mjparrett wrote:and to clarify, if anyone wants to objectively discuss/criticise V's play in that game of course they can/should, and V should be able to take that and discuss like an adult. That isn't what is happening here though. Calling someone's ideas bullshit because you don't agree with them is childish. And that is aimed at everyone, not just Jim (who started out quite adult in his reply before getting caught up in the slanging match again!)
Mike, if you read my posts again I think that's a rather unfair characterisation. There was the sadly (what has become) normal vitriol coming my way from V, but in my posts I tried to refrain from that. I agree that it's a bad sign when your posts are just chucking insults at people or calling what they say "bullshit" without any justification. I was critical of V's play in places, especially here
To the extent that you did ever communicate about the board, what you said swiftly proved to be lies. In fact I'd go so far as to say pre-meditated lies with the intention of tricking me; rather than the "I was seriously considering allying with you, but then got offered a better deal elsewhere"-type. I'm not really sure what I'm meant to do when confronted with that?
I wrote this because that's how I saw it, but if V disagreed he'd be welcome to say so. Although his subsequent post, if anything seemed to suggest I was correct here.
Mike, does that answer you or perhaps you had a different passage in mind?
V wrote:No Jimbob, I don’t want a “civil conversation” with you, life’s too short.
You’re “personality politics” view of this game, I summarise as total Bullshit.
In S01 I agreed to a WT. All I knew then was you weren’t E or F. I didn’t care to know more.
From recall (can’t be bothered to look at the map) the “agreed” F08 moves would have put Germany secure on 8/9 SC’s (Your view of my position during the contest is irrelevant) however I got stabbed as everyone knows.
My final objective in the contest was still undetermined at all times, as is normal in Diplomacy. It’s not usually possible to predict what opportunities &/or challenges are 3/4 years ahead.
This is my last contribution to this thread. During the game you earned the title “Twat Waffle” which caused much amusement & it stuck. It’s no longer only the game participants that now see why.
Since V is no longer contributing (given this, it's just as well IMO), I'll address this to everyone else... hopefully you can see the difference between my messages and this... I'd like to think I try to argue my case instead of just chucking insults around.
But it's also a great example of what I mean by personality politics. I'll quote it again:
In S01 I agreed to a WT. All I knew then was you weren’t E or F. I didn’t care to know more.
Just think of the implications of this. When people act this way it takes all the fun out of the game. Conversely to V, I would have been prepared to ally with him or any other player on the board. At all times, I consider my options and consider which of those allies would be best for me. In doing so, I try to put aside any personal feelings I have towards the other participants. My round 1 with mjparrett and greggybear is a good example of this. I think it's fair to say the 3 of us all drove each other mad. However, we were all still prepared to work with one another when it was in our interests to do so. Especially towards the end I was a little cautious of trusting greggybear but that was due to him having lied consistently throughout the game and so having the rational expectation that he would keep lying in the future. It had nothing to do with any personal animosity towards him - indeed I don't feel any personal animosity.
To the extent that I did criticise him, I was criticising his way of playing the game - not attacking him personally.
This is very different from V's approach of "I don't like you. Therefore I will never ally with you and call everything that you say bullshit"
mjparrett wrote:IMO though Jim (and I know we disagree here), the personality politics have to come in to it. Otherwise every game would be played out the same as there are clear benefits in 1901 for certain alliances. Obviously you need to see who you like/trust/think you can manipulate the most. That is, for me, what makes this game so good and interesting. And partly why charming buggers like Pootle are so good at it. I'm not sure why you don't think that is the case.
Happy to have a theoretical discussion on all of the above, but please can we keep it polite? Any further messages I deem as just winding people up will be deleted
Ok, challenge accepted... (also good to see someone wants to have a grown up discussion on something)
So here's my position: at virtually every point of the game including 1901 there are lots of possible alliances that could form. For any one player, what they should do depends on what everyone else is doing. For simplicity if we consider just 3 players A,B and C. Then in almost all positions, what A should do depends on B and C; B on A and C; C on A and B. So the whole thing is circular. And in most positions any of the three 2v1 alliances could happen. Communication is then about trying to decipher what others are planning to do and you should look to do the best thing for you, given what you expect the others to do. Given that there are so many options about what deals you offer others and what they offer you, the game is very far from pre-determined.
So to conclude, I'm challenging the statement: "Otherwise every game would be played out the same as there are clear benefits in 1901 for certain alliances." In fact, IMO there isn't any one country in the game which has a clear best set of moves independent of what you are hearing from others. If you have any particular country in mind which you think has a clearly best 1901 strategy, I'd be interested to hear.
