| Press for Fall of 1902 in ghodstoo |
Movement
Private message from Russia to Austria:
Edi
You rascal. My (self-fulfilling?) fears came true, it seems. I did
nothing to wean Turkey to my side, because I thought he'd be willing to
hit his tormentor after I hit you...apparently you not only beat me to
the punch, but you and Hohn now have me over a barrel down there.
Luckily Italy also realized the danger of unimpeded Austrian growth--at
least you'll have to cover your backside as you pummel me from the
front.
En garde, oh BinSauronGungaDin.
Tsar Faz
Down, But Not Out
Private message from England to Turkey:
Hi there, other witch.
So, the tide has turned! And this tide has left *me* high and dry!
A blessing on your fortunes, a curse on mine.
I now have an unusual, a strange request. I am supposing, for the sake of
argument, that considerations in your corner still have *some* balance,
even though the one of your tormentors has just helped you and the other
has not. And if I'm right, then I beseech you to take a close look at
whatever Russia has to offer.
My reason is that the Bear turns out to be a peculiar animal. He steals
from me, says he, only out of his instinct of self-preservation. If he were
to feel that your forces would be directed against Austria, or at least not
against his ursine self, he would be my last hope of help in my quarter of
the world. Otherwise he will leave me to the dogs. Quite an offer!
Naturally, you have other considerations far more pressing than my
hardships. However, if you were to lean in the direction most helpful to
me, and if as a result I (and you!) managed to make it to the endgame, I
think my presence in the Other corner would redound to your advantage.
Again, it's a small carrot to offer, but I thought if you were undecided,
or close to undecided, a bit of carrot for your salad might be enough to
round out the meal.
In any case, the best of luck to you,
Other Witch
Private message from Russia to Turkey:
Hohn:
Look, I'll take whatever lumps you want to send my way. Yes, I lied to
you when you were sincere with me. Why shouldn't I have done so, when
Edi had asked us to form a 4-way alliance and (a) crush France with EI
and (b) crush you with AR? But don't hand me this "chutzpah" crap, ok?
I worked in an alliance ENGENDERED BY EDI, thank you very much, against
a target--you. I did what I had to do for my gains in an alliance, just
as you are now doing. I respect you and your moves. Give ME some
credit for my past actions as part of an AR. (Btw, I find it
interesting that Edi--the master of this all--gets no slam from you
whatsoever. He had the plan to level you, then "supposedly" hit I and G
in conjunction with me. I accept my role as Bad Guy toward you. But
don't make Edi out as the benign observer, ok? Don't tell me you're
that blind.)
Why didn't I contact you last turn? And say what? "Hohn, I'm going to
stab Edi this turn; please don't tell him. And by the way, I really
desire you to forget about my last two turns of evilness toward you, and
want you to hit Edi with me." What options were thus available to me?:
(1) You agree to it all, and we live happily ever after; (2) You see the
perfect chance to warn Edi, have him cover vs me, and start a war
against both your tormentors while you observe -- or choose sides.
Who's to say you'd even BELIEVE what I'd say?
Sure, in hindsight the worst option happened anyway, so maybe I
should've called. But I thought that once I was in SER and GAL (and
not trying stuff vs Arm, despite your "guarantee" of going there), then
you'd see I was after him for good. Is letting him take BUL my way of
being a good ally? No, it's not. It was greed, pure and simple,
designed to build up my country against unknown, expert players. But
please note: he took BUL even without my support. A subtle nuance
perhaps of no import to you, but still reeking of evil intent toward you
from Aus nonetheless. But that doesn't matter to you if you're an
Austrian puppet, right?
Frankly, Hohn, I find your tone surly, even for (especially for) a game
of wooden blocks. I overlook it because you caveated it as "your
style," and you obviously meant it to be "for effect" to stress your
intentions. So be it. Be advised, though, I'm NOT trying to impugn
your intelligence or smother you with BS. My first note SAID that I
tried to kill off BUL; even my 1901 notes told you that I was a rat for
hitting you. How many times would you like me to flagellate myself with
a whip?
I had an ally; I did what was good for the alliance at the time; the
alliance is finished; I'm now trying to work a deal with you. OK?
You want me out of BLA; fine. Where do I go? Does it sail to RUM? Do
I un-ass SEV and try something with the armies? YOU tell ME what you
envision, Hohn; you (and Edi) are now in the driver's seat. I tried my
grand pro-Aus plan, and it failed miserably. As I'm sure I won't be
talking to him for awhile, I'll be much more in touch with you (mail and
phone), given that you have stressed repeatedly your desire for
discussion and/or teamwork. I always believed you; the window for me
opened now that AR fell apart.
The ironic thing about this is that RT--natural allies--are fighting
(caused by me, yes) over the same thing: Aus perfidy. And Edi is the
only one who gains from it. I'd like to change that situation, and it
will take us both to fix it.
I accept your points in the letter, and hope mine wasn't too blunt in
reply. I am, indeed, "willing to deal."
Tsar Faz
Private message from Turkey to Austria:
Edi,
Thanks for the support into Rumania! It was extremely gratifying to
demolish that Russian army. :)
I'm now more firmly convinced than ever that most people on this board
have gone stab-happy. I'm feeling pretty confident that the two of
us, working well together as always, will be able to weather the stab
storm and come out in decent shape. And I'm still more than happy to
play junior partner to your senior. I just want to get Mark off my
back!
Regarding other matters, Cal and Mark are conducting a full court
press on me to work with them against you. I've responded by sending
them a blunt letter, calling Mark out for various things, but which
does hold out the possibility of working with them if Mark vacates
Black Sea. I doubt it will work, but you never know. I could have
just played along, but I don't think they would have bought it, and I
also didn't think one turn's worth of potential tactical benefit
merited the deception.
Please let me know what you think we should do this turn. I'll offer
any refinements I can, but I'll of course support whatever it is you
want to do.
Hohn
Private message from Turkey to Russia:
Dear Mark and Cal,
I've read both of your letters. Preliminarily, I'm
interested in responding to only one major point.
> Hohn: Yes, I supported Edi to BUL. My goal was to see
> your unit get annihilated (I'll be up-front about that
> part), but ONLY in the context of luring Edi out of SER
> and allowing me to slide in behind it. I think you can
> see that I really intended no further harm to you--else I
> would've supported to ARM (as Edi no doubt suggested and
> expected!). That would've bounced you, kept us fighting
> with mistrust, and allowed Edi to complete his conquest
> not just of BUL, but of RUM. I was hoping for better
> tactical position, and then support you back to BUL and
> beyond, as an ally. I just couldn't "let on" my plans
> unless Edi found out--that's why I never called you when I
> said I would.
I must confess that I find your current diplomatic stance
extremely curious, Mark. You said not one word to me this
entire past turn. So of course I am going to assume we are
still at war. Now, when you decide for independent reasons
of your own to go for Edi, when you decide not to move to
ARM (which, barring certain risky guesses on your part, I
was guaranteed to take anyway, I might add) for specific
perceived tactical benefits to _yourself_, while at the same
time _continuing_ to demonstrate hostility towards me
(_regardless_ of your ostensible "true reason" of sneaking
into SER, you still ordered RUM S SER-BUL), you apparently
expect me to happily forget that you have twice gone back on
your word to me and work with you against my sole ally?
Man, that's chutzpah.
As I said before, Mark, you're going to have to take some
unilateral action to decrease tension between us, you're
going to have to make good on at least one promise before I
can begin to consider working with you in any significant
fashion. Tell you what. Get the hell out of BLA, and I'll
be happy to work with you. Until you do, I'm going to
continue working with Edi as his loyal puppet.
> Of course, you and Edi were on the phones,
> and you took "the best offer" at the time.
> Understandable.
Of course it's understandable. You and I are at war, and
had no contact this past turn. You really don't need to
state the obvious with me, Mark. It's unnecessary, and just
FYI, I personally don't appreciate it.
> I did you wrong in that year, and intended to make it up
> this year by the hit on Edi. You just didn't anticipate
> it, so I guess "we're even."
Finally, this is simply laughable. You expect me to equate
your two stabs of me with my legitimate diplomatic
negotiation with Edi to make a coordinated tactical move
against you, with whom I am unquestionably at war?
Especially when you gave me _no_ indication of what you were
going to do? Come on, Mark. You did what you felt was in
_your_ best interest, not mine. Your support of SER-RUM
trumpets that fact to all.
There is such a thing as the moral high ground, Mark, even
in Diplomacy. Your attempt to avoid personal responsibility
here, your cavalier disregard of our true history, and your
recasting of your own motivations, insults my intelligence.
Please stop it.
Look, I'm going to be up front with both of you. I _have_
been up front with _both_ of you, this entire game. I could
have smiled and nodded and played yes-man, agreed to
whatever you wanted like a good lackey, and then stabbed you
as well as I could. And there are those who would argue
that that is what I should have done. But that's not what I
chose to do. Because I'm _genuinely_ interested in working
things out with you, Mark, and I'm interested in working
with you as well, Cal. I'm not just looking for the short
term gain by a quick lie-n-stab. But in order to do work
together, we need to be honest with each other, in _all_
things. I've told you what I require in order to work with
you. So be honest with _me_ now.
I am a blunt person. And this message has been extremely
blunt. But I'm being blunt with you here because I want to
make sure we completely understand each other, without risk
of any confusion. Also, I know you are both of the highest
caliber of player, who probably will not take bluntness the
wrong way, and who could see through a bunch of flowery
bullshit anyway.
Let me know. I'm certainly open to further discussion, so
long as it's honest and up front. I just wanted to make
sure we had these basic understandings in place, so that we
won't be wasting our time if our fundamental outlooks cannot
or will not be reconciled.
Hohn
Private message from Russia to England:
GKJ,
And I would retort that this isn't the response I expect from you.
First off, you are far from "out of this game." You may be the kind of
chess-like DipMaster who surveys the next 45 moves and figures your
future standing and outcome. And if you are, then I truly admire the
heck out of you even MORESO than I already do. But for you to say that
your 'endgame' may be coming soon is a bit overexaggerated, methinks.
For one thing, France can see the German handwriting just as well as
you, I'd say. You can easily make the case that IRA left you high and
dry, an unwitting stooge to their perfidy. France surely must see the
danger to a reconciled EG as regards PAR and beyond. He too must see
the dangers inherent in a Grmany who has control over Nth, Bel, and
having two units IN France to boot! Can you not use that to your
advantage and rebalance the front?
Also, your diplomacy is pretty doggone good, Jamie. Why not entice the
Hun to support you to Nwy this season, and make-up over France? Offer
him an EG over anything smacking of RG and see what happens. I don't
buy your bankruptcy of options.
Second, why am I the lone "fall guy" for all your QC-less frustrations?
Because of one center? You chide me for "selling out" for one center,
yet you're willing to forget Italy's retreat from France, Edi's
forfeiture of hitting Germany, ALL of that -- just to potentially
suicide out against me for taking "your" center? Had Edi stuck to the
plan and convinced me of his intentions, I'd be in BAL and SIL, and we'd
have Ber and/or Mun in a vise. In Criminology we use the "but for" rule
to prove a point: But for Austria sticking to the alliance and hitting
Germany, but for Italy staying the course, you'd not be in a bad
position at all. (And yes, I'll say it: "but for" me not moving to Nwy
you'd have a center, too.)
You want to show me why my "perfidy" was wrong, and why YOUR judgment of
my interests must prove more rational than my own. (Expected from a
philosophe, naturally!) I accept that. But I don't know you any more
than you know me. Who's to say you DIDN'T have an alliance with
Germany? Witness your support of him last turn -- yes yes, it could've
been to lure him in deeper to France...or it could've been something
even longer-term. No one knows anyone here, or how we deal...game
dynamics, and all that. But I'll wager that offer (to Gas, vice Par)
propelled Ger to hit you, when you couldn't justify using it to support
him to PAR instead. Germany didn't need me to turn on you, Jamie. He
has more Dip smarts in his little finger than I do in my whole body.
I guess I would say this: You now want me to abandon a center that I
need to face off against REAL perfidy from within "our" alliance, or
you'll direct your forces entirely against me (at least that's what
seems implied) for the alliance-breaking move to take Nwy? So I should
abandon my chance to stay afloat in order to give you the life
preserver? All this over one center, good King?
I will deal with Hohn to the utmost to get him to come over from The
Dark Side. As my last note said, if that happens, you'll see me leave
Nwy. But if AT stay united, should I just throw in the towel, abandon
center gains of my own to your largesse instead, and trust to the Fates?
Is this what's being asked of the Tsar?
Tsar Faz
Private message from England to Russia:
That's not exactly the response I expected from you!
You've left me as high and dry as an Englishman can get. You have cashed in
an absolute long term ally for the sake of a single supply center. I admit
that I am not used to the dynamics of your usual environment, but it is
hard for me to see how that could be a good deal. Was it really 'insurance'
against possible G/A collusion? Your best possible insurance was a friend
to protect your interests and keep Germany otherwise occupied. You are in
the process of canceling that insurance policy. And for one center! And you
will certainly have to use that extra unit in the north, in Scandinavia, so
your net gain is nil. It's an attitude that is so foreign to me.
I will refrain from harsh judgment. I am just swimming in unfamiliar
waters, that's all. But, I can only draw the obvious conclusions, and I'll
play the sequel according to my own style.
Here is where we stand. If you exit Norway by the end of the year, I
retract all of my recriminations, and my forces would be at your disposal.
What else could I do? Otherwise, I'm afraid I am your sworn enemy. Do you
see how I must view the matter? I had no alliance with Germany, his attack
is merely what one expects in this sort of game. France is defending
himself as best he can. You, on the other hand, are in the process of
proving yourself the worst possible 'ally'.
I am very pessimistic about my chances, at the moment. As I see it, in the
next few moves I will be spending my last coins, not to improve my own
standing (which appears doomed) but to affect the outcome of the game. Let
me explain.
I have just misjudged the situation on the board very badly. Whenever I do
that, I have to think why. I judged that my allies would not stab me: why
not? Because I thought it would not be in their interests to stab me. My
prediction was wrong, but I must, if I can, prove that my underlying
judgment was sound. I will have to show that my judgment of your interests
was better than yours. I will have to do what I can to fulfill my own
prophecy. When it's time to look back and survey our mistakes, it is
important to me that you see your perfidy as a mistake. Do you see what
moves me?
That is what I will do just as soon as I have decided that my prospects for
participation in the endgame have vanished. That may happen very shortly
indeed. I expect it will. I don't expect you will give me back my only
hope. As you say, 'anything can happen'. But the avenues to me are closing
very rapidly.
Your move, Tsar!
Gentle King Jamie
Private message from Russia to Germany:
Kaiser Pitt
Well, sir, you see the Russian honor is true--and I see your mettle, as
well! I hope you're feeling better (both from the metaphysical sense
this game, and from a physical sense after your recent illness).
I'm a little chagrined over the AT reunification down there. Part of me
sees Edi as crafting this all along. But part of me sees Edi as using
Hohn (much like I planned to do in spring); witness his sneaky slide
into BUL behind Hohn's advance!
I had intended to kill of Hohn's army BUl, but then ally with him and
offer him fleet build potential (and Austrian centers!) as recompense.
Edi, master that he is, once again beat me to the punch. Any
suggestions on what to do down south?
As for the north: I'll hold in Nwy, obviously. Your moves showed the
"beyond the horizon vision" that mkes you a helluva player. I mean, if
you ally with France, BEL and Bre can fall. if you re-ally with Eng
(not desired, obviously), then Paris is a goner, and you have the
position over F and E in the region at a later date.
If you go for the "basics," then you have a convoy potential this turn
(Hol-Yor, Ruh-Hol, Pic S Bur-Bel). If England hits F nth, you retreat
to Lon or Edi. If not, his internal defense is imploded. You are,
indeed, in a nice position.
I will do nothing to upser the RG applecart. As I've said before, I
want peace with you, and I need a quiet northern front in order to focus
on the dreaded AT now forming. Any persuasion you can do to "wean" Hohn
from The Dark Side and hit Edi in conjunction with me would be obviously
appreciated.
Good hunting against whatever province(s) you hit, and here's to the RG.
Tsar Faz
Are all of you observers watching carefully??? That makes three straight
seasons with considerable "surprises" and more twists and turns about
"who's on top". Hey, Manus, I'll bet you're displeased that you weren't
running that Diplomatic Pouch Bourse on THIS game. Then you'd watch
those prices soar and crash. Compared to this, the game you are doing
the bourse on is tres boring..... heh, heh, he....
Your friendly GM Jim-Bob
Private message from Russia to Italy:
Cal,
Despite the invective being flung about (see my reply, below), I think I
can work with Hohn. If I can't, well...they're after me, anyway. May
as well take some chances here. WE need to coordinate some moves,
either with Turkey (support him to Bud?) or without him...
What say you?
Tsar Faz
---------------------------------------------------------------
>press to t
>Hohn:
>Look, I'll take whatever lumps you want to send my way. Yes, I lied to you
>when you were sincere with me. Why shouldn't I have done so, when Edi had
>asked us to form a 4-way alliance and (a) crush France with EI and (b) crush
>you with AR? But don't hand me this "chutzpah" crap, ok? I worked in an
>alliance ENGENDERED BY EDI, thank you very much, against a target--you. I
>did what I had to do for my gains in an alliance, just as you are now doing.
>I respect you and your moves. Give ME some credit for my past actions as
>part of an AR. (Btw, I find it interesting that Edi--the master of this
>all--gets no slam from you whatsoever. He had the plan to level you, then
>"supposedly" hit I and G in conjunction with me. I accept my role as Bad Guy
>toward you. But don't make Edi out as the benign observer, ok? Don't tell
>me you're that blind.)
>
>Why didn't I contact you last turn? And say what? "Hohn, I'm going to stab
>Edi this turn; please don't tell him. And by the way, I really desire you to
>forget about my last two turns of evilness toward you, and want you to hit
>Edi with me." What options were thus available to me?: (1) You agree to it
>all, and we live happily ever after; (2) You see the perfect chance to warn
>Edi, have him cover vs me, and start a war against both your tormentors while
>you observe -- or choose sides. Who's to say you'd even BELIEVE what I'd
>say?
>Sure, in hindsight the worst option happened anyway, so maybe I should've
>called. But I thought that once I was in SER and GAL (and not trying stuff
>vs Arm, despite your "guarantee" of going there), then you'd see I was after
>him for good. Is letting him take BUL my way of being a good ally? No, it's
>not. It was greed, pure and simple, designed to build up my country against
>unknown, expert players. But please note: he took BUL even without my
>support. A subtle nuance perhaps of no import to you, but still reeking of
>evil intent toward you from Aus nonetheless. But that doesn't matter to you
>if you're an Austrian puppet, right?
>
>Frankly, Hohn, I find your tone surly, even for (especially for) a game of
>wooden blocks. I overlook it because you caveated it as "your style," and
>you obviously meant it to be "for effect" to stress your intentions. So be
>it. Be advised, though, I'm NOT trying to impugn your intelligence or
>smother you with BS. My first note SAID that I tried to kill off BUL; even
>my 1901 notes told you that I was a rat for hitting you. How many times
>would you like me to flagellate myself with a whip?
>
>I had an ally; I did what was good for the alliance at the time; the alliance
>is finished; I'm now trying to work a deal with you. OK?
>
>You want me out of BLA; fine. Where do I go? Does it sail to RUM? Do I
>un-ass SEV and try something with the armies? YOU tell ME what you envision,
>Hohn; you (and Edi) are now in the driver's seat. I tried my grand pro-Aus
>plan, and it failed miserably. As I'm sure I won't be talking to him for
>awhile, I'll be much more in touch with you (mail and phone), given that you
>have stressed repeatedly your desire for discussion and/or teamwork. I
>always believed you; the window for me opened now that AR fell apart.
>
>The ironic thing about this is that RT--natural allies--are fighting (caused
>by me, yes) over the same thing: Aus perfidy. And Edi is the only one who
>gains from it. I'd like to change that situation, and it will take us both
>to fix it.
>
>I accept your points in the letter, and hope mine wasn't too blunt in reply.
> I am, indeed, "willing to deal."
>
>Tsar Faz
Let me know your ideas, Cal.
>endpress
>signoff
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
(Tsarist Winter Palace, Summer 1902): His Majesty's Ministry of
Information is pleased to inform the readership that peace has been
achieved with the great Kaiser Pitt in all regards. The seizure of
neutral Norway, despite invective from certain western governments, was
entirely in self-defense and specifically as insurance against any
southern perfidy. Sadly, the Southern Front witnessed such perfidy last
spring. Austria, breaking all terms of the Quadripartite Continuum
Alliance, launched an aggressive campaign in collusion with the
revanchist Sultan Allah Allah In-Free, aka Hohn the Exalted. The dark
smoke from Transylvania shadows the gloom that BirSauron and his evil
minions have wrought.
Tsarist forces are in full retreat from the Balkans. We hope diplomacy
can restore the battlefield situation, but we are not sanguine about its
prospects. Luckily Doge Cal -- leading an army of Papal crusaders -- is
en route to pull the Tsarist chestnuts from the fire.
Vive le France! Bravo Italia! Heil Viktoria! And Huzzahs for Johnny
Bull! May our friends realize the growing pus-ball that is now the AT
alliance, and may they lance it with Swords of Righteousness. Russian
weakness will engender the emergence of an AT cancer across the lands of
our friends by mid-game.
End of Ministry Broadcast.
Private message from Russia to Turkey:
Hohn
Thanks for the quick reply. No, I'm not taking it personally. There's
a difference between personal invective (which neither of us should be
flinging, as neither of us deserve it) and game stuff. it's all
personality, really. If I may reply to your replies (I'll be at the
**)...
>
>> Look, I'll take whatever lumps you want to send my way.
>> Yes, I lied to you when you were sincere with me. Why
>> shouldn't I have done so, when Edi had asked us to form a
>> 4-way alliance and (a) crush France with EI and (b) crush
>> you with AR?
>
>We all make choices. You chose to go with Edi instead of
>me. That's totally fine. But IMO you should take
>responsibility for that decision, rather than try to play it
>off as no big deal like you did in your past letter.
** IMO, I have accepted responsibility. I've mentioned more than either
of us care to recount, the number of times I said I was a bad boy. But
it's also the game, isn't it? Sort of, "Hey, I allied with what I
thought was an ally. Dodn't work out. Sorry. Nothing personal vs
you." IS IT "a big deal?" Haven't you ever made peace with someone YOU
stabbed and then mutually worked with? Did you have to have a pound of
flesh extracted from you, or did you treat it as part of your
negotiating and dynamics of the game?
>> But don't hand me this "chutzpah" crap, ok?
>
>Why not? It seemed a particularly apt word, in light of
>your earlier message.
** You call 'em as you see 'em. I don't think I had "the gall" to write
what I did. But if that's how you interpreted it, that's your call.
>> I worked in an alliance ENGENDERED BY EDI, thank you very
>> much, against a target--you. I did what I had to do for
>> my gains in an alliance, just as you are now doing.
>
>No. I'm fighting for my survival. I'm in a position which
>your own actions forced me into. The causation analysis
>therefore differs, as does the moral calculus.
** Is the moral caluclus part dealing with the non-claimable "moral high
ground" from your last letter?
I would submit to you that the fortunes of war have now caused me to
fight for my survival. I could easily say that I'm now in a position
which your actions (puppeting for Edi) forced me into. But how far back
do we trace stuff? You're fighting for survival, UP TO A POINT.
Unless Edi hits you again, you're in no danger anymore. I certainly
can't hurt you now.
> I respect you and your moves. Give ME some credit for my
>> past actions as part of an AR. (Btw, I find it
>> interesting that Edi--the master of this all--gets no slam
>> from you whatsoever. He had the plan to level you, then
>> "supposedly" hit I and G in conjunction with me. I accept
>> my role as Bad Guy toward you. But don't make Edi out as
>> the benign observer, ok? Don't tell me you're that
>> blind.)
>
>I fully realize you were operating under the assumption that
>there was an AR.
** Then why castigate me for my actions against you? And why not open
your eyes to Austria's actions?
>
>Of course, that changes not one whit the fact that you have
>been hostile towards me, including this immediately previous
>turn, and that you've lied to me twice, and that despite
>what you said in your previous letter, your motives in going
>against Edi were not in my best interests as you claimed,
>but rather your own.
** Yes, indeed; I have been hostile (mea culpa #546). But let's define
"hostile." Edi making a plan that calls for your destruction is
"hostile." Edi taking BUL (and probably RUM) from you is "hostile."
My acting as part of that alliance was also singularly "hostile."
Granted.
As the Monkees song says, "that was then; this is now."
>
>As for me and Edi, I fully realize what is going on with him
>and me.
** Do you? Would that be the presence of F Aeg and A Bul influencing
you, perhaps?
>Your paragraph above is making some unwarranted
>assumptions, but since we've still not established what I
>would term a working relationship, I'm not going to tell you
>what those unwarranted assumptions are. I hope you
>understand.
** In all honesty, I do. You may be trying to tell me that you also
fear Edi, did this because you couldn't trust me, but you still don't
trust Edi, either....I understand your reticence. believe me, after the
RUM thing, i clearly see the Master's hand in fomenting perfect RT
hatred toward each other while he pulls the strings.
>> Why didn't I contact you last turn? And say what? "Hohn,
>> I'm going to stab Edi this turn; please don't tell him.
>> And by the way, I really desire you to forget about my
>> last two turns of evilness toward you, and want you to hit
>> Edi with me." What options were thus available to me?:
>> (1) You agree to it all, and we live happily ever after;
>> (2) You see the perfect chance to warn Edi, have him cover
>> vs me, and start a war against both your tormentors while
>> you observe -- or choose sides. Who's to say you'd even
>> BELIEVE what I'd say?
>
>That's a straw man argument, Mark. I'm not disputing your
>actual _decision_ not to say anything to me. Reread what I
>wrote carefully. What I took issue with was your attempting
>to use your stab of Austria as some sort of equalizing
>device, to make us "even" as you put it. I also used your
>silence to make the point that I could only assume that we
>were still at war. And that's a reasonable assumption.
** I think you misunderstood what I wrote (or at least mean), Hohn.
When I said we were "even," it wasn't to say "I've expunged all guilt
about the past, let's wipe the slate clean." You never sullied the
slate.
What I MEANT (but obviously garbled) was: you didn't hear from me; you
made a logical choice (understandable); you got me. We're even in the
sense that I tried to hose you, and you did hose me. Does that mean you
wanted to nail me? No. It just was a statement of fact. I'm sorry if
you read into (or if my note said more) than what I intended it to mean.
> Sure, in hindsight the worst option happened anyway, so
>> maybe I should've called. But I thought that once I was
>> in SER and GAL (and not trying stuff vs Arm, despite your
>> "guarantee" of going there), then you'd see I was after
>> him for good.
>
>Fair enough. Just don't seek to use your uncommunicated
>stab, which you made for reasons of your own, as some sort
>of moral leverage over me,
** "Moral leverage?" How so? Like you're so untermensch that I
"graciously" would allow back to the ranks of the living after I spin my
webs? Wrong-o. I wanted to get Edi before he got me. Your country
was going to be nailed for one more turn in the process. Morally wrong,
but I was hoping to be "tactically right." I foresaw your growth as
coming when I had Edi reduced. if that bugs you, I'm sorry. That was
how I was trying to play it.
> like you did in your previous
>message. Just because you stab Austria doesn't change the
>fact that your relationship with me has been poor so far
>this game, poor as a result of your actions.
** No, it doesn't. But I was hoping that my being in GAL and
(hopefully) SER would've rang the little bells that intimated a Russian
change-of-action. I never said I wasn't a rat toward you.
>Thus the
>necessity of seeing you take some action to repair that
>relationship, if you really want to work with me.
>
>Regardless of what Edi "planned" with you, regardless of
>what the relationship is between you and him, that doesn't
>matter overly much. It was _your_ decision to stab me,
** IT WAS EDI'S DECISION TO "STAB" YOU. The fact that I was the
hatchet man and made the first alliance moves vs you makes me the heavy,
I guess. But I fully realize you were under the assumption there was an
RT.
>plain and simple. Edi held no gun to your head. It was
>your decision. Not Edi's. And in order to repair your
>relationship with me, you're going to have to make good with
>_me_, not by pointing at some stab of a third-party.
>Do you understand what I'm trying to say?
** Loud and clear, pal.
>
>> Is letting him take BUL my way of being a
>> good ally? No, it's not. It was greed, pure and simple,
>> designed to build up my country against unknown, expert
>> players.
>
>I can't say I understand what you're trying to say here.
** What I'm trying to say is that I'm not on a par with you guys. As a
consequence, I wanted rapid growth and one foe taken down. I wanted
centers to face off whoever was going to be my future foe.
>
>> But please note: he took BUL even without my
>> support. A subtle nuance perhaps of no import to you, but
>> still reeking of evil intent toward you from Aus
>> nonetheless. But that doesn't matter to you if you're an
>> Austrian puppet, right?
>
>If I'm an Austrian puppet? Nope. Doesn't matter at all.
** I sense the implication here. I'll merely say this: If I was after
you, I would've remained the Austrian puppet. Edi's gameplan called for
RUM S Ser-Bul, Bla S Sev-Arm...again, to continue the Arm war (or anger
over it). He was then going to support me to Con (Bul S Sev-Con, Bla
C), or so he said...Now, YOU don't know those details, and I wasn't
about to spill them over the phone. I made the blatant anti-Aus moves I
did (and invading Gal and trying for SER can't be much more blatant)
because I wanted a deal with you in the long run, realizing the error of
my previous ways. If I didn't, I would've gone "per the plan" and tried
to get CON in fall, reducing you to two. That was the better Russian
option in the long run.
>> Frankly, Hohn, I find your tone surly, even for
>> (especially for) a game of wooden blocks.
>
>
>
>I'm simply calling 'em as I see 'em. What better place to
>do that than in a game? I'm surprised you're taking it so
>personally, to be honest. I certainly am not.
** It's not personal, as I said above. I just find venting spleen a bit
of "overkill" for a game of blocks.
>
>> I overlook it because you caveated it as "your
>> style," and you obviously meant it to be "for effect" to
>> stress your intentions. So be it. Be advised, though,
>> I'm NOT trying to impugn your intelligence or smother you
>> with BS. My first note SAID that I tried to kill off BUL;
>> even my 1901 notes told you that I was a rat for hitting
>> you. How many times would you like me to flagellate
>> myself with a whip?
>
>That's not the point, nor is it my intent. I'm asking you
>to take responsibility for your past actions, not to have
>you berate yourself over them. And by doing so, by
>understanding that I will need to see you vacate BLA or make
>some other unilateral action to better our relationship
>(just as you unilaterally worsened it), we can thus move
>beyond it.
** geez, how many times are we going to kill this "personal
responsibility" part? Are you moralizing here?
>
>I want you to reread what you wrote to me in that first
>letter this season. You tried to play off your stab of Edi
>as some sort of big favor you were doing for me, and you
>tried to unilaterally declare that we were "even" when, as I
>mention above, what you do to a third party does not really
>have relevance to your relationship with me. You claim
>certain motives which, although I suppose are possible, I
>find to be quite dubious in light of actual events.
** I answered some of this up above. And interpret my moves as you see
fit. They were anti-Austrian, with no qualms. I'm sorry I can't change
1901.
>That's what I didn't appreciate, Mark, and that's why you
>received the response you did.
** Understood. Hopefully dead and buried.
>> I had an ally; I did what was good for the alliance at
>> the time; the alliance is finished; I'm now trying to work
>> a deal with you. OK?
>
>Sure. And I told you what I needed to see from you, and
>that is honesty and a vacating of BLA.
** If I wasn't honest, I'd have stopped writing and figured we'd be
enemies to the death. I wouldn't have written the e-mail that said I
would call you sometime soon. You either believe me or you don't. if
you don't, then I'm sorry my diplomacy 9and all this e-mail) is so
miserable in convincing you.
>> You want me out of BLA; fine. Where do I go? Does it
>> sail to RUM? Do I un-ass SEV and try something with the
>> armies? YOU tell ME what you envision, Hohn; you (and
>> Edi) are now in the driver's seat. I tried my grand
>> pro-Aus plan, and it failed miserably.
>
>I will get back to you on this, as I have yet to study the
>tactical situation in depth.
** I'll be waiting.
>
>> As I'm sure I
>> won't be talking to him for awhile,
>
>Why? You kept in touch with me despite our history. Well,
>except for this immediate past season, that is.
** true. But Edi masterminded one stab of you by using me as his
(willing) puppet. He's apparently capitalized on your survival to
mastermind a second stab, all for his benefit. before I deal with him
again, I'd like to be on a more equal basis, and/or let him feel some
hot breath down HIS back. As for this immediate past season, I've
already discussed that to death.
>
>> I'll be much more in
>> touch with you (mail and phone), given that you have
>> stressed repeatedly your desire for discussion and/or
>> teamwork. I always believed you; the window for me opened
>> now that AR fell apart.
>
>Sure. The window opened for _you_. And what I've been
>trying to tell you is what I'm going to need to see for that
>window to open for _me_, to cooperate with you.
** Again, go the board and analyze how you want the window opened, Hohn.
I want a Balkan center, regardless. I'll support you to BUD, BUL, or
wherever. Or I'll accept your support, and we NEED Italy's help here.
I wouldn't be writing so doggone much if I wasn't trying to show that
I'm willing to open the window.
>
>> The ironic thing about this is that RT--natural
>> allies--are fighting (caused by me, yes) over the same
>> thing: Aus perfidy.
>
>I'll withhold comment on this, except to reiterate that your
>understanding is based upon certain unwarranted assumptions.
>Personally, I see no irony.
** If you and Edi planned this eons ago, then yes, there's no irony.
But if you can't see how ironic it is that Edi convinced me to war vs
you while he sat back--and then how he's got you fighting vs me as a
foil to gain revenge or counterattack--then maybe one of us isn't seeing
the whole picture.
>> And Edi is the only one who gains
>> from it. I'd like to change that situation, and it will
>> take us both to fix it.
>
>This is true, however, and I am in sync with your desire to
>change that situation.
** Excellent. After all the above is said and done, the key is this
paragraph.
>> I accept your points in the letter, and hope mine wasn't
>> too blunt in reply. I am, indeed, "willing to deal."
>
>I prefer bluntness, so long as people don't take it
>personally. I'm certainly not. I hope you're not, although
>I fear you might be. And I'm glad you're willing to deal.
>Let's try to work something out, then.
** Good enough. Analyze your map and let me know how you see things.
Thanks for the note(s).
Mark
Private message from England to Russia:
Tsar Faz,
I will try to be brief (but that's not my forte).
First, I think you have overinterpreted my remarks. I do not yet think that
I am ruined. I think rather that I am very likely to be ruined, I am on the
brink of the abyss, not yet in free fall.
I'll be down to three centers, if you don't follow through on our
agreement, and though I *might* manage to convince either France or Germany
that I would make a useful puppet, I am not very sanguine about it. I shall
certainly try.
I was explaining my alternatives, that's all.
Second, you're a fine pot calling a kettle black! There you are fussing
about how your only alternative to seizing Norway was to 'throw in the
towel', and then you complain that *I* exaggerate my woes! But you have a
fine friend in Italy, and I have no one, for all of my erstwhile friends
have stabbed me. Even against a united T/A you are on one team in an equal
fight. I have no such equality. Then who can cry 'NEED' with more justice,
you or I?
Third, I must very stridently object to your use of the word 'largesse', as in,
>Nwy. But if AT stay united, should I just throw in the towel, abandon
>center gains of my own to your largesse instead, and trust to the Fates?
Largesse, is it, to execute one's promises taken in good faith? To honor
one's straightforward agreement to one's allies? Is that largesse? Or did
you mispeak? I must say that it is this feature of your apology that truly
galls me.
Fourth, I am not under any illusion, as you seem to think I am, that you
and only you have sold me up the river. I am very well aware that *all
three* of my allies have dumped the Quad alliance, and simultaneously. (You
must understand that my wounds are aggravated by self-disgust -- how could
I have been so stupid as to have been deceived into trusting both you and
Cal???) If I die as a result, then if it were possible I would work ruin on
all the three of you! (If you come up with a good way to do that, given
that I shall have exactly three units, do explain it to me, I will be
forever grateful.) But no, there is only one from whom I could exact any
direct payment, and you are the one. If it comes to that. *IF*. As for the
others, I would have to take small comfort in helping/allowing France to
construct a large navy and Germany a large army, to the respective
detriments of Cal and Edi.
Fifth, I don't take seriously your insinuations that I may have had in mind
to ally with Germany all along. If the insinuations were serious, let me
know and I will address them. But I think that was a bit of
conscience-soothing rationalization on your part. No shame, everyone does
it. It takes a man on the brink of disaster to see through the cobwebs of
his own mind! I speak from immediate experience, having just watched my own
cobwebs fall away.
Last, I will certainly attempt utmostly to convince Hohn that you are not
an untrustworthy knave. His is the only quarter in which I can still deal
plainly. You could make my job and my convictions a whole lot easier to
carry off, you know. There are honest errors retracted, even in Diplomacy.
It profit a man not to sell his soul and gain the world, said Sir Thomas
More, "but for Wales, Richard, for Wales!" Or Norway, he might have said,
though it wouldn't have been so punchy. Punchy guy, Thomas.
Still Gentle, but now *per force*,
King Jamie
The Pouch bourse game boring? Well, at least it's being called SOMEthing.
Since it kind of died in the water a while back, I'm glad to see that
someone remembers it. Rick Desper is in the process of putting it back
together, I believe, but I've lost track of where he might be with that
process....
However, we at the Pouch are always willing to add any game (such as, need
I spell it out, this one) to the Showcase section, which has unfortunately
also been a great idea untended. Since all the partial press is being saved,
and the players are commenting on their moves, and since (with the exception
of my own surely inadvertent exclusion :-) the players are among the most
talented out there, this game would be a nice permanent addition to the
Showcase. I know that this is TAP has dibs on the thing (but only because
you're doing all the work :-), but if you want, Jim, to also consider it for
inclusion in the fledgling Showcase section of TDP, feel free.
SYS,
Manus
> Rick Desper is in the process of putting it back
together, I believe, but I've lost track of where he might be with that
process....
I need the bourse info from Stephen. I asked him for it a few weeks
ago. I guess I have to ask again. :(
Rick
Private message from Turkey to Russia:
Mark,
> Look, I'll take whatever lumps you want to send my way.
> Yes, I lied to you when you were sincere with me. Why
> shouldn't I have done so, when Edi had asked us to form a
> 4-way alliance and (a) crush France with EI and (b) crush
> you with AR?
We all make choices. You chose to go with Edi instead of
me. That's totally fine. But IMO you should take
responsibility for that decision, rather than try to play it
off as no big deal like you did in your past letter.
> But don't hand me this "chutzpah" crap, ok?
Why not? It seemed a particularly apt word, in light of
your earlier message.
> I worked in an alliance ENGENDERED BY EDI, thank you very
> much, against a target--you. I did what I had to do for
> my gains in an alliance, just as you are now doing.
No. I'm fighting for my survival. I'm in a position which
your own actions forced me into. The causation analysis
therefore differs, as does the moral calculus.
> I respect you and your moves. Give ME some credit for my
> past actions as part of an AR. (Btw, I find it
> interesting that Edi--the master of this all--gets no slam
> from you whatsoever. He had the plan to level you, then
> "supposedly" hit I and G in conjunction with me. I accept
> my role as Bad Guy toward you. But don't make Edi out as
> the benign observer, ok? Don't tell me you're that
> blind.)
I fully realize you were operating under the assumption that
there was an AR.
Of course, that changes not one whit the fact that you have
been hostile towards me, including this immediately previous
turn, and that you've lied to me twice, and that despite
what you said in your previous letter, your motives in going
against Edi were not in my best interests as you claimed,
but rather your own.
As for me and Edi, I fully realize what is going on with him
and me. Your paragraph above is making some unwarranted
assumptions, but since we've still not established what I
would term a working relationship, I'm not going to tell you
what those unwarranted assumptions are. I hope you
understand.
> Why didn't I contact you last turn? And say what? "Hohn,
> I'm going to stab Edi this turn; please don't tell him.
> And by the way, I really desire you to forget about my
> last two turns of evilness toward you, and want you to hit
> Edi with me." What options were thus available to me?:
> (1) You agree to it all, and we live happily ever after;
> (2) You see the perfect chance to warn Edi, have him cover
> vs me, and start a war against both your tormentors while
> you observe -- or choose sides. Who's to say you'd even
> BELIEVE what I'd say?
That's a straw man argument, Mark. I'm not disputing your
actual _decision_ not to say anything to me. Reread what I
wrote carefully. What I took issue with was your attempting
to use your stab of Austria as some sort of equalizing
device, to make us "even" as you put it. I also used your
silence to make the point that I could only assume that we
were still at war. And that's a reasonable assumption.
> Sure, in hindsight the worst option happened anyway, so
> maybe I should've called. But I thought that once I was
> in SER and GAL (and not trying stuff vs Arm, despite your
> "guarantee" of going there), then you'd see I was after
> him for good.
Fair enough. Just don't seek to use your uncommunicated
stab, which you made for reasons of your own, as some sort
of moral leverage over me, like you did in your previous
message. Just because you stab Austria doesn't change the
fact that your relationship with me has been poor so far
this game, poor as a result of your actions. Thus the
necessity of seeing you take some action to repair that
relationship, if you really want to work with me.
Regardless of what Edi "planned" with you, regardless of
what the relationship is between you and him, that doesn't
matter overly much. It was _your_ decision to stab me,
plain and simple. Edi held no gun to your head. It was
your decision. Not Edi's. And in order to repair your
relationship with me, you're going to have to make good with
_me_, not by pointing at some stab of a third-party.
Do you understand what I'm trying to say?
> Is letting him take BUL my way of being a
> good ally? No, it's not. It was greed, pure and simple,
> designed to build up my country against unknown, expert
> players.
I can't say I understand what you're trying to say here.
> But please note: he took BUL even without my
> support. A subtle nuance perhaps of no import to you, but
> still reeking of evil intent toward you from Aus
> nonetheless. But that doesn't matter to you if you're an
> Austrian puppet, right?
If I'm an Austrian puppet? Nope. Doesn't matter at all.
> Frankly, Hohn, I find your tone surly, even for
> (especially for) a game of wooden blocks.
I'm simply calling 'em as I see 'em. What better place to
do that than in a game? I'm surprised you're taking it so
personally, to be honest. I certainly am not.
> I overlook it because you caveated it as "your
> style," and you obviously meant it to be "for effect" to
> stress your intentions. So be it. Be advised, though,
> I'm NOT trying to impugn your intelligence or smother you
> with BS. My first note SAID that I tried to kill off BUL;
> even my 1901 notes told you that I was a rat for hitting
> you. How many times would you like me to flagellate
> myself with a whip?
That's not the point, nor is it my intent. I'm asking you
to take responsibility for your past actions, not to have
you berate yourself over them. And by doing so, by
understanding that I will need to see you vacate BLA or make
some other unilateral action to better our relationship
(just as you unilaterally worsened it), we can thus move
beyond it.
I want you to reread what you wrote to me in that first
letter this season. You tried to play off your stab of Edi
as some sort of big favor you were doing for me, and you
tried to unilaterally declare that we were "even" when, as I
mention above, what you do to a third party does not really
have relevance to your relationship with me. You claim
certain motives which, although I suppose are possible, I
find to be quite dubious in light of actual events.
That's what I didn't appreciate, Mark, and that's why you
received the response you did.
> I had an ally; I did what was good for the alliance at
> the time; the alliance is finished; I'm now trying to work
> a deal with you. OK?
Sure. And I told you what I needed to see from you, and
that is honesty and a vacating of BLA.
> You want me out of BLA; fine. Where do I go? Does it
> sail to RUM? Do I un-ass SEV and try something with the
> armies? YOU tell ME what you envision, Hohn; you (and
> Edi) are now in the driver's seat. I tried my grand
> pro-Aus plan, and it failed miserably.
I will get back to you on this, as I have yet to study the
tactical situation in depth.
> As I'm sure I
> won't be talking to him for awhile,
Why? You kept in touch with me despite our history. Well,
except for this immediate past season, that is.
> I'll be much more in
> touch with you (mail and phone), given that you have
> stressed repeatedly your desire for discussion and/or
> teamwork. I always believed you; the window for me opened
> now that AR fell apart.
Sure. The window opened for _you_. And what I've been
trying to tell you is what I'm going to need to see for that
window to open for _me_, to cooperate with you.
> The ironic thing about this is that RT--natural
> allies--are fighting (caused by me, yes) over the same
> thing: Aus perfidy.
I'll withhold comment on this, except to reiterate that your
understanding is based upon certain unwarranted assumptions.
Personally, I see no irony.
> And Edi is the only one who gains
> from it. I'd like to change that situation, and it will
> take us both to fix it.
This is true, however, and I am in sync with your desire to
change that situation.
> I accept your points in the letter, and hope mine wasn't
> too blunt in reply. I am, indeed, "willing to deal."
I prefer bluntness, so long as people don't take it
personally. I'm certainly not. I hope you're not, although
I fear you might be. And I'm glad you're willing to deal.
Let's try to work something out, then.
Hohn
>
> Broadcast message from [email protected] as Observer in 'ghodstoo':
>
> The Pouch bourse game boring? Well, at least it's being called SOMEthing.
> Since it kind of died in the water a while back, I'm glad to see that
> someone remembers it. Rick Desper is in the process of putting it back
> together, I believe, but I've lost track of where he might be with that
> process....
>
I watched the beginning and found it boring enough that I stopped
watching it.... so much so that I was unaware it wasn't still going.
Whoops.... can't be omniscient, can we.... besides, what I was
really after was to tweak you for declining the opportunity to play
in this game when initially asked ;-) Mission accomplished!
> However, we at the Pouch are always willing to add any game (such as, need
> I spell it out, this one) to the Showcase section, which has unfortunately
> also been a great idea untended. Since all the partial press is being saved,
> and the players are commenting on their moves, and since (with the exception
> of my own surely inadvertent exclusion :-) the players are among the most
> talented out there, this game would be a nice permanent addition to the
> Showcase. I know that this is TAP has dibs on the thing (but only because
> you're doing all the work :-), but if you want, Jim, to also consider it for
> inclusion in the fledgling Showcase section of TDP, feel free.
>
> SYS,
> Manus
>
Manus, you were not inadvertently excluded, you excluded yourself!!!
Heh, heh, heh... I'll go look at it, but remind me again how the
Showcase section works. When the game is over I certainly want
to store the records on diplom.org and have them connected to the Pouch.
Do you want to do a hot link for the moment to Dave Kleiman's
web page on the game at USIN? that's certainly fine too.
Jim
Private message from Italy to Master:
> Message from [email protected] as England to Italy in 'ghodstoo':
>
> ooooh! I've been stabbed!
> :-)
>
> Ok, well, looks like I'm alone up here. Good luck getting that next
> center of yours.
>
> Gentle King Jamie
I hear you... grin Good luck to both of us.
Cal
Private message from Turkey to England:
Jamie,
Fear not, I have not foreclosed my options in the South.
I'm talking with Mark extensively now. And your carrot
might make the difference, believe it or not. I'm of
two evenly divided minds on the subject right now.
We'll see how things shake down. Good luck to you.
Hohn
Private message from England to Russia:
Re: Edi the Mesmerizer:
Yes, indeed. Only don't allow yourself to be hypnotized, please! Once is
enough.
>If Germany remains hostile to you and you drop to 3 (and only one unit =
>is adjacent to me), then it's gonna take awhile to make my life a living =
>hell up there. Not that I'm trying to be a smarty (I'm not), but your =
>threat is viable, credible, and perhaps a 'tad' exaggerated against me, =
>nicht war?
Jawohl.
I can't say I'd 'take you down'. But then again, it might not take much,
huh? House of cards, kind of thing, by your own estimate.
No, I will only do what damage I can. Er, that is: I *would* only do what
damage I *could*. Enough, I reckon, to make taking Norway count as a
mistake in the final ledger, when the 'ccountin's done. It would be
tasteless to get more specific.
>Dulce et decorum est, pro patria mori
Sic semper tsarius.
Hic hoc horum!
GKJ
Private message from Russia to England:
GKJ,
Indeed, my whole point is that Master Edi isn't called the Master for =
nothing. I mean, don't you also see the betrayal he engendered? For =
one thing, not only was there no GA incursions, but they both went =
opposite ways (hence my fear of a friendly AG). Not only that, but why =
did he cover Bud and support Hohn? Yes, Hohn chewed up his phone lines =
whereas I never spoke to him once last turn (for fear he'd reveal my =
anti-A plans; ouch). But Edi obviously had this greased, and never =
intended to see you or I make the light of day. My view is that he =
planned to make an A/puppet t vs me, A/puppet I vs F, and then AG cleans =
up the remnants.
Well, 'tis all water under the bridge. I will indeed "recalculate the =
math" up north. You may need to 'do some cipherin'" yourself, though. =
If Germany remains hostile to you and you drop to 3 (and only one unit =
is adjacent to me), then it's gonna take awhile to make my life a living =
hell up there. Not that I'm trying to be a smarty (I'm not), but your =
threat is viable, credible, and perhaps a 'tad' exaggerated against me, =
nicht war? But I follow your reasoning and veiled (not-so-vieled?) =
implications, BELIEVE ME.
Dulce et decorum est, pro patria mori
Tsar Faz
Private message from England to Russia:
Tsar Faz,
I take it, then, that you are not especially optimistic about the chances
of peace with Hohn (your own personal condition for removing the knife from
my back).
I think the upshot is, you were manipulated by Edi. That's what happened.
He did it deliberately, and awfully well. He inadvertantly manipulated
Italy, too, so that things may not work out so terribly well for him in the
end.
Rather than continue the various earlier points of contention, I will say
merely that you *CAN INDEED* mend what is broken. Nothing could be easier.
And though you would then have fewer units of your own, of course, you
would have mine on your side rather than devoted to your pain. (Just do
some arithmetic. Six units, but if you use five in the south you can't
possibly hold Scandinavia, so four in the south and two against me, or if
I'm very fortunate, against me and Pitt. Or, five units, one in the north
with my eternal support, and again four in the south. What profit, then,
for Norway?)
If I am right that you were manipulated, then you have my sympathy. If (but
only if) you let me take Norway, you have my endless cooperation as well.
Otherwise, you will have to make do with sympathy. I'm sure Caesar felt
great sympathy for poor Brutus.
Ave,
Gentle King Jamie
Private message from France to Germany:
Pitt,
That went nicely. Thanks for coming through.
I was not counting on Italy turning east, but it's a nice bonus. I thought
I might have to defend Spain.
Any ideas on how to play this?
John
France
Private message from Russia to England:
Hi GKJ,
Let me comment on your note; I'll asterisk my points, if that's ok...
>First, I think you have overinterpreted my remarks. I do not yet think that
>I am ruined. I think rather that I am very likely to be ruined, I am on the
>brink of the abyss, not yet in free fall.
>I'll be down to three centers, if you don't follow through on our
>agreement, and though I *might* manage to convince either France or Germany
>that I would make a useful puppet, I am not very sanguine about it. I shall
>certainly try.
>I was explaining my alternatives, that's all.
** Yes, after my recent barrages with Turkey, I've been accused of
everything under the sun...I have a hunch this 'charge'
(overinterpretation of your remarks) is also true, alas...
You'll be down to three centers, "perhaps." Much depends on how Germany
moves. ECH can support BRE if Germany focuses on Paris and/or only
goes after BEL. The big threat to you is if he convoys Hol-Yor, as you
can't stop it, nor dislodge Nth without him retreating to a home SC.
But yes, I see your points.
>Second, you're a fine pot calling a kettle black! There you are fussing
>about how your only alternative to seizing Norway was to 'throw in the
>towel', and then you complain that *I* exaggerate my woes! But you have a
>fine friend in Italy, and I have no one, for all of my erstwhile friends
>have stabbed me. Even against a united T/A you are on one team in an equal
>fight. I have no such equality. Then who can cry 'NEED' with more justice,
>you or I?
** Again, the moral and logical arguments lean toward you. Yes, I do
have a friend in Italy, although he can't help me much this year, other
than force Edi to look backward as regards GRE and TRI. Still, it IS
more than you have at the moment.
You have a need, indeed; but so do I. And if I cede Nwy to you and go
-1 (or worse), then do we not have the same situation in reverse (i.e.,
a weak Eng doesn't help Russia, but does a wounded Russia do a 4- or
5-center E any good, either)?
>Third, I must very stridently object to your use of the word 'largesse', as
>in,
>
>>Nwy. But if AT stay united, should I just throw in the towel, abandon
>>center gains of my own to your largesse instead, and trust to the Fates?
>
>Largesse, is it, to execute one's promises taken in good faith? To honor
>one's straightforward agreement to one's allies? Is that largesse? Or did
>you mispeak? I must say that it is this feature of your apology that truly
>galls me.
** Please, stand along the gauntlet line and whip me severely as I pass
through. Turkey used the more colorful word for gall (chutzpah) in
conversation today. The ability to use words to maim others must be an
enduring character trait of mine...sigh. My intent was to basically
ask, What happens if I give you Nwy? Now I'm not even in the driver's
seat as regards my own foolishness (as seen by you), but instead am
dependent on everyone for future goodwill and support."
And quite honestly, what's out there right now for easy Russian gain?
That's what I meant about "largesse;" it wasn't a slam on you, who has
done nothing to cause grief.
>Fourth, I am not under any illusion, as you seem to think I am, that you
>and only you have sold me up the river. I am very well aware that *all
>three* of my allies have dumped the Quad alliance, and simultaneously. (You
>must understand that my wounds are aggravated by self-disgust -- how could
>I have been so stupid as to have been deceived into trusting both you and
>Cal???) If I die as a result, then if it were possible I would work ruin on
>all the three of you! (If you come up with a good way to do that, given
>that I shall have exactly three units, do explain it to me, I will be
>forever grateful.) But no, there is only one from whom I could exact any
>direct payment, and you are the one. If it comes to that. *IF*. As for the
>others, I would have to take small comfort in helping/allowing France to
>construct a large navy and Germany a large army, to the respective
>detriments of Cal and Edi.
** As for all your allies dumping you: Had Edi stuck to his guns (yeah,
let's blame him, why not) and hit Germany, the QC probably would've
lurched along for awhile longer. However, we would've had to hit Edi by
1903 or so anyway, so I imagine a truncated France would've been left
around anyway. But please, please don't say you were "stupid" to trust
both Cal and I. Cal means you no ill will, and neither do I. My
decision to take Nwy came from Austrian unease, and was submitted about
two days prior to due date. It wasn't some long-term simmering plan to
hose you. You are definitely not a stupid player. Again (to make Edi
the bogeyman), had Austria not engendered such mistrust and fear on
Cal's part (and mine)--and had he shown some willingness to really make
the QC work--this would be a different ballgame, and no one would've
dumped you. It's a sin of omission, rather than of comission, I think
(although still lousy for you).
>Fifth, I don't take seriously your insinuations that I may have had in mind
>to ally with Germany all along. If the insinuations were serious, let me
>know and I will address them. But I think that was a bit of
>conscience-soothing rationalization on your part. No shame, everyone does
>it. It takes a man on the brink of disaster to see through the cobwebs of
>his own mind! I speak from immediate experience, having just watched my own
>cobwebs fall away.
** Part of it is self-rationalization. But do we really know anyone
this game, or in life? Can you really say what you'd be doing as an
Englishman with x-centers in year y, faced with neighbors p and q? I
never doubted your short-term intentions, but long-term is wide open for
everyone this game, yes?
>Last, I will certainly attempt utmostly to convince Hohn that you are not
>an untrustworthy knave. His is the only quarter in which I can still deal
>plainly. You could make my job and my convictions a whole lot easier to
>carry off, you know. There are honest errors retracted, even in Diplomacy.
** Hohn has let me know that I am the lowest of dirtbags and a glib,
BS-slinging
louse who treated him cavalierly for the whole game, and now must atone
for my sins before he's ready to deal. If you manage to get him onto my
side, then you are the Mother of All Diplomats, and will get Nwy out of
sheer stupification at your success, if for no other reason!!!
Hohn is weaving his own crap, quite frankly, but if there is any "moral
high ground" in this game, I'm certainly not occupying it in dealing
with him.
>It profit a man not to sell his soul and gain the world, said Sir Thomas
>More, "but for Wales, Richard, for Wales!" Or Norway, he might have said,
>though it wouldn't have been so punchy. Punchy guy, Thomas.
** Wasn't it Shakespeare who said something about ..."a tangled web we
weave..?" I have been caught in my own web regarding AT (or is it
"hoisted on my own petard?").
I'll stay in close touch, and will weigh every option from everyone,
Jamie. As much as you're embittered (rightly so) by the sudden
solo-ness of the QC, I can't fix what's broken regarding the alliance.
Nwy, though, is something I can fix. Help me "work the Turk."
Tsar Faz
> I watched the beginning and found it boring enough that I stopped
> watching it.... so much so that I was unaware it wasn't still going.
>
Well, at three moves a year, it's hard to be exciting. ;-)
> Whoops.... can't be omniscient, can we.... besides, what I was
> really after was to tweak you for declining the opportunity to play
> in this game when initially asked ;-) Mission accomplished!
> Manus, you were not inadvertently excluded, you excluded yourself!!!
>
Mission accomplished indeed (except either I missed the invitation or
I forget declining the invite [probably too dang busy just then; that's
been happening a bit lately]. In any case, I surely would have declined
it in favor of any of the seven now assembled before us -- I was surely
joking about feeling slighted). But I'll watch my mailbox closer for
ghodsthree. And I'll win it. Bwaa haa haa haa haaaa! :-)
> When the game is over I certainly want to store the records on diplom.org
> and have them connected to the Pouch.
>
Done deal.
> Do you want to do a hot link for the moment to Dave Kleiman's
> web page on the game at USIN? that's certainly fine too.
>
Didn't know about it -- I will set it up post-haste! Thanks!
SYS,
Manus
Private message from Italy to Master:
> Message from [email protected] as Russia to Italy in 'ghodstoo':
> Cal,
> Despite the invective being flung about (see my reply, below), I think I
> can work with Hohn. If I can't, well...they're after me, anyway. May
> as well take some chances here. WE need to coordinate some moves,
> either with Turkey (support him to Bud?) or without him...
[Much invective snipped in which you respond quite nicely to Hohn's
invective]
> Let me know your ideas, Cal.
I have a hard time believing that Hohn will accede to any requests to
attack Edi. Not so much because of the tone of his letter, but because
he's smart enough to realize what would come after: if three of us take
Edi out Hohn's STILL the next most likeliest target.
I'm going to put out some feelers and see what I hear. I'll get back to
you once I know something
Cal
Private message from Russia to England:
King James
Indeed, the Mesmerizer (anything like the Energizer Bunny?) will not
succeed in luring me in twice. And perhaps, just perhaps, the Sultan
will see better advantages in helping poor ol' Tsarman, rather than risk
Smy, Con or Bul/Rum to the Ed-Machine, devourer of all before it.
You know, this game had a lot of promise to it when it started up, too.
You were kicking some severe butt on F, asnd G and T were isolated. All
the more reason I want a piece of Edi's carcass for wrecking it all.
I fully understand your frustration ("so gimme Nwy already, da** it,
Faz!"). What I can do, I will. Stay tuned for further late-breaking
news.
Hic hoc harrumph to you too.
Tsar Faz
Private message from England to Turkey:
Good witch!
I had a hunch (about the first one that's been correct).
If you do decide to go with the Bear, you might mention that I was at least
a bit influential. I need all the chips I can get! (If you decide to cut him
to bits, hm, you needn't mention me :))
Other Witch
Private message from Russia to Italy:
Fellow (Ex-) QC'ers,
Thought you'd like to read the current state of A-R realtions. 'Tis a
sad day for the QC...
Tsar Faz
>----------
>From: Fassio, M. MAJ SOC
>Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 1997 6:47 AM
>To: 'Edi Birsan'
>Subject: RE: A--->R
>
>press to a
>Edi, My replies are at the ** asterisks...
>
>Well my dear Tzar I must say that I felt that the situation had fallen apart
>in the Fall of 01 when you did not move to Armenia. This was critical for me
>along with the break down of Italy-England over Portugal.
>** I see precious little in here about your culpability in all this. I have
>severe doubts that my not going to ARM spelled the end of this alliance, and
>the "breakdown of E-I over POR" ass a reason for you to do what you did is
>hogwash. They didn't break anything down. In fact, Italy only decided at
>the last moment--based on the threat you posed as a 6-7 center Austria
>unencumbered by Turkish threats--to hit you, lest he be hit himself by you in
>'03.
>
>Now we have an interesting situation in which our strategic points have great
>danger for us both. The Italians if they enter into the conflict will not be
>as significant tactically as it will be to cement the French-German alliance
>and that will be your doom since we know that Pitt is a vulture style player
>and will fall on you after building an army and a fleet. This would be a
>winning German strategy which I am sure is not missed by Pitt.
>
>** Perhaps yes, perhaps no. Had you been a little more aggressive vs Pitt
>and moved as you'd planned--or at least given the "diplomatic warm fuzzies"
>to the QC that you planned on adhering to the original plan--Pitt would be
>facing F Bal, A Sil and two in Tyo/Boh--a much different picture.
>
>As long as the Italians and you are allied I am forced to stay with the Turk.
>
>** C'mon, Edi. Had the Italians NOT moved eastward, you wouldn't have to
>even include this self-rationalizing justification.
>
>You will note that my moves in the south with the move to the Aegean and
>behind the Turks to Bulgaria were designed to give me total flexibility in
>the
>Turkish front in the event that your situation was different.
> ** Read: You provided the capability to have the RT players screw each
>other, continue their venomous antagonisms, and have Aus reap the centers out
>of it all. As always, masterful play on your part. I mean, I'm bummed, but
>only because you've bested me. It's good work by you.
>
>From a strategic side for us to mend things so we can face the resurgence of
>the German requires that we do not get embroiled with an Eastern War.
>
>** You mean like when you supported Turkey against me in RUM after I still
>supported you to BUL?
> That means that diplomatically we have to turn Italy either west or against
>the
>Turk via the Eastern Medit but that it be made clear by you to the Italians
>not to enter the conflict with me and to let things cool for a turn.
>
>** By letting things cool for a turn, you mean, so you and Turkey can keep
>hitting me in GAL and SEV, perhaps? Sorry, old chap. I'm asking Italy to
>attack Greece and Trieste this turn unless you return a center or so to me
>and end this pro-Turk charade.
>
>The Germans are going to be all over you quickly so I would suggest that we
>play things along the lines of moving Army Galicia out to either Silesia or
>Warsaw and with your build go to Moscow. This will allow you to bottle up
>Sevas while at the same time opening the door with me diplomatically.
>
>** How's about YOU opening the door diplomatically to me, hmm? What are YOUR
>armies going in all of this? I get to move out, while you take RUM or CON,
>perhaps?
>
>The key is to give us diplomatic flexibility which you being in Galicia does
>not provide.
>
>** The key is to finish off Turkey while giving me some centers/growth, to
>prevent Pitt from clambering all over me. Hanging me out in SIL with an
>"even" or "-1" Fall turn only waves the red flag to Pitt and INVITES him to
>hit me, Edi. Meanwhile, just as against Turkey, your 'front-line minion(s)'
>go out and draw the fire, while you sit in the rear areas and get fat from
>all the war profiteering. This time, my friend, that won't be the case.
>And if FG grow fat from it all, too bad. After E dies and they turn on me,
>they can come for you and your puppet.
>
>Unless you show some flexibility and a desire to cut me in on some of your
>"profit."
>
>My hit of Nwy was designed to give me some flexibility vs the onrushing Hun.
>The south has ruined it all.
>
>So how about it...let's see your pieces do some diplomacy here.
>
>** It takes two to tango, as my Mom says. Let's see YOUR pieces do some,
>too. Otherwise, I'll see you in Bud or Hades, whichever comes first.
>
>The Disapppointed Tsar Faz
>endpress
>signoff
>
>
>
Private message from Germany to England:
>Gosh. Your food poisoning has left *me* with an upset stomach.
Heh...actually, the plan was pretty much finalized before I fell ill. I
just wasn't able to implement it on time as a result.
>Hm, you appear to be in a pretty good position. And to all appearances, Edi
>has manipulated all of my erstwhile allies while I was sleeping.
Well, as I know you know better than most, nothing is carved in stone. My
defection from our early EG alliance shows that. I am always willing to
consider any plan which I believe maximizes my chances of success. Please
don't think that we are now quits (at least not as far as I'm concerned).
FWIW, I felt compelled to take this action because I saw myself getting the
*very* short end of the stick in our alliance. The way it looked to me,
you were going to get BRE, NOR, POR, and possibly SPA, while I got PAR. I
had originally expected to get BEL, too, which would have been a more
equitable distribrution but you grabbed it in 1901 instead of NOR, which
was not a violation of any agreement we had (due an oversight on *my* part)
but was certainly, in my opinion, a violation of the spirit of our
alliance. Frankly, I expected to be at the top of a very short list for
your next target and I saw a pre-emptive strike as my only alternative.
>I wonder whether you can get a big chunk out of me before he finds he needs
>something for all of those armies to do. I don't think you can. We shall
>see!
I'm sensitive to the situation. However, I felt I had no other choice. I
considered broaching the subject with you but I ultimately decided not to
because I thought it would accomplish nothing other than tipping my hand.
If I was wrong in that assumption, I apologize. I won't insult you by
telling you that I'm now going to pull back and pretend it never happened
but I hope that we can still talk and, if the opportunity presents itself,
perhaps work together again (on a more equitable basis, of course).
-Pitt
Private message from Germany to Russia:
>Well, sir, you see the Russian honor is true--and I see your mettle, as
>well!
Yes sir! Thank you for your faith and follow through.
>I hope you're feeling better (both from the metaphysical sense
>this game, and from a physical sense after your recent illness).
Both, thanks.
>I'm a little chagrined over the AT reunification down there.
I don't blame you. Of course, as you say, Edi's more or less just doing
what you planned to do but Hohn found Edi more suitable based on your 1901
actions, I assume... Can't really blame Hohn, either, he's just trying to
stay alive.
>Edi, master that he is, once again beat me to the punch. Any
>suggestions on what to do down south?
Well, I didn't know that this was going to happen but I'm not surprised,
either. Hohn tried early on to get me to attack you to relieve the
pressure on him. When I politely demurred, Edi was his only other option.
Frankly, I expected Edi to go after Cal because I thought you and Edi were
in cahoots. At this point, I think the best ideas would be a) for you to
try to get Cal to slip a shiv into Edi's back and b) begin to patch things
up with Hohn. Once you start that, I can continue to stay in touch with
Hohn and, as appropriate, subtly point out the danger that Edi poses. If
any of these work, it should help you out down south.
>As for the north: I'll hold in Nwy, obviously.
Yep.
> Your moves showed the
>"beyond the horizon vision" that mkes you a helluva player.
Hang on a sec. Gotta put on my high top boots. It's getting deep in
here...;-)
>You are, indeed, in a nice position.
At the moment, true. Of course, experience shows that it doesn't pay to
have too high a profile (especially with this group of barracuda...;-)
>I will do nothing to upser the RG applecart.
I'm counting on that, Faz. I need to focus my efforts westward. I will
endeavor to be sure that you and I both maintain a friendly, non-tempting
border, of course (allies is allies but an open invitation is just asking
for it...I don't plan on asking for it) but I truly do hope that we can
continue to build on the foundation we've laid so far. If we do so
successfully, we'll both be in good position to profit and to deal with
problems elsewhere.
>Good hunting against whatever province(s) you hit, and here's to the RG.
Thanks. Same to you.
-Pitt
Private message from England to Russia:
Suddenly and unexpectedly:
I have high hopes of delivering the Sultan's renewed friendship. Stay tuned!
If I am crushed under the Franco-Prussian onslaught but (i) have our old
agreement unbroken in the end, and (ii) see the Grand Duke Mesmer swinging
from the steeple of the Cathedral in Sophia, I shall die happy.
Gentle King J
Private message from Russia to Italy:
Cal: The saga continues. Check out this guy.
Faz
>----------
>From: Fassio, M. MAJ SOC
>Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 1997 12:32 PM
>To: 'Edi Birsan'
>Subject: RE: A-===-->R
>
>Hi Edi,
>I'll address you points below.
>
>Consider this: because of the annilation and the gain of Norway you will get
>a build. Regardless of Rumania. You still hold the Black Sea and Turkey is
>still way out classed by the position he is in vs. me. You will have 6
>centers and if I hold Bulgaria or take Rumania from the Turks and I guess
>right with the Italians I will have 6.
>
>Indeed, I will go +1 due to the annihilation (thanks for promoting that).
>And you even say you might take RUM, i.e., not just support Turkey against my
>center, but then steal it from him/me? Wow.
>
>If you are out of Galicia I then have the opportunity to employ forces
>against
>Germany-Italy and Turkey as needed.
>Didn't you have the chance to do that LAST turn, when you were supposed to,
>per the plan?
>
>You will still have the build of Army
>Moscow to consider flexibility to go into the North, continue to bottle the
>south or even reopen the war with me.
>The build goes to StP, due to England's burning desire to take me down with
>him over the "stab" of Nwy. It is not a flexible unit.
>
>Turkey is not going anywhere fast with you in the Black and me in the Aegean
>if I do not have to worry about Italy. The elimination of Turkey is very do
>able with the strategic freedom from Italy.
>The elimination of Turkey was very do-able in the past year, too. Only, of
>course, you would've had to share some of the spoils with me back then; now
>you have it surrounded for yourself.
>
> Having a Russian presence in the
>North will help long term stability and we both border on Germany who is the
>future problem.
>Maybe he is a future problem. But I have more immediate problems in my own
>sector, as you're well aware. Why anger a friend?
>
>So consider a pull back to Warsaw and we can get to the Turks in the Spring.
>I'll say what I've said in the last couple notes:
>1) Identify some of YOUR plans, instead of recommending my front-wide
>retreats and goading of current friends.
>2) You have still failed to mention word one about what you want to do, how
>you want to do it, what MUTUAL gains could accrue, etc. You're
>smokescreening, and not doing a very good job of it, frankly.
>3) Until you show me tangible gain --and, frankly, now that there's an AT and
>a hostile E, I'm under a Survival Threat as well -- then I can't see why I
>should go along with nebulous Austrian plans that seemingly shows no gain.
>4) Italy will indeed press home the attacks. For one thing, he's got nothing
>better to do. For another, what do you expect him to do? Re-turn on France?
> Hold? Watch you grow to 6, 7 or 8 ANYWAY and then move out smartly? He's
>not blind, Edi.
>
>Russia will consider any and all options, yours included. But go back and
>reread your notes: WHAT have you offered me? Alliance again (not mentioned
>specifically)? Centers (mentioned NOWHERE)? Concrete, joint plans or
>options (ditto)? I really don't think you're serious, Edi. But I am.
>
>Faz
Private message from France to Russia:
[The following message I sent yesterday bounced back due to my error.]
>My Friend,
>
>Yes, it appears I am in your debt for your most effective intervention
into
>the western situation. I was on my way out, but I am now revived, at
least
>for the time being. I am sure that France's revival will do Russia great
>good, and I am glad for that.
>
>I will play a cautious round to see how much I can count on my new German
>ally. After all, he jumped the fence once. What's to say he won't do so
>again if given sufficient inducement?
>
>In gratitude,
>
>Jean Barquemondieu
Private message from Russia to France:
Monsieur
Thanks for the reply. I didn't want to overly stress Russia's role in
helping you--merely wanted to say that "you have a friend in court" here
in StP. I will help you as much as I can, and I ask but one favor in
return: FI peace, to allow the reduction of traitorous Austria.
Edi has the Gaul (snicker) to ask me to go Gal-Sil, rebuild the
destroyed RUM (thanks to him) in Mos, and head vs Pitt!! "It is to
laugh," as they say.
In fact, I have a second favor: if you could put in a plug/good word
for Russia when you next speak to the Sultan, life would be just ducky.
He and I have had some acrimonious exchanges, but I want to get past the
words, realize the joint Austrian threat, and have him link with me.
I'd appreciate any "character references" if you could, kind sir.
All glory to France!
Tsar Faz
Private message from Russia to Turkey:
Hohn:
Edi's letters to me sound a lot like mine probably sound(ed) to you; I
at least find myself using the same...ahem..thought processes and
verbiage that you (and I) used yesterday, and I also find that Edi is
trying to dangle me out of the water yet again:
He's asking for joint action vs you in spring;
He tells me to rebuild the destroyed A Rum in the north, and then hit
Germany;
Also wants Italy out of the picture, to give him ("us") 'freedom of
maneuver' vs you and Germany;
he then proceeds to say, "Russia will be at 6," and "I've manuevered to
allow myself maximum flexibility for the tactical situation, i.e., Bul
and Rum)." ((So not only does he aid you in taking my center, but now
he plans to take it from you and advance to seven centers.))
Quite honestly, Hohn, I can see the same frustration in dealing with Edi
(at this time) that you obviously had with me. God has repaid me in
spades for the hassles I've caused.
I would like RUM back, there's no doubt; I need a build in the event
Germany does indeed come marching eastward next turn. BUT:
whatever I can do to support you somewhere, anywhere (Bud, Bul, etc) AND
get out of BLA, I'll do it. Ideally I'd like to take RUM with the
fleet, and/or support you to BUL again, but I'm open to your
ideas...convoyng Arm out, whatever...
One (prelim) option: (ASSUMES Italian moves on Tri and Gre)
1) Rum-Bul (Bla and Con S), Ank S Con, Arm-Smy
Sev-Rum (Ukr S), Gal-Bud
or perhaps
2) Rum-Bud (Gal S), Bla-Rum (Sev S), Ukr S Gal????
Consider me a friend. (No sugar-coating on the words, either.) I mean,
we either smash Edi before he goes up to 7, or you guys stay together
and smash my south. If the latter happens, "ugliness for all" will
occur, guaranteed.
Tsar Faz
Private message from England to Germany:
Pitt,
>FWIW, I felt compelled to take this action because I saw myself getting the
>*very* short end of the stick in our alliance. The way it looked to me,
>you were going to get BRE, NOR, POR, and possibly SPA, while I got PAR.
Ahem.
You've already stabbed me, we can be honest about the past now!
I wasn't going to get Spain unless I went off to fight Italy; presumably
you wouldn't object to *that*. Counting Norway in the division of France is
not terribly plausible, either. (Why not count Denmark?)
Por and Bre vs Par, true, I was getting two and you one. Doesn't seem so
unreasonable. The truth is, had I decided to ally with Italy next (I was
unsure), I would have let him take Mar, Spa, and Por, all three. I probably
would have let him have Por anyway, and decided after that whether to
snatch it back and sail into the Med., or let him keep it to fuel a war
against Austria, and go attack you or Russia. Well, no point thinking about
*those* options!
However, you decided you could get more by going for my throat. Yeah, you
may well be right about that! The big difference, though, (I mean the other
big difference, getting more is a big difference!) is that by engaging
France you would have been in and out with a quick gain, ready for another
fight; unless I miss my mark, your attack on me will take a whole lot
longer. You've just got to hope that the battle between Austria and Russia
takes a long time, too.
>had originally expected to get BEL, too, which would have been a more
>equitable distribrution but you grabbed it in 1901 instead of NOR, which
>was not a violation of any agreement we had (due an oversight on *my* part)
>but was certainly, in my opinion, a violation of the spirit of our
>alliance. Frankly, I expected to be at the top of a very short list for
>your next target and I saw a pre-emptive strike as my only alternative.
Well, I had no firm plan for what to do after France, had it gone that way.
You were in the middle of a medium-sized list, let's say. :) I always
expect I'm somewhere on everyone's list.
I'm surprised to hear what you thought about Bel, though.
>I'm sensitive to the situation. However, I felt I had no other choice. I
>considered broaching the subject with you but I ultimately decided not to
>because I thought it would accomplish nothing other than tipping my hand.
>If I was wrong in that assumption, I apologize.
Oh, your most gracious apology is most graciously accepted, fully in the
spirit in which it was intended. :)
You just haven't been very active talking in this game, that's all. So you
have to play more strategically and less diplomatically. I was playing more
diplomatically, which turned out to be a serious mistake, because I never
did manage to get a 'feel' for any of the postal players. (Obviously? Do
you realize that Russia and Italy just stabbed me, too? And as for Edi,
well it's really all his fault, everything. I'm sure of it. I just don't
know how.)
>I won't insult you by
>telling you that I'm now going to pull back and pretend it never happened
>but I hope that we can still talk and, if the opportunity presents itself,
>perhaps work together again (on a more equitable basis, of course).
Hm.
Obviously, I am in pretty dire straights. I'll tell you, if we have to wait
and see if a long shot comes in and I do ok, and then you want to be
friends again, that seems really extremely unlikely. If I manage hold out
until Russia or Austria come for you, I doubt I'll have any incentive to
help. Well, who knows?
But you are kind of suggesting that *I* come up with some alternative, and
you'll consider it. Ok, I will. (I'll need a day or two. There's a chance
that I could actually come up with a *good* alternative, so I won't have to
tell you an absurd story, but I'll have to do some investigation first.)
By the way, in case it's not obvious: I don't really blame you at all. My
judgment of the situation doesn't exactly agree with yours, but your stab
does seem fairly reasonable given your fairly reasonable assessment of the
situation. (This distinguishes you from Italy and Russia in my book :)).
Still Gentle, but now only *per force*,
King Jamie
Private message from Russia to Turkey:
Hello Hohn
Take your time analyzing the moves. I _know_ the Bla Sea sticks in your
craw, and I'd like to move it; it's just figuring out where. And for
this turn, anyway, its utility might be better used as an extra support
piece, vice a fleet-on-the-coast (Rum or Bul).
But I'm (finally) sensitive to your wishes, and your moves have nothing
to fault them; I'm not trying to sway you with my moves or
anything--just thought a few more options might be nice.
Let me know what you think (tomorrow, per your note), and we can hash it
out.
I've contacted Cal and asked for his plans & ideas. If Edi is really
sweating (and not just faking it), then he's going to pull out all the
stops to hose me by enlisting you (stab time?) or getting Italy to "see
the RT danger" and cool his jets. Frankly, I can't see Cal doing
anything BUT hitting Edi, but Austria is a silver-tongued devil...
Will anticipate your reply tomorrow; thanks.
Mark
Private message from Russia to Turkey:
Hohn,
A quick postscript. Without getting overly gushy, I'd like to thank
you for your style of play and for your willingness (or seeming
willingness) to "stay the course" with Russia this game. Edi (here we
go again!) painted you as THE Wonderchild of the board, an expert, savvy
diplomat (and it's true, naturally, but he overplayed it to bring in the
Unknown Bogeyman fear). From there it was easy to jump on the
bandwagon and try my deeds. Luckily for me, you've played this thing
calmly and rationally, and it's much appreciated up here in St
Petersburg.
I don't know where (if) you ever heard of me (I knew nothing of you,
Jamie or John before we started), but if you did, you'd know I was a
strong alliance player for the first 10 years of my Dip playing. Oh,
I'd stab once every three or four (REAL) years, but my style tended to
gravitate toward 17-17 ties, the feeling of tension as we both tried for
the tie (and looked over our shoulders for a stab), etc. Not really the
'correct' style of play, of course, but I play for fun..._intense_ fun,
but fun nonetheless. If I have an ally--one that I say (and know) is
indeed my ally--then I'm usually the stabee, not the stabber. Only in
the last 4 or 5 years have I tried to be a "normal" player, and
truthfully, I am hideously rusty at stabs and such. I have a lot to
learn regarding timing...but I'll manage -grin-.
Anyway, thanks for the moves, the "up front" philosophy a la Hohn, and
the desire to see this through. Time will tell if you're spoofing me or
if you're sincere, but I sense it's the latter...haven't had anything to
the contrary since game-start! And while I admire the heck out of
everyone this game, it would give me "great joy" to have Edi's greed
repaid in spades.
Thanks.
Mark
Private message from Russia to Turkey:
Hello again Hohn
Thanks for the note. I'm ok. My back was wiped out last Friday, when =
we had a Department party at the ice skating rink. I went on skates =
(and my knees!) for the first time, and then played broomball, a =
tennis-shoe-on-the-ice version of hockey. I fell hard on my back and =
got body-wide muscle spasms, so says the doc. The bottom line: a =
40-year old with a 30-year old mind was trying to act like a 20-year =
old, and "paid the price." I'm now "Mr Medication." Thanks for =
inquiring.
Thanks for the move validations. I'm going to send them in today or =
tomorrow. They're fine, and what I consider "locked and cocked" for RT =
action. I think we're going to wake up the board big-time when this =
happens, Hohn. We should have some fun getting the Observers to rewire =
their jaws after they drop to the ground. (Of course, I haven't seen =
much Observer commentary to date, so perhaps this may be the catalyst.)
Fear not worrying over a "thrid stab." Having failed miserably on the =
first two has been a sobering experience, and having you in a center of =
mine with bad-guy Edi's support has made me a total convert to the need =
for equal partnership. Short of you stabbing me, Russia will be =
extremely harmless (and benevolent) toward his Turkish partner.
What do you do, btw, that you're in at work past midnight? Software =
design? Consulting? Suffice it to say, "I don't envy you." I grade =
papers at home sometimes until 2 a.m., but I consider that "cruel and =
unusual punishment."
=20
The moves below are the ones I'm going with.
RUM-BUL
CON S RUM-BUL
ANK S CON
ARM-SMY
BLA S RUM-BUL
SEV-RUM
UKR S SEV-RUM
GAL-VIE (coupled with Italian VEN S VIE-TRI)
Thanks again for gutting this out, Hohn, and here's to us.
Mark
Private message from Turkey to Master:
Jim,
Thoughts on this past turn and my negotiations prior to the
upcoming turn.
I can't tell you what a thrill it was to demolish Russia's A
RUM. Feelings like that are why I play Diplomacy. Edi came
through, like I was hoping he would. And in light of Cal's
and Mark's perfidy, I suspect Edi will stay with me. I've
tried to paint myself as the only reliable neighbor he has,
which has, aside from Spring 1901, been true. I think he'll
run with that, again, due at least in part to our past
history together.
I didn't particularly like Edi's move to BUL, but he had
disclosed it prior to last turn, so I knew it was coming. I
debated arguing against that move, but I decided that since
whether he would go with me was still very much in doubt, I
didn't want to make any waves. Such is often the fate of a
junior partner. I also figured he could take BUL from me if
he wanted, anyway. As it turns out, if Edi does in fact
stay with me, his army in BUL will be quite useful, so it
hopefully turned out fine.
My diplomatic strategy has consisted of taking an initial
hard line against Mark and Cal (particularly Mark), for
several reasons:
1) I suspected strongly that any flowery messages from me
would be dismissed as less than credible, in light of my
past tone and my poor history so far with Mark;
2) It was kinda fun and satisfying to write those hardline
letters ;) ;
3) I figured the worst case scenario was that I'd antagonize
him and he and I would remain at war, which was no surprise
or big tragedy; and
4) I thought the hardline, coupled with more no-nonsense
talk and concrete proposals (including the "get out of BLA"
bit, which I thought was pretty inspired and believable,
even though I wasn't overly concerned about it) would create
a better chance that Mark might actually follow-through for
once, and make him believe I'd follow through as well. To
be honest, I think he'll believe me. I've spent a lot of
time with him building up my credibility. And now that I
have, I'm going to use it all up, hoping to make a coup in
SEV. If I can blow him out of there, coupled with another
risky move or two, he's going to be hurting. And I'll build
F ANK and blow him out of BLA, too. This is a critical
juncture, and if my gambit fails, well, such is life.
Considering my less-than-ideal position, I have to take some
risks.
Cal has been silent so far. I'm going to call him right
before deadline, in an effort to get him to turn around. Edi
has suggested that I take a "point of honor" type position
with Cal, that I feel compelled to go after Mark in light of
his past perfidy, and I think I agree with Edi, that that's
the right tack. Since I don't know Cal, I'm trusting Edi's
word for it, but since Cal turning around is in Edi's best
interest, I see no reason why Edi would lie to me. As for
the late phone call, I'm hoping that the natural laziness of
all people coupled with perhaps a sense of apathy towards
Mark will prevent him from calling Mark to tip him off. And
I'm hoping that Mark won't be checking his e-mail. ;) Again,
are these meta-game considerations, and perhaps improper
stratagems? Personally, I don't think so, any more than
listing a game to see which particular powers are late and
taking that into consideration is against PBEM rules. Or
submitting two sets of orders (one of which was shown to
another player, ostensibly to "prove" goodwill) in FTF play.
Etc. etc.
Aside from that, I fear Pitt. His growth promises to be
impressive, and I suspect he'll do well in this game. I'm
only hoping I'm around long enough to do something about it.
Hohn
Private message from Turkey to Russia:
Mark,
> How's everything going? I've been hearing from Edi (he apparently
> called Thu night, so he says, and definitely called last night--I slept
> through it due to medication for my back).
What's up with your back? Are you OK?
> So he's serious (qualify
> that term, of course) about trying to keep his comm lines open and
> wheel-and-deal. I'm not buying it, Hohn.
Well, to be fair, I think Edi has a general policy of
calling everyone every turn. Nice to have free phone calls
on Fridays! ;)
> Hopefully you've had a chance to analyze the move proposals; again, I'm
> willing to try just about anything to prove my "change of attitude."
> (Naturally, paranoia runs in when I hear lots from Edi and a little
> silence from you.)
> Let me know what you want to do; I can send the moves anytime before
> Monday.
Sorry; work has been hell lately. I was at work until after
midnight each of the last three days.
Let's go with your proposal. To make sure there's no
confusion, I understand that proposal to be:
RUM-BUL
CON S RUM-BUL
ANK S CON
ARM-SMY
BLA S RUM-BUL
SEV-RUM
UKR S SEV-RUM
GAL-VIE (coupled with Italian VEN S VIE-TRI)
Please confirm.
Although it's probably needless to say, I'll say it anyway:
having been "bitten" once (the second time I didn't bite, so
I won't hold that against you), I obviously won't take
kindly to being bitten again. In fact, that'd pretty much
finish us for the rest of this game, Mark. No, no "pretty
much" about it; it'd definitely finish us, at least as far
as I'm concerned.
But anyway, enough dire predictions. Let's do it. Then,
after Edi's gone, we can roll over Cal as a long-deferred RT
juggernaut. Much to everyone else's shock and amazement, I
suspect. ;)
Hohn
Private message from Russia to Turkey:
Hello Hohn
How's everything going? I've been hearing from Edi (he apparently
called Thu night, so he says, and definitely called last night--I slept
through it due to medication for my back). So he's serious (qualify
that term, of course) about trying to keep his comm lines open and
wheel-and-deal. I'm not buying it, Hohn.
Hopefully you've had a chance to analyze the move proposals; again, I'm
willing to try just about anything to prove my "change of attitude."
(Naturally, paranoia runs in when I hear lots from Edi and a little
silence from you.)
Let me know what you want to do; I can send the moves anytime before
Monday.
Mark
Private message from Russia to Italy:
Hi Cal
No, I don't think you spilled the beans to Edi; in fact, it was more of
a pointed barb at Eng, who cries "foul" quite often, but wouldn't
surprise me as planning our joint demise in the ling run, only to see it
all come apart. I agree that Italy would've benefited MUCH more from
successful Russian moves, vice this last turn setback. My big concern
is AG cooperation. Maybe I'm overly paranoid, but the two "Grand
Masters of the Order" don't seem to worry about their collective
backsides, despite Pitt's earlier big-time worries about an AR attack on
him. And they they surprisingly head in oppositie directions, both to
great gain for themselves. A little unsettling...
I think we're on the right track here. One thing you can think of would
be Ven S Vie-Tri, if we both figure he'll try a bounce on tri or
something,,,might enable me to get into Tri (or Bud), rather than Edi
just bouncing you and standing pat. Much to decide, but I want to hear
if Turjey has anything of merit to mention....I think he may be
malleable for a turn or two, but in the long-run, trust me or you?
yeah, right (and vice versa, of course)!
Hang in there, partner.
Faz
Private message from England to Russia:
Former and Future(?) Allies,
>Whether IR will 'retrospectively' "win English kudos" for making the
>correct move remains to be seen.
'retrospectively' was quoting me. "win English kudos", quoting ...???
All I was saying is that it is much too soon to be insisting that the move
was justified by the outcome. Of course, all moves are justified by their
ultimate outcomes, since this is a game with winners and loser, etc. So the
end always justifies the means, I suppose. All I meant is that the end is
not in sight, so the assessment of the moves is yet unripe.
> Quite honestly, my biggest Dip flaw is
>that i tunnel-vision for the short-term tactical, vice plan for the
>long-term strategic
I'll say!
:-) :-) :-) What a straight line.
>Right now, breaking off to hit Edi, aligned with Cal, was, in my mind,
>both necessary and justified, given Edi's moves.
I know. Ok, ahem, I really didn't mean to harp on this, I really only meant
to register my take on it one time. I know that you both understand my
view, and I don't really have any intention of trying to convince you of
its correctness. I honestly don't want you guys to think I'm off stewing
about it. I'm moving on, too. That's the beauty of the game, huh? It's fun
to get mad, and the dynamics inflame the passions, but it's also easy to
let go of it.
>Hmmm...makes you
>wonder if someone didn't tip him off, or if he was just plain greedy and
>planned this all himself. (I'll go with the latter).
Hey, hey. Just WHAT are you insinuating?
>I will indeed talk to F and point out the logic of having friendly EF
>relations (I've already mentioned--twice--the benefits AND RUSSIAN
>DESIRE--of friendly Franco-Italian relations).
Good, yes, that low-key, general kind of thing seems best. Plant the seed,
let him draw the conclusions himself.
It really does help when the point on which you're trying to convince him
is *true*.
> Pitt is the great
>unknown at this point. If you listen to Edi, he's going to build 2 and
>come a-callin' on me next year. If that happens, Jamie, I've just
>'indirectly' saved you (please, don't thank me now...)
Ok. (Actually, I don't understand what you said, but I know I'm not
supposed to thank you. I also love your construction, "If you listen to
Edi...." I feel that one could fill in the dots there with pretty much any
sentence in English :) "If you listen to Edi, monkeys make the best
diplomats. If you listen to Edi, the moon is made of green cheese. If you
listen to Edi, you're a bigger fool than I ever imagined.")
Yeesh, three more messages since I started typing this one. Interesting,
Cal and I each thought ourselves the target of Mark's insinuation of a 'tip
off', and it turns out he meant Pitt!
Only one other thing from those three recent notes: drawing conclusions
based on a paucity of information distinguishes us from computers?? Only if
we do it well! The only hunch I like here is that Hohn is a good player,
and, well, was that really a hunch? Oh well. I have my own hunches.
Ciao,
GK Jamie
Private message from Italy to Russia:
> Message from [email protected] as Russia to England and Italy in
> 'ghodstoo':
> Having said that, I will revert to a recent Monkees' song, "That was
> then; this is now."
A RECENT song? Hmm, methinx I've missed something...
> Whether IR will 'retrospectively' "win English kudos" for making the
> correct move remains to be seen. Quite honestly, my biggest Dip flaw is
> that i tunnel-vision for the short-term tactical, vice plan for the
> long-term strategic (you think I'd learn after 20+ years...-grin-).
> Right now, breaking off to hit Edi, aligned with Cal, was, in my mind,
> both necessary and justified, given Edi's moves. Hmmm...makes you
> wonder if someone didn't tip him off, or if he was just plain greedy and
> planned this all himself. (I'll go with the latter).
Hmm, was that an accusation? After all, only you and I knew about our
intended moves. Suffice it to say, I categorically deny the charge. I
would have been in much better position had your moves worked.
In my previous note, I mentioned how I acted on a hunch. Well, the
info I based it on was simply this: Hohn is definitely a very good
player.
After the initial Russian/Austrian perfidy in S01, I did not hear word
one from him. Mark said he was getting only static from Turkey. This
leaves only Edi that Hohn could profitably be talking to. Since the
silence stretched out for a couple of turns, this implied that they
were doing a LOT of talking. Since Edi's notes to me were becoming
infrequent, I drew the only conclusion I could. An A/T was in the
works.
Since I was being stone-walled in the west, I thought it was in my best
interest to see that Edi and Hohn did not have a free rein against Mark.
Once he went down, *I* was the obvious next target for A/T. hence my
attack
> Cal, hope you're feeling better (real-life), and that your moves are
> "gainful" for you soon. I will be telling Germany that I'm knee-deep in
> an AT, and that if I go down quick in the Balkans, he'll be faced with
> Edi and Hohn. Could encourage him to join in the "Russian spoils," of
> course, but it may buy time while he futzes with F...or E.
> Anyway, rest assured that I'll try and make the best of this sticky
> wicket for us all. Barring that, I want to make life a living inferno
> for Edi.
A most honourable cause... grin
Regards
Cal
Private message from Russia to Italy:
Guys:
Just commenting on Cal's last entry in his note (below):
>Pitt contacted me and said that he and I have "interesting possibilities
>to discuss". I'll wait to see what he has in mind before deciding how to
>approach him about easing off on you.
** My only concern is that, somehow at the bottom of this all, my
reassurances to Pitt about not attacking him were passed on to Edi, thus
giving Edi the "alert" that the plan was changing. What's the big
deal? I don't put it past Edi & Pitt doing the "diverging expansion"
routine and really being the ultimate allies here,
Cal, please be careful about what exactly you deal with Pitt on (I know,
I'm preaching to the choir), and make sure he doesn't completely
"dilute" your anti-Aus attack. if he's pro-Aus, he might talk you away
from hitting Edi by offering golden fleece in France or elsewhere.....
But whatever you can gain--from whomever--have at it, mon ami!
Hang in there, GKJ.
Tsar Faz
Private message from Italy to Master:
> Message from [email protected] as England to Italy and Russia in
> 'ghodstoo':
> I think it's quite obvious that the present situation is worse for all four
> of us than the situation would have been if all four of us had continued
> with the plan. I blame you collectively, not individually. I thought the
> 'put on an unusual show' ethos was a good one, and that it would be a much
> better game, and certainly better for *us* if all four of us had taken it
> seriously.
Oh, I agree. I certainly wish the QC was still going strong and Edi HAD
hit
Germany and Mark & I HADN'T had to make our pre-emptive strikes.
Unfortunately, that's all in the past. This is a (VERY) fast flowing
game
and we "gots to go wid the flow".
> Given that the two of you broke away, I certainly agree that Edi's move was
> a good for him (and mutatis mutandis for Russia's moves, and also but
> somewhat less clearly for your moves, Cal).
>
> Whether these moves will turn out to be in your 'enlightened
> self-interests' remains to be seen. I believe you have reached your
> conclusion with a severe paucity of information, always dangerous. If you
> win, I'll retrospectively grant your point. Off hand, my best guess is that
> you have just *diminished* your chance of a good ending. But it's awfully
> hard to say at this point.
Well, reaching a conclusion with a paucity of information is what makes
us
different from computers, no? Whether we acted on full info or not,
both
Mark and I had a feeling that Edi was going to do something distinctly
non-kosher last turn. We acted on this hunch and it turned out we were
right.
I've been playing this game for 24 years and I've learned to listen to
my
hunches.
> Gosh, it's becoming pretty clear that we don't have much of anything real
> to say to each other now, huh? Maybe the General Theory of Diplomacy is
> better discussed in the Newsgroup.
Perhaps AFTER the game... grin
> >I wish you luck and will do (diplomatically) what I can to help.
I've already written to France and suggested that Pitt is about to grow
too strong too fast. Since this game has been very much a case of
"stop the (perceived) leader", I can only hope he'll go for it (or at
least
consider it...).
Pitt contacted me and said that he and I have "interesting possibilities
to discuss". I'll wait to see what he has in mind before deciding how to
approach him about easing off on you.
Later
Cal
Private message from Italy to Master:
> Message from [email protected] as France to Italy in 'ghodstoo':
>
> My forces will all be well away from you. If I do by chance gain another
> fleet, I intend that it quickly set sail for Liverpool.
As I said in my last note, I can't stop you so I have to hope you're
telling me the truth.
> To tell you the truth, though, the observer comment that all the goings-on
> in the west are a ruse to take me out even faster had crossed my mind as
> well. So this all may be moot.
For what it's worth, England has been deluging me with "Life is so
unfair" notes, so I doubt that the "fix" is in.
I don't know how you play the game in terms of dealing with him wot just
stabbed you, but have you thought about trying to work with England?
The way the game is shaping up now, Germany is going to be the REAL
power on the board in about a year. Once England is gone, Russia is
probably Germany's next target, but how long can he afford to have you
behind him? This is going to be hell's own "balance of power" style
game, so you really ought to
consider what I've said.
Regards
Cal
Private message from Russia to Germany:
Hi Pitt
I apologize for the delay in writing anything "meaty" to you as of late.
Classes are rather involved right about now (testing, papers, etc), and
free time is minimal. Hope you're feeling better, btw.
Edi has been burning up the phone lines to try and get me to 'see the G
danger', "give him freedom of maneuever," etc etc. He wants me out of
GAL, wants me to rebuild in WAR, put two on you in 1903, and allow him
the leverage he needs to take care of Turkey. Who's he been kidding?
As I see it, I've got a hostile Turkey (he and I have exchanged some
blistering letters), a weasel in Austria, and an unknown quantity in
Italy. (Yes, I expect Italy to hit GRE and TRi this turn--at least I'm
hoping for that! But Edi IS a silver-tongued devil...). Edi tells me
you're a "vulture" player who will sense my weakenss and send forces vs
me next year. I don't buy that, and I figure you'll prefer a
strong(er) Russia holding off AT, vice a house-of-cards Russia that dies
while you're pestering E and/or F.
Eng is upset; France non-committal, and the East is, well, the East.
Hence my desire for RG stability and continued friendship. I hope you
see it the same way.
Well, anyway, time's up; I have tests to collate. Take care, and let me
know how you see things.
Best
Mark
Private message from Russia to Italy:
Gentle People
The news isn't the best, and I agree that the QC would've been MUCH
better for us all had it continued. And the game would've had a certain
joi de vivre of 'difference' from the same-old startup alliances and
whatnot.
Having said that, I will revert to a recent Monkees' song, "That was
then; this is now."
Whether IR will 'retrospectively' "win English kudos" for making the
correct move remains to be seen. Quite honestly, my biggest Dip flaw is
that i tunnel-vision for the short-term tactical, vice plan for the
long-term strategic (you think I'd learn after 20+ years...-grin-).
Right now, breaking off to hit Edi, aligned with Cal, was, in my mind,
both necessary and justified, given Edi's moves. Hmmm...makes you
wonder if someone didn't tip him off, or if he was just plain greedy and
planned this all himself. (I'll go with the latter).
I will indeed talk to F and point out the logic of having friendly EF
relations (I've already mentioned--twice--the benefits AND RUSSIAN
DESIRE--of friendly Franco-Italian relations). Pitt is the great
unknown at this point. If you listen to Edi, he's going to build 2 and
come a-callin' on me next year. If that happens, Jamie, I've just
'indirectly' saved you (please, don't thank me now...)
Cal, hope you're feeling better (real-life), and that your moves are
"gainful" for you soon. I will be telling Germany that I'm knee-deep in
an AT, and that if I go down quick in the Balkans, he'll be faced with
Edi and Hohn. Could encourage him to join in the "Russian spoils," of
course, but it may buy time while he futzes with F...or E.
Anyway, rest assured that I'll try and make the best of this sticky
wicket for us all. Barring that, I want to make life a living inferno
for Edi.
Best
Tsar Faz
Private message from England to Russia:
>I really don't think that guilt trips are part of the game, at least not
>at this level.
No kidding! Well, go figure, there's a significant