----------------------------------------
usef@devel.diplom.org

http://www.diplom.org/DipPouch/
http://www.diplom.org/DipPouch/Online/strategy.html
http://devel.diplom.org/DipPouch/Online/StalematesAtoY/visual.htm
http://starship.python.net/crew/manus/dpjudge/

The following players are signed up for game 'trinja':
  Master                  514 millis.miller@ip.pt
  Austria                 246 Medfordman@aol.com
  Turkey     move   13/13  93 daffyduckx@hotmail.com
  England                 102 G.S.Francis@durham.ac.uk
  Italy      move    2/2   26 awhite@cdtechno.com
  Germany                 138 akakia@worldinter.net
  France     late    7/8  152 Chukars@mother.com
  Russia     move   11/11  57 john@justdata.com.au
  Observer                    scarter14@hotmail.com
  Observer                141 hambleton@earthlink.net
----------------------------------------
Game 'trinja' has been declared a draw between Turkey and Russia.
Congratulations on a game well-played.
----------------------------------------
Broadcast message from millis_l_miller@hotmail.com as Master in 'trinja':

Congratulations to Turkey and Russia for their result and to all of you for
a good game.

Now is the time that players habitually publish their EOG (End Of Game)
statements, and discuss their thinking/vent their spleen about the game.

You've got a week before the judge automatically deletes the game, so go
ahead!

Regards to all,
Millis
----------------------------------------
millis_l_miller@hotmail.com as Master set the deadline
for game 'trinja' to Mon Jan  1 2001 23:30:00 PST.
Grace period deadline advanced to Thu Jan  4 2001 22:30:00 PST.
----------------------------------------
signon ttrinja
broadcast
Thanks for a great game everybody. I'd love to hear all of your
thoughts on the game.

I'd like to extend my congratulations to Russia, my partner in the
draw. It was my impression that we were two very like-minded people.
I'm sure that had a lot to do with up being able to peacefully set up
a two-way draw.

Starting around 1904 I kept extensive notes on the game. I've made
these notes available on my web site. They can be found at:
http://home.att.net/~daffy-duck/diplom/diplom.htm
The file trinja.txt has notes and analysis of each turn starting in
1904. The page also includes my maps of the progress of the game.

At the beginning of my notes (1904) I thought that the best outcome
for me would be to work with the new Russian player to stop France
and force a three-way draw. I thought Russia's position looked very
weak and that his best chance was to build a stalemate line and hold
on. The swiftest change in my evaluation of the game was regarding
this position of Russia's. In winter '06 I wrote that Russia wasn't
a contender and that he needed my help, but in winter '07 I thought
he was the best candidate for a solo! It was an eye opener to read
that. With the benefit of hindsight I can see that I shouldn't have
underestimated Russia.

But my predictions weren't always wrong. In fall '04 I wrote that the
"extent of cooperation in the north will determine France's future."
And for the most part, I was right. But I'd like to hear from England
and Germany and Russia on what was going on behind the scenes around
this time because I couldn't put it all together myself. In fall '04
Germany supported England into Belgium but that was the last time
they seemed to work together against an obvious common enemy. In
spring '05 France took back Belgium and England made a big surge
toward Russia only to call off the attack next turn. At this point I
wasn't at all sure who was friends with whom, but no action was being
coordinated against France and consequently France was advancing
steadily. Only after England teamed up with Russia for sure in fall
'07 did France's fortunes change. So what was going on here? I'd love
to hear from all of you. Is our original France still observing? If
so I'd like to hear your take on this too.

Well that's enough for now. I'll write with more observations when I
have some more time.

The Sultan

endpress
signoff
----------------------------------------
Broadcast message from G.S.Francis@durham.ac.uk as England in 'trinja':

Congratulations to Russia and Turkey on winning.  Also, thank you Russia
for preventing the French from conquering Britain, that was the most
important thing;)
I was naive when I first took over in this game, because, hey, it was my
first ever game of Diplomacy.  At first I genuinely tried to ally with
France, in fact on two occasions, but both times he attacked me instead,
so I decided to ally with Germany instead.  It was tough going though
because France always had us both on the back foot.

Unfortunately I placed too much trust in Italy.  I knew he had some kind
of no aggression pact with France, and I encouraged him to break it
because I needed help.  He refused but insisted that he was on my side.
I sent a message to Turkey, encouraging him to attack the Italians so he
could threaten France's south coast.  But I then received a message from
Italy - he was disappointed that I wanted someone to attack him.  He
also told me that Russia wanted to attack me, and that France was more
bothered about fighting the Germans than fighting me.  So, I concluded -
since Turkey had told Italy what I had said to him - that Turkey was
allied with Italy, who was allied with France, and I wasn't going to get
any help from anywhere.  I had people cheering me on in the war against
the French, but I didn't actually have anyone helping me.

So I made my biggest mistake - trying to ally with France, for the 3rd
time, with the promise that I would move my units eastwards to challenge
the Russians.  Rather than fighting a losing battle, I wanted to join
the winning side.  France agreed, but in actual fact he continued to
attack me, and soon after, I lost Liverpool.  So I pledged myself to
working alongside Russia instead, with the only goal of destroying the
French.  We succeeded in the end.  No disrespect to the leader of the
new France, who I never had any contact with, but I'm glad you didn't
get a result.

That's what I remember from this game.  All the backstabbing, the
treachery, the deceitfulness...it's put me in the right frame of mind
for my other new games.  Thanks for the game, everyone.

-England
----------------------------------------
signon ttrinja
broadcast
To England:
I think I was allied with Italy during the time you mentioned, so I
may have told him you wanted me to attack him. I was never an ally of
France, though. I alternately saw him as a solo to be stopped and an
equal (also to be stopped). Italy was my ally, but not for the long
term. Truth be told, I was always hoping for good things for you.
Since I saw France as my chief enemy, the more of a fight you put up
against him the better. I was frustrated by the fact that I couldn't
do anything to directly help you. It takes so much time to fight
through the Mediterranean that I knew I wouldn't get to France in
time to be of any help to you. I was glad when you and Russia started
working together.

A Question to Russia:

If England had decided that he wanted a piece of the endgame, however
small, would you have let him live or taken his centers when he was
no longer useful to you? I'm just curious.

More Observations on the Game in General:

I know Italy will probably disagree with me on this, but I owe
everything to Austria. Here's why.

One of the most important turns for me was fall '02. It was early
in the game and we were all trying to form good alliances. At that
point Austria and I were talking about attacking Italy, Italy and I
were talking about attacking Austria, and I understand Austria and
Italy were talking about attacking me. So it all came down to who
each of us would trust. Austria chose to trust Italy and attack me.
He was wrong on both counts. I was all set to work with him, and
Italy attacked him. Italy's attack was lucky for me because Austria
took Bulgaria. After taking a loss like that early in the game I was
glad Austria had a second enemy to deal with.

But none of this is why fall '02 was important to me.

Fall '02 was important to me because Austria messed up his attack. If
he had done it right I would have been knocked back to three supply
centers, a position that was probably unrecoverable. As it was I
retained four centers, didn't have to remove a unit, and was in
position to retake Bulgaria. Here's how it went down. Austria
attacked Bulgaria from Greece with enough support to dislodge my
army. But Austria and I had agreed that he would get Rumania and
Sevastopol and in return I would take Greece from him. So naturally I
ordered Aegean Sea to Greece and my fleet in Constantinople to the
Aegean Sea. That meant that while I lost Bulgaria, I did pick up
Greece. That kept my SC balance even and after retreating the army
from Bulgaria to Constantinople I had three units that could put
pressure back on Bulgaria. I recaptured it the next turn.

If Austria had instead attacked from Serbia and kept the fleet in
Greece I would have been shut down. With our original Russia obsessed
with the north he wouldn't have been any help to me. Without Greece I
probably would have been the first player out, but with Greece I went
on to a two-way draw.

More later...

The Sultan

endpress
signoff
----------------------------------------
Broadcast message from fool@serv.net as France in 'trinja':


No hard feelings to you England.  I came in to finish a position, and
attempt some sort of gain.  With Russia and Turkey working together I
was toast.  I should have gone with my first instinct of keeping Italy
in the game for another turn and blatantly attack Turkey, but was
beguiled by Turkey's diplomacy with a small ray of hope (Good job
Turkey!) against Russia.  That was quickly squashed and the end was
easily near for the two of them to finish it.

Good luck to all in future games (except against me!)

The new (and dead) France
----------------------------------------
Broadcast message from Medfordman@aol.com as Austria in 'trinja':

Congratulations to R&T.  I have stuck around since my early departure and
watched the surprising results.  Too bad the two remaining powers did not
decide to slug it out - that would have been much more interesting than the
actual outcome.

To the old France, who is most likely long gone; if your departure was
unplanned, I feel sorry for you.  But if your abandoment was intentional,
coming as it did when your once-promising outlook was ruined, shame on you.
At least Italy, Germany and I stuck it out to the end.

And thanks to Millis, a fine GM who ran a good game.  I wish all GM's were as
attentive and helpful.

I hope I meet you all again (under circumstances more favorable to me, heh
heh...).

Austria
----------------------------------------
signon ttrinja
broadcast
Sorry that last message went out twice. I'm having a little e-mail
trouble. I'd like to add my thanks to Millis for his help to all of
us newbies. I'd also like to thank our replacement England, Russia,
and France players for helping us keep this game going. And while
I'm at it why not thank Austria, Germany, and Italy for sticking it
out to the bitter end. And of course a very special thanks to myself
without whom I wouldn't even be.

The Sultan

endpress
signoff
----------------------------------------
Broadcast message from warde@woodland.net as Observer in 'trinja':


Greetings Everybody,

I would first like to apologize for the my computer problems that forced =
me to drop out of the game. I was in contact with the GM before my =
e-mail address changed, and let him know that it was coming. Once the =
change occurred I was unable to get back into the game. By the time I =
figured out what I was doing wrong, and alerted the GM, France was in =
the hands of a new administration. Once again, I am sorry to all for the =
inconvenience.

I would like to thank the GM for handling the game, my replacement for =
assuming command of my country and performing admirably in light of the =
situation I left for him, and finally to the rest of the players who =
participated in Trinja.

I planned on attacking Germany right from the get-go. I negotiated a =
non-aggression pact with Italy that we both honored during the duration =
of my stay in the game, so, with the exception of a wandering Austrian =
army my Southern border was secure. In the North I desperately tried to =
convince England to join me against Germany. England, however, wanted to =
wait a turn or two before committing, so we agreed on a demilitarized =
English Channel.=20

After the first year I had six builds and occupied Munich. The Kaiser =
put up more resistance then I anticipated that he was capable of doing =
on his own. England said that he would attack Germany, but thus far had =
not done so. Looking at the board I determined that the risk of England =
joining Germany was very real, so I took advantage of the only =
opportunity that I thought I might receive, and stabbed England. So now =
I put myself in the unenviable position of fighting two countries on my =
own. Both players fought well but they didn't fight together. If they =
would have coordinated their defense I truly believe that I would have =
been eliminated.

By the time that Germany was finished, I began to believe that I could =
win a solo. Looking East I saw the Sultan as my only rival. I could not =
take him on myself because I lacked the Southern fleets to do so, so I =
left him to my Italian ally.  I was still embroiled in a desperate fight =
with the English (who I must admit I stabbed repeatedly and =
remorselessly) and their Russian benefactors. I do not remember at which =
point I began to skirmish with the Tsar, but it was a turning point in =
my campaign.

Looking back, I believe that the first of my two great errors was in not =
giving Italy more assistance. I didn't want him to become another rival =
so I allowed him to slowly get eaten away by the Turk.

Towards the end of my stay it came down to a strong Turkey, France, and =
Russia, with England and Italy hanging on. I don't know where Russia =
came from, but my second big mistake came in not noticing this guy until =
it was to late. I suddenly found myself being beaten back by the Tsar =
and my old English adversary. I tried numerous times to get the Tsar and =
Sultan to fight so that I could pounce on whichever one appeared weak =
but it never happened. I was playing for a solo against a pair of strong =
powers who recognized my intentions. They banded together and rolled =
over me.=20

If I would have remained in the game, the result would have been the =
same. Congratulations Turkey and Russia.

MPW
President in exile
----------------------------------------
Broadcast message from panther@justdata.com.au as Russia in 'trinja':


Russian EOG

Sorry about my lateness, living on the other side of the world in
Australia has it's drawbacks.  Mostly slow communication resulting in
limited co-ordination of moves.

I'd like to thank the Sultan for his support and co-operation in
reaching a two way draw.  From a very early stage in this game perhaps
05-06 I considered that this game would end in a two way draw between
Turkey and Russia.  Either that or it would be a solo for either one of
us.  Turkey kept saying that a three way with France was possible.  No
disrespect to either of the French players but I could not see any way
France could defend against the two of us.

On considering how it would end in a two way draw was quite difficult.
Sitting on 17 centres is quite nerve racking, it doesn't take much of a
stab to put you over the line for a solo.  I admit all the time closing
in on the two way I was looking for how I could pull off a solo.
Nothing good came to mind.  My best chance of getting a solo in this
game would have been to get to Burgundy before the Sultan made
Marseilles and support France to hold Marseilles.  The Sultan would have
required Spain, Gulf of Lyon and Piedmont to take Marseilles which would
have been a tough order considering I would have been attacking Spain
myself.  If I also managed to get Gascony to support Marseilles he could
never take it.  This however could have the possibility of turning ugly
and the Sultan in would have supported France in Spain or Portugal if
possible and thus forcing a three way draw.  So I opted to not rock the
boat and forge ahead for our two way draw.

I feel a bit sorry for the new French player because when he took over
the abandoned French position the game had already been decided and it
was only a formality to finish it.  However looking at his position I
think I could have had some fun with it.  Especially in the last round
where he had two centres left and we were on 16 each.  My greatest fear
at this stage was that the Sultan would try and forge ahead for a solo.
I was considering how I could achieve this myself but it would have
required support from France.  I could have offered France survival for
support to a solo but such an offer didn't seem fair and worst of all if
he forwarded it onto the Sultan chaos would reign as I'd be in damage
control and trying to pacify a very powerful opponent...  I'm sure if
France had sent such false press to each of us stating that the other
had asked him for help to a solo in exchange for survival and that at
such arrogance he'd support the other player...  things could have been
interesting.  Had I have been in Frances shoes at the dying end of the
game I'd have sure tried to stir up some trouble between the two major
powers.  At the same time it must be totally demoralizing to read our
orders when we support one another against him you'd have to realize
there's no hope...

I took over a 5 centre Russia.  Five centres didn't sound too bad to
start with but when the heart of Russia is occupied by two foreign
powers splitting my country in two I realized how bad a shape I was in.
My first goal was to regroup and retake Moscow and Warsaw.  I didn't
expect to do very well in this game at all but I was going to try
anyway.  I put my strong showing in this game down to a fair amount of
luck or skill... and a fair amount of press.  The first thing I did apon
entering the game was to send all powers press to say hello, be friendly
and see who was willing to cut a deal, especially with Germany and
Austria as I wanted a non aggression or better still my centres back.
Austria and Turkey responded quite enthusiastically.  Didn't hear a
thing from France, England or Germany which was a bit disappointing.  I
guess they had written me off already...

I thought to get their attention that I'd park a fleet in the North Sea
where it can attack or support any one of the three of them.  A rather
bad idea on my part as I didn't send any press about the move.  I waited
to see who would ask me for support.  France did but I really wanted to
support Germany or England.  In the dying moments of that turn England
sent me a quick help me message that he wanted me out of the North Sea
since he was going to loose Belgium and he wanted a retreat option
instead of loosing his fleet.  That was what I was waiting for so I told
him I'd  support him to hold...  And what do you know he attacked me.
He moved all his units in my direction and paid dearly for his error by
having France take two of his centres in one very well executed stab.
That may have worked well in my favour because from that point on
England was a devoted follower of Russia and wanted nothing more than
France dead. Lucky me although I'd have preferred a stronger England.

And to answer the Sultan about working with England, I would have
supported England as long as I could even survival for support to a
solo.  I never wanted to take England out.  At the very least I saw
England as a good buffer for me against French fleets sailing up to
Scandinavia.  I wanted a relatively strong England to keep the those
French fleets occupied.  Also  I can only build fleets in St. Petersburg
where as England can Build fleets all over his little island and they're
much closer to the front line.  However it could have backfired if
England became strong before I could build up my navy.  He could have
dictated more terms to me and even made an attack on Scandinavia if he
became too strong.  Three to five centres would have been nice and a few
armies on French soil.  With the press I was getting back from England I
got the impression he was bored with the game and wanted it over.  I
always firstly offered to support him but if he wanted to be free of the
game I'd take over his position for him and kick Frances butt for him...

This is my first 7 player game of diplomacy.  Prior to this I started a
game that crashed on FROG and I'd played the start of a couple of
three/four player games just to get used to the mechanics of the game
and righting orders.  One thing that cannot be underestimated is how bad
karma one player can build up against another.  In this case England's
hatred for France.  And perhaps more importantly being nice to a player
who is dying fast.  It's a fair chance if you're nice to them and
they're going down then they'll throw their centres to you and hinder a
common enemy in the process.  It was definitely a good choice to support
England all the way and France paid the price for his repeated
stabbings.  I admit I was very cautious about working with France given
his repeatedly proven track record of stabbing allies.

There was a time in this game when I thought I'd fall to bad karma from
France.  A badly worded request to France was taken the wrong way and
I'm sure most players will remember the incident as it was well
broadcast.  After that incident I was in damage control to prevent
France from forming a bad opinion of me that he would spite me and throw
the game to the Sultan if he looked like loosing.  From this incident is
was going to take some effort to make peace with France and direct our
efforts against the sultan.  This continued for some time perhaps two
years where we were trying to halt the inevitable clash so I could take
care of the Sultan and cut him back to size.  Some lucky moves and I
seemed to win back some respect form France to the point we had managed
to organize a DMZ and plans were made to attack the Sultan.
Unfortunately by this time a stab on Turkey was well out of the question
and I stood to gain far more by continuing to attack France and I did
much to the Frenchman's disappointment nodoubt.

To the Original France Player:  I'd like to here what you have to say
about the incidents referred to above.  Was there ever a time when you'd
have stopped attacking me or you always lying to me?

For me there was several attempts I made to make peace with you so I
could attack the Sultan But at no stage could I trust you enough to turn
my back on you.  By the time I could trust you and make an attack on the
Sultan your position was weakened and It was more economical to attack
you where my potential gains were vastly greater.

I admit at the very beinning of this game when I was trying to sort out
where I was going to go I wanted to take out the Sultan and have his
nice little defensible corner.  Strange how the game turned out and I
find myself in a two way with my original enemy.  His press and I guess
to a lesser extent the lack of press from other players changed that.
There was nothing special about his press except that he sent some.  On
the other extreme Germany sent no press and was a player I wanted to
work with.  In the end I had no choice but to take him out.  I couldn't
communicate with him to co-ordinate our moves so the next best thing was
to take his centres and order those units directly.

I think that by closely monitoring the ever shifting balance of power
and by sending lots of press will govern who to attack and who to
support.  This game went nothing like my original plan.  There was a
time in the game when I held the balance of power between France and
Turkey.  The Sultan understood this and so never attacked me where as I
don't think France saw this and kept trying to attack me.  I was lucky
that between France and I was Germany and England, two countries to feed
of so I could grow big enough to challenge France directly.  And it
worked but I knew a time would come when I'd out grow my usefulness to
Turkey and I'd have to defend my border.

Early after I assumed the power in Russia the Sultan stabbed me and took
Sevastopol.  I was quite annoyed at this but it was excellent timing for
the Sultan, for the build I would have received by holding Sevastopol
would have been a fleet to attack him with.  I don't know if he sensed
this or not but it was well played.  For me any hopes of a southern
campaign for Russia were dashed, my only fleet down there was doomed as
it was surrounded by Turkish units.  My only chance for survival was to
cut a deal with the Sultan to minimumise further losses. Thankfully the
Sultan was a dealing kind of guy.  I surrendered my fleet in exchange
for Sevastopol to be occupied by a fleet.  The Sultan would be safe from
a counter attack and I'd be free to use all my remaining units in the
north to stop the French.  I left know units to defend my border.

This deal held to the end of the game with a couple of rough patches
where I'd go and build an army or two in Moscow and he'd get real edgy
over it.  In each case the armies were built with the intention of
attacking the Sultan but in each case I realized how pointless that
would be and how much more I can gain form continuing to attack France.
Much of this was to do with not being able to fully trust France and how
much chaos would result in a half hearted attack. I couldn't tip my
intentions too early so I had to bide my time and that time never
eventuated.  Right until the very end I was looking for an opening, more
to get even over Sevastopol than anything else, but nothing presented
it's self.

For some time I was surviving with an undefended border and the Sultan
never took advantage of that.  It would have most likely cost him the
game if he did and I'm sure that's why he never attacked me.  What
defended my border was the notion that if he attacked me I'd defend
myself to the dying end and France would forge ahead against poorly
organized Anglo/German alliance and very well get a solo.  We both knew
that and so I was safe.  The advantage being for me was that I could use
all my units to attack Germany, France and support England.   I was in
quite a strong position for such a small number of units.  And I took
advantage of that.  It was very risky, sooner or later I'd out grow my
usefulness to the Sultan and he'd see me as his real enemy.  He
eventually did but by then we'd formed a good working relationship that
lasted to the draw.

Austria mentioned he'd like to have seen us slug it out to a solo.
Looking at the board and I don't see an easy way to achieve this but I
believe the Sultan is in a slightly stronger position to achieve this.
More likely though the game would deadlock and neither of us would go
anywhere.  believe me, I was looking...

I don't believe Italy is still around but I would have liked to know his
logic at continuing to attack Austria to the bitter end.  I could see
the Sultan growing stronger and Italy was next.  I guess he didn't.  Had
Italy and Austria allied against the Sultan the game could have been
quite different.  I was trying to broker a peace deal between then to
attack the Sultan but after I lost Sevastopol I just cut my losses and
concentrated on the north.  Italy was dead he just didn't know it yet.
Austria had a better chance but know one wanted to work with him so he
died too.  I tried to work with Austria but I with out Italy's support
there wasn't much point and again loosing Sevastopol changed that idea
for me too.

Also if Germany is there: I'd like to know what was going on in his
mind.  I received no press with any content in it form the player.  Two
of his units were dislodged in the spring and he disbanded them.  Those
units could have determined the balance of power between France and
myself at that particular time.  Lucky for me they were disbanded and I
managed to get the upper hand on France.

The new France mentioned that he thinks he should have supported Italy
more once he came to power.  I think if he did this I would have had a
very good chance for an easy solo.  What prevented me was how long Italy
could hang on for and how successful I was against France in the north.
My position seemed very strong and I was set to make good gains against
France.  The sultan was struggling for some time to take over the
Italian peninsular.  I was hopeing France would have supported Italy
better but unfortunately he directed his fleets my way and I was slowed
just enough for the Sultan to push through for an even two-way.

I must thank the game master for creating the game and allowing me to
take over Russia as well as all the other players (original and
replacements) for such an interesting game.

I realize this probably reads rather disjointed and I apologize for
that.  There is probably a lot more I could write but that's all I can
think of at the moment.  If anyone want's to know more about what I was
thinking at any stage in the game just ask.  I'd be more than happy to
add my thoughts.

I shall add to this as I think of more things to say...


The Czar.
----------------------------------------
Broadcast message from Medfordman@aol.com as Austria in 'trinja':

To Turkey;

Who am I to argue with success?  Austria, that's who.

Your somewhat pat analysis of 1902 is correct only in that I was wrong to
trust Italy.  Had Italy ordered to GRE in the fall as we had arranged you
would have been bounced, down to 3 centers, and headed for an early
departure.  Unfortunately Italy did not realize that stabbing me was foolish,
you got GRE, and the rest is history.

In hindsight, I should have trusted you instead, but I was a sucker for
Italy's "help me, guide me, what should I do?" line.  And if I remember
correctly you had previously turned down what seemed a very reasonable offer
regarding RUM or the vicinity.  What seemed to be early greed on your part
tended to sour my perception of you as a potential ally.  Oh well...

Austria
----------------------------------------
signon ttrinja
broadcast
To Austria:

Okay. That's exactly what I was missing. I hadn't realized the plan
for Italy to move into Greece. I kept wondering if you were worried
about Rumania's support being cut from Sevastopol even though Russia
had clearly given up on the south already. The result of that turn
just seemed so weird. Thanks for clarifying that for me.

I had been kind of greedy in our earlier negotiations but I didn't
want to take too soft a position on an important center like Rumania.
The thing that put me off was your repeated insistence that I dance
around for a turn to prove my loyalty before you would work with me.
I just wasn't going to waste time early in the game with anything
that wasn't beneficial to me. But when you came to me with the idea
of you staying on land and me staying in the sea I liked it. It
seemed like a good basis for an alliance because we would both be
able to defend against each other so neither of us would have to
worry about a stab. For a long time I kept wondering what could have
been if we had worked together.

To Russia:

I actually felt kind of bad about stabbing you right after you joined
the game but the opportunity just looked to good to pass up.
Honestly, I didn't think you had much chance of surviving long at
that point, so I wasn't overly worried about upsetting you. In the
end, though, concentrating only on the north allowed you to focus
your strength and may have helped you in the long run. Not that
that's supposed to make you feel any better about losing a home
supply center. You did a great job of not sounding to hurt by it or I
would have been more worried about a stab from you. When you asked
late in the game if I would give it back to you, though, I knew it
had been simmering.

Regarding your army builds in Moscow, both times I primarily felt
disappointed. Just when I thought we were on good, agreeable terms you
would build a mess of armies that had no immediate use but to attack
me. But in both cases you pulled the armies away from me and attacked
France. What was the difference in your outlook between building them
and moving them?

Your overall diplomatic efforts were superb. I never felt as though
you saw me as an enemy. I knew that as a Dip player you would jump on
a juicy opportunity if it came up, but I felt that you really wanted
to be my ally and attack France. I never got the impression you make
in your eog that you were always hungry to attack me. Good work.

I only once seriously considered attacking you and that was right
after you built the three armies. But as I said to you at the time it
doesn't make sense to stab someone for one center unless it's #18.
And I just didn't see an attack that was crushing enough to get me
any more than that. So I figured it was better to not open up a
second front and disperse my units.

When I saw the end was near I looked around to see if I had even a
good one center stab. Around then your weak point was Silesia and I
was pretty sure I could get it, but what then? I didn't want to
attack and fail to get a supply center because that would probably
ruin the chance of a peaceful two-way draw.

In knew going into the attack on Italy that it would be slow. That's
why in my notes (http://home.att.net/~daffy-duck/diplom/diplom.htm)
I keep saying that you had the best chance for a solo. If France and
Italy had shown any real coordination, you would have won.

I'd like to hear more about your cooperation with France. You mention
trying to avoid a clash with France so you can cut me down to size
and also organizing a DMZ with France. When was this and what was the
DMZ? Besides building all those armies (which I figured was France's
idea) I saw only one turn that showed real signs of you cooking up
deals with France. In fall '08 France made a big push toward me and
you took Munich from him. At that time I was kind of annoyed. I
thought that if you were planning a big stab of France, why didn't
you tell me about it?

One more question, this one to Russia and the original France: what
was going on in your heads in spring '07. That was right after Russia
had built three armies. I figured both of you had made some big plan
to attack me. So I tried extra hard to stir up bad feelings between
you. You can read my whole strategy in the notes on my web page.

The Sultan

endpress
signoff
----------------------------------------
Broadcast message from panther@justdata.com.au as Russia in 'trinja':


> To Russia:
>
> I actually felt kind of bad about stabbing you right after you joined
> the game but the opportunity just looked to good to pass up.
> Honestly, I didn't think you had much chance of surviving long at
> that point, so I wasn't overly worried about upsetting you. In the
> end, though, concentrating only on the north allowed you to focus
> your strength and may have helped you in the long run. Not that
> that's supposed to make you feel any better about losing a home
> supply center. You did a great job of not sounding to hurt by it or I
> would have been more worried about a stab from you. When you asked
> late in the game if I would give it back to you, though, I knew it
> had been simmering.

It's embarrassing not being in total control of your own country.
Loosing Sevastopol was the best thing that happened to me though.
Holding on to Sevastopol would have ment I needed to split my forces
between two fronts and have very little power in each.  I was really
annoyed at loosing Sevastopol becasue it was to be my first bit of
progress for the game.  What got me more was you supported me back into
Rumania and stabbed me in the same round...  I couldn't believe you
could be so two faced about it.  And perhaps more so that you only got
one centre for the stab.  looking back now it was an extremely effective
move.  One I've used in games since.  After loosing Sevastopol I had a
choice to try and fight you with one fleet or surrender it, make a deal
to halt further aggression and concentrate on one front.  And it sure
worked.

> Regarding your army builds in Moscow, both times I primarily felt
> disappointed. Just when I thought we were on good, agreeable terms you
> would build a mess of armies that had no immediate use but to attack
> me. But in both cases you pulled the armies away from me and attacked
> France. What was the difference in your outlook between building them
> and moving them?

I so dearly wanted to work with France and attack you to get Sevastopol
back but each time I couldn't quite trust France not to continue his
attack.  His track record was very bad and I needed to see some moves
before I was going to trust his word, lest I wind up like England.  He
was just too close to me.  Also my stab had to be effective.  I'm sure
you're well aware of the stalemate line that runs through our DMZ.  A
poor attack from me and you could easily have implemented that statemate
line and I'd never get a second chance.  In short, it just didn't feel
right...

> Your overall diplomatic efforts were superb. I never felt as though
> you saw me as an enemy. I knew that as a Dip player you would jump on
> a juicy opportunity if it came up, but I felt that you really wanted
> to be my ally and attack France. I never got the impression you make
> in your eog that you were always hungry to attack me. Good work.

Thanks for the complement.  After taking a chance and building armies I
had one hell of a time convincing you I'm still your friend.  To acheive
this I did two thing to win your trust back.   I told you all my moves
and made sure I did what I said.  I didn't want to surprise you
again...  Also I was totally open about my planned stabs...  More
importantly how I was going to execute them in the hope you'd see that
they weren't going to be very effective.  I'm glad to see that you saw
the pointless nature of these stabs as well as I did.  You are quite
right had an opportunity presented it's self I'd have stabbed.  It never
did.

> I only once seriously considered attacking you and that was right
> after you built the three armies. But as I said to you at the time it
> doesn't make sense to stab someone for one center unless it's #18.
> And I just didn't see an attack that was crushing enough to get me
> any more than that. So I figured it was better to not open up a
> second front and disperse my units.

After building the second set of armies that rubbed you up the wrong way
I gave up on thinking of how to attack you.  I had far more to loose by
attacking you.  France was crumbling and my best bet for a solo was to
charge ahead and beat you to Portigual.  I figured if I could get to
Portugal first I would at the very least be assured of 17 centres and a
two way.  If I could get spain too then the game is mine.  I made it to
the Mid Atlantic but I realised that taking an occupied Portugal is
impossible with out Spain, it didn't matter any more.  By this time we'd
already arranged for a two way draw but I couldn't take it with out your
support and likewise you couldn't take it without my support.  My place
in a draw, two or three way was assured.

> When I saw the end was near I looked around to see if I had even a
> good one center stab. Around then your weak point was Silesia and I
> was pretty sure I could get it, but what then? I didn't want to
> attack and fail to get a supply center because that would probably
> ruin the chance of a peaceful two-way draw.

Sure would.  I'd have supported France and forced a three way.  I was
well aware of my gap I created and I beg to differ you'd even get
Silesia.  Any more towards it and all the armies that rippled along
would retreat back.  Some would bounce and all I'd have to do is wait
for my army builds to come and reinforce the wall.  What concerned me
about that gap was if you moved on the DMZ in the same round as I opened
the gap.

Regarding our DMZ, I was tempted to suggest we setup a permanent bounce
over the DMZ to prevent any frist strike situations.  I never made the
suggestion becuase I wanted to have the option of an attack still open.

> In knew going into the attack on Italy that it would be slow. That's
> why in my notes (http://home.att.net/~daffy-duck/diplom/diplom.htm)
> I keep saying that you had the best chance for a solo. If France and
> Italy had shown any real coordination, you would have won.

I tend to agree with you there.  Towards the end there I was writing to
Italy blindly about how best he could defend his homeland and slow you
down.  That started from when he moved to Bohemia.  By then I didn't
think France would listen to me so I sent Frances orders to Italy and
asked him to tell France what was a good idea to defend against your
attacks.

> I'd like to hear more about your cooperation with France. You mention
> trying to avoid a clash with France so you can cut me down to size
> and also organizing a DMZ with France. When was this and what was the
> DMZ? Besides building all those armies (which I figured was France's
> idea) I saw only one turn that showed real signs of you cooking up
> deals with France. In fall '08 France made a big push toward me and
> you took Munich from him. At that time I was kind of annoyed. I
> thought that if you were planning a big stab of France, why didn't
> you tell me about it?

I'll get back to you on this one.  It's getting late over here...

> One more question, this one to Russia and the original France: what
> was going on in your heads in spring '07. That was right after Russia
> had built three armies. I figured both of you had made some big plan
> to attack me. So I tried extra hard to stir up bad feelings between
> you. You can read my whole strategy in the notes on my web page.

The 07 plan wasn't much at all.  France said to me that he'd back off
from the north if I built three armies. I tried real hard to be allowed
to have a fleet so didn't look so suspicious to you and the stab would
work.  France said know deal, he couldn't trust me if I had a fleet.  So
I built armies.  I saw that year as my best chance to attack you, I had
three builds thus two had to be armies if I was going to use them all.
The fact that France basically forced me into three armies is why I
didn't attack.  It's just way too obvious what I was going to do so I
kept attacking France.  You could say France forced me to continue to
attack him because there was no point in attacking you.

I remember you saying that I should save a build as London was a gonner
and it would save me disbanding a unit.  I didn't see the sense in
that.  One, if you've got it use it. And two, I can disband it later.
What you were really saying is you didn't like me building an army in
Moscow.  I thought too bad I'm having one anyway.  I was quite
suspicious of you then and thought what a waist of time that would be
anyway.  I fully intended to keep London and I did thus my build wasn't
waisted.

That brings me to another point.  You seemed to greatly underestimate my
ability...  I mean you thought my London fleet was a gonner... I never
did.  The stalemate line you found for me was ok but I had much bigger
plans I was looking at one cutting through England to Switzerland and
another one that cut through half of France.  That's what I was aiming
for.  And the only thing that was going to stop me getting there was if
you attacked me.  At the same time you were looking at how to get a
three way draw I was saying this game will end in a two way draw between
us or a solo for one of us.  No offense to France But I never considered
him a solo contender or gave him a respectable place in a three way
draw.  I was quite surprised to read on your website that you had given
him such a high rating.  Makes me think I may have over looked something
about France.

I was surprised to read the length you went to in causing trouble that
year.  I didn't trust France to start with anyway. And to realise that
you were seriously considering attacking me that year was quite a
shock.  I thought I had gotten out of a bad situation.   I must admit
for most of the game I was quite paranoid about you attacking me.  That
was born out of the Sevastopol incident and probably the biggest reason
I wanted to attack you.  I wanted to get in the first strike, best
defense is offense type of mentality.  Afterall Sevastopol is one of
thirty four Supply Centres.  Loose one, gain another, no big deal...  By
the end of the game I realised that you were quite peaceful towards me.
Much more so than I gave you credit for.  Memories of Sevastopol
lingered and I was convinced you'd come for me again.

The Czar
----------------------------------------
signon ttrinja
broadcast
To Russia:

The support into Rumania was to ensure that Sevastopol would be
vacated. And I had hoped (though I wasn't at all sure) that I could
then get Rumania and make it worth two centers, not just one. It was
also a strong defensive position to have the Black Sea surrounded.
If Russia gets into the Black Sea Turkey has to occupy all but one
of his home centers in order to defend himself. But Sevastopol can
be defended without that problem.

The idea of arranged bounces all along the DMZ is a good one. I wish
I had thought of it.

'07 scared me because we seemed to be working together well, then all
of a sudden you built three armies and looked for all the world like
you and France were going to come down on me. Then you admitted that
that had been the plan. You told me you were going to back off but I
couldn't just trust you and go merrily on my way, so I figured that
if you were going to attack me the best thing I could do was get
France off my back a little. If I could get him to push in your
direction you wouldn't be able to attack me with as much force.

I suggested waiving a build for two reasons. First because I really
wanted you to use him as a back rank marauder and in that case you
probably would have lost London. Then you save yourself from the risk
of a removal (I still think that using him in that role would have
sped things along). The second reason is that I had to come up with
some reason for you to not build an army in Moscow. I would have
preferred you to build nothing but northern fleets, but I knew that
wouldn't make sense. I could tolerate an army in Warsaw, but one in
Moscow scared me a little. So I had to say something to try to avoid
that and that was the best thing I could come up with. Little did I
know at the time that you had very different ideas in mind.

It's not that I underestimated your ability, it's just that I hadn't
seen you demonstrate any particular skill yet. You went on to prove
it quite abundantly, but at that time all you had done was walk over
a Germany who had rolled over and played dead anyway.

I guess we just had different estimations of France. I had watched
him grow quite large and despite the fact that he hadn't played with
any particular tactical skill I figured that size and momentum were
in his favor. But when you cut into Kiel all that changed. Until then
it was possible for him to stiffen up and get defensive against you,
but Kiel was the spearhead that he couldn't turn back. that's why you
see such a turn around in my evaluation of you that year.

The Sultan

endpress
signoff
----------------------------------------
Broadcast message from warde@woodland.net as Observer in 'trinja':


To the Sultan -

I just read your analysis on the website. Keeping turn-by-turn notes is =
something that I'll have to start doing myself. Both you and the =
Austrian have hinted that you are suspicious that I may have quit =
because I was losing, but I assure you that this is not the case. My =
computer problems also cost me my slot in the game "teams6". You may =
have also noted that my e-mail address is different.

MPW
----------------------------------------
signon ttrinja
broadcast
To Our Original France:

Sorry if I come off sounding like a jerk at times in my notes. I know
only too well how frustrating e-mail problems can be. I'm glad I
started taking notes like that. It forced me to stop and try to think
objectively about each turn as we got the results. It was also kind
of amusing to look back at the end of the game and see all the things
I had been wrong about. This eog has been very enlightening too,
filling in a lot of the gaps in my knowledge while writing those
notes.

The Sultan

endpress
signoff
----------------------------------------
Broadcast message from panther@justdata.com.au as Russia in 'trinja':



To Origional France:

> I just read your analysis on the website. Keeping turn-by-turn notes is =
> something that I'll have to start doing myself. Both you and the =
> Austrian have hinted that you are suspicious that I may have quit =
> because I was losing, but I assure you that this is not the case. My =
> computer problems also cost me my slot in the game "teams6". You may =
> have also noted that my e-mail address is different.

While it does look suspicious, I'm willing to give you the benefit of
the doubt here.

However I'm curious to know what would your plans or tactics have been
if you continued with the game.  At the time you left the game I was
going to continue my attack on you and I don't think anything you could
have done was going to change my direction of attack.  I'd also be
curious to know that after beating you up so savagely would you have
supported me towards my solo in exchange for survival?  Or would you
have been so against me that you'd support (or try to support) the
Sultan?

In short how would you have tried to play the game out?


steve  "The Czar"
----------------------------------------
Broadcast message from warde@woodland.net as Observer in 'trinja':

To the Tsar -

Tough question... We had both gone back on our word at this point so I =
may have been more apt to try to work out another deal with the Sultan. =
I may have gone along with you to alleviate some pressure off of myself, =
but I would never have settled for simply surviving. I would have =
attacked Turkey if it was clear that you were doing the same, all the =
while trying to cut a side deal with the Turk. I had resigned myself to =
win, be in a draw, or go down fighting.

At the stage of the game that you refer to, I was already to far along =
to play conservative. In hindsight I should have postponed my assault on =
England (who was indeed going to fight you for Scandinavia) until I was =
firmly in control of Germany. By getting tied up in a war with both of =
them, I set the stage for you to move through their weak Eastern borders =
while also pushing England to accept you as a protector.

To the Sultan -

You didn't sound like a "jerk" in your notes, you were simply speaking =
your mind.

Regarding the cooperation between the French and Italian Navies in the =
Mediterranean: We often would agree on orders, then for some reason or =
another my ally would not always do as he said he would. I found this =
slightly irritating, but could do nothing about it. Towards the end I =
started to believe your press about the Italian turning against me, =
that's why I built the army in Marseilles.=20
----------------------------------------
Broadcast message from panther@justdata.com.au as Russia in 'trinja':


To Turkey:

> I'd like to hear more about your cooperation with France. You mention
> trying to avoid a clash with France so you can cut me down to size
> and also organizing a DMZ with France. When was this and what was the
> DMZ? Besides building all those armies (which I figured was France's
> idea) I saw only one turn that showed real signs of you cooking up
> deals with France. In fall '08 France made a big push toward me and
> you took Munich from him. At that time I was kind of annoyed. I
> thought that if you were planning a big stab of France, why didn't
> you tell me about it?

In Spring 08, France wrote to me about coordinating an attack on you.
He was to attacks Tyrolia form Munich and I was to support the attack
from Bohemia.  Frnace was saying that I had nothing to loose by ordering
support the risk was all his.  It was nothing special, given our limited
ability to support one another it seemed ok until I considered the
political fallout had France not held up his end of the bargin.  Had I
ordered support of a French unit against you I'd have tipped my hand I
still wanted to attack you.  The entire attack consisted of on support
order by me so I'd gain no ground and started a war with You.  I'd also
loose a supply centre because Bohemia needed to attack Munich so I
didn't loose any centres (I don't remember the exact set of moves
here...).  Very clever of France to suggest the move.  He'd have gained
one centre of me and you and I would be involved in a war.

To France:

That was the motive behind your plan wasn't it?  I almost trusted you
that round and fell for it.


After seeing the floor in that move I wrote back with quite an elaborate
plan.  to summerise we staged a war with our units in Germany that round
instead.  In planning who attacked what I took special attention in
insuring that any all possible stabs were covered so that neither of us
could stab the other.  Thinking about it all our moves were
pre-planned.  To gain Frances trust I indicated exactly where each of my
units was going even ones that he had no real buisness knowing about
were included.  Apart of this staged war was a string of bounces that
were to leave me with armies in Silecia and Warsaw.  This bounce was
planned so that after seeing what Frnace did I could trust him and have
Silesia, Bohemia and Warsaw head in your direction as well as Munich.

France followed through with his end of this fake war.  Although I did
remember he chanced a couple of units support orders, whick didn't
bother me at all.  I was surprised because it did leave a weekness in
his moves that I could have capitalised on.  But since I had planned the
moves so that he was covered from my own stabs I didn't even try for
it.)  This was the start of the trust we needed to build before we could
truely work together.  You would have been blissfully unaware of our
cooperation with such an involved fake war and I still had all my armies
in position for the stab on you next round.

Fall 08 was where the real plans started, Details of the DMZ were being
planned and unlike yourself, I had planned bounces included from the
very start (I still didn't trust him totally) Or atleast A DMZ that was
two deep where possible.  I believe I had four fleets at this time and
since I couldn't use them to attack you I had planned to use them allin
defense.  Several options were tossed around but nothing was really
planned.  Stuff like London and Picardy bounce over English Channel.
Liverpool and Edinbrugh bounce over Clyde.  Liverpool swapped for Kiel
as it would take more than one unit do defend Liverpool in such a remote
location and I had the other two English Centres.  I even considered
leaving London open and having a fleet in Yorkshire to cover it if
needed.  With the Kiel swap I was going to put a fleet in Berlin and
Denmark.  Berlin couldn't move on Munich so it was safe from a stab by
me.

This elaborate set of defenses would explain why Frances two most
forward Fleets backed away from attacking me.  Through these
negotiations I got a sense that I could almost trust France.  I also had
some attack planned with Munich, Bohemia, Silesia and Warsaw.  I don't
remember what that was now but It was going to get me over your
potential stalemate line which was the most fundamental thing I had to
achieve if I was to attack you.  I only had one shot at it and it had to
count.  The attack planned for the previous round wasn't going to
acheive that and that was a major reservation for not attacking then.

I never let you in on the stab I did on France that followed these
negotiations because for the most part I was going to stab you.  It only
occured to me after everything was finalised with France, perhaps a
couple of hours before the deadline, that I changed my orders to stab
him instead.  I looked at the board from a "what in my best interest,
how does one go about soloing this game, what tactic do I use to solo
the game".  In short You have a well defended line.  A poor attack and
you can quite easily implement the stalemate line.  I'd then need quite
a few units to defend you from taking centres of me.  France on the
other hand France is crumbling and more so, if he does as we had
discussed, well...  You only have to read the results for that year.

The very next year I was schemeing with France again but I forwarded you
all I said to France that year.  After forwarding that elaborate plan to
you I never really considered a stab on you again.  By then my tactic
changed and it was a race with you to Portugal.  That was at the same
time France was having email problems so I don't know if he received the
suggestion.

The two armies I build that year were more for defense than to attack
you but as usual I left the option open...  By that stage I was getting
more and more paranoid that you'd attack me.  After reading your notes I
realised that you were far more peaceful than I gave you credit for.
Thinking back over the game, my motivation to attack you was more
defensive than payback over Sevastopol.  At any moment you'd make a move
towards me and for some time I had nothing to stop you but threats that
I'd throw the game to France.


To Turkey:

In the last year of the game.  If I made a play for the solo.  Do you
think you had enough defense to deny me the solo and forced a three-way
or was it game over for you?  I felt I was in a worse position and that
if you tried for a solo you'd get it.  There was little I could do to
prevent it.

Also I know for the most part I put you as the number one contender for
a solo but reading your notes you said I was more likely to solo.  The
way I saw it all you had to do was get through Italy and you're there.
you were always ahead of me on centres right up until the last season
where we finally broke even...  I mean no disrespect but I was somewhat
surprised at how long it took to get through Italy considering what I
had to fight through to catch you.  I realise you said in your notes
that Italy would be hard.  I'd like to here more about why it was so
hard.

I haven't tried to conquer Italy yet so perhaps I am missing
something...  I'm about to find out though, In another game I'm a 14
centre Austria in O6 and about to take on Italy with two fleets.
Perhaps then I'll understand the true difficulties regarding the Italian
Penincular.  Not that I'm desperate for tricks here. In my position I
don't yet see a difficulty, all Italy has is Rome and Naples...


steve  "The Czar"
----------------------------------------
signon ttrinja
broadcast
To Russia:

If in fall 1911 you had taken Marseilles, not suppored me into
Portugal, and invaded the DMZ I would have ordered the following:

arm s sev, sev hold, ser s rum, rum h, bud and tri s vie, vie hold,
ven s pie, pie hold, tus hold, gol and wme s spa, spa hold,
naf hold, tys hold

I don't think any ammount of force can cross that line. You also
would not have been able to take Portugal on your own. The only way
for you to solo at that point would have been to convince France to
help you take Spain, but I would be offering him a place in a three
way draw and you would be asking for him to give you a solo win after
you had been attacking him. I'm pretty sure he would have taken the
draw. I considered all this when I accepted your proposal to give me
Portugal in exchange for Marseilles.

So to answer your question yes, if you made a play for a solo I think
I had enough defense to deny it to you.

  [Please check me on this. I'm pretty sure it was a stalemate
  line. You can put only two units on sev so support from arm is
  enough. Similarly, you can put two on rum so support from ser is
  enough. You can put three on vie so it needs two supports. In
  order to cut support from bud you'd have to use gal which then
  couldn't support the attack on vie. Similarly for tri. There is
  a similar situation in pie with support from ven (or I could
  support from tus). Gol's supporl for spa can't be cut because
  you had an army in mar, and if you cut wme's support you have one
  less support of an attack on spa.]

I didn't work out all the details of an attack on you because I was
satisfied with the idea of a two-way draw, so I don't know if I could
have stabbed you. I know there was no way I could guarantee myself a
center, but I'm not sure I couldn't have forced a guessing game. You
know, where I can attack A or B and you can only defend one or the
other, and it's a matter of who guesses right. What was your
assesment of your defenses. Remeber, if I were stabbing I had tus and
tys not necessary for the stalemate line and would have built two
units. In my mind, though, I wasn't sure I could move forward and
still maintain such a sure defensive line.

Regarding Italy, the problem is often Tunis. If you leave that in
Italy's hands or someone friendly to him it ties up your fleet in the
Ionian and the one in the Tyrrhenian, if you have one there. It's a
strong point to mount an eastward attack from, but very difficult to
secure from the west. Especially while trying to move units against
the Italian mainland. Tyrrhenian and Ionian project your influence
into a lot of territories, but also can be threatened from a lot of
directions. The other advantage Italy had was an army. An army can
attack or support across the peninsula, while my fleets could not.
Coming from Turkey, my best bet at getting an army of my own there
was to convoy something (which I eventually did), but my Ionian fleet
was so occupied I had to get another into the Adriatic before I could
do it. Once I could bring armies to bear on Italy he fell swiftly.
If you see a turn where you think I missed a good opportunity, please
let me know so we can discuss it.

The Sultan

endpress
signoff
----------------------------------------
signon ttrinja
press to R
If you don't mind telling me, what's the name of your other game and
on what judge? I'd love to observe.

endpress
signoff
----------------------------------------
Broadcast message from panther@justdata.com.au as Russia in 'trinja':


> If you don't mind telling me, what's the name of your other game and
> on what judge? I'd love to observe.

The game is gunboat so I won't broadcast the details here.  However if
anyone is interested send me a direct message and I'll send you the
details.

Now the pressure's on if I've an audience of hecklers observing...  ;)


steve "The Czar"
----------------------------------------
Broadcast message from panther@justdata.com.au as Russia in 'trinja':


To Turkey:

> So to answer your question yes, if you made a play for a solo I think
> I had enough defense to deny it to you.

That was my assessment of the situation too.

>   [Please check me on this. I'm pretty sure it was a stalemate
>   line.

You're right, I can't get throught that line.  I'll set it up later and
if I find a weekness I'll let you know.  But at a glance I can't see a
way through.  About the only weekness I saw in your defenses was
Sevastopol until you put a fleet in Armenia.  After that I gave up
looking for a way through.  If I had moved forward you could have quite
easily pushed me out of Tyrolia and thus saved one unit...

> What was your assesment of your defenses.

To have defended my line had you taken the DMZ would have required two
units to defend each of Munich, Silesia, Warsaw and Moscow.  That's 8
units to defend to the Swiss Border thus leavin the other side with
another 8 units to defend which I think I can  do.  All Four of my
fleets could defend the Mid Atlantic from your attack.  Gascony was safe
even if you managed to shuffle a fleet to the north coast to attack it
as that's all you could bring agianst Gascony.  It and Burgundy could
have defended the French in Marseilles for ever...

The only problem would have been the break in my line at Silecia  Which
was done so I could have more units in place furter down the line.
While I was shuffleing them along it might have been a guessing game had
you made the move but assuming I guessed right I had army builds comming
to reinforce the wall.  I doubt you could get through and given the time
I'd have fortified the wall and you'd have know chance.

What prevented me from going for the DMZ was, what next...  I couldn't
defend my position and have units spare to attack something.  If I did
mount an attack I'd have left a weekness in my defenses that you could
exploit and I'd say if you tried for the DMZ too you'd leave a weekness
in your own wall if you pressed the attack.  That could have ended in a
guessing game but it was all to messy and confusing to figure out who
would win.  I was only ever prepared to attack you if there was a clean
and sure way of success.  Believe me I was looking and trying but I
never say the opportunity I needed.

In the final round I needed your support to get my 17th and you needed
my support to get your 17th.  I could have denied you either centre and
you the same to me.  To have tried for the solo would have resulted in a
forced three-way. I was happy to settle for the two-way knowing that if
you tried for the solo then I could deny you that and forced the
three-way.

> Regarding Italy,

  * cut *

> If you see a turn where you think I missed a good opportunity, please
> let me know so we can discuss it.

I don't know I saw an opportunity that you missed as such.  I must
remember you also had to kick Italy out of Austria at the same time.  It
was perhaps your general tactic that I'd have done differently.  I can't
say if it would have been more successful but I think it might have.

You seemed very concerned at loosing the Ionian Sea to Italy.  I don't
see the big deal about holding it... where can italy go once he get's
it.  You have builds comming that will defend your homeland, put an army
to defend Greece if needed.  I would have tried early to push a fleet
into the Tyrrhenian Sea or Western Mediterranian even if it ment loosing
the Ionian sea.  Also i'd have sacrificed the Ionian Sea, even Greece to
get an army onto Apulia.  Greece is a long way form Italy's other
centres and close to yours so It can't be hard for you to retake.

My overall tactic would have been attack for position in every round.
Be aware of what you loose and make sure you gain a centre to offset the
loss.  You have the numbers once you're in the right postion you'll have
Italy surrounded and can take all his centres in one or two rounds.

By that I mean it doesn't matter if you loose Ionian Sea if you have
Tunis, Greece and Aegean Sea and Eastern Mediterranian.  That might be
stretching the truth for what you'd realisticly had but even if you
didn't have the Aegean Sea or Eastern Mediterranian you had builds and
fleets coming to plug those holes. Leave a gap for the fleet to retreat
to and then kill it.  Even loosing Greece isn't that bad as you have
armies that can retake it.

As you wrote to me one year about using London as a back rank marauder I
was thinking you could have used Tunis the same way.  I wrote to you
about this and you said you needed it to hold the Ionian. Why?  I think
the era I'm referring to is just after you took Tunis.  Just as you
indicated to me that using London this way might have made my attack
quicker I think you using Tunis this way might have made your conquest
quicker.


steve "The Czar"
----------------------------------------