me about mentor games. Send me a PM or post in the Mentoring forum.
User avatar
WHSeward
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2980
Joined: 29 Dec 2012, 22:16
Location: San Francisco, California, USA
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1633)
All-game rating: (1647)
Timezone: GMT-8

PreviousNext

Return to After Action Reports (AARs)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests