PDL 1. Round 1 Game 3. AAR

After game reports for PlaDip Diplomacy League games

Moderator: mjparrett

PDL 1. Round 1 Game 3. AAR

Postby mjparrett » 21 Mar 2018, 20:58

Fat bottomed girls you make the rocking world go round...

England (bindlestiff)
France (jimbobicus) 3 WAY DRAW
Italy (BlunderCity)
Germany (mjparrett) 3 WAY DRAW
Austria (Totaldo)
Turkey (PJL but really GruGloG)
Russia (greggybear) 3 WAY DRAW

Our final round 1 game is done. Congratulations to one devilishly handsome guy, and two other randoms on playing out, quite frankly, a very stressful 3 way draw.

Notable for a few things. PJL had a huff at being stabbed (might be slightly harsh but that's how I see it. Interesting to see his view) and quit the league. But didn't want a surrender against his profile and instead GruGloG was subbed in (many thanks), and will take over PJL's position in the league.

Anyone that wants to take the 4 or 5 hours needed to read through the PP will realise this wasn't the most harmonious of games. Hopefully handshakes all round now, but I imagine that most people have had their fill and the thought of hashing in through all over again in the AAR doesn't appeal! It certainly doesn't for me, although when I have recovered in a few days I'll try and post a few thoughts.

If anyone wants to re-live it, please post your AAR here! I'll update the tables when I get a chance. Greggy (knew it was you), you get to see your name at the top...

Peace
Mike
mjparrett
 
Posts: 381
Joined: 01 Mar 2017, 20:05
Location: Scotland
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 1436
All-game rating: 1474
Timezone: GMT

Re: PDL 1. Round 1 Game 3. AAR

Postby PJL » 21 Mar 2018, 21:45

My take on the game.

The game has really soured my view of Diplomacy in general. Don't take me wrong, I am not averse to being backstabbed now and again, that is par for the course. What I had forgotten though was how the more expert players don't play the board, they play the gamers. It then becomes a mindgame rather than a board game. Instead of looking at a strategic level of the board and see how they can position their pieces to maximise their chances of winning, they use psychological warfare to manipulate the moves of other people to maximise their chances of winning. If that is needed to become a better player, then it's not for me. I'd rather play a more casual game, even if it means surrenders and NMRs. Better that than mindgames which I really don't like.

As for the game itself, well with an Italy that never talked to me during the first turn, and Austria only sporadically, my only real option was to go with Russia, but with a secondary option of siding with Austria to take out Italy (IMO thinking that Austria would be less of an problem to deal with once Italy was eliminated, especially with Russia on side). At the start the plan seemed to go well. However where this game differed from more casual games I have played in was the fact I never really felt I was safe going into the midgame, even when I had Turkey plus Greece & Tunis. This was borne out the fact that no home centres had been taken at this point, which usually a sure sign of the midgame. So it felt that every turn I was on tender-hooks waiting for the next move to be updated, especially with all the false Spring moves everyone was playing. It didn't help that I was investing more into the game than I should have done, and therefore getting more emotionally involved. So when Russia did stab, it was the straw that broke the camel's back, especially since I felt that it was unjustified considering the effort I had made to maintain the relationship, compared to Austria's, who seemingly was rewarded with much less communication (at least that's how it seemed to me). This effectively killed any joy in the game, and to be honest DIplomacy in general. I see no point in improving myself in the game if you have to manipulate to such a large extent.

In retrospect, I should not have joined the league in the first place. For that, I apologise. However I don't regret leaving the game. In fact, had I been less involved in it, I probably would have carried on in the same vein as the replacement Turkey played, so there's no complaints from me on my replacement on that score.
User avatar
PJL
 
Posts: 88
Joined: 06 Jul 2010, 21:35
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (1237)
All-game rating: (1240)
Timezone: GMT

Re: PDL 1. Round 1 Game 3. AAR

Postby GruGloG » 21 Mar 2018, 22:18

PJL wrote: It then becomes a mindgame rather than a board game.


For me that has always been the most enjoyable part of the game, curious how different one can look at things!

Thanks for your thoughts on the game predecessor! For me this was sort of my comeback to Diplomacy as the league concept really sounded like something I would enjoy taking part of (havent played much since... 2010 or so), but to be thrown directly with all those experts in league 1 and also in one of the more mentally exhausting games I have been in was quite the ride ^^!

I will try to write up a longer account of my thoughts (even though I never really had a huuge part of the game with my starting position I really tried my hardest to be involved :D) when the dust has settled in my mind after all this bickering :P. Well played everyone and congratulations to the winners (yes, all of them!)!
GruGloG
 
Posts: 364
Joined: 11 Sep 2008, 22:08
Class: Diplomat
Standard rating: (1046)
All-game rating: (1011)
Timezone: GMT+1

Re: PDL 1. Round 1 Game 3. AAR

Postby jimbobicus » 21 Mar 2018, 23:51

Comments on players

England: You were drawn in a tough spot with me as France - as you'll see when you read the rest of my AAR. I thought you played very well in the first few years, but then made a major strategic blunder in 1904 by stabbing Germany. (Not that I'm complaining - it saved my bacon). After that you seemed to really lose interest and stop trying which I thought was a shame.

Italy: I always got on decently with you and I thought you were a bit unlucky with how Russia manipulated those in the east to attack you. You then rather let your frustrations show in public press. While I can understand your frustration, I think when you see how the game went, it was a fair strategic play by Austria and Turkey to attack you.

Austria: I thought you played a good game in the main. You were a bit quiet at the start but then came into your own around 1905. I thought you were unlucky to be stabbed by Russia in 1907 and then again by Germany in 1909, which led me to pile on too. In RFA then FGA, I thought you had two good alliances in which you'd have had realistic expectations of a 3 way draw - especially FGA.

Turkey (mark 2): You took over in a bad spot. Your initial choice of moves raised eyebrows with me at the time, but you managed to create opportunities for yourself to get back into the game, it's a shame you didn't take them. I think your biggest missed chance was 1909. If you knew that Germany was about to switch sides then you had a superb chance to realign yourself with Austria. An FAT alliance at that stage could have been very good for you. Then in Fall 1910, you should have taken Smyrna. In general, you were maybe too interested in just surviving instead of looking for opportunities to get your home SCs back and get back into the game. You just sat on 3 SCs, waiting for Russia to stab you. But I know Russia can have this mesmerising effect on people - you weren't the only one to fall under his spell.

Germany: You were drawn in a tough spot with strong characters in myself Russia either side of you. Throughout you communicated pretty well. Although we did have a few moments where I found you rather awkward (but that's probably as much my fault as it was yours). For the first 8 years I thought you played a very solid and sensible strategic game, but got unlucky in various places. At the start, England's decision to ally with Russia instead of you was a tough break which could have gone either way. Then you were very unlucky to be stabbed by England in 1904. Then a bit unlucky again in 1906 - though possibly you neglected your Austrian relations diplomatically a bit to lead to that? However I think you then had a few bad years of strategic errors. To stab me and Austria in 1909, when you were part of a good A/F/G alliance showed a lack of strategic understanding (see analysis in 1909 comments - you should have been able to recognise that an FGR ending, being trapped between Russia and myself was bad for you. You then missed a chance in 1911 to correct your mistake. Then after Russia's inevitable stab in 1911, you found yourself in a tough spot and fought well to get a draw. Although based on the board position, it was a lucky escape.

Russia: In short we drove each of other mad! But I'll certainly remember you for some time to come - you have an amazing skill to manipulate and bend people to your will. You're probably the best I've seen at that. To me the really perplexing thing was that you were still able to convince people to trust you after all the dishonest stuff you pulled - leaking messages, fabricating messages, lying, stabbing people, keeping control of other players like puppets and organising alliances which were in no way even close to fair for the people meant to be your allies. To do all this and still have people trust you is an amazing skill. If your strategic game was up to the same standards, then you'd be an awesome player, but I thought you made mistakes - or just relied too much on your ability to brainwash people.
Early on I thought we got on pretty well, but then you stabbed me setting E/G against me for no good reason - a move that could have backfired on us both. Luckily for me, you managed to brainwash England into a very unwise stab on Germany in 1905 which saved me. But from that point on, I was very suspicious of you. It set up the position in 1905 where you're almost twice as powerful as me and then you complain when I have to be selfish for a while until I get back to your size. You then repeated this trick at the end. You seem to have this bizarre belief that you need to be comfortably the largest player all the time and are not interested in fair and balanced alliances. Possibly in some games, you might be able to use your skills of lying and manipulation to solo while everybody else is nowhere as you tried here. But in games with good players, you shouldn't get solos that way. If you're the only one near a solo, it's then too easy for other players to realise they need to stop you, while nobody will want to ally with you and work towards a 2 way unless you offer them a fair deal.

France (me): Moves-wise I don't think I made any obvious mistakes. Although it's a tough one. There were times when I knew what the best move was board-wise but I wasn't sure whether to do it, because of my suspicions of Russia and his ability to brainwash people. But my diplomatic skills were lacking at times as I allowed Russia's antics to get under my skin more than I should have. As a result, I made myself not all that likeable. In response to Russia's blatant dishonesty I also went in the polar opposite direction, of being perhaps too truthful with people when the odd white lie may have been more effective - for example with the draw proposals - it's anonymous so I could just lie and claim to have accepted.

When I have time, I'll give some year by year analysis
Last edited by jimbobicus on 22 Mar 2018, 00:23, edited 1 time in total.
"A friend to all is a friend to none" - Aristotle
jimbobicus
 
Posts: 575
Joined: 03 Apr 2009, 19:30
Location: Coventry, UK
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1742)
All-game rating: (1662)
Timezone: GMT

Re: PDL 1. Round 1 Game 3. AAR

Postby greggybear » 22 Mar 2018, 00:13

I don't think I have a lot to say here, but I thought I'd at least drop in for a quick note. First I want to thank everyone for what was a pretty exciting game overall. I'll agree it turned into a bit of a slog at the end, but it was a lot of fun until it got there and the mix of personalities was quite enjoyable.

PJL, thanks for dropping in and giving your thoughts, and also thanks for realizing that the game would be better off if you departed it. Gru, thanks for coming in and rescuing the game and playing it all the way through from a terrible position. I look forward to seeing how you do in the rest of the league games with the "benefit" of a normal starting position.

Jimbo, thanks for the critique. I like talking, I like devising plans, and I think I'm pretty dreadful at the tactical side of the game. I'm still learning, though, and I tried a lot of things in this game I normally wouldn't. They didn't all work (maybe none of them did?), but I tried them and I got to see what happened. You drove me nuts, but you never gave up, never walked away, and you were always available with a thorough response to anything I said. There's absolutely something to be said for that. I'm always open to listen to criticism and to attempt to become a better player!

Mike... thank you for the league. I know it's caused you a ton of frustrations, but you've given me and MANY other people a lot of fun. Thank you also for this game. I think we probably stabbed each other 3-4 times each in this one, starting with you hitting me in 1901. Through it all, you were a joy to communicate with, you talked me through some rough spots in and out of the game, and I feel absolutely lucky to have played with you and interacted with you so very much. Keep up the good work.

To everyone else - thanks for a great game! Most of you deserved better than you got!
greggybear
 
Posts: 88
Joined: 09 Oct 2016, 04:15
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1568)
All-game rating: (1594)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: PDL 1. Round 1 Game 3. AAR

Postby jimbobicus » 22 Mar 2018, 00:44

greggybear wrote:Jimbo, thanks for the critique. I like talking, I like devising plans, and I think I'm pretty dreadful at the tactical side of the game. I'm still learning, though, and I tried a lot of things in this game I normally wouldn't. They didn't all work (maybe none of them did?), but I tried them and I got to see what happened. You drove me nuts, but you never gave up, never walked away, and you were always available with a thorough response to anything I said. There's absolutely something to be said for that. I'm always open to listen to criticism and to attempt to become a better player!


Board-wise I thought it was a shame the game ended when it did because I was finally about to get myself close to level terms with you again and in a position where a 2 way with you could have been a real prospect. But it was just such hard work getting there with you resisting every step of the way, that I didn't think it was worth the effort in the end. Which as I say, is a shame from my perspective. I like games to go the distance instead of fizzle out into tame 3 ways.

I think the 2 biggest tips I'd give you are:

1. Be a better ally to your allies - you obviously don't want your allies to be more powerful than you. But you also need to offer them a fair deal too. If you'd have offered me a fair deal, we could have worked together and got pretty close to a 2 way draw. Instead of 3 way draw I was prepared to take a gamble where there is:
1/3 probability of 2 way draw
1/3 prob you solo
1/3 prob opponent solos.
But I don't think you were - either that or you had a very odd reading of the board. To me it's a shame and a missed opportunity. If we could have found a way to work together based on the probabilities above we'd have each got an expected value of 20 league points instead of 10. But also I guess you were quite risk averse and really wanted to ensure you didn't leave the game empty-handed?

2. I'd say dial back the tricks a bit - try to only be as dishonest as you need to be. If you do too much dishonest stuff, people will figure you out and stop trusting you. Well, I say that, but in this game, it didn't work that way. So maybe I'm wrong?!

But as I say, you have an amazing ability to influence people. The number of times you managed to persuade people to unwise things was staggering. If harnessed properly that's extremely powerful.
"A friend to all is a friend to none" - Aristotle
jimbobicus
 
Posts: 575
Joined: 03 Apr 2009, 19:30
Location: Coventry, UK
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1742)
All-game rating: (1662)
Timezone: GMT

Re: PDL 1. Round 1 Game 3. AAR

Postby mjparrett » 22 Mar 2018, 01:27

I'll give some quick thoughts then, seeing how people are turning up.

PJL - thanks for showing your face and giving your side of things. Sorry that's it not been enjoyable for you. Again, GruGloG, thanks for stepping in and keeping the game balanced.

I actually played a fairly dreadful game imo. I struggle much more with the central powers. I like talking, but I get a little caught in what I want to achieve and end up doing nothing. I switched sides in this game more than I ever have, and I'm a little annoyed about it. I probably shouldn't have gone after Russia in 1901 and stuck with the SeaLion. Then I shifted back and forth with France a few times. My stabbing of Austria probably was a mistake, although borne out of frustration that 1 - his stab of me was a mistake, and 2 - he didn't communicate much with me apart from one brief period.

Italy also didn't talk much to me. Not sure if I annoyed him. But as Germany I really like a central triple idea. A/G/I should all be friends. Italy went off the boil straight away and hit Austria. I probably should have kept to my word and helped Austria. but had got caught up in my trick Russia plan that I didn't. Austria and I never quite recovered.

But France and Russia.... two very different characters. Russia, a joy to talk with and play with. We had a lot of stabs, but some funny chat. A pleasure. Agree with some of France's points about helping your allies more. I don't mind the lies and trickery (part of the game), but you did it SO much that I lost a lot of trust for you very early.

France - seeing as you are handing out the advice I'll give you some back :) Like original Turkey you seem to not enjoy the lies and deceit. It's just part of the game. CareBearism and Kingmaking are both valid aspects to the game whether you agree with them or not. And a lot of this game relies on being liked, and (I know this is obvious) good diplomacy. Your manner didn't come across well in a lot of messages, and it put me off "just playing the board" and working with you. I echo Russia that you were always there, always talked, and were a very solid player. But I think you need to work on your bedside manner. You don't have to lie and forward messages, but you need not preach so much against it. Imo if I have a choice of two allies; one is strategically slightly better but the other is "more my sort of person", I will go with the latter. And that is what caused me to shy away from working with you.

I won't do a blow by blow yearly account as it would take too long and I'm not very good at that stuff. So I'll probably leave this here.

Greggy - thanks for the words on the league. It IS an arse to manage with people dropping out and I don't know how long it will last. But I'm glad some people are enjoying it!
mjparrett
 
Posts: 381
Joined: 01 Mar 2017, 20:05
Location: Scotland
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 1436
All-game rating: 1474
Timezone: GMT

Re: PDL 1. Round 1 Game 3. AAR

Postby jimbobicus » 22 Mar 2018, 10:00

Mike:
1901-1908, I thought you played sensible moves. Maybe you think you could have done more diplomatically - I don't know. But I couldn't see any obvious strategic blunders. I think 1901 with your abandonment of RFG in favour of England wasn't necessarily a blunder as long as you got your diplomacy with England right. But you got beaten by Russia on that one. As I said I thought you got unlucky in one or two players but generally your switching was due to events pulling you one way or other. So I think you're being a bit hard on yourself there ;)

Although stab on me and Austria in 1909 was just bad play. Maybe you didn't have the best relations with Austria, but you need to put things like that to one side and just play the board sometimes. Austria could be relied upon to fight Russia. You needed one of Russia and France gone at that stage and you weren't going to eliminate me. So allying with Russia at that stage when you could have taken him down was just bad for you. I know Russia gave you Sweden and Norway as incentive - and together with Russia's diplo skills, maybe it's an incentive a lot of people would have found hard to turn down. But this was very much your big mistake. You had a great situation at end of 1908 and we were heading towards a 3 way FGA draw, where if I had wanted to then try a 2 way with someone, it was more likely to be you than Austria. You had Austria as a reliable opponent to Russia. Strictly, board-wise you could have had justified fears of me allying with Russia. But I'd be surprised if that's why you did it given the diplo at the time? This came at a time when I had discovered the full scale of Russia's dishonesty and just wanted to see him go down. I also made my feelings here very well known.

On my "bedside manner" as you put it - yes that's a fair criticism. It's generally the weak spot of my game and here I let Russia's dishonesty get under my skin a bit which turned me into a bit of an ass. I think what I was saying in my messages at the time was true but I needed to find better ways to put my points across.

On lies and deceit being part of the game - yes and no. Sure people are free to lie, manipulate, leak etc as much as they like. However human rationality should suggest that it be bad idea...
I'd regard myself as a top player - check my stats if you like. I've also played other games with top players who play pretty honestly - certainly far more honestly than Russia and more honestly than you too. Of course, we don't just do this out of the goodness of our heart. The reason is because being seen as trustworthy is important - the fact that certain players can be relied on to act honestly most of the time is something that should give you security as an ally of that player. Logically if a player has two options on the board which are equally good based on board position - ally with A or ally with B then you should choose the player who is more trustworthy.
If I really wanted to, I could lie, spread mis-information and do the other dark arts as well as anyone. In fact when I first started to play, I was a real shit! But I don't do that any more. In fact I put in quite a lot of effort thinking about the tradeoff between short term advantage from dishonesty and cost due to loss of reputation - and as a result only lie very rarely.

This is another part of what was so perplexing about your 1909 stab, you seemed to treat it as a popularity contest and ally with the person who you liked better and had a more similar philosophy to yourself. Even though you knew how dishonest he was and that you'd never get a fair and equal alliance with him. Even if you don't share my philosophy, you should have been able to see that it made me a far safer person to ally with than somebody who will bring out every dirty trick in the bag and be constantly plotting against you even when allied because he can't bear anyone else to be even close to his size.

Also an interesting question... We have played before. I don't know if you knew who I was or when you discovered that - and whether that affected your decision-making at all?
For others benefit, we played in a previous game where I soloed due to striking a 2 way alliance with another player who didn't have the same board reading skills as myself and so showed me too much trust - allowing me to stab at the end. (As a sidenote, I played a very honest game there too and soloed. So you don't need dishonesty. I just found an alliance where the long term effects were good for me and when my ally failed to negotiate enough compensation for himself, I pulled the trigger. But until the final stab, there was no lying, scheming, message leaking etc..)
"A friend to all is a friend to none" - Aristotle
jimbobicus
 
Posts: 575
Joined: 03 Apr 2009, 19:30
Location: Coventry, UK
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1742)
All-game rating: (1662)
Timezone: GMT

Re: PDL 1. Round 1 Game 3. AAR

Postby GruGloG » 22 Mar 2018, 11:00

Jesus it never stops does it :P.

I will give my two cents on this once, and a slightly more detailed account on the game.

jimbo: I sincerly disagree that the one and only optimal approach to diplomacy is to play "an honest" game, I´ve played in the past with enough "top players" who lied, leaked, fabricated constantly and still managed to get out on top almost every time. One could of course have different opinions in how one plays the game, but you kind of come over as you are saying "my way is good, you are all stupid to think something else". Playing the board is good and all, but for me what makes diplomacy so fun is the element of psychology and human nature, otherwise I would go play chess. I am in no means a top player, but without the lying, deceit, fake plans and blatant stabs diplomacy would lose all the fun for me.
Which brings us to the matter on bedside manner (I mean we are all handing out tips right), I think you could benefit a bit from toning down this "holier than thou" - thing you had going, some people WILL be less inclined to co-operate with someone if they feel that they are getting condescended the entire time. I am 100% you always mean it well, but it came across wildly arrogant at times which I am assuming was not a conscious tactic ^^? You clearly have superior tactical skills, but I second mikes opinion that you could benefit from a little bit more Russia in your play ;)!


Short thoughts on the game:

I joined a Turkey in disarray and immediately started trying rallying everyone and their mother together for an anti-Russia campaign. The response I got was... underwhelming :P. Italy was more interested in pointing out that I should work with him to keep him from taking Tunis, Germany considered Russia no threat and cherished their relation, and Austria at least seemed a bit interested but we really never got anything going. So I felt my only option that wouldn´t lead to my swift demise was to accept Russias lovely deal of using my ships to stop Italy/France from expanding too fast, in exchange for not dying. I half-lied in order to bounce Russia out of CON the first turn because I wanted to keep at least 1 home SC to at least have the illusion of a comeback still alive, and luckily he decided he would rather have me happy and helping than waste an extra turn on taking it.

After this the entire game was a long and slow struggle to get me into a position to eventually attack the eastern bear and get my home SCs back. I overlooked at least 1 brilliant opportunity to do so, which clearly was an error from my part, and eventually after years and years of lies and bickering and all kinds of crap (I´ll spare the details) I felt that I should have pity on everyone and just go along with the 3-way in order to be able to move on (also of course I was almost dead).

Very interesting comeback to this glorious game, and one could for sure feel the level of almost all of the players involved!´



Yes, the bear lied and lied and lied and one was never sure what to expect, but I enjoy playing that game as well when I can thus I can´t really see how anyone can take offence from that. Was very enjoyable to communicate with as well!

Jimbo was always up for talking and provided very good tactical insights and responses to everything, clearly is a very very dangerous player! No hard feelings I hope for my argumentation here on top <3.

Mrparrot once again many many thanks for this wildly enjoyable tournament concept. It has got me back into playing again which I enjoy vastly. If it gets too much for you to handle alone I am sure that there are many people willing to help you to keep this thing alive, be not afraid to ask! On a game note I think we really could have made something happen against Russia, but I guess we will never know ;).

To everyone involved in the game thank you for a very educational experience and good luck in the rest of the tournament!
GruGloG
 
Posts: 364
Joined: 11 Sep 2008, 22:08
Class: Diplomat
Standard rating: (1046)
All-game rating: (1011)
Timezone: GMT+1

Re: PDL 1. Round 1 Game 3. AAR

Postby jimbobicus » 22 Mar 2018, 11:54

GruGloG wrote:Jimbo was always up for talking and provided very good tactical insights and responses to everything, clearly is a very very dangerous player! No hard feelings I hope for my argumentation here on top <3.

Well, I wouldn't want to disappoint... ;)

I have a good record on the site including many solos so I guess I am a pretty dangerous player. Although I'm dangerous in a very different way to greggybear. I won't employ the same dirty tactics. I'll lie absolutely as little as possible. When I do lie, I actually kind of see it as an admission of defeat that I couldn't find an honest way to achieve the same goals. My edge comes from a very shrewd analysis of the board - it's interesting you should mention chess - I do play chess to quite a high level and analyse the board using many of the same skills. I'm always planning for the long term rather than just the short term.

On the honest way, being the only way to play... I wouldn't say that. However, I believe there should be a tradeoff between using dirty tricks to gain an advantage and the subsequent damage that should do to your reputation. If we accept the hypothesis that this tradeoff exists and that the marginal gain from extra deceitfulness is decreasing in the amount of deceitfulness, it suggests there should be an optimal level of deceitfulness. Although of course, working out where that optimal level is, is rather non-trivial. Personally I think it should be at quite a low level and hence my style of play.
My main objection this game weren't to Russia's deceitfulness in itself - but to the fact that nobody seemed to care and were willing to keep trusting him anyway. That really annoyed me and so I started pointing these things out which in hindsight did me no favours.

On my arrogance and lack of bedside manner, I think a lot of is a lack of empathy... I don't really engage in the soft skills and try to be chummy like Russia and Germany do, because I don't care if people do that when communicating with me. All I care about is what moves people are going to do and how that fits in with my plans. But yes I see, the soft skills can go a long way and it's something I'm trying to work on for my next game.
"A friend to all is a friend to none" - Aristotle
jimbobicus
 
Posts: 575
Joined: 03 Apr 2009, 19:30
Location: Coventry, UK
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1742)
All-game rating: (1662)
Timezone: GMT

Next

Return to PDL AARs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests