Announcement

**the_orange1** · September 10, 2001, 08:50

No EOGs from anyone????? Nobody has anything to say about the game at all? Come on folks, a comment or two for your hard-working GM....

**Dr. Nick** · September 10, 2001, 09:45

I WILL SURVIVE! HEAR HEAR!

**RUFFHAUS 8** · September 13, 2001, 16:22

Okay time for my EOG for Ivory Coast. Well, while winning the game by solo victory is certainly satisfying, and I'd love to take loads of credit for brilliant strategical and diplomatic moves I'm rather afraid that I cannot. The key to this game from my end was weak play from Libya.

Napoleon started the game, and we negotiated a reasonable split of SCs and a temporary peace. Alliance seemed unlikely, but I had no other offers and wasn't ready to discard it as an option. But then he NMR's (I think on the Fall turn of the 1st year). At the same time Defiant's Saudi Arabians stabbed away a Libyan home SC. Disaster! Predictably Napoleon resigned the game, and we had a replacement on the way. Hacksaw steps in. Disaster! Hacksaw takes on the position, but has next to no interest in playing it out. I was trying to help both of them because I realized that Defiant woul roll up the Mediterranean and I'd soon be in trouble.

I began to deal with Defiant over Tunis. I knew that he'd never give it to me, and I anticipated his refusal in advance. I moved for position the year before sacrificing builds for a position that assured Tunis the following year. Still I pleaded with Defiant not to start a war over Tunis, and warned him that I would get it, and that he should just give it to me without a fight. I saw Tunis as a key point in controling the Mediterranean and my flank. I felt like the blunders of Napoleon/Hacksaw had landed enough free SCs in his lap, and that he should be reasonable with this. In return I had promised to ignore the peace I had with Zaire and South Africa and move south.

Well, we went to war for Tunis. I vowed not to lose. I didn't. Unfortunately it took a while, and forced me to commit more units than I wanted to the Mediterranean theater, allowing Iain, who stepped in for Middshipman at the helm of South Africa, the set up a basically unbreachable sea wall of fleets. I was furious, and decided that Defiant was going to pay for this.

As Zaire got raped from all sides, I stepped in and started grabbing my share. I guess he saw me takin pity on him as I zipped up my trousers and he offered me he units by proxy. I accepted and vowed to keep Zaire alive while advancing my own cause. I was proud that I was able to keep one unit on the board for Zaire, and his proxies were instrumental in stalling the South African attempts to move north on land and by sea. So I owed Zaire and Gerwald, who probably could care less, the effort to see them survive.

Ethiopia and I didn't get into thing much. I reached out a few times, but my alliance offers were rebuffed each time. Still I didn't attack him beacuse he was fighting my enemies/rivals. Eventually in the final year, I moved in on Ethiopia in the solo charge. I was glad that Hogfather survived with at least one unit too though. He was never really my target.

South Africa never dipped with me. I made offers but they were ignored each time by Iain and Middy before him. Eventually I found myself in a sea stalemate situation with South Africa, but Iwas able to equally prevent him from moving north. I had hoped to aquire Saudi assistance in attacking South Africa, but Defiant either couldn't, wouldn't or both.

I offered Defiant a draw if he would attack Iain. But he stalled and used all his units on Ethiopia. I flexed my muscle in the Mediterranean Sea, and he still balked. I'd had enough. I scrapped the draw concept and excercised my advantage in the north. Defiant was understandably annoyed that I'd taken the draw off the table, but I really felt like I offered him numerous chances to comply with the terms. He eventually did move fleets south, but only after my solo drive was unstoppable. I considered passing it up, and going for the 2-way draw, but that would have taken forever, and the idea really left a poor taste in my mouth. I figured that it would be poorly received throughout the community as well. Sorry mate.

I liked the map. And while we saw the so called central powers vitually anihilated again, I don't see this as a map flaw, but a lack of diplomacy and alliance building. Yopu can take on the board as a corner power, and even win sometimes (like this game), but without alliances a central power will get whacked nearly every time. The game is diplomacy guys. Strategy alone will not win. I won this game because I postured, lured, bullied, and then stabbed Defiant. I don't like stabbing (contrary to popular opinion), but I will do it to win a game, particularly one in which I never really felt like I had an ally.

Summary: If Saudi Arbaia had taken on South Africa earlier, I would probably have forgone my advantage in the Mediterranean and accepted a 2 way draw. But there was no way that I was going to be stalled into a positon of being forced to accept a 3-way split.

**Defiant** · September 13, 2001, 16:29

That is the biggest line of crap, (concerning Saudi) and I will respond in a bit when I collect the truth.

**Defiant** · September 13, 2001, 17:01

Saudi EOG,
This is what happened from Saudi's point of view and alot closer to the truth then the Ivory Coast's illusion of the truth.

I made immediate peace with Hoggy and told Nappy I was on his side, (which was the lie) and I attacked Nappy and it wasn't long I had him out of the game and some of it was cause he was NMR'ing, but regardless, I DID THE ATTACK, and thus the spoils should be mine, not to share with others.

When you play this game, you not only play the country and its tactics but your opponent and knowing him is as important as knowing your country. Knowing Ruff, he loves to put units on your SC borders states and call if fair, well it is if you are him. I asked for a boundary between Tunis and his SC, which there was and he could have accepted it, but no he wanted Tunis and I knew it wouldn't stop there. I also knew I couldn't keep Tunis but by taking it, it would cause him to move a quite a deal of forces to move me out and that was fine cause the other half of the plan was to have Iain hit him from the south and we would buckle him. There is no doubt that Ruff is an excellent player and he stalemated Iain which then allowed him to turn even greater units to attack me with. Now a stalemate line could have been drawn with a 3-way draw. And I don't like 3-ways as much as the next guy so when Ruff say, hey why don't you attack Iain from the south and break the stalemate and do a 50-50 draw. That is simple math and it makes sense. Here is when his fuzy math comes into being. Every time you leave an SC open to Ruff or a critical province he jumps on it and says, oh don't worry, it's only for defensive purposes. He didn't like the speed at which I was going to attack Iain, well I was also fighting another war with Hoggy at this time and just couldn't jump down and attack Iain.
I said fine, I asked is the 50-50 draw still on the table and at that time he said yes, so I fine, and I moved all my northern units and used those to attack Hoggy and started moving my fleets into attack position against Iain, and I was eliminating Hoggy quickly now with my reinforcements and I actually trusted Ruff with the 50-50 draw and was lied to. He had this planned way back when he wanted Tunis and I should have believed my instincts when I felt he was not on the level. But in previous dealings he was always on the up and up, no longer is that the case.

He obviously took advantage of easy prey, open SC's, but that was my olive branch to him for the alliance. The game would have only gone 3-4 more seasons at most, time was not an issue, the solo was, at any cost, I guess.

When you play these games, you learn and use what you know in the next game, tactics and player personna(sp). This is not cross-gaming but enhancements of your knowledge which will be used in future games.

I want to thank Orange1 for GM'ing the game and all the players.

**Dr. Nick** · September 13, 2001, 18:09

Ethiopian EOG-

After securing peace with Defiant, we wove an alliance. He would attack Nap, I would go after Zaire with Middy, the initial plan I had. Midshipman and I decided and had split Zaire and South Africa between us before the first turn was up and we began to move north. We began gaining ground. And a couple of years into the game, Middy shipped out. Oh woe is me, woe and alas.

Iain jumped in and picked up the pieces of South Africa. I tried to tell him about my alliance with Middy and he refused to listen... he ignored me all along, which is when, having all my units in the south west fighting a bitter war against Zaire and being surrounded by Saudi and Ivorian units, I realised that I was a goner. I tried to buy time by holding in the South against Iain who ignored me, and I tried to play silly with Defiant and Ruff, as in any case, I wasn't in any position to ally with any and attack the other.

At this timely time came the stab from Defiant. I was vulnerable, I thought that our alliance would hold. I trusted him, and I couldn't attack Ruff. I just guessed they both got impatient with me. All in all, I was bombed back to blighty but I managed to hold and reorganise while Defiant attacked me. At this point, I talked to Ruff and told him I would aid him in any way possible.

After a while, Ruff told me he was going to the solo and I told him I would give him my scs in exchange for survival. He said he didn't need them. As the Coptic priests prayed for deliverance for the situation in which Ethiopia remained alone, I bade my time and hoped to survive. Which surprisingly, I did.

*bleeds profusely*

**RUFFHAUS 8** · September 14, 2001, 09:03

Defiant, please remind me of what the objective of the game is.... Shall I break out the line where you told me "there can be only one?" I've offered a perspective of the game from my point of view. You are welcome to disagree with that point of view. I very much disagree with yours and your analysis of my tactics.

You got greedy. You can rationalize the NMRs awy all you want. The fact is that alliances and parnerships must work for both people. When they stop doing that, they break down. We never had an alliance in this game. We did have and agreement. I intended to comply with it until I fetl like you were not. Iwarned you on several occasions. You have my apologies for carrying on the deception that the agreement would hold. A solo was attainable, and I went for it. Had our relationship been an alliance, or if the terms of our agreement had been met, things would have been different. You are free to believe that or not. I think I've accepted enough draws in the past to prove that point.

**Defiant** · September 14, 2001, 09:25

Ruff you can believe what you want but there was an alliance in place and the only thing that you could use as an excuse was, "you weren't doing it fast enough", that is no excuse. Time is not of the essence in this game and never did I break the alliance, I was working on getting to Iain through Hoggy. Remember I took on two nations you didn't take on anyone except me, you stalemated Iain but you did not take over any countries, regardless of NMR's. You had no intention of drawing with anyone when you said for the 50-50 draw.
Show me one move where I broke the "so called" alliance, look hard cause you won't find any. So don't use the excuse I broke the alliance or wasn't moving fast enough, stand up and just say I broke my word and lied. That will get you alot more credit then playing Democratic blame games.

And I am well aware of the goals of the game but in these games draws are a common part and there can be only one when a GM says there has to be only one as in Hake.

**RUFFHAUS 8** · September 14, 2001, 10:01

Defiant - I posted my EOG, which contained my take on the game. If you have a different view, great! Post it. But your EOG should not be a sniping retort to my EOG. If that's what's going to happen, I'm not going to post EOG comments anymore, certainly nothing as forthcoming.

As for our debate I still maintain that there was no alliance. We had a deal. Not an alliance. There's a difference. In your last reply you back my point up. You refer to it as "so called." Exactly.

Time is exactly the essence. Iain is an excellent defensive player. He can build a stalemate line with the best of them. Look at Alien Dip. And look what he has done in Domination Dip with Colombia. Sorry Defiant. Time was everything in this one. I offered the draw, and you passed up your chance at it.

I'm not saying that I didn't back out of the deal we had. I did. I'm not saying that I didn't back out of it unilaterally without telling you. I did. But I did NOT lie to you. The 2-draw was a legitimate offer.

Make no mistake. The ojective of all games I play is to solo. When I cannot win, I look to draw with as few players as possible, getting as large as I possibly can in the process. Topping the board in any a draw is somewhat satisfying, but short of true victory. Failing to find inclusion in a draw makes survival a primary goal. Survival on the winning side can be gratifying as well. When survival isn't possible, one seeks motivation like kingmaker and suicide moves. Preventing a solo against me is always at the formost of my objectives, but even that gets discarded at times based on game dynamics.

**Defiant** · September 14, 2001, 10:52

I am not attacking your EOG only the part about Saudi which is wrong and wheter you call it a deal or alliance is semantics. Time, which seems to be your issue was not of the essence, Iain could not have withstood two mutual attacks and the two mutual attacks by all definitions is an alliance.

I am not going to engage anymore in a pissing fight.
You won, congrats, but don't say I wasn't moving fast enough or I was breaking the deal, just tell the truth that we had a deal, alliance, whatever, and you went back on your word, broke the deal cause a solo was at your mindset from the beginning.

Enough said

**RUFFHAUS 8** · September 14, 2001, 11:37

Bahhhhhhhhhhhh

Announcement

Dip 53: African Diplomacy Ends

Dip 53: African Diplomacy Ends

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment