Page 1 of 2

AARs

PostPosted: 01 Sep 2015, 08:55
by Morg
The dust has settled and the cannons silenced.

There has been an agreed 3-party draw shared by Mexico, Peru, Spain.

Congratulation to those 3 and a big thank you to all who played and were involved at each stage of the game. It was an enjoyable game to watch. I hope it was just as enjoyable to play, even for the eliminated.

Oh and a special thank you to those whose first attempt at a PbFDip game was this one. It's great to see you join the community.

This is a space for your AARs to fill. I look forward to reading them.

As this game is being considered is a potential candidate for having a future on the main site, I would also like to hear your thoughts about the game in general. Enjoyability, Playability, and your thoughts on its potential.

Re: AARs

PostPosted: 01 Sep 2015, 12:55
by Nanook
I'll get us started with a brief(ish, for me at least) explanation of my game.

In five months and change real time, 10 years game time, I felt I was fighting a losing, guerilla-style war for somewhere in the range of 20 years real time. I'll put down what I remember from the early game. It might not always jive with what others recall or what the history says happened, I'm just going from memory here. Anyways, here it is.

Looking at the history of the game, as well as at the map, I decided almost right away that I wanted to play as USA. I'd played the last few years of WitA IV, and seen first hand how difficult they were to stop in the midgame, once they got some momentum built up, I'm partial to the USA in general for obvious reasons, I liked the possibilities presented by the Great Lakes and the Mississippi river, I did NOT want to get stuck in the slaughter house that is South America, and finally, most importantly, I like the color blue. So I put the maximum bid on USA, and ended up winning by way of dice roll. What a lucky break I thought, until I glanced at the rest of the assignments, and realized....I was in by far the hardest part of the map. I don't say this as any disrespect to the other players, but my half of the map, the Northern half, had Alman as Britain, both a skilled player and an experienced PbF player to boot. Jon as Mexico, in his first PbF game, but a very skilled player that, while I have a history of getting on great with, also have a history of not quite being able to work together with in games. That's a bit strange to me actually, considering that we do generally get along well, but I digress. And then, the biggest and baddest of them all. Pedros as Spain. Was it enough that Pedros is a very talented player? Of course not! He also has a long history with WitA, as far as I can tell longer than anyone still active on this site.

So I had my work cut out for me. I started by messaging all three of them, individually. With Mexico I recall proposing a juggernaut-esque alliance, pointing to the previous game as evidence for how it could work to start, and taking care to point out the areas where their alliance looked to go wrong and what we could do to avoid that. With Spain, I recall saying let's take out the rumor-mongering Britain, then we'll work on Mexico together, and by that point there will either be someone's solo to stop, or we'll have enough trust that we can sweep down together and make inroads against South America. With Britain, I proposed that we bounce our two neighboring territories, NEn and NYS, then I'll offer assistance with a fleet against Spain while I take out Mexico, then we'd sweep down against South America together. See the common thread? I also was in contact with Venezuela and Colombia about the possibility of keeping a check on Spain, should it be needed, and with Colombia about a check on Mexico. I had feelers out to everyone else, but nothing more than information sharing as I recall. No matter who I ended up allied with, I knew two things. One, that I didn't want them as a game long ally (except possibly Alman), because I knew I was outclassed and with Jon and Pedros' styles of play that wouldn't end well for me trying to bring an alliance past the midgame with them. In a map I have more experience with, the classic map, or the AMED map, sure, but on a map that I'm still learning all the practical ins and outs of and getting a feel for? No, not a good idea. The second was that no matter who I allied with, I wanted to be a strong naval power. My vision was to just keep pumping out fleets, taking advantage of that I started with three armies (enough to be able to deal with Mex or Britain until the midgame at least), and of the presence of the Great Lakes and Mississippi River.

As the negotiations with Britain went along, I became gradually more suspicious. He went from agreeing with me on the double bounce, to not being sure, to asking for a single bounce. Late in the phase, I decided to lay a trap. I asked him, claiming lack of memory and laziness (both credible reasons if you've played me!), "what did we agree on with NEn/NYS, no bounce right?" When he responded that was correct, I knew he would be going for both, so I amended my orders to bounce both. Side note, I think I must have sent in 10 different orders that first phase. There was so much information flying around, especially with Mex/Britain/Spain, that my plan kept shifting as I found out new things. In other words: the Corner of Carnage (as I thought of it) was not disappointing my expectations early on.

Skimming through for now, me and Britain never really found common ground until after Spain had stabbed me and we had a common enemy, Mex I didn't trust almost from the start, and while I knew that Pedros wasn't going to be a viable long term ally, he unfortunately was my best short term choice. And by best, I really mean only. I don't know if he arranged it as such, but it wouldn't surprise me to find out he was behind a lot of my options getting cut off. I know I was certainly trying to do the same to him!

I knew Spain was only a short to mid term option, but his timing did catch me by surprise. Part of that was wishful thinking for lack of a better term, forcing myself to believe I had more time because I had no better option available to me, and part of that was because it was a well-executed stab (the first part of it, anyways). I did check the history for this one, and it came in the Spring 1841 (the second game year). I thought I would have two years. With three, I could have made myself practically unassailable, so I knew I wouldn't get that, but I thought I could manage with two and that I could get that. I did not, obviously, and it was all downhill from there.

Me and Britain did eventually come together to fight Spain, and for awhile we were frustrating his efforts. Due to some risky decisions that I was fortunate paid off, as well as some trickery with the Great Lakes area (I don't say this to brag, but I do think it took the others longer to pick up on and grasp the potential of them than it did me, or at the least to put that potential to use), I was able to survive at a few centers long enough to really slow Spain's progress and make it a slog for him (with Britains help for most of that, it should be mentioned). I think it's fair to say that I survived longer than I probably should have, whether due to distractions elsewhere, some luck, or (again, not to brag) using the Great Lakes area to my advantage.

I could go into more details, but I think that's enough for now. All in all an extremely enjoyable game on a beautiful map, and one I would love to see make it through to the main site. I think it's very well balanced, probably more balanced than any variant I've seen at least, with a lot of options present for each country. I know that I saw at least four or five different, viable, directions I could have taken playing as the USA, and without having played the other countries I would say they all have a few options at their disposal as well. Everything considered, I would be ecstatic if this made it's way over to the main site, and it would become my second or third favorite map to play on right away (behind classic, and sometimes AMED).

Re: AARs

PostPosted: 01 Sep 2015, 19:03
by Alman
This was my second go at this game, having been a member of a three-way draw in the last one. After all the discussion about Britain and Spain being weak and needing to see if a good communicator could make them stronger, I bid for Spain and Britain. Whatever else happens, I hope we demonstrated what is possible with these two powers.

My goal once I got Britain was to try the "Work as two countries" approach (that served me so well as Russia in World Influence! :shock: ) I felt very strongly that I needed to have peace with Spain since war between us would only embolden USA which I knew was very dangerous if allowed to be strong going into mid-game. I also knew that Nanook was good at diplo-talk while quick with the knife (as well as one of the best 'war of attrition' fighters I know!). Respect.
What I didn't realize, was just how good Pedros was at Diplo-speak. He taught me a master's class in diplomacy. The man could sell ketchup popsicles to women wearing white fur and white gloves!
Alman wrote: I think we need to team up and show these colonialists that they must respect the mother countries. I am eager to try to cripple USA as quickly as possible. I want to try to get Mexico to join in the early assault and then perhaps, depending on your pleasure, Mexico could also be eliminated.

I sent this to Pedros right at the start and meant every word of it. As the negotiations unfolded, Pedros made certain vague statements that I eagerly read too positively while I really didn't give enough weight to the full implications of this line he had sent me.
Pedros wrote:we need to develop a clear agreement about your presence in the Caribbean. I have to see that chain of islands as my own fiefdom

He never waivered from this no matter what interim hints he game me as I kept trying to work out a minor presence for me in the middle. I had hoped to at least keep some presence there long enough to get my "two countries" established in North & South America, while then ceding Spain the middle.

In South America, my role was small and limited. While I did briefly make some headway, I was unable to reach strong agreement with the right people at the right time and with things going pear-shaped in the north, I had to give up sending reinforcements south and soon there was nothing to write about in South America.

In the North, my obsession with trying to work with Spain was probably my undoing.
Alman wrote:Fool me once (Spring) shame on you. Fool me twice (Fall), shame on me. Fool me three times, what kind of fool am I?!?!
.....
I just keep staring at Haiti, which you talked me out of borrowing and seeing it still unclaimed while I lost Jamaica. Makes me sad.

So, if you have a suggestion that avoids all out war between us, I'm open, but I'm going to need something other than your honeyed words since memory of Jamaica is strong.

We were not at that time able to reach accommodation and I ended up being an annoying presence for a couple of years since one cannot just lie down and die without a fight and if he wasn't going to work with me, then he was going to have to divert resources to kill me. I managed to island hop a bit and slow him down a little, possibly slowing him enough to deny him a solo (who will ever know?). Part of this may be a bit of thinking 'meta-game' in that I think you need to build a reputation as a hard person to kill as opposed to someone who will roll over and play dead. I felt it vital that I demonstrate tenacity as well as make sure that he paid as big a price as I could make him for choosing to go after me. This was tactical, not emotional and I'd like to think that it worked. :)

That also means that I'm very willing to stay flexible as situations change. Once I was fully dead in the Caribbean, I approached Spain again for another go at working together. (I know, what kind of fool am I, right?) Again, Spain responded positively, and I gleefully drank the kool-aide he offered me. For a bit we did work together against USA, but then situations changed and finally USA and I found common ground against Spain. I was hopeful that this would finally allow me to get moving, although at this point I was far behind the greater powers. USA and I did well together for awhile but then, for reasons I will never quite understand, he again worked against me and I, for the final time, threw my lot in with Spain. Spain at this point was happy to let me live and he correctly perceived that I would never again be any kind of threat to him. He helped me regain an SC in Canada and that is where I ended the game, happy that I as at least able to live to the end.

As far as missed opportunities, I feel that I should have tried to ally with Mexico at the outset and gone straight after Spain, but my fear is that doing so would have brought us right back to an USA juggernaut that couldn't be stopped. I will have to study things more if I can find the time and see what other possible arrangements can be made to keep Britain from fighting on too many fronts while dealing with Spain. I would love to see what could happen if Spain and Britain could ever reach an early game peace on the islands.

I tip my hat to Nanook (loved your AAR though would have loved to hear more about your late-game thinking). His assessment of the beginning of the game was very accurate and served him better than mine did. One of the reasons I felt that I needed to go after you from the get-go was the respect that I have for your fighting skills. You also managed the diplomatic relationship with Spain better than I did (partially simply because you were more aligned with his goals than I was) and that helped seal my fate.

Pedros, playing you has made me a much wiser, warier, and hopefully better player and I hope to play against you some more. (My survival in Baltic is fully a result of what I learned here). You are a fun communicator and a master of not lying while promising the world. I will need to read over your messages a couple of times to further study your technique. Thanks for an awesome game even if I still think we could have ruled this world together. :)

To all the rest that I fought with and alongside temporarily before losing myself in the USA/Spain/Britain triangle, I'm sorry that I"ve more or less ignored my South American campaign. Nanook's description of that part of the map is very apt and if I ever play Britain again, I will have to study more what went down in the south.

As for the game as a whole, a couple of thoughts. I think that the issue of the structural weakness of Spain has been fully put the rest. I'm not sure if I was a strong enough test of what Britain is capable of. This game coincided with my busiest time of year and as a result, there were times where my communication and attention were less than full and that may have also made things harder. I think Britain may still be a bit too spread out and too vulnerable to the various powers around it, but I'm not too sure.
I WOULD enthusiastically recommend this game to the main site.

Thanks to Morg for his work GMing. How you do as many games at once as you do is beyond me. Much respect and thanks.

Re: AARs

PostPosted: 01 Sep 2015, 19:44
by VGhost
Congratulations to our triumvirate, and a small pat on the back to my fellow survivors! This was a tightly contested game (with the exception of (yet another) weak Argentina). I'm particularly looking forward to Mexico and Spain's AARs: Peru's mad dash to the finish was pretty impressive too.

For me, this game is mainly a cautionary example of trying to play to your preconceptions. I bid high on Colombia mainly because it's a power with thoroughly mediocre results so far, and I wanted to try it out myself. I initially envisioned an alliance with Venezuela (since the Ven-Col border had proved a problem for both in previous games), NAP with Peru, and opportunistic play northwards - probably through Mexico.

I never really got a stable relationship with Venezuela, never really trusted Spain (too many "misorders"/"miscommunication", and I heard a lot early on from other players who thought Spain wasn't keeping his deals), and the relationship with Mexico was... rocky. I ended up with a solid but suspicious ally in Peru... and thereby hangs most of my tale.

Early on I had mentioned to Spain that I didn't think Peru had a great position. For several years on end, I had a chance to stab - but because (a) I got stubborn and wanted to "prove" Peru could be dealt with later, and (b) I didn't have another good ally, I didn't. Peru, obviously, made the draw.

My other big ploy was the fleet I sent north. I pushed it north during one of the more congenial phases in my relationship with Mexico; only I didn't inform him before the first move (NPO) because I thought he wouldn't agree. What I said then - get a fleet on the other side of Spain - I was absolutely serious about. Only, as things worked out, that fell through a bit: I was talking to Spain and Mexico but never got anything solid from Mexico: so I helped Spain with his attack, but Spain didn't really support as I was expecting, and Mexico had (naturally) had it with me by the end.

The final straw was Venezuela's attack. I don't know what he was thinking there. But I did save Greenland. Yay?

A factor in all of this was my spotty communication. asudevil's game was a huge time-suck at first and I never got back on track properly.

Re: AARs

PostPosted: 02 Sep 2015, 01:22
by JonS
Thanks to the others for their thoughtful AARs, and I look forward to reading the others. First I’ll say that I’m writing this AAR without going back and extensively re-reading message traffic, so apologies for anything I misrepresent or forget - please feel free to correct me.

Before I walk through the game itself – some comments on the variant.

North of the isthmus, I think this is a heck of a game – interesting balance, different alliance opportunities, fun map. I had a great time. South America, I have to admit, I didn’t pay close attention to. I kept peace on land with Colombia (until I didn’t), kept peace at sea with Peru, and beyond that basically ignored the southern continent completely and focused on the northern half of the map. (In fact I ignored it so much I was a bit shocked and alarmed late in the game to suddenly realize Peru had the ability to sweep the entire continent). So I would love to get the views of some of the South American players.

From my very disengaged perspective – that would be where I’d be concerned about game balance. Because boy, it looks like a bloodbath down there! But I haven’t played enough to tell if any particular positions/nations are stronger or weaker than others, or if it’s just an evenly balanced but deeply competitive environment. Peru and Ven ended up as the strongest standing after the melee – was that because their positions were stronger, or they just played a heck of a game? If it’s an evenly balanced bloodbath – then that’s awesome. But if a few countries are just inherently weak, that could be a concern.

So overall – I love this map, but would be curious to hear more South American perspectives.

Now, to the game.

This was the very rare game in which my pre-S01 strategy/game plan played out basically exactly how I had wanted it to. There were hiccups, there were surprises, but my “how should I play Mexico” brainstorm back when this game started months and months and months ago is pretty much exactly how things unfolded. This never happens! And may never happen again! But I’m going to pretend it was good planning rather than good luck. :)

My view as Mexico – for early expansion, I could dive into the fight for the Caribbean, try to rush south, or rush north into the North American West. From the moment I looked at the board, the final option was my clear preference. The Caribbean seemed very crowded with two excellent players (Alman/Pedros) already clearly invested in the fight. Pushing south was also crowded and also slow going. But the American west! Ah, the west. SCs just sitting there for the taking! I feel like with this board, if one player (USA or Mexico) can get early undisputed control of the western half of North America, that player is all but guaranteed to become a dominant power in the game. I figured if I could avoid being attacked from the south or from the Caribbean long enough to grab the western US SCs, I would be a big enough power that worst case I’d be able to get a seat in the draw, and best case maybe I could take the rest of North America and work towards a solo. The latter ambitious plan never came to the fruition, but the former was the story of the game for me.

So having decided I wanted to rush into the American west, I wanted two things diplomatically to help ensure my success: 1. Absolute peace and trust with the dominant Caribbean power, which I suspected would be Pedros, and 2. Chaos and warfare in the eastern half of North America, so that everyone there would be too busy fighting to worry about competing with me for the western SCs. The short summary of my game is that both of those things came true.

Going into S01, I was quick to establish peace with Colombia on the isthmus – I had no interest in squabbling over exactly where the border between us stood, at least until after I had concluded my plan of expansion north and west. I immediately sought a solid and authentic peace with Spain, and tried to make clear that I would never seek a presence in the Caribbean – my interests were purely continental. Fortunately, I came to an understanding with Pedros that grew into what was my bedrock alliance of the game. With USA and Britain, I tried to establish friendly but frankly inauthentic relationships, mostly to keep them from working against me, and having backup friendly relations I could lean into should Spain’s friendship prove false. Over the early years at it became clear Pedros valued our arrangement as much as I did, I allowed my communications with Britain and USA to go stale. Spain’s desire to push hard into North America worked perfectly for me – it allowed me to completely control the western US.

Now, an aside. Nanook raises an interesting point…for whatever reason, I think every game we’ve played together, we’ve ended up enemies, or at least certainly not friends. We get along great outside of games, but in game, we’ve never, ever been on the same side over the course of the game. So your comment makes me think I need to be more open minded and trusting in my games with you, and evaluate what bias I bring to the battlefield. I’ve spent some time today thinking about it and I think that, in my head, I classify you as a player more likely to deceive frequently, rather than as the exception. In other words, you are a player I assume to be lying, rather than assume to be honest. I’m growing into more and more of a Carebear the longer I play, and so tend to pull away from players I don’t trust. But that is not at all a fair characterization! You have had strong relationships and allies in many of your games, and in fact as a veteran volunteer in a mentor game I ran, you explicitly warned beginners against exactly that – lying excessively. And besides that, I spend plenty of time every game lying to people. I’m certainly no saint. So it’s an interesting point. I think in this game I had decided that if friendship with Spain could be formed, I would write off the USA no matter what – I saw the US as the clearest competitor for SCs in the American west. But looking back on the game, I’d be lying if I said if I wasn’t more inclined to trust, say, Alman than you. But I promise that I’ll check my bias at the door next time we meet in a game.

Or that entire paragraph is an elaborate ruse to set you up next game, and I’ll stab you that much more effectively. :)

Anyway – back to the narrative.

Once North America west of the Rockies was completely and safely Mexican, I faced a bit of a quandary as to where to focus my growth in the mid-game. At this point, I decided to start moving south against Colombia. I thought I had a stronger position, and hoped he would collapse quickly. Additionally, I felt confident Spain was my ally, whereas Colombia and I hadn’t communicated much beyond the occasional message over shared territories. This first mid-game effort against him failed completely, as it coincided with a (thank god) short lived stab from Spain. I was able to repair relations with Spain quickly, but lost momentum completely against Colombia. The stab from Spain was also a useful wake-up call…the middle of this game coincided with the birth of my daughter in early June, and I was in emergency survival mode with any of my playdip commitments, going quasi-gunboat and just trying to avoid NMRs. But as a result, in Spain’s eyes, I had gone from being a communicative, proactive, thoughtful partner to a quiet, surly, mysterious and increasingly powerful question mark on his western border. And my silent building of anti-Colombian fleets looked an awful lot like me abandoning my commitment to stay out of the Caribbean – a suspicion reinforced by my lack of communication. In the end, the one year Spain attack helped me, as it forced me to re-engage with the game, and focus on patching things up with Pedros. While my communication continued to fluctuate over the rest of the game, I think that our relationship remained solid through to the end.

So – on to the end game. There was a point (maybe a month ago) where it became clear there were four dominant powers that would be left standing – Spain and I in the north, Peru and Ven in the south. At this point, I did not think I stood a valid chance at a solo. It would require winning a war against Spain, and we looked far too evenly matched for that to take place. And besides – the only reason I would attack Spain would be if I were going for a solo. The moment that was publicly clear, Peru could attack by sea and tear me open from the southwest. In fact, the most serious solo risk appeared to be Peru, who was on the road to sweep South America without Spain or me (or at least me!) even noticing. From our perspective in the north, it made sense to engage Peru to form an alliance, open communication, and eliminate Ven. By eliminating Ven quickly, we moved the game towards a resolution, but also prevented any chance of Peru running away with a solo. All credit to Pedros for organizing the three way alliance that coordinated the end game. Once that three-way message chain started rolling, the end of the game was all but assured. I did absolutely nothing to help smash Ven – instead just stocked up a bunch of Colombian SCs in case Peru broke for the solo and I needed to swing South to try and stop him. But that proved unnecessary in the end, and here we are.

Overall, this was a really, really fun game for me. Particularly as this was my first PbF experience, I had such a good time. I wanted to play Mexico, and was very happy that my general plan for Mexico played out. The anchor of my game was absolutely the alliance with Spain. While I made halfhearted attempts from time to time with other players to suggest I feared Spain’s growth and wanted to coordinate a move against him, I never really entertained betraying Pedros. A friendly power in the Caribbean is what allowed me to grow to the size I attained, and from then on out, turning against him never made sense at any particular point. I think that if I had maintained a higher level of communication in this game, I could have found a path to at least try for a solo. Maybe a close partnership with Ven to attack Spain, and then eventually a purely Mexican North America. My low level of communication in the middle months of this game ended, I think, any chance of the solo. But in the end, I had a lot of fun, it was a great game, and I made it to the winning draw, so I have no complaints.

Final comment – 10 player game, no surrenders. That’s awesome. Thanks gang.

Re: AARs

PostPosted: 02 Sep 2015, 02:59
by Nanook
JonS wrote:Now, an aside. Nanook raises an interesting point…for whatever reason, I think every game we’ve played together, we’ve ended up enemies, or at least certainly not friends. We get along great outside of games, but in game, we’ve never, ever been on the same side over the course of the game. So your comment makes me think I need to be more open minded and trusting in my games with you, and evaluate what bias I bring to the battlefield. I’ve spent some time today thinking about it and I think that, in my head, I classify you as a player more likely to deceive frequently, rather than as the exception. In other words, you are a player I assume to be lying, rather than assume to be honest. I’m growing into more and more of a Carebear the longer I play, and so tend to pull away from players I don’t trust. But that is not at all a fair characterization! You have had strong relationships and allies in many of your games, and in fact as a veteran volunteer in a mentor game I ran, you explicitly warned beginners against exactly that – lying excessively. And besides that, I spend plenty of time every game lying to people. I’m certainly no saint. So it’s an interesting point. I think in this game I had decided that if friendship with Spain could be formed, I would write off the USA no matter what – I saw the US as the clearest competitor for SCs in the American west. But looking back on the game, I’d be lying if I said if I wasn’t more inclined to trust, say, Alman than you. But I promise that I’ll check my bias at the door next time we meet in a game.

Or that entire paragraph is an elaborate ruse to set you up next game, and I’ll stab you that much more effectively. :)

There was the very first game we played together, a live game as Turkey (me) and Russia (you). Maybe the only time I've ever stuck with a juggernaut, actually! We ended up in a three way draw with Alman's France, as I recall. Beyond that though, not much in game success together.

I do deceive frequently, that's a fair characterization. The key is WHO I'm deceiving. My general approach is to find one ally, sometimes two, that I don't lie or deceive, while everyone else I don't necessarily lie my ass off to, but I have no hesitation in lying to if I need to. I'm looking for a partner in crime, basically. And with that one or two players, my belly has a rainbow over it and all I talk about is the value of sharing. So I wouldn't say I'm a carebear, and if my partner ends up being unreliable or I'm doing all the work in the alliance then I'm not above trying for a solo, but I would say in general I'm a very draw-oriented player.

Maybe next time we play together we'll go in with a stronger understanding of where the other is coming from.

or maybe I'll finally get you before you get me.... :twisted:

Re: AARs

PostPosted: 02 Sep 2015, 03:13
by JonS
nanooktheeskimo wrote:There was the very first game we played together, a live game as Turkey (me) and Russia (you). Maybe the only time I've ever stuck with a juggernaut, actually! We ended up in a three way draw with Alman's France, as I recall.


YESSSSSSS the live game! That was so much fun!! Didn't I have a Russian army in Venice in like - 1903 or something insane? That was great.

As I recall, Alman spent the whole game trying to get you to stab me, and you never did. Alman, that snake....

Re: AARs

PostPosted: 02 Sep 2015, 04:05
by Nanook
JonS wrote:
nanooktheeskimo wrote:There was the very first game we played together, a live game as Turkey (me) and Russia (you). Maybe the only time I've ever stuck with a juggernaut, actually! We ended up in a three way draw with Alman's France, as I recall.


YESSSSSSS the live game! That was so much fun!! Didn't I have a Russian army in Venice in like - 1903 or something insane? That was great.

As I recall, Alman spent the whole game trying to get you to stab me, and you never did. Alman, that snake....

Sounds about right! That was a fun game....and yeah, Alman tried to get me to stab for most of the game....as did Dax...as did Lukan...

That was a ton of fun. Lots of good players in that game. We should do it again sometime! (or say we will and be too lazy to :D )

Re: AARs

PostPosted: 02 Sep 2015, 04:29
by Alman
You young guys have such better memories than I do. I had to go hunt down that game and I only dimly remember it. :) I want to echo JonS' comments though about allying with you Nanook. I have been thinking about this since you messaged me about it. I think JonS has correctly diagnosed it. A feeling that I'm going to get fooled if I try to ally with you. I've always been quite a bit of a carebear. Been trying to change that but not succeeding very well. I'm hopeful that at some point we'll get a good alliance going one of these times. :)

Re: AARs

PostPosted: 02 Sep 2015, 04:43
by Nanook
Alman wrote:You young guys have such better memories than I do. I had to go hunt down that game and I only dimly remember it. :) I want to echo JonS' comments though about allying with you Nanook. I have been thinking about this since you messaged me about it. I think JonS has correctly diagnosed it. A feeling that I'm going to get fooled if I try to ally with you. I've always been quite a bit of a carebear. Been trying to change that but not succeeding very well. I'm hopeful that at some point we'll get a good alliance going one of these times. :)

Seems to be a common theme...I'll have to take a close look at it and see where I can do better. My usual goals and my results are much more slanted towards the carebear side of things (and I have no shame in admitting that, by the by), but I think the way I get there can sometimes give people the impression that I'm playing for a solo. I lie, and sometimes I lie frequently, to all but one or two players--the thing is though, it's probably hard for that person to trust me sometimes, when they see the lying I'm doing elsewhere. It's a weakness in my game that I'm still working on ironing out, and it came back to bite me this time I think.