User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
For wholesale prices on baseball gifts and equipment, check these stores out! |
Page rendered in 0.5275 seconds
50 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
ETA: Flip post!
Game 1 ("BTF Diplomacy Take 2")
http://www.playdiplomacy.com/game_play_details.php?game_id=48277
Austria: Arnett Mead
England: RTsquared (John R)
France: KaiserBrown (scott)
Germany: Petunia
Italy: Adward
Russia: Shooty
Turkey: GregK
Game 2 ("BTF Diplomacy #3")
http://www.playdiplomacy.com/game_play_details.php?game_id=48112
Austria: Juneyell
England: jigokumimi
France: whitebg
Germany: Gaelan
Italy: alansternberg
Russia: Snapper
Turkey: McCoy
Game 3 ("BTF Diplomacy III")
http://www.playdiplomacy.com/game_play_details.php?game_id=48321
Austria: RTsquared
England: Langer Monk
France: KaiserBrown
Germany: Shooty
Italy: McCoy
Russia: Chris P
Turkey: Snapper
Game 4 ("BTF Diplomacy IV")
http://www.playdiplomacy.com/game_play_details.php?game_id=48769
LangerMonk - not confirmed
Snapper - not confirmed
jigokumimi - not confirmed
ArnettMead - not confirmed
McCoy - confirmed
Petunia - confirmed
RTsquared - confirmed
Power assignments to be determined.
Looks like I forgot that I sent RT the password when I was doing the counting. Sorry, Gaelan
I know I should go for the solo. I just don't have the heart. That's what I meant about killing a loyal puppy. Austria has done everything I told him the whole game. Taking the victory from him would upset him more than it would give me joy.
That said, England just sent me a message and insisted I go for the solo. So maybe, I will.
Foiled.
Sounds like England is ticked at somebody in the game.
He was neutered early but I've been corresponding with him all along, encouraging him to fight and hold on against my enemies. So now he thinks I deserve it (and I do). That's why England has been rejecting the draws. I didn't even have to convince him. It was an unspoken agreement. The problem is that now that we are at the critical point I'm not cold blooded enough. Who knew?
I am surprised at how hard it is to actually do. It makes me feel like a liar and not a liar in the ordinary sense of the game, but an actual liar.
My ally really is like a loyal puppy. He's not even defending himself against the move. Meanwhile I've been covering my back every chance I get. I even tell him things like it's not that I don't trust you but it would be dumb not to. But he isn't getting the hint.
En
I've been watching some games where I think more experienced players have been playing and they'll just leave a border totally undefended to an ally for years and years as if it was no big thing.
Now that's probably true even if resists but so far it doesn't look like he's taking any precautions.
I am surprised at how hard it is to actually do. It makes me feel like a liar and not a liar in the ordinary sense of the game, but an actual liar.
So, take the draw.
I think that this is also wrong. Consistent honesty makes for reliable alliances over time. While this is a good thing for real life, it makes for a bad game. In this instance, I think that "doing the right thing" as we would ordinarily understand the term (keeping faith, telling the truth, etc.) destroys the spirit of the game which is not at all for people to form permanent alliances at the beginning and then use better tactics than the opposition.
Simply put, it's a better game if it is played as a series of temporary partnerships. Otherwise a strong early alliance can never be defeated once it reaches a certain point of midgame. Everything after that becomes a denouement. That's why DIAS is an important rule. If that was the rule then my ally would have had no choice but to try and attack me earlier before I became too strong because if our alliance conquered the whole board that would mean that I would get to 18 centers first.
In any event, the draw was proposed and I accepted. However, I also entered moves that improved my attacking position for next year, as well as a small quick stab. So if the draw is not accepted by the other players in the next three hours, I'll likely win the game in the next year.
I settled it in my mind, that he could defend himself without attacking me if he chooses. In fact, my own attacks could be interpreted in this way. Furthermore if he were to convince the third power to attack me, my position would be less unassailable than it is. Finally, the forums keep talking about the rare solo victory. I figure I should get one while I have the chance.
Forza!
This makes me think Langer Monk is winning already.
Anyway: I'm Austria! Looking forward to, um, Austrian-izing the HECK out of this game!
Hey now, I'm just being polite and humble and invisible down here. No need to concern yourself. These are not the droids.
You can't get rid of me :-)
And I'm Turkey in the new game. Guess that means my goose is cooked...
I did what?!
Oh...you mean Game 3, not Game III.
I haven't - which ones do you you mean?
Game III has reached denouement, I believe.
For a few nations sure, but there is going to have to be a reorganization once those three nations are vanquished.
And there isn't much excitement, outside of perhaps guessing when England/Germany stab each other. If they wanted, they'd easily have a joint victory.
I also agree with Petunia, this is a very interesting part of the game.
You managed it!
I'm coming up on being faced with a very similar situation to yours. DIAS ranked game. I drew Austria. We demolished Turkey, Russia antagonized me continuously. France supported me to Munich then took it from me; Germany had issued mostly bizarre orders til he quit, we found a replacement for his 1-center position (Denmark!) for S05 after he was finally auto-surrendered.
France stabbed England (netting Belgium) just before the year I had decided to make Russia pay. In F05 I took 3 centers off Russia while leaving myself completely exposed to a stab from my Italian ally, who was playing both sides with me and France (which involved a fake NMR for S05). France and I were both counting on Italy's loyalty that turn, and whoever he chose would have a clear path to a solo; the other would be effectively crippled.
Italy chose to stick with me in a situation where I feel I'd have been like 60/40 to go the other way and hook up with France. Afterwards he told me that he expects us to fight together til we draw 2 ways, but that he wouldn't blame me if I went for the solo. I'm going to feel really mean if I do go for it.
Anyway, yeah. [539] describes an exciting game IMO.
Stay tuned.
Stay tuned.
If we can finish Game III soon, I'll join. But right now I'm maxed at 3 games.
Well, I died...but in a different game than I anticipated. Man, I suck at this Diplomacy thing...
It may take a few days to get a full roster.
I think a three way tie in which none of the drawers even bother to try and win the game is bad form but to each his own.
If you have technical difficulties, then it's not bad form, and I apologize. It would be nice to send a message in game to that effect.
Meh. It was a good reintroductory experience. I'm happy with it.
BTW, what does this mean?
Draws must include all survivors.
That particular game was a tricky situation. Since the three powers were all about the same strength if anyone indicated that they wanted to go for the solo that would almost assuredly align the other two powers against him, thus making a solo impossible. This means that no single player could unilaterally continue the game. The only way it could have happened if two of the powers agreed to attack the third.
From what I can tell watching the games, you are the dangerous one.
I can enter moves from a tablet (I believe). Are smartphones different? Are you still in game #3?
Last part: From my android I can only finalize orders and according to the forum they are working on software for smartphones. As of right now I am still in game 3 since it is a slower paced game. If it speeds up and my issues are still going then I'll probably have to drop out. But hopefully within a week the issues will die down.
I've joined game V. Time to be less trusting, it's been my downfall in both games I've played so far.
Yes, and no one wants to be the first one to suggest breaking the threesome, b/c you're afraid the other 2 will turn on you.
I felt like it was a "mexican stand-off". No one wanted to start the shooting.
The point of the game is that it is really hard for one power to win and to do so you need to forge alliances and also break them at times. The game also has a built in handicapper that makes it more and more difficult to get those final centers as more and more powers are vanquished. To draw after knocking out 4 powers is to only play half the game and not really fair to all the players who spent time in the game.
Hells no! Amirite, fellas?
EDIT: Spot filled. Thank you Shooty!!
I agree with this. I just think that it is difficult to unilaterally break the standoff without compromising your own position. That said, the vulnerable party there was Germany, so it would have been a reasonable move for either Turkey or England to push harder.
What are the details? I can do it.
Initially I felt this way as well, then I looked at the game. I actually typed out a long-ass essay about why certain alignments wouldn't work, rewrote it once or twice when I changed my mind, then gave it up.
Basically if I were in the game I'd have wanted to play another few years to see if anything could be done, but ultimately I don't think any of the 2v1 options there would have worked for anybody.
What are the details? I can do it.
BBTF email on its way. Thanks!
ShootyBabbitt (WINNER)
Whatever floats your boat.
I think that makes it more interesting, and more like real life. Some countries are aggressive, other just want BOP, other just want to survive.
Isn't the responsibility then on the other players to gang up on the two?
It's just one game. It may be the only 3 way draw I'm ever part of. Usually, for a guy like me, I'd need a million dollars to make a threesome happen.
re 578 Yes it is possible to get a stalemate in which two sides duke it out for years to no avail. But that wasn't the situation in the game. The three nations never even tried to win the game outright and called it quits without even attempting to win the game. As I said before if you go into the game with the outlook that you'll accept a draw or are looking for the draw with an alliance partner then more often than not you'll find yourself drawing.
As England I did consider that, but two things stopped me - I didn't see a long term solution, just a standoff unless someone quit or made a mistake, and because it was the first game. As Shooty says, I doubt there will be a set of circumstances similarly down the line. I did come close a couple times to invading Germany too, but he generally was covered enough to make any advances shortlived, in my amatuer opinion.
Anyways, if it's considered bad form, then okay. It wasn't pre-planned, it really just developed. At least in part because I think all three of us are less experienced.
France doesn't think so!
But no single approach always works. And I don't see a path to a solo for any of the three players in that game. Not from where I sit, anyway.
The 3-way Alliance definitely was NOT planned from the beginning. I (Turkey) was allied with Russia initially, until they fell apart. Then I stumbled around alone for a while, and only made friends with Germany late.
Yeah, Turkey came into it late. In hindsight, we probably didn't need Turkey but it at the time it seemed adding Turkey to create an overwhelming force made a lot of sense.
The funny thing is is that I never thought I had a very strong agreement with France because they moved into Burgundy when I asked them not to. When they opened themselves up to attack I was more than happy to encourage England to do so.
I think this goes without saying but each game needs to be played as an isolated event. No carrying over grudges (or friendships) from past games.
Initially i planned for a lepanto but Austria's Hemming and hawing with it's fleet nixed that idea. I then teamed up with turkey and Russia to carve up austria but france's all out attack on me nixed that idea. At that point my main goal was to get the alliance to crumble have France turn away. Despite the obvious risks and warnings France carried on it's attack and caused his own destruction. In hindsight i should have repelled the invasion of north africa like i originally planned but i was worried that a French army in iberia we keep the alliance intact.
I have trouble keeping track of who's who. I just call everyone by their country name. My stupidity makes keeping grudges impossible.
Yes, and we thought Italy leaving Piedmont open made it more likely France was working with Italy and would attack Germany. We were very happy to let him instead focus on Italy, and then stab him in the back.
What would be wrong with that?
I think this goes without saying but each game needs to be played as an isolated event. No carrying over grudges (or friendships) from past games.
Agree 100%. It's going to be a fine line, once we've all played a few games with each other, as it's generally perceived as appropriate to take into account your fellow players' tendencies and styles and so forth, while "I won't ally with you because you stabbed me in that one game" is unacceptable. We're all on the honor system here.
Oh, I'm going to remember who backstabbed me. I'm not going to carry a grudge, but people who've shown they can't be trusted don't get a free pass because it's a new game.
My goal WAS to try a Western Triple, since I'd never done it before. I don't think I'll be trying it again in the future.
edit: I also should add that the goal wasn't a three way draw, but that we wouldn't turn on each other until we'd disposed of the others. Clearly my mistake, as it was my mistake in game 1 to have the same attitude about my alliance with Germany to work together until we finished off England. I've been a sap the past two games, which is frustrating.
I'd also add that it's sheer self serving pap for Shooty to say that his agreement with me wasn't strong. Considering first that I told him my orders, and the orders for a standard Western Triple opening, and considering also how open I left myself to him and England. I mean, clearly I thought it was a strong relationship. Especially given how many warning signs I ignored that England/Germany were going to stab me given how they made their movements. England's army to Belgium should have made me just ditch the alliances, but given how fast Russia fell apart I was probably screwed anyways. So, chalk that one up for Le France being oblivious and dumb.
I did feel some remorse crossing the Channel like that, but it was fleeting.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main