| Press for Spring of 1903 in ghodstoo |
Movement
Private message from England to Germany:
I shall prepare my faith for some leaping.
I have been known to take a little jump now and then. But don't stretch my
poor powers. I am not able to leap tall buildings in a single bound.
Now I know that every signon delays the processing of the moves, and
probably some of our cohorts are holding their breaths, so I'll shut up and
wait for the results.
Cheers!
Gentle King Jamie
Private message from England to Turkey:
Now, witch.
If I'm not mistaken, you have to face the question of whether you actually
*want* to be the leading power in your area, or not. A delicate question in
a game like this one! To be the leading power, you'd need only to switch
sides and grab for the remaining Balkan centers. Or so it seems to me. To
play it slower and lower key, you'd just manouever to destroy that Russian
fleet and wait and see what develops between Italy and Austria. I'll be
watching with a fascinated eye.
Here is one little bit of information of which I am pretty certain (I don't
like to overstate my certainty, but I'd be really shocked if this were
wrong). When push comes to shove, either Russia or Italy would take
practically any opportunity to reduce the chance that Austria will be a big
power in the endgame. Not to say that they wouldn't join forces with him to
avoid elimination, but short of that I think you could count on Italy not
to make any common cause with Austria, and likewise on Russia.
I don't know how that fact might affect your plans. I guess it could
influence in various ways. I still have this feeling, though, that *IF* (a
big if) I can manage to be around for a few more years, anything that's
heathy for you will be to my advantage. So I give you what information I
have, to do with as you will.
Cheers!
Gentle King Jamie,
the Other Witch
Private message from Germany to England:
>Hey, how come you lost all the important partial press, but obviously
>managed to get and reply to all the inane broadcasts?
Because I replied to those as I read them, without thinking (wasn't it
obvious?). Though I'm not sure it does me much good, I like to give the
real game related stuff some thought before replying. Often, I don't have
sufficient time to do that upon first glance.
FYI, I've been giving your ideas a good deal of thought and I'm inclined to
go with them. Look for a detailed plan for a surprise EG turnabout in my
next message. Fair warning, though, it's going to require a serious leap
of faith on your part.
-Pitt
Private message from Observer to Germany:
> My apologies, folks. I was so certain I had already sent in my build and
> that we were waiting on somone else that I didn't even bother to check.
> It's in now.
>
Good man. Now get to some of that other stuff! :-) :-)
Nagging you (per request), and looking very much forward to seeing you
next week!!
Manus
>Diplomacy game 'ghodstoo' is waiting for Germany's orders.
My apologies, folks. I was so certain I had already sent in my build and
that we were waiting on somone else that I didn't even bother to check.
It's in now.
-KaiserPitt
In a phone discussion with a player, it was brought up that the player felt
that the rules prohibit diplomacy during the build/adjustment phase and was a
little awkward about discussing the coming adjustments. As this is from a
long time E-mailer I was very curious about this attitude.
The no diplomacy during builds has as its origin the face to face game, but
was never even an issue in postal play. some postal games had a combined
season of Fall and winter or of winter and Spring more for the issue of
speeding up the game than from any rules approach to the issue.
I am very curious, as this is my first e-mail game of regular Diplomacy, what
the social edicate is on the issue.
Comments please from the observors/masters etc on the issue.
Edi
Private message from Italy to Turkey:
> Message from [email protected] as Turkey to Italy in 'ghodstoo':
>
> Cal,
> Regarding Edi, I fully understand both the strategic desirability of
> getting him out of the way and also the tactical feasibility of action
> against him. Before now, I needed him against Mark, who had shown no
> indication of easing up on me. I'm in a much better position now,
> however. I'm willing to consider a stab, although I'd like to hear
> substantive ideas with respect to coordinated moves, though. I have
> some ideas of my own, but I'd like to hear where you're coming from.
The way I see MY moves this Spring, I'll probably convoy into Albania.
Whether I support it or try to attack Trieste is something I'll decide
AFTER I talk to Mark (and even Edi).
Assuming you are in Con & Bla with fleets and Rum with an army, as well
as the (hopeful) success of my moves, we can conceivably put supported
pressure on Tri, Bul, Gre and maybe even Serbia. What's your take
on these tactics?
For the long run, I can see myself having to turn back to face the
French. I can see you having/wanting to proceed further north to
(continue to) attack Russia. I have no problem with this as I've
concluded that you make a better long term ally than Mark (we may
want to see if he'll puppet to us as the ability to build in Stp
may be vital later).
I'm anxious to hear what the ideas were you mentioned. I'm sure we
can come to an agreement on this.
Regards
Cal
Private message from Italy to France:
> Message from [email protected] as France to Italy in 'ghodstoo':
>
> Say, I was wondering if you might want some assistance against TA. You can
> hold them off for a while, but in the end the three fleets against two
> might prove too much. They might also pick up another one by next fall.
> If you are interested in some help, let me know.
Please don't take this wrong as I do expect us to be able to work closer
later in the game, but I REALLY don't feel secure enough in my position
to want a French fleet in the Med. Let's just abide by our agreement
that
your fleet will go to Spain and then to the Mid. Any other moves will
mean that I will be forced to defend myself.
Cheers!
Cal
Private message from Germany to Russia:
>Not to worry. My focus is northwestward. I'm counting on you to contain
>the southern hordes.
** Part of this is directly related to who's helping down south. If I'm
Custer, I could use you there with support before I reach the Little Big
Horn. Even taking SEV buys me 1-2 turns, max. they can surround and
retake it in fall, no doubt. Extra pressure is needed.
I understand this but, frankly, I'm not comfortable letting England off the
hook that easy. If I turn now and head towards Austria, one of two things
is likley to happen. A) France gobbles up England with me seeing little or
no gain and leaving me with a looming western neighbor or B) England
convinces France to join with him against me. Either option is bad for me.
The only way I can prevent either is to keep up the offensive against
England, grab my share of his SC's, and make sure that I'm an unattractive
target for France.
>As for France being all alone, I'm not completely following. Are you
>worried about threats TO him (from whom?) or threats FROM him (i.e., to
>you)?
Yes, the latter. He's shown no signs of that, as yet, but I don't want to
invite trouble, either. Also, I'm sur ehe hasn't forgottne that myu
opening move was anti-French.
>>>In the north, I would urge a convoy to England; I can use Nwy to support
>>>Nth Sea.
>>
>>Yes, that sounds good. Except, I'm not sure if the support is needed given
>>the possibilities for an NTH retreat. You're probably better off getting
>>to NWG, where your fleet will be more useful in the fall.
>
> ** Pitt: Don't take this in the wrong way, BUT...I trust you 100%. But
> if you envision helping kill me off (or beating AT to the punch), then
> don't pussyfoot around. I'd rather just see you move and take the stuff
> now, as opposed to taking Nwy when I'm in CLY, or taking WAR later, etc
> etc.
I understand your concern. However, my purpose is not to set you up for a
German stab. I stand to gain very little from doing that, for starters.
If I were to stab you, who stands to gain the most? Not me but, rather,
Austria. Now, if it were Turkey that stood to see the gain, I suppose that
I might have some incentive to consider that option but I'd be crazy to
give Edi any more advantage than he already has. I'm already exposed to
him. I need your presence in the east and south to hold him in check.
If I could, I'd do more to come directly to your aid right now but I just
don't see how I can until I resolve the situation in the west. *That's*
why I suggested the moves in the north that I did. I don't think England
can afford to dislodge my NTH fleet given my options to retreat to LON or
EDI if he does but, _if_ he does, your fleet in NWG would give us much
greater options for response in the fall. Ideally, of course, my convoy
succeeds in the spring and your NOR-NWG move does, too.
I don't really know what else to say. I *need* your support, both in the
north and as a bulwark in the east and south. If you continue to give a
good accounting in the south and we are successful together in the north, I
will be in position to relieve the pressure on you by going after Austria
next year. I know you'd like to see something sooner but I don't see any
way to do that. I am committed to doing what I can, however.
I look forward to hearing back from you.
-Pitt
Private message from England to Master:
>.... I think Edi
>has it about right in his message yesterday. To my mind, if E-Mailers
>are going to be better players (by my definition with more levels of
>the game engaged) they also have to be willing to break down the
>"feud factor" by meeting on other levels as Edi suggested. It is
>something to ponder.
It is, but I don't agree with you.
But never mind, that will no doubt be an everlasting, ongoing issue on r.g.d.
>Then again, as I know, many E-Mailers do not
>want to play games on that level.... thus anonymous games. As you
>must realize, this game could NOT proceed in this manner (lawyer
>jokes and mascot jokes at the minimum, but much more than that)
>without the identities of the players known.
Yes.
For this game I was quite amenable to having identities known. I'm afraid I
didn't make good use of the knowledge. But I'm learning...
-Jamie
>
>Jim
>
> Broadcast message from [email protected] as Austria in 'ghodstoo':
>
>
> In a phone discussion with a player, it was brought up that the player felt
> that the rules prohibit diplomacy during the build/adjustment phase and was a
> little awkward about discussing the coming adjustments. As this is from a
> long time E-mailer I was very curious about this attitude.
>
Actually, so am I.....
> The no diplomacy during builds has as its origin the face to face game, but
> was never even an issue in postal play. some postal games had a combined
> season of Fall and winter or of winter and Spring more for the issue of
> speeding up the game than from any rules approach to the issue.
>
The deadline is relevant here as people should not be holding up the
build or retreat deadlines in order to conduct diplomacy; however,
not conducting it at all doesn't make sense to me. I have the
same view on this that Edi does.
> I am very curious, as this is my first e-mail game of regular Diplomacy, what
> the social edicate is on the issue.
>
Perhaps (since my judge playing experience is not extensive) I share
Edi's postal view but that is out of step with the majority of you
Judge players. I also stand to be educated on this issue.
> Comments please from the observors/masters etc on the issue.
>
> Edi
>
On a related issue that I have been thinking about.....
my view in general is that rules that are impossible to enforce as
a GM should be avoided. During the great "house rules" debates on
the Judge world a few years ago, at times I realize that I stood
outside the majority on these kinds of issues. Edi making the
phone call he refers to above represents an example of what I would
call an "unenforceable rule". If the two players on the phone
wanted to communicate, there would be no reason for them to reveal
their contact (if there were a rule against negotiation during
build phases) and no way for me to find out. E-Mail outside the
Judge is similar in effect.
This issue in general colored my approach to the question of negotiating
during the grace period after the deadline recently. I also don't
believe in prohibiting that for similar reasons; HOWEVER, if the player
or players who are late want to negotiate during the grace period,
I have asked them to make reasonable requests to me to extend the
deadline. I am aware of the possibility of trying to "manipulate"
me and that sort of situation and will make a judgment based on
my view of reasonableness. Again, in my view, there is no restriction
at all on people who have orders in already to negotiate during the
grace period.
In my view, these sorts of discussions are good so that they can sort
out where I am coming from as well as what your views are. As always,
I also caution the players that to some extent all things are within
the game, whatever you wish to see that as meaning.
Jim
Private message from Master to England:
>
> Message from [email protected] as England to Master in 'ghodstoo':
>
>
> >.... I think Edi
> >has it about right in his message yesterday. To my mind, if E-Mailers
> >are going to be better players (by my definition with more levels of
> >the game engaged) they also have to be willing to break down the
> >"feud factor" by meeting on other levels as Edi suggested. It is
> >something to ponder.
>
> It is, but I don't agree with you.
> But never mind, that will no doubt be an everlasting, ongoing issue on r.g.d.
>
Hey, this game wouldn't have anywhere near the interest for me or many
others if those differences in views weren't there. I am not shy about
saying that allowing those differences to intersect over the game
board is fascinating to me.
> >Then again, as I know, many E-Mailers do not
> >want to play games on that level.... thus anonymous games. As you
> >must realize, this game could NOT proceed in this manner (lawyer
> >jokes and mascot jokes at the minimum, but much more than that)
> >without the identities of the players known.
>
> Yes.
> For this game I was quite amenable to having identities known. I'm afraid I
> didn't make good use of the knowledge. But I'm learning...
>
> -Jamie
> >
> >Jim
;-)
Jim
Private message from Italy to Turkey:
> Message from [email protected] as Turkey to Italy in 'ghodstoo':
>
> Cal,
>
> Thanks for your letter. I also thank you for not moving to AEG or
> EAS. In any event, I do feel compelled to let you know that I have to
> dislodge BLA this turn. I'm not ruling out cooperation with Mark, but
> in light of his past actions towards me, having him in BLA is simply
> more of a risk than I want to take.
>
> Regarding Edi, I fully understand both the strategic desirability of
> getting him out of the way and also the tactical feasibility of action
> against him. Before now, I needed him against Mark, who had shown no
> indication of easing up on me. I'm in a much better position now,
> however. I'm willing to consider a stab, although I'd like to hear
> substantive ideas with respect to coordinated moves, though. I have
> some ideas of my own, but I'd like to hear where you're coming from.
>
> My only restriction is, as mentioned above, that I need to dislodge
> BLA. Other than that, I'm flexible. Please let me know.
Just a quick note before I dash off to work:
I have no problem with your dislodging the Black Sea fleet; in fact,
I rather figured you'd want to remove that threat to your shores.
I'll write a more detailed note this evening about how we can coordinate
an attack on Edi. I'm quite glad you're reasonably amenable to this
offer as I feel we can take him down quite quickly. I also feel Mark
will at least help me with his Galician (or Bohemian army) even if you
press an attack on him (he wants some measure of revenge on Edi...)
Take to you later.
Cal
Private message from Turkey to Master:
Jim,
My thoughts after the Fall 1902 moves.
Hooray!
Edi came through, as I suspected he would, and my rather elaborate
stratagem with Mark also worked. I'm as pleased as punch right now.
BLA will now be mine, and although I might lose SEV, I suspect I
should be able to take it back in Fall 1903. I will likely continue
to work with Edi, simply because I find him to be one of the only
reliable people in my area. Mark is simply untrustworthy, and his
recent letter to me suggesting a cooperative set of moves that would
require trust on both of our parts is another example. Cal seems a
bit erratic, and although it's true that IT is generally pretty good
for the Turkish player, AT is even better for the Turk. So in light
of all that, I think I'll stay with Edi.
Strategically, I think there's only a low chance of a stab by Edi
against me, which is further reason to go with him. If he turns on me
now, he risks alienating his only ally while his other neighbors are
hostile, and it also exposes his back to a rapidly growing Pitt.
I'm going to return to the moral high ground position of honesty with
Mark, in the hopes that I can salvage my relationship with him. It's
true, being in the driver's seat helps with respect to that position
with him, but I'm still hoping he appreciates the honesty.
In other notes, I just sent out a spate of messages. You'll note I
also sent out a public broadcast. This is for a definite tactical
reason. Whenever I send several private messages at about the same
time, I almost always also send out a public broadcast. This is
because any note passers will not be able to cross-reference my time
stamps of passed messages with messages that they themselves received,
because my public note gives notice to all that I was online at that
time, and thus any note passers could have simply copied the time
stamp of that particular broadcast. Without the public broadcast,
note passers would have increased credibility due to the coincidence
in timing of private messages.
Hohn
Private message from Turkey to Russia:
Mark,
Although I appreciate your cooperative suggestions, I'm afraid that
they are not truly feasible in light of our mutual lack of trust. I
can't trust you to do what you've suggested, and you can't trust me to
do as you suggest either, I believe. Indeed, although the
coordination you propose would be great if it all went through, it
could again screw one or both of us in the event of a stab. Thus, I'm
afraid I'm going to have to dislodge you from BLA and then we can work
from there accordingly.
I'm sorry if I seem inflexible. It's just that I can't trust you in
BLA. I hope you realize that I could have lied to you again, agreed
to everything you said (perhaps a bit reluctantly to prevent you from
thinking I gave in too easily), and then stabbed you to try to get
further gain at your expense. But I don't want to further poison our
relationship with lies, and I do truly believe we can work
together...but only _after_ our mutual security is seen to.
Please let me know your thoughts.
Hohn
Sorry for the delayed press, everyone. It's been a hectic
last few days (unexpected post-trial motions).
Hohn
Private message from Turkey to Austria:
Edi,
Boy, Cal and Mark sure seem to want to axe you. Badly.
I'm playing along to an extent, although I've told Mark that
I simply have to dislodge him from Black Sea. There's no
other feasible alternative in my mind. Hopefully, I'll have
some idea what they're going to try, so that we can adjust
accordingly. You might want to play dumb with them about
our continuing cooperation, so that they're more amenable to
feeding me reliable info.
But rest assured, I'm still with you 100%. You're the only
one of them that's reliable, and I think and hope you feel
the same about me.
Regarding tactics, I'm blowing him out of Black, that's the
truth. With armies, I'm thinking of a tactical withdrawal
from Sevastopol to prevent a demolished army, then retaking
in fall. What do you think?
Hohn
Private message from Turkey to Italy:
Cal,
Thanks for your letter. I also thank you for not moving to AEG or
EAS. In any event, I do feel compelled to let you know that I have to
dislodge BLA this turn. I'm not ruling out cooperation with Mark, but
in light of his past actions towards me, having him in BLA is simply
more of a risk than I want to take.
Regarding Edi, I fully understand both the strategic desirability of
getting him out of the way and also the tactical feasibility of action
against him. Before now, I needed him against Mark, who had shown no
indication of easing up on me. I'm in a much better position now,
however. I'm willing to consider a stab, although I'd like to hear
substantive ideas with respect to coordinated moves, though. I have
some ideas of my own, but I'd like to hear where you're coming from.
My only restriction is, as mentioned above, that I need to dislodge
BLA. Other than that, I'm flexible. Please let me know.
Hohn
Private message from Turkey to England:
Jamie,
> Much as I am enjoying seeing Mark suffer....
> You know, right, that he just tends to get a little overheated about the
> game. He just says whatever comes into his head. (I speak from personal
> experience--he's insulted me repeatedly then apologized profusely and
> apparently sincerely. It's kind of charming once you get used to it.)
I'm just beginning to gather this.
> And I
> think he feels a little out of his league, like everyone else is an expert
> and he's just an ordinary player. I say this knowing that you will use the
> facts to your best advantage.
I don't think he's out of his league, judging from what I've heard
about him. If he's genuinely feeling insecure, though, I suppose I'm
not surprised it might affect his play.
> (Just don't let Edi win, that's all.)
I'll try my best not to. ;)
> He's right now got some fairly silly ideas about what has to happen before
> he'd flop over and help you against Austria, but I think those ideas are
> changeable.
He seems relatively reasonable now, although I'm not sure whether to
buy it or not.
> This thumbnail psychological profile brought to you by British Overseas
> Cognitive and Behavioural Research, Ltd., free of charge for our fellows in
> witchcraft.
Thanks. I'll try to walk the tightrope such that things work out
reasonably well.
Hohn
Private message from England to Russia:
Gentlemen,
>Yeah, he wrote me with the same offer, but I had to tell him that I
>didn't
>feel secure enough in my position to have a rogue French fleet wandering
>around. I can imagine you aren't too happy with that, GKJ, but since I
>am
>France's next obvious target after England, you can understand (I hope)
>my extreme reluctance.
Actually, it's fine with me.
The thing is, having France just be neutral with respect to me, as he more
or less said he'd decided to be, isn't good enough. It's a slow death
warrant. So, I'm just as happy if he has to make a different choice. Yes,
he could choose to send troops into England. But he might choose to
pressure Germany. That last is my only real chance in the game, so I prefer
a situation where France at least *might* choose that one.
The only thing is, he *might* decide to go to the Mediterranean anyway. I
think that would be a bad move, but I guess it depends on his relations
with Germany. (My best guess is that he has no real relations with Germany
at all.)
> He seemed a bit hurt that I refused, so his
>offer
>was probably genuine, but that doesn't change my feelings or strategic
>situation one iota.
No. I'd feel the same.
Even if he's perfectly sincere, the question would still be how he will
feel once he decides AT is no longer a huge threat.
>I will see what I can do, but I doubt if I have much leverage with him.
>I'll
>just try and at least keep the idea in his head. Not to obviously
>though, as
>I don't need Pitt thinking I'm conspiring against him.
Holy cow. You're worried about Pitt?
Ok. My idea was just, if France is genuinely wondering what he can do to
help IR against AT, you could tell him (truly, I hope) that keeping Germany
from overrunning those largely unprotected Russian centers is the most
helpful thing France could do.
Cheers!
Gentle King Jamie
Private message from Italy to Russia:
> Message from [email protected] as England to Italy and Russia in
> 'ghodstoo':
> Just had an interesting talk with M. Le President Jean-Bark.
>
> His current concern, at least as he presents it to me, is none other than
> your poor selves. John says he mainly worried that AT will become too strong.
>
> The apparent immediate consequence is that he wants to send Italy some help
> in the form of a ship. I noted that not everyone is perfectly trusting in
> Diplomacy (I hastened to add that this is because not everyone is as
> trustworthy as M. Jean himself), and that such a help might not be too
> welcome. He admitted the possibility. I don't know what to tell you. He
> certainly *seemed* sincere. :)
Yeah, he wrote me with the same offer, but I had to tell him that I
didn't
feel secure enough in my position to have a rogue French fleet wandering
around. I can imagine you aren't too happy with that, GKJ, but since I
am
France's next obvious target after England, you can understand (I hope)
my extreme reluctance. He seemed a bit hurt that I refused, so his
offer
was probably genuine, but that doesn't change my feelings or strategic
situation one iota.
> If either or both of you get the chance, and are willing, you might mention
> to M. Jean that an excellent way to help the ItaloRussian cause would be for
> France to give Germany something to think about other than those juicy
> Scandinavian (or English!) centers. Suggest that he fatten himself up,
> taking advantage of England's lack of opportunities and desperation, etc.,
> while ensuring that Russia can devote all his resources to the Southern Cause.
I will see what I can do, but I doubt if I have much leverage with him.
I'll
just try and at least keep the idea in his head. Not to obviously
though, as
I don't need Pitt thinking I'm conspiring against him.
Good luck
Cal
Private message from France to Master:
I was hoping that I would be able to wrap up this evening, but Pitt has not
answered my last message. My orders are in, but I would still appreciate a
delay until Tuesday night on the official deadline. I will remove the wait
as soon as possible.
Thanks,
John
Private message from England to Russia:
Gentlemen,
(I know Faz is generally incommunicado for a while; let us know when you're
back in contact.)
Just had an interesting talk with M. Le President Jean-Bark.
His current concern, at least as he presents it to me, is none other than
your poor selves. John says he mainly worried that AT will become too strong.
The apparent immediate consequence is that he wants to send Italy some help
in the form of a ship. I noted that not everyone is perfectly trusting in
Diplomacy (I hastened to add that this is because not everyone is as
trustworthy as M. Jean himself), and that such a help might not be too
welcome. He admitted the possibility. I don't know what to tell you. He
certainly *seemed* sincere. :)
If either or both of you get the chance, and are willing, you might mention
to M. Jean that an excellent way to help the ItaloRussian cause would be for
France to give Germany something to think about other than those juicy
Scandinavian (or English!) centers. Suggest that he fatten himself up,
taking advantage of England's lack of opportunities and desperation, etc.,
while ensuring that Russia can devote all his resources to the Southern Cause.
I'd appreciate it.
Cheers!
Gentle King Jamie
Private message from Turkey to Master:
Jim,
I'd like a one-day deadline extension, if possible. I'm going to be
out of town all weekend and Monday. Please let me know.
Thanks,
Hohn
Private message from England to France:
John,
Well, good luck with that fleet, I guess.
I hope that with your other units you will be... flexible.
I do not want to attack Russia with German help (hah! I mean, help Germany
attack Russia). I may not have much of a choice about it, though. It will
be my last resort. I would much rather hold off Germany while someone else
attacked him, while I gave as much assistance, admittedly limited, as I
possibly could.
Cheers!
Gentle King Jamie
Private message from France to England:
Jamie,
I don't think it's too mysterious how I might help RI. With Italy's
permission, a fleet in the Med would help him to hold out against AT
incursions, maybe even make some headway, given T's build in Ankara. Of
course, it won't work unless Italy wants the help, and you are correct that
he would be very wary of such assistance. But if he were to accept it,
then the mere fact that AT faced a real challenge in the Med would relieve
the pressure on Russia (assuming you and G left the Tsar alone for a
while).
I do not have a clear idea of Germany's intentions. I think that my
position is strong enough that he won't find attacking me again attractive
for a while, but whether finishing off England or grabbing part of Russia
is in the cards, I don't know. Presumably, he'd have to discuss the former
with me quite soon.
I'll check in again this evening. Best of luck.
John
I will be leaving town tomorrow morning, back Sunday night. I doubt that I
will have internet access for that time. I will check mail again today and
tonight.
France
Private message from England to France:
John,
I'm somewhat surprised that others aren't worried about the AT alliance.
Maybe you meant Germany. I wouldn't expect him to be worried about it. I
would be, except that I am too tied up with worrying about my survival to
be able to spend much worry on the long term.
I am, naturally, glad to hear that you won't be invading England. To be
honest, I have just been *assuming* that you won't, not because I was so
sure that you wouldn't, but that I figure my only chance is if you don't.
If you were hellbent on Liverpool, there would be nothing much I could do
about it. So I've been making what scanty plans I can make on the
assumption that you weren't.
Now.
You will understand, I'm sure, that it is rather mysterious to an outsider
like me how you might manage to help Russia and Italy. A speculator might
wonder whether you intend to send two fleets into the Mediterranean. A
speculator would hypothesize that Italy would not be too enthusiastic about
that sort of help. A speculator might then wonder whether Italy would be in
any position to refuse help like that. Well, who knows.
I can think of a way you might help Russia. I'm not sure what you're
thinking, of course. I will tell you that although I know it's quite
possible that Germany will decide his best move is to try to finish me off,
I think there is a pretty good chance that he's concluded that the biggest
payoff for him right this moment is to try to reap a large share of spoils
from the pending devastation of Russia. In fact, this is my best guess
(though it may well be wishful thinking). I believe that the chance of
Germany's deciding that your centers are the most promising source of
growth, at least given the current configuration, is a rather small chance.
(If you suddenly committed units to the Mediterranean, that might well
change.) In sum, my personal view of *your* best bet is that you'd probably
best be worrying about what Germany is about to do. If he's going East and
into Scandinavia, you ought to think this is bad news (because it makes the
AT alliance very strong indeed). If he's going west (small chance, as I
said), that's worse news. If he's going to try to use his smallish navy to
attack my island, that's probably best for you, though it might be pretty
ugly for you in the long run if he succeeds.
Hm, so, I don't know what to say. IF you are planning to put some pressure
on Germany, it would be very helpful for me to know this. It would affect
my plans. It would be helpful for me to know whether I have to gamble and
try to do something that might fend Germany off for a longish time, or
whether I just have to hold out for another move until he gets a new
distraction. But, you may not feel you want to reveal your plans, I would
naturally understand that. It depends on to what extent you feel that we're
'in this together' now.
Germany is oddly ready to negotiate with me, it seems. Maybe it's a hoax.
And I don't exactly know what he's offering, either. Whatever it is, I'll
be doing what I can to improve my defensive posture against him.
Unfortunately, I am rather in the dark about your plans and Russia's (it's
too bad that Russia is incommunicado, but that's life).
A last thought about revenge.
I find that at this level, players go for revenge only when other prospects
look pretty grim. Yours are certainly good enough that you can have higher
aspirations! I think that if you play your cards just right, you'll be a
major endgame factor. Frankly, I hope you do play them just right.
Cheers!
Gentle King Jamie
Private message from France to England:
Jamie, the long and short of it is that I am concerned about the growing
strength of the AT alliance. If I were to think in the short term, their
success provides me with some opportunities. But they will gain much more
and much faster than I would from grabbing the immediate profits. I would
like to help Russia and Italy hold them off. I've contacted a couple of
players about this, but so far I am the only one who feels this way. The
import for you is, of course, that I would not make an attempt on your
homeland. FYI, revenge rarely motivates me, and I try to play the board as
it develops. My reading now is that AT is the problem.
John
Edi,
I have always played that the game is setup with deadlines and what you do
prior to the deadlines is your business within the limits of the press
settings. In other words, diplomacy is acceptable so long as the adjustments
get in on time.
Just my too sense.
Ken
----------------------[Reply - Original Message]----------------------
In a phone discussion with a player, it was brought up that the player felt
that the rules prohibit diplomacy during the build/adjustment phase and was a
little awkward about discussing the coming adjustments. As this is from a
long time E-mailer I was very curious about this attitude.
The no diplomacy during builds has as its origin the face to face game, but
was never even an issue in postal play. some postal games had a combined
season of Fall and winter or of winter and Spring more for the issue of
speeding up the game than from any rules approach to the issue.
I am very curious, as this is my first e-mail game of regular Diplomacy, what
the social edicate is on the issue.
Comments please from the observors/masters etc on the issue.
Edi
=====================================================================
Private message from France to Italy:
As you wish.
> Speaking of negotiating after deadline, Manus, you got abandoned in
> Class2 last night. Please rectify.
>
Sigh. Okay, right after my ten to noon meeting.
Smelling of dirty laundry,
Manus :-(
Speaking of negotiating after deadline, Manus, you got abandoned in
Class2 last night. Please rectify.
Charlie, your friendly GM
My own philospophy on negotiations buring retreats and builds: 100% in favor.
I too feel that the ban on such negotiations is something that should be left
to apply to FTF only. That's the way I run my games and that's the way I play
PBEM.
Stab you soon (using a negotiated build),
Manus
Private message from England to Master:
Jim,
I haven't decided yet whether I'll broadcast anything in response to yours
and Edi's recent broadcast notes.
If I do, you must keep in mind that 'everything is in the context of the
game'! Everything I broadcast is. Private notes to you are extra-game
communications, of course, with no ulterior motives.
You already have my candid comments about unenforceable rules and about
your decisions about negotiating past the deadline. I'll be more than happy
to expand if you have any questions about my views, of course.
Rick Desper gave what should be counted as the Official Judge-players's
Position. The large majority of Judge denizens think it's perfectly ok to
negotiate during minor phases. Rick himself is inclined to think not, but
always goes along with the majority when he's GM-ing.
-Jamie
On negotiations during minor phases:
(Jim)
>Perhaps (since my judge playing experience is not extensive) I share
>Edi's postal view but that is out of step with the majority of you
>Judge players. I also stand to be educated on this issue.
Not at all. The large majority of Judge players, I think it's fair to say,
also find no problem in negotiating during adjustment and retreat phases.
(Rick's account of this is perfectly accurate, in other words.)
Whoever told Edi that he was worried about it was probably lying. Maybe it
was me. Maybe I was talking to Edi on the phone about this. Maybe Edi made
the whole thing up. Seems most likely. Just who does he think he's fooling?
>On a related issue that I have been thinking about.....
>
>my view in general is that rules that are impossible to enforce as
>a GM should be avoided.
I disagree. I would like to know just why you think so, Jim.
My view is this. In a game like Ghodstoo, you can expect players to follow
the rules laid down. So the rules will be largely self-enforcing.
>This issue in general colored my approach to the question of negotiating
>during the grace period after the deadline recently. I also don't
>believe in prohibiting that for similar reasons; HOWEVER, if the player
>or players who are late want to negotiate during the grace period,
>I have asked them to make reasonable requests to me to extend the
>deadline. I am aware of the possibility of trying to "manipulate"
>me and that sort of situation and will make a judgment based on
>my view of reasonableness.
This seems entirely fair.
I myself implore all of the players to be reasonable at all times. I mean,
I hereby do so.
I will always follow the rules as I understand them, always. And I have no
doubt that other players are the same.
Except for Cal.
-Jamie
My feeling has always been that the rule against negotiation was designed
to speed things up, as the rules only allow 5 minutes for builds &
retreats.
So in general, I think this rule fall under the category of "rules which
are not applicable outside of FTF," since, after all, we don;'t enforce the
5 minutes part, so why the no-talking part.
So unless the GM prohibits it, I engage in it w/o qualm.
When I GM I allow it, but I try to enforce the spirit by preventing the use
of SET WAIT during retreat/build phases. Since I see the intent of the
rule to keep the game moving quickly, I think stretching out these phases
to negotiate is poor form.
Andy
p.s. On the other hand, strictly prohibiting communication in these phases
has some interesting unintended game-theoretic side effects. I once saw 2
players left with only one retreat each, to the same spot. They were
trying to stop me from winning by getting a defensible line. If both
retreated to the spot it was just as bad as if neither did. With
communication (which they used) it was an easy matter to resolve (heck, I
won anyway), but w/o communication it would have been a very interestng
Battle of the Sexes type game.
p.p.s. I think having the option to claim: "Regardless of the GMs ruling,
*I* don;t negotiate during retreats and builds" gives a player some stab
room if he wants it.
>
> Broadcast message from [email protected] as Observer in
> 'ghodstoo':
>
> Charlie Eldred, Government Lawyer
>
> P.S. We government lawyers are actually monitoring all e-mail Diplomacy
> games, constantly on the lookout for new blood for the State Department.
> The Dayton Accords were negtiated by 7 people, and 5 of them were
> snacthed from the ranks of e-mail Diplomacy players. If *you* would like
> to be assigned to the Zaire embassy or other exciting locale, winning this
> game is a step in the right direction.
>
I just want to know if this is a promise of a new and exciting career, or
a thinly veiled threat. That last sentence might give me second thoughts
if I were thinking about winning...
James, Naive student
Press during builds/retreats: Of course the AH rules prohibit this.
However, I have only played in one e-mail game (a Chaos game) where
press was actually prohibited during these phases. The master wrote a
program which set the NoPress flag whenever it detected a build or
retreat phase. Of course, there was a small window of opportunity to
send press immediately after a phase would process, and I think the GM
may have actually sanctioned someone for doing it once.
As for press during grace periods, as I've become more experienced in
e-mail play, I've pretty much stopped negotiating during grace periods
unless there is a good reason, or unless it's REALLY important (in which
case I am being a hypocrite, but oh well.) "Good reasons" could be that I
had publicly asked for a reasonable extensoin and the GM never
responded, in which case I have no qualms about negotiating up to the
point where the deadline should have been set, or if another player lost
access for a time or had himself publicly asked for an extension without
receiving a response. Otherwise I am agaisnt it because there needs to
be some point at which negotiation is over with and the game proceeds.
As GM, I tell players that I "don't make a big deal out of negotiating after
the deadline, as long as it isn't abused." I leave this phrase deliberately
vague and I think players get the idea that they shouldn't negotiate after
the deadline. I've never had a problem with players negotiating after the
deadline as GM.
My two cents.
Charlie Eldred, Government Lawyer
P.S. We government lawyers are actually monitoring all e-mail Diplomacy
games, constantly on the lookout for new blood for the State Department.
The Dayton Accords were negtiated by 7 people, and 5 of them were
snacthed from the ranks of e-mail Diplomacy players. If *you* would like
to be assigned to the Zaire embassy or other exciting locale, winning this
game is a step in the right direction.
Re: Press during retreats/builds
This subject came up during one of the Hall9* games, where I
discovered that most emailers have been sending press during
builds/retreats for a very long time. This goes against my feel of
the game, but it is the email tradition.
Rick
Private message from England to Master:
Jim,
I will be out of town, disconnected from the internet altogether, between
Wed. April 23rd and Monday April 28th.
I doubt that I will need any postponement at all. If I do, it would be a
couple of days at most.
I will tell you again in a few weeks (remembering how hard it is to keep
track of these things as a gm).
-Jamie
Private message from Italy to France:
Hi John: England wants me to write you and try to talk you into
attacking Germany. The rationale is that, if Germany decides to
waltz into the (mostly) vacant Russian centres, he may get too
big to be stopped.
Well, I've done what England asked , so my obligation is
fulfilled. I should mention that he has a valid point. Have
you given any thought to a possible attack on Pitt (before or)
after England is toast.
If you have, we should talk about it as it's something we could
conceivably work together on.
Regards
Cal
Private message from Turkey to Italy:
Cal,
> I have no problem with your dislodging the Black Sea fleet; in fact,
> I rather figured you'd want to remove that threat to your shores.
Oh, that's cool. I wasn't sure based on your previous message. I
know Mark's proposed a unified course of action that involved me not
dislodging him in BLA, but I've told him straight up that although I
don't foreclose the possibility of working with him, I'm going to have
to dislodge/destroy him in BLA.
> I'll write a more detailed note this evening about how we can
> coordinate an attack on Edi. I'm quite glad you're reasonably
> amenable to this offer as I feel we can take him down quite quickly.
I think so too.
> I also feel Mark will at least help me with his Galician (or
> Bohemian army) even if you press an attack on him (he wants some
> measure of revenge on Edi...)
I can imagine. ;)
> The way I see MY moves this Spring, I'll probably convoy into Albania.
> Whether I support it or try to attack Trieste is something I'll decide
> AFTER I talk to Mark (and even Edi).
Sounds reasonable. Aren't you concerned about French F MAR, though?
> Assuming you are in Con & Bla with fleets and Rum with an army, as well
> as the (hopeful) success of my moves, we can conceivably put supported
> pressure on Tri, Bul, Gre and maybe even Serbia. What's your take
> on these tactics?
My take on the tactics of the situation are...well, they're completely
muddled. It's a big, huge mess. I do anticipate being in CON, BLA
and RUM, but beyond that, it's a big crapshoot.
I'm glad we have the weekend so I can stew on it some more. ;)
> For the long run, I can see myself having to turn back to face the
> French.
Are you comfortable with the long run, and that he won't press the
attack immediately?
> I can see you having/wanting to proceed further north to
> (continue to) attack Russia. I have no problem with this as I've
> concluded that you make a better long term ally than Mark (we may
> want to see if he'll puppet to us as the ability to build in Stp
> may be vital later).
Thanks. Mark has been rather...quixotic this game.
But in any case, I'll be happy to work with him...so long as he's not
the one in the driver's seat.
> I'm anxious to hear what the ideas were you mentioned. I'm sure we
> can come to an agreement on this.
My thoughts were pretty much along the same lines as yours, I'd take
Mark out of BLA this turn and work with Edi to an extent, hopefully
setting up an ideal stab situation in Fall. I'd be willing to work
with Mark so long as he wasn't directly threatening my security.
I think the convoy to ALB is a good idea, although again, I'm
concerned about your exposure to French perfidy.
If worst comes to worst, and France stabs you, I think that we might
need to work with Edi. Then you, me and him can all try to stave off
the FG. I think in that situation, Edi and I will need to try to off
Mark ASAP, since I suspect he won't be willing (or couldn't be relied
on, anyway) to work in such a situation.
Thoughts?
Hohn
Private message from Turkey to Russia:
Mark,
I've made the unilateral decision that further discussion along these
lines will not be productive at this time. I've told you what I'm
doing. You can do what you choose. I have to go defend "Charlie
Mason Jr.," after all.
Hohn
P.S. IMO, it's not generally a good idea to accuse that your fellow
players, especially in a game where all are experts such as this one,
are gullibly eating someone else's lines without thought.
Private message from Russia to Turkey:
* Hohn: had a transmission error last night; trying again...
From: [email protected] (Mark A Fassio)
Hi again Hohn,
One more quick reply before I unplug myself and then unpack (and put the
kids to bed); will be available all day tomorrow on this juno.com line...
Mark,
You're more than welcome. I'm not sure you fully appreciate why I did
it, though, judging from the tone of the below. I did it because I
want to work with you in the future.
** No, I realize there are two sides to every coin, and this shows a
measure of goodwill for future cooperation. Of course, both of us can
prove (with cynical examples) how being "up front" in 1901 and 1902,
respectively, came to pass regarding "building goodwill forthe
future"....
Nonetheless, the words *are* there; whether they will ever be matched
with actions remain to be seen.
> 2) As of this space in time, I do indeed find you (a) inflexible, (b)
> lacking in ultimate sincerity, or (c) both. I'm sorry if that sounds
> like a double-barrel between the eyes, but I know you're fond of
> straightforward talk, and this is about as straightforward as I get.
Inflexible? As to this upcoming turn? Absolutely.
As for lacking in ultimate sincerity, what possible gain could I
achieve by lying to you about me wanting to blast you out of BLA?
** Oh, I agree. The "ultimate sincerity" allusion was a projection on
my part, for
post-spring moves, Hohn.
> Now I'm trying to make the effort to show -- yet again -- *more*
> sincerity, with a no-kidding "hurt Edi" gameplan (the only thing he
tells
> me he fears, btw).
A gameplan that is too risky on both our parts, IMO. You need to take
me out of SEV. I need to take you out of BLA. That's Spring. Fall
is another ball of wax entirely.
**iYo. IMO, the suggested moves _would_ "take you out" of SEV and "take
me out" of BLA--by putting us at Edi's throat. You just have this
trust hang-up thing flying in a holding pattern, is all.
Understandable, but frustrating. (This is where you throw in another
-shrug-, btw.)
> And you yet again obfuscate and hedge.
???
What is obfuscating or hedging about "I'm taking you out of BLA this
turn." Sounds pretty crystal clear to me.
** NOT this turn. It's the unrealized, "Well, golly gee, after we both
have secure borders ((and I really value a Turk fleet in Bla for MY
security, btw)), maybe then I'll deign to discuss serious options" theme
that
seems to stick with me for some reason...But, as you say, this is spring,
and you are trying to be Mr Flexible for fall....
I'm willing to work with you in the future. Believe it or not, as you
choose.
** I'm trying VERY hard to believe it, despite the tonality my reply
here.
And, as you have (one of your favortie phrases) the 'gun to my head'
tactically, I have no choice BUT to believe it.
> You cite
> 'lack of trust.' Sure, there's a grain of that, on both sides. I for
> one am willing to let it die; I was last turn, and I'll do it again for
> this turn. Why not you?
Because. It's. Too. Risky.
** For. You. Because your trust meter is at zero. I've already
'waived' my risk fear...
I'm in a position to secure my border. You are too. We can hit Edi
in Fall depending on how things turn out. Why take a wildly risky
move instead that could screw _either_ of us if the other stabs?
I'm not willing to take that risk right now. I'm sorry if that's
being too inflexible to you. Personally, I just think it's being
prudent.
** OK; understood. Violent disagreement on my part, but have it your
way. I think we're blowing the perfect turn to establish dominance over
Aus and the board, but if you want Spring Prudence, then I'm merely
shouting into the hurricane.
> I mean, no offense, but I have a lot better things to do than write
move
> options and proposals, just to be cute and never really intend for them
> to be implemented. I wouldn't make this effort if I wasn't sincere,
> Hohn.
Oh come on, Mark. You can't mean this. Because it's demonstrably
false. We spent five times as much time and kilobytes of text hashing
out the Spring 1901 moves and the BLA situation. Despite all that
effort, you weren't sincere. You're not going to convince me that
just because you offer up a detailed proposal, you're going to be
sincere about it.
**No, that part is true. And your kilobytes of correspondence (well,
single binary code, anyway) in 1902 also show that words don't always
equal deeds, I reckon...
But there's that little move of F'02 that I tried to use as a
demonstrative effort. I guessif that didn't convince you, then the
follow-up goodwill message won't, either.
> And what do you think Italy's intent is?! If he's with us, then
> all the better to hurt Edi and break out westward ASAP. And if he's
> been seduced by Edi into an AI, then what better time to break through
> their coalescing front than now? I offer chocoloate fudge chunk, and
> you dish out vanilla in reply.
** Better watch your shoulder, Hohn; Edi and I both had back problems
recently...I wouldn't want you to throw your shoulder out with excessive
shrugging.
Vanilla can be very satisfying, especially when coupled with the
knowledge that you won't get heartburn from the exotic.
** Where's my heave bucket? I'm listening to Fonzie, hanging out at
Edi's House of Whipped Cream.
Or to paraphrase another old adage, "Slow and steady wins the race."
** Well, Monty DID beat Rommel by being plodding and methodical. And
then there's that tortoise and hare thing....You do have history on your
side, Hohn.
> 3) I'm having a hard time convincing myself that you'll ever find it in
> yourself to consider a serious proposal from me, either by design or by
> nature. And that's a shame. A shame for me, because it's my one
> remaining good option to hurt the Grand Master, and a shame for you
> because I think that it offers you more gain than an AT designed to
take
> me out. (But that's just my opinion, naturally.) Oh, you'll take me
out,
> but you'll get nothing for it.
I'm completely willing to consider serious proposals by you. I simply
find this one to be too risky. And I'm telling you up front that is
the case. Again, would you have preferred that I _lie_ to you? What
_possible_ benefit could I gain by telling you the truth, except to
try to pave the way for better relations between us in the future?
** You're absolutely right. The problem is one that was referenced
above,
though. It all comes down to trust, and the fact the each turn, one of
us doesn't completely trust the other. This turn I'm ready to deal, but
you fear bad karma if one of us (I'm assuming it must be me) wouldn't
follow through vs Edi. But after you thrash the crap out of BLA, I'm
supposed to just assume you're then ready to deal. YES, it's completely
logical. I just have to hope that you're sincere in fall....ah, the fall
turn(s)...
> 4) Tell you what: Edi's already said he's staying with the AT unless I
> leave GAL. You go ahead and do what you have to do regarding BLA; I
> can't stop you anyway.
Indeed. And that's what I'm going to do.
** Then do it, and let's see if it dies or goes to RUM.
> IF and when you ever see that RT opening vs A,
> let me know. Give me a real no-kidding sign of commitment, as opposed
> to the "over the next horizon" 'maybes.'
It could happen as early as Fall of this year. But I don't have a
crystal ball, Mark, and I don't know how people are going to move this
season. That's the only reason I can't give you a firmer commitment:
because I don't know how we're all going to be positioned.
** Ok, I buy that.
> But the ball's in your court. Until then, I'll just assume you're
> locked and cocked with Edi for the duration.
As you choose.
** I don't "choose;" that's what you've already dealt me on the table
for spring. YOU need to reshuffle the deck come fall. I'll be waiting
at the table to see if you have an extra ace up your sleeve.
See you tomorrow. Good luck on the motion for retrial, or whatever
Charlie Mason Jr recently filed.
Mark
Actually I will be travelling on Tuesday to go to Sweden and will not be able
to get the results Tuesday night. I will be returning from Sweden March 31.
Please advise details of deadlines.
> Broadcast message from [email protected] as Turkey in 'ghodstoo':
[Rational argument about how rattling someone's cage with hate mail
may be appropriate in some situations (something I don't totally
disagree with, btw) snipped]
> I can see how such rules might be appropriate in a FTF setting, when
> the potential for physical intimidation (real or perceived) might
> otherwise potentially affect the game in an improper fashion, but in a
> text-only medium, I feel such rules are not preferable.
I guess I forgot to mention that I think physical violence is a GREAT
FTF diplomatic tool.
But, then again, I'm 6'4" and 296 pounds... heh heh
Private message from Turkey to Russia:
Mark,
> Am going through my mail queue, and stumbled upon a message from
> you, i.e., your reply to my proposed ITR hit of Edi. You asked for
> my thoughts, so here they are.
> 1) I appreciate your not lying "up front" to me and perpetuating
> this buffoonish game of "gotcha." You could have indeed lied to me
> for your own expense, although quite honestly it would've availed
> you naught, and then I would've just said to you what you earlier
> said to me: "One more lie or attempted stab and we're through this
> game." Nonetheless, you were truthful enough to reject my proposal,
> so I give you that. Thank you.
You're more than welcome. I'm not sure you fully appreciate why I did
it, though, judging from the tone of the below. I did it because I
want to work with you in the future.
> 2) As of this space in time, I do indeed find you (a) inflexible, (b)
> lacking in ultimate sincerity, or (c) both. I'm sorry if that sounds
> like a double-barrel between the eyes, but I know you're fond of
> straightforward talk, and this is about as straightforward as I get.
Inflexible? As to this upcoming turn? Absolutely.
As for lacking in ultimate sincerity, what possible gain could I
achieve by lying to you about me wanting to blast you out of BLA?
> Here you are, warning that one more fib would make things probably
> irreconciliable for the game's duration. So I don't even cover SEV last
> turn, fully intending to show my goodwill. Ok, you got me, and kudos to
> you.
Thanks.
> Now I'm trying to make the effort to show -- yet again -- *more*
> sincerity, with a no-kidding "hurt Edi" gameplan (the only thing he tells
> me he fears, btw).
A gameplan that is too risky on both our parts, IMO. You need to take
me out of SEV. I need to take you out of BLA. That's Spring. Fall
is another ball of wax entirely.
> And you yet again obfuscate and hedge.
???
What is obfuscating or hedging about "I'm taking you out of BLA this
turn." Sounds pretty crystal clear to me.
I'm willing to work with you in the future. Believe it or not, as you
choose.
> You cite
> 'lack of trust.' Sure, there's a grain of that, on both sides. I for
> one am willing to let it die; I was last turn, and I'll do it again for
> this turn. Why not you?
Because. It's. Too. Risky.
I'm in a position to secure my border. You are too. We can hit Edi
in Fall depending on how things turn out. Why take a wildly risky
move instead that could screw _either_ of us if the other stabs?
I'm not willing to take that risk right now. I'm sorry if that's
being too inflexible to you. Personally, I just think it's being
prudent.
> I mean, no offense, but I have a lot better things to do than write move
> options and proposals, just to be cute and never really intend for them
> to be implemented. I wouldn't make this effort if I wasn't sincere,
> Hohn.
Oh come on, Mark. You can't mean this. Because it's demonstrably
false. We spent five times as much time and kilobytes of text hashing
out the Spring 1901 moves and the BLA situation. Despite all that
effort, you weren't sincere. You're not going to convince me that
just because you offer up a detailed proposal, you're going to be
sincere about it.
> And what do you think Italy's intent is?! If he's with us, then
> all the better to hurt Edi and break out westward ASAP. And if he's
> been seduced by Edi into an AI, then what better time to break through
> their coalescing front than now? I offer chocoloate fudge chunk, and
> you dish out vanilla in reply.
Vanilla can be very satisfying, especially when coupled with the
knowledge that you won't get heartburn from the exotic.
Or to paraphrase another old adage, "Slow and steady wins the race."
> 3) I'm having a hard time convincing myself that you'll ever find it in
> yourself to consider a serious proposal from me, either by design or by
> nature. And that's a shame. A shame for me, because it's my one
> remaining good option to hurt the Grand Master, and a shame for you
> because I think that it offers you more gain than an AT designed to take
> me out. (But that's just my opinion, naturally.) Oh, you'll take me out,
> but you'll get nothing for it.
I'm completely willing to consider serious proposals by you. I simply
find this one to be too risky. And I'm telling you up front that is
the case. Again, would you have preferred that I _lie_ to you? What
_possible_ benefit could I gain by telling you the truth, except to
try to pave the way for better relations between us in the future?
> 4) Tell you what: Edi's already said he's staying with the AT unless I
> leave GAL. You go ahead and do what you have to do regarding BLA; I
> can't stop you anyway.
Indeed. And that's what I'm going to do.
> IF and when you ever see that RT opening vs A,
> let me know. Give me a real no-kidding sign of commitment, as opposed
> to the "over the next horizon" 'maybes.'
It could happen as early as Fall of this year. But I don't have a
crystal ball, Mark, and I don't know how people are going to move this
season. That's the only reason I can't give you a firmer commitment:
because I don't know how we're all going to be positioned.
> I'd LOVE to make it happen, to
> remove the big Balkan threat and then to turn attention to the forming
> FG.
I agree.
> But the ball's in your court. Until then, I'll just assume you're
> locked and cocked with Edi for the duration.
As you choose.
Hohn
Private message from Italy to Turkey:
> Message from [email protected] as Turkey to Italy in 'ghodstoo':
> > The way I see MY moves this Spring, I'll probably convoy into Albania.
> > Whether I support it or try to attack Trieste is something I'll decide
> > AFTER I talk to Mark (and even Edi).
>
> Sounds reasonable. Aren't you concerned about French F MAR, though?
Oh yeah, big time, but I have to either go whole hog against Edi or
forget
it. I don't feel I can afford to be wishy washy at this time.
I have slight reason to believe that France won't use that fleet against
me THIS turn and (probably) not the next. Call it a hunch from
something
he (and England) wrote. Okay, it's a slim hope, but my reasons in the
last paragraph still stand.
> My take on the tactics of the situation are...well, they're completely
> muddled. It's a big, huge mess. I do anticipate being in CON, BLA
> and RUM, but beyond that, it's a big crapshoot.
Oh, I agree. (So why'd you ask me to give my take on things? grin)
> I'm glad we have the weekend so I can stew on it some more. ;)
I think our general rule of thumb for this turn is:
1) I attack Austria and get as much position as I can
2) You attack Russia while trying to get your own position to attack
Edi.
Once Fall comes, we make our move. Presumably Edi will be paying so
much attention to Russia and I, you can waltz in and deliver a real
coupe de grace.
> > For the long run, I can see myself having to turn back to face the
> > French.
>
> Are you comfortable with the long run, and that he won't press the
> attack immediately?
Nope, but I have to concentrate on one thing at a time now. Hopefully,
if he DOES, I'll be able to get a build or two to repulse him with.
Actually, I'll appreciate it if you keep that scenario in mind should
he move that fleet anywhere BUT Spain(sc)
> > I can see you having/wanting to proceed further north to
> > (continue to) attack Russia. I have no problem with this as I've
> > concluded that you make a better long term ally than Mark (we may
> > want to see if he'll puppet to us as the ability to build in Stp
> > may be vital later).
>
> Thanks. Mark has been rather...quixotic this game.
>
> But in any case, I'll be happy to work with him...so long as he's not
> the one in the driver's seat.
>
> > I'm anxious to hear what the ideas were you mentioned. I'm sure we
> > can come to an agreement on this.
>
> My thoughts were pretty much along the same lines as yours, I'd take
> Mark out of BLA this turn and work with Edi to an extent, hopefully
> setting up an ideal stab situation in Fall. I'd be willing to work
> with Mark so long as he wasn't directly threatening my security.
>
> I think the convoy to ALB is a good idea, although again, I'm
> concerned about your exposure to French perfidy.
>
> If worst comes to worst, and France stabs you, I think that we might
> need to work with Edi. Then you, me and him can all try to stave off
> the FG. I think in that situation, Edi and I will need to try to off
> Mark ASAP, since I suspect he won't be willing (or couldn't be relied
> on, anyway) to work in such a situation.
>
> Thoughts?
As to the above paragraph, it will depend on how strongly he stabs me.
If it's just the single fleet, I'd prefer to keep up the attack on
Austria. To be honest, I'd rather NOT work with Edi if at all possible.
Simply put if you, Edi and I have to ally against F/G, I'd very
definitely end up as the junior partner. Not to my liking... :)
Anyway, let's see how this turn shapes up. Damn, these deadlines
are starting to seem WAY too far apart. If you have any ideas
after the weekend, please pass them on.
Regards
Cal
Private message from Russia to Turkey:
Hohn
Am going through my mail queue, and stumbled upon a message from you,
i.e., your reply to my proposed ITR hit of Edi. You asked for my
thoughts, so here they are.
1) I appreciate your not lying "up front" to me and perpetuating this
buffoonish game of "gotcha." You could have indeed lied to me for your
own expense, although quite honestly it would've availed you naught, and
then I would've just said to you what you earlier said to me: "One more
lie or attempted stab and we're through this game." Nonetheless, you
were truthful enough to reject my proposal, so I give you that. Thank
you.
2) As of this space in time, I do indeed find you (a) inflexible, (b)
lacking in ultimate sincerity, or (c) both. I'm sorry if that sounds
like a double-barrel between the eyes, but I know you're fond of
straightforward talk, and this is about as straightforward as I get.
Here you are, warning that one more fib would make things probably
irreconciliable for the game's duration. So I don't even cover SEV last
turn, fully intending to show my goodwill. Ok, you got me, and kudos to
you. Now I'm trying to make the effort to show -- yet again -- *more*
sincerity, with a no-kidding "hurt Edi" gameplan (the only thing he tells
me he fears, btw). And you yet again obfuscate and hedge. You cite
'lack of trust.' Sure, there's a grain of that, on both sides. I for
one am willing to let it die; I was last turn, and I'll do it again for
this turn. Why not you?
I mean, no offense, but I have a lot better things to do than write move
options and proposals, just to be cute and never really intend for them
to be implemented. I wouldn't make this effort if I wasn't sincere,
Hohn. And what do you think Italy's intent is?! If he's with us, then
all the better to hurt Edi and break out westward ASAP. And if he's
been seduced by Edi into an AI, then what better time to break through
their coalescing front than now? I offer chocoloate fudge chunk, and
you dish out vanilla in reply.
3) I'm having a hard time convincing myself that you'll ever find it in
yourself to consider a serious proposal from me, either by design or by
nature. And that's a shame. A shame for me, because it's my one
remaining good option to hurt the Grand Master, and a shame for you
because I think that it offers you more gain than an AT designed to take
me out. (But that's just my opinion, naturally.) Oh, you'll take me out,
but you'll get nothing for it.
4) Tell you what: Edi's already said he's staying with the AT unless I
leave GAL. You go ahead and do what you have to do regarding BLA; I
can't stop you anyway. IF and when you ever see that RT opening vs A,
let me know. Give me a real no-kidding sign of commitment, as opposed
to the "over the next horizon" 'maybes.' I'd LOVE to make it happen, to
remove the big Balkan threat and then to turn attention to the forming
FG. But the ball's in your court. Until then, I'll just assume you're
locked and cocked with Edi for the duration.
Mark
With respect to the "profanity and civility" issue, I for one would
never play in a PBEM game where any purported regulation of such
conduct was in place. I'm a dedicated free speech advocate, and
moreover, I feel that there are times when both profanity and
allegedly "uncivil" press can be tactically useful. Very few words
can capture the strength and elegance of a simple "bullshit," when
appropriately used. And when some player (usually of questionable
competence) tries to justify clearly incorrect or silly moves or
decisions (especially if that player tries to persuade others as to
the correctness of the position), there's often nothing like a little
satire and ridicule to deflate that position.
Is it "nice?" No, not always. But I'm willing to accept the
consequences of my actions, even if that means I have to deal with a
suicidal game-thrower in the long-run. It's about advantages weighing
against the disadvantages, in my opinion.
I can see how such rules might be appropriate in a FTF setting, when
the potential for physical intimidation (real or perceived) might
otherwise potentially affect the game in an improper fashion, but in a
text-only medium, I feel such rules are not preferable.
Hohn
Private message from Turkey to England:
Jamie,
I think I'm going to dislodge BLA and watch and see what happens in
Spring, before I decide what to do in Fall and long-term.
Good luck on your defense. I hope you can stymie Pitt. :)
Hohn
Private message from Russia to Turkey:
Hohn,
Ref below...
I've made the unilateral decision that further discussion along these
lines will not be productive at this time. I've told you what I'm
doing. You can do what you choose.
** Indeed you have (thanks again) and indeed I will. I'm just tring to
'diplome' with some correspondence and to discuss(in the initial
messages) why you ddn't like the proposal. Then I tried to give you my
spin to your views in a reply. If you don't see value in it (for just
spring, I hope?), then fine, I'll stop bothering you.
P.S. IMO, it's not generally a good idea to accuse that your fellow
players, especially in a game where all are experts such as this one,
are gullibly eating someone else's lines without thought.
** Come on, Hohn, really! First off, word are just another weapon,
something you -- Mr Free Speech Advocate--should certainly understand.
((Ref your earlier broadcast message about profanity and use of words as
weapons in a game)) Don't be so testy over a game tool. I'm not
impugning your intelligence; you ARE a lawyer, after all, something whch
requires independent thought and "smarts."
** Secondly, _I do NOT_ see anyone here as "gullibly eating someone
else's lines without thought." Hey, I know no one put a gun to your head
(or mine) to make the moves you (or I) did. We make the beds we lie in.
And your very offer of 'something' after S'02 keeps the door open for
future cooperative efforts (if we can get past these notes)! I would
just like to see some of the "old (S'01) Hohn" and some moves
recommendations, instead of "I'm afraid I can't comment on that" and
"your moves are too risky." But I digress...After the moves, if you want
to deal, I'm here. Always will be.
Mark
>
> Broadcast message from [email protected] as Austria in 'ghodstoo':
>
>
> Actually I will be travelling on Tuesday to go to Sweden and will not be able
> to get the results Tuesday night. I will be returning from Sweden March 31.
>
> Please advise details of deadlines.
>
The deadline for the next season will remain on Tuesday evening, the 25th.
Following that, if retreats are due, that deadline will be pushed back
to the following Tuesday evening April 1st (April Fool's Day????).
If retreats are not due, I will tentatively set the movement deadline
for Friday night April 4th and await further input if that is not
satisfactory.
Your friendly GM who wishes he wee running away to World Dip Con...
Jim
Private message from Russia to Austria:
Edi, before you head out...
Any chance of an 11th hour reconciliation between us? By this, I mean:
1) I call off Cal (maybe even send him to TYO this turn and go after
MUN?)
2) You "perhaps" use Bul-Rum (Bud S) to annihilate RUM (knowing that
Hohn's using both fleets to kill BLA)
a) This is in conjunction with Gal-Ukr, Ukr-Sev (Mos S), Bla-Arm
b) Not only do you breathe easier in the west, but you also
achieve your goal of having me vacate GAL...AND you get RUM, to boot!
c) Hohn gets BLA, and has all of three centers to do nothing.
d) Come fall, you use Gre S Rum-Bul to bounce any two-fleet
turkish threat to BUL.
ANOTHER OPTION:
You support me (GAL- RUM!) with BUL. This lets you keep vie-Tyo, Bud S
Tri (or however you envision Cal's coming assault). This (again) gets
me out of Gal; allows me to reconquer Rum and SEv, and then--THEN--I will
rebuild for an anti-German war, and you can run amok down south after
that...take it all, for all I care.
I'll tell you the reason I'm saying this:
You and Hohn have both displayed an amazing recalcitrance to talk
options. i'm boxed-in, and we all know it. germany's move of Mun-Tyo is
problematic at best. if I'm hit in GAL, I *will* retreat to BOH and make
my last gasps be anti-Austrian, to Hohn's and Pitt's gain.
I'm not saying the above in any sort of hissy-fit. You're a damn fine
player, and this threat is one of the few (pitiful) weapons of persuasion
left in my arsenal. I have to try and use whatever's left to get my
point across.
I can and will work with you down south, but you haven't offered any
CONSTRUCTIVE options since S'01, and I have a hunch those were to ensure
you became top-dog down there.
I mean, you and Hohn can stay allied, and I'll just divert centers to T
and G for as long as possible. Or you and I can deal (even in a 70-30
split) and you'll forever be freed of an eastern flank threat.
Can you say the same for Hohn after F'02, with that fleet of his in BLA
and all those units next to you, and "no moreMark to kick around
anymore?"
I'd be curious to hear your views, Edi. I'll go halfway with you on
this, to the point of even working with Italy over your perceived
threats.
Mark
Private message from Russia to Italy:
Hi Cal
One quick note before I return to grading papers...
1) If you're after Edi this turn, do you want me to hit Bud or Vie (or
concentrate on Gal-Rum to retake SEV)? Can we convince Edi to cover Tyo
(i.e., have him think you're moving Ven-Tyo, Apu-ven (Adr S)? if so,
then I can hit Bud, you can take TRI, and then who knows?
2) If the Edi thing won't work for a turn, how about this? You go to
Ven-Tyo, Adr-Ven (temporarily, in case Edi gets frisky), and do the
convoy to ALB. I hang around in GAL (Edi 'says" he might let me linger
there, for obvious anti-T overtones...yeah, right). if he does, then you
and I hit VIE in Fall. if he does hit me, then I retreat to SIL, and
support you to MUN (or you take it and I shoot for BER).
Wacky? Nutty? Sure. But so's waiting around for thec unbreakable AT
axe to fall on my neck. The letters between Hohn and I are once again
approaching critical meltdown, and I'm stumped by it. I'm sure he's a
swel human, but I can't get past the tone of his letters, and i'm sure my
responses (in kind) are perceived equally dimly. I'm not sure our
personalities will allow us to deal in a game (ironic, ain't it)?
He (Tur) wants to destroy me F BLA and then see what's available come
fall. If he's being on the up-and-up, great, perhaps we can wait a turn.
If not, then I'll collapse quickly. And if Germany orders Kie-Den and
slides into nwy behind me in spring, then I'm hosed anyway (hence my
Germany option above, however ludicrous).
Any ideas, suggestions, or recommendations for joint policy? Quite
honestly, everyone's expecting me to go Gal-Rum, Ukr S Mos-Sev, Bla-Arm,
and then retake SEV. I can thus support you in your needs, if you want.
I don't care at this stage, frankly.
Allies to the End
Tsar Faz
Private message from Turkey to Russia:
Mark,
> P.S. IMO, it's not generally a good idea to accuse that your fellow
> players, especially in a game where all are experts such as this one,
> are gullibly eating someone else's lines without thought.
>
> ** Come on, Hohn, really! First off, word are just another weapon,
> something you -- Mr Free Speech Advocate--should certainly understand.
Certainly. That's not the point, though.
> ((Ref your earlier broadcast message about profanity and use of words as
> weapons in a game)) Don't be so testy over a game tool.
I'm of the opinion that certain game tools are more effective than
others depending on the situation. In an expert's game, it's not
generally a good idea to imply mindless puppetdom, IMO.
That's my opinion. Take it for what it's worth. And you again
mistake bluntness for some sort of anger/annoyance/testiness, which is
not the case.
> I'm not
> impugning your intelligence; you ARE a lawyer, after all, something whch
> requires independent thought and "smarts."
Actually, considering some of the lawyers I've dealt with, that's
hardly a general rule. ;)
> I would
> just like to see some of the "old (S'01) Hohn"
The one that got stabbed by you...
> and some moves
> recommendations, instead of "I'm afraid I can't comment on that" and
> "your moves are too risky."
I've made move recommendations. Take SEV. I'll take BLA. Anything
beyond that is neither necessary nor prudent. We don't need to know
the particulars, since the tactical situation dictates variability.
As for why I couldn't comment before, and why I've been wary in my
dealings with you, there's a reason for that, Mark.
Hohn
> Your friendly GM who wishes he were running away to World Dip Con...
>
Don't despair, Jim. Pitt, Edi, and I will drink a toast to you on
the shores of the Skagerrak. :-)
Just rubbing it in,
Manus
Private message from Russia to Italy:
Duce,
Fazfam? Isn't this a new address? Or is my memory going? (Yeah, I
know,
but I mean even more than usual).
** It's a new address for my home system, now that I reconfigured my
modem and destroyed my remote address for my work system in the
process...sigh. This one works anytime, although I have to contunually
log on to access new messages...so I'll have a bazillion 20-second phone
accesses to get/send mail....
Glad your vacation was good. Sounds like a lot of fun. I think I'll go
away somewhere to... grin
** I hear Albania and/or Trieste are pretty nice this time of year -grin-
>I'm getting much the same from them. I do not believe they are
cross-gaming
(and I'm a little surprised you would even imply that), but I simply
think
it's a case of two good players being convinced that allying (at least
for
now) is in their own best interests. I'll keep trying though and let
you
know if I'm making progress.
** I agree. Still, it's frustrating when you and I KNOW that, by
following the RI suggestions, Edi would be in a severe state of
hurt...and that the only thing preventing our tactical salvation is a
recalcitrant Turk who has the stubbornness to want to be driving the
train, all the time, every time.
> Pitt wants me to move to NWG and take his chances with the convoy
and/or
> retreat to open center. He's giving me the morale pep-talks about
> 'continuing to hold on' (Berlin 1945 springs to mind for some
reason...);
> also tells me he 'can't let E off the hook' by building/moving to TYO.
> Of course, he also wants me to fight on because his flank is open to AT
> (but not open enough to worry about it himself)! He's also concerned
> about France (wonder why) and doesn't want to divert his attention from
> the western front.
I am worried about Pitt too, insofar as he would have much to gain by
taking
your (virtually) undefended centres, but I think he's telling the truth
when
he sayd he wants to finish England off first. It's a case of wanting to
establish a corner position on the board (vital for any central power as
y'all know) and NOT leave a hostile, or potentially so, neighbour behind
him.
** Again, agreed. France is the big question mark. I'm going to be
quiet towards Pitt (I'll shelve the wacky/zany/bizarre plans for the
SIL/TYO on Mun grabs for now...) and worry about the south.
> He SAYS he wants to annhiliate BLA (while 'letting' me regain either
SEV
> or RUM), and after that, we can "begin to discuss possible options."
> I told him to do what he felt needed done, and that if he ever woke up
> and saw the benefits in hitting Edi, that I'd be around. I'm not
> holding my breath (I'm already brain-damaged enough as it is).
>Hohn has told me that he hasn't ruled out working with you in the
future,
but that it will be on his terms with him in the driver's seat. Given
the way you guys talk to each other and the fact that you have stabbed
him 2wice, I can understand his attitude. In light of the fact that
Germany WILL hit you eventually, you may have to put up with this for
a while until we can maneuver Hohn into position to be attacked
(assuming
this EVER happens; he's a pretty wary player).
** I understand fully his nervousness. The aggravating thing, in my
humble opinion, is:
Yeah, I stabbed him twice under the siren song of Edi. You moved vs
France in 1901; should he mistrust and begrduge you for the rest of the
game, on his terms?
I've, as they say, reformed, and last turn was the signal that I
((anyway)) was willing to accept the New Order..
So what does this all imply? He can carry the grudge of my 1901 stabs to
the grave while *I* just suck up his 1902 stab and accept everything on
his terms, when he's good and ready? "Not." The (real) Germans may
have to live with decades of guilt trips for the Holocaust, but I'm not
letting him smear me for the duration of this game. Hohn carries his own
moral smudges after last turn, as far as I'm concerned. Fact is, though,
I've put it past me, but he hasn't seemed to purge his ghosts yet....oh
well, maybe after he spanks BLA, the world will be so much brighter
(yeah, right).
In all honesty, I think Hohn and I have similar "off-board"
personalities, and that we're clashing on non-game issues. He's a clear
Type A, blunt, "on my terms" kind of guy, and I've got that old military
thing about planning strategy and giving orders...anal-retentive in my
own right. Mix two north poles on the same magnet, throw in a couple
stabs (three, to be exact), and you have the current situation. Still,
we are talking, and if we ever do work together, Edi's days are clearly
numbered. And then you and I have to figure out a way to stretch his
neck on the block and throttle the s*** out of him.
Oh well, one crisis at a time!
** based on your earlier note (and my crazy GER option here), I think
I'll just use Gal to hit RUM and regain SEV. My big fear is: Rum-Ukr
while I use Ukr-Sev, Mos S (the only sure way I can get Sev, btw). Then
I have Turkey completely surrounding Sev, on the border of WAR, and Edi
possibly in GAL.... that's one reason I could use some hitting of TYO
this turn, as it forces Vie or BUD to support TRI (thus keeping his
centers occupied and also keeping GAL in my hands for the fall season...)
** Oh, tactics question: I know I said I'd not bother Pitt, but let me
ask you: Jamie wants me to support Edi-Nth, to bust up the convoy and
commit vs Pitt. Says that Pitt's moving to Den anyway with F Kie (I was
hoping for Hel), and that I may as well help him. Your thoughts? I
mean, if I help Pitt by Nwy-Nwg, Pitt can take Swe and Nwy in fall,
regardless....decisions, decisions.
** Last point: the cross-gaming reference last note. It wasn't meant to
be an accusation. I just figure it this way ((bear with me here)): this
is the first time I've ever crossed swords with anyone in this game. Edi
and Pitt go back a long way, and will be en route to WorldCon very soon
together. Edi and Hohn are/have played in a previous game recently,
allying I believe. I just speak from frustration, because I view myself
as the "blue-collar schmuck who became nouveaux riche by winning the
lottery," and I'm now in the fancy mansion at a party with all the REAL
"pros from Dover" (that's you guys) who greet each other as old
associates and buds, while I feel out of place. It's silly, I realize,
because no one in this game has ever 'talked down" or made me feel like I
didn't belong...but I feel like I'm on the outside looking in at guys
with ties going years back...makes it easy to feel like there's big
conspiracies and "old boy" dealings.
I know, I know, "Faz, you're a knucklehead, and therapy's
cheap"...actually, beers are cheaper, and I'm gonna go have one now.
Enjoy your day, mon ami.
hang in there, noble Eyetie; prosperity is "just ariound the corner."
Tsar Faz
Private message from Italy to Germany:
Hi Pitt: Just thought we should stay in touch even though there's
not a lot we can do this season.
France initially warned me that he would have to build a fleet
in Marseilles. I told him I didn't like it much but it was
very obvious that it was really build option. No problem.
THEN he sends me an offer to move his fleet my way in order to
"help" me against Edi. I told him that I was NOT at all
sanguine enough about my strategic position to want anything
to do with THAT.
What I'd like to ask you is your take on this. Do you think
he'll send the fleet my way anyway? He sent me a very curt
note saying he wouldn't (and seemed "hurt" that I didn't want
his help), but I don't know if I can believe him. Admittedly,
I don't suppose I can trust his ally (you! heh heh) for a straight
answer either, but I'm gonna try anyway. What's up?
On this front, things are still quite muddled so I won't pass
on any (probably) incorrect rumours. You probably know as much
as I do anyway.
Regards
Cal
btw, have a nice time in Sweden. If you see Per Westling, tell
him I said hello. Thanx CW
Private message from Italy to Russia:
> Message from [email protected] as Russia to England and Italy in 'ghodstoo':
Fazfam? Isn't this a new address? Or is my memory going? (Yeah, I
know,
but I mean even more than usual).
Glad your vacation was good. Sounds like a lot of fun. I think I'll go
away somewhere to... grin
> Got a most disappointing reply from Hohn (and from Pitt) on my "squash
> Edi" plan. Not that Hohn and Edi and Pitt would ever cross-game, or NOT
> consider hitting each other, mind you -- but they're going to
> extraordinary lengths to find reasons why they "just can't' consider my
> recommendations....
I'm getting much the same from them. I do not believe they are
cross-gaming
(and I'm a little surprised you would even imply that), but I simply
think
it's a case of two good players being convinced that allying (at least
for
now) is in their own best interests. I'll keep trying though and let
you
know if I'm making progress.
> Pitt wants me to move to NWG and take his chances with the convoy and/or
> retreat to open center. He's giving me the morale pep-talks about
> 'continuing to hold on' (Berlin 1945 springs to mind for some reason...);
> also tells me he 'can't let E off the hook' by building/moving to TYO.
> Of course, he also wants me to fight on because his flank is open to AT
> (but not open enough to worry about it himself)! He's also concerned
> about France (wonder why) and doesn't want to divert his attention from
> the western front.
I am worried about Pitt too, insofar as he would have much to gain by
taking
your (virtually) undefended centres, but I think he's telling the truth
when
he sayd he wants to finish England off first. It's a case of wanting to
establish a corner position on the board (vital for any central power as
y'all know) and NOT leave a hostile, or potentially so, neighbour behind
him.
> Turkey continues to drone on about how we 'can't trust each other enough'
> to do the moves I recommended in conjunction with Cal vs. Edi. I took
> him to task on that one - told him I had better things to do than write
> reams of proposed, SUCCESSFUL moves just to be cute and never intend to
> follow through. I told him he was inflexible and recalcitrant, and that
> he probably never intends to break the AT paradigm....how's that foe
> encouraging words?
You certainly have a way with the diplomatic "sweet talk"...
> He SAYS he wants to annhiliate BLA (while 'letting' me regain either SEV
> or RUM), and after that, we can "begin to discuss possible options."
> I told him to do what he felt needed done, and that if he ever woke up
> and saw the benefits in hitting Edi, that I'd be around. I'm not
> holding my breath (I'm already brain-damaged enough as it is).
Hohn has told me that he hasn't ruled out working with you in the
future,
but that it will be on his terms with him in the driver's seat. Given
the way you guys talk to each other and the fact that you have stabbed
him 2wice, I can understand his attitude. In light of the fact that
Germany WILL hit you eventually, you may have to put up with this for
a while until we can maneuver Hohn into position to be attacked
(assuming
this EVER happens; he's a pretty wary player).
> FOR CAL: Whatever option you'd like in the east is ok by me.
> Unfortunately, when I lose GAL and BLA, cooperative efforts will be
> severely constrained (until ((unless)) the 7th Kaiser's Kavarly rides to
> Little Big Horn AFTER the massacre).
>
> Hey, we could go Ven-Tyo, Gal r SIL, and then put the F'03 whammy on MUN
> in conjunction with anything France might do. It might be crazy enough
> to consider????
Yes, you are... heh heh
> Speaking of France, has anyone heard what he's up to? I have 35 messages
> in the queue, so perhaps I'll withhold further talk until I scope the
> stuff out. But if he built F MAR, well...let's HOPE there's not an FG!
>
> I welcome any and all discussion, as always, mes amis. Take care of
> yourselves.
>
> Tsar Faz
> Wested and Wewaxed (to cite Bawbwa Wawa and Elmer Fudd)
ttyl
Cal
Private message from Italy to Russia:
Damn! Computer had a premature e-mail ejaculation again. Here's the
rest
of what I was saying:
> Message from [email protected] as Russia to Italy in 'ghodstoo':
> Any ideas, suggestions, or recommendations for joint policy? Quite
> honestly, everyone's expecting me to go Gal-Rum, Ukr S Mos-Sev, Bla-Arm,
> and then retake SEV. I can thus support you in your needs, if you want.
> I don't care at this stage, frankly.
I'm too lazy to re-arrange the blox myself, but if that's the better
centre-saving option for you go ahead with that. The slower you
lose centres, the longer you'll be around to take advantage of
shifting board dynamics.
ttyl
Cal
Private message from Italy to Russia:
> Message from [email protected] as Russia to Italy in 'ghodstoo':
>
> 1) If you're after Edi this turn, do you want me to hit Bud or Vie (or
> concentrate on Gal-Rum to retake SEV)? Can we convince Edi to cover Tyo
> (i.e., have him think you're moving Ven-Tyo, Apu-ven (Adr S)? if so,
> then I can hit Bud, you can take TRI, and then who knows?
I don't want to see Edi in Tyrolia, so if you would hit Vienna, I would
appreciate it. That way, if he DOES get to tyo, then he would have to
use that army to try and get back (or cover) Vienna. Cool with you?
> 2) If the Edi thing won't work for a turn, how about this? You go to
> Ven-Tyo, Adr-Ven (temporarily, in case Edi gets frisky), and do the
> convoy to ALB. I hang around in GAL (Edi 'says" he might let me linger
> there, for obvious anti-T overtones...yeah, right). if he does, then you
> and I hit VIE in Fall. if he does hit me, then I retreat to SIL, and
> support you to MUN (or you take it and I shoot for BER).
> Wacky? Nutty? Sure. But so's waiting around for thec unbreakable AT
> axe to fall on my neck. The letters between Hohn and I are once again
> approaching critical meltdown, and I'm stumped by it. I'm sure he's a
> swel human, but I can't get past the tone of his letters, and i'm sure my
> responses (in kind) are perceived equally dimly. I'm not sure our
> personalities will allow us to deal in a game (ironic, ain't it)?
That plan is a bit too wacky for me, although if I was in your position,
I'd probably suggest the same. While I'm hardly a major power in this
game, I still have some position in the game. No one is attacking (yet)
and I have some potential expansion avenues in Austria. Therefore, I'd
just as soon not get to that "what the hell, let's try this and see how
much fun it is" stage. I don't think that you are either, but that's
your own perception. The way this game has changed yearly (hell,
SEASONALLY!), nobody is totally out of it yet. Hang in there, buddy! :)
> He (Tur) wants to destroy me F BLA and then see what's available come
> fall. If he's being on the up-and-up, great, perhaps we can wait a turn.
> If not, then I'll collapse quickly. And if Germany orders Kie-Den and
> slides into nwy behind me in spring, then I'm hosed anyway (hence my
> Germany option above, however ludicrous).
I think that once Hohn has taken out your offending fleet, he'll be a
whole lot more reasonable. My guess is that, once he feels more secure
in his borders, he'll at least start to think about anti-Austrianess on
his part. I hope...
> Any ideas, suggestions, or recommendations for joint policy? Quite
> honestly, everyone's expecting me to go Gal-Rum, Ukr S Mos-Sev, Bla-Arm,
> and then retake SEV. I can thus support you in your needs, if you want.
> I don't care at this stage, frankly.
If you want to do this instead of hitting Vienna, by all means go ahead.
I don't have the board set up as Shitbutt McKitten has been up on the
table playing with the wooden blox again and I'm too lazy to re-arrange
them myself
> Allies to the End
> Tsar Faz
Private message from Russia to France:
Hi John
Just wanted to report that I'm back from a most relaxing vacation, and
now back in the 'acedemic grind' of grading papers and such; lovely.
Hope this finds you doing well.
Have you been giving much thought to the "E vs G" position of your nation
(a rhetorical question, I'm sure)!? You must realize from a Russian
standpoint, that I'd love to see an FIE vs G, to balance the board, keep
Pitt quiescent in terms of greed, and to secure both your country (all
those guys in your nation....) and mine (so many open centers to strive
for...). If you're more inclined to go "pro-Germany," then that means
i'll need to adjust my policies as well, to try and pick up some scraps
and whatot before you guys subsume me, and probably Italy.
Regardless of France's stance, I wish you well. I thought I was pullin
a fast one, subverting Edi's grand plan for rapid FT dismemberment, but
lo and behold, the only "fast" activity is my rapid dismemberment at the
hands of Edi the Ethereal and Hohn the Merciless (lawyers; gag).
Anything France can do to help its autocratic empire to the East would be
gratefully appreciated, it goes without saying.
Good hunting, monsieur!
Tsar Faz
Private message from Russia to England:
GKJ,
Ref your reply to my note:
Yes, there indeed *are* chances that I would support you in fall. More
than likely, my support will indeed be forthcoming in fall.
In fact, I was reconsidering stuff after I sent you the first note. I'm
not sure whether to just "end the misery" quickly, and thus GOAD Pitt
into attacking me (i.e., a spring support of you), or to wait until fall
and then offer support.
I mean, my position is far from crushed, but in all honesty, real-life is
making it hard for me to keep up correspondence...or interest... in this
one. I had second thoughts about joining this, but decided to stick it
out as a favor to Jim-Bob, and I did, after all, volunteer in the first
place. While I don't yet rue the day I signed up, let's just say it's
not going to ruin my life if I get (or incite) a blow-out of my positio,
so I can wind down some games and concentrate on trying to do my real job
and balance some family time.
I say all this because right now I'm having an internal debate whether to
"play it to the hilt" and gut out the turns, trying to wean away the A/T,
balance in favor of E and I, gain some centers (natch), etc, OR to say
"strategy? what strategy?" and just have some wild-a** fun...don't want
to ruin it for the other "Serious Sams" if I do the latter, however...not
being a regular in PBEM, I don't want to violate any "ghods-type" norms
or mores... -grin-
But yes, Jamie, I'm not going over to 'the dark side' and ignoring you.
I want to see what G and T do in spring (especially G). I mean, it's
problematic if Hohn screws me in fall -- I won't know 'till it happens.
But if Pitt goes to Den in spring, then it's not so hard to read the tea
leaves...Things could be a -rumblin' come autumn... Hang in there, mon
ami.
Tsar Faz
Private message from England to Russia:
Are there any circumstances at all under which you'd support a move of mine
in the Fall?
GKJ
Private message from Russia to England:
GKJ,
Have been looking over all the moves possibilities and whatnot. I wanted
to send this early, and let you know I don't think I can provide support
for your Edi-Nth. I don't know what I'm going to do with Nwy yet,
but--given Hohn's foot-dragging and uncertainty, Edi's outright
acknowledgment of war, and my desire to stay solvent to continue to help
Italy-I think it's prudent not to pick another fight (Pitt) at this
stage. Not until I see Den-Swe (as opposed to perhaps Hel?) and any
other signs of overt aggression from him. I mean, why anger yet another
neighbor? He merely then retreats to Ska (or Nwg) and unleashes his dogs
of war. At least that's the view from StP, however muddled.
My plan is to see what France does this turn, as well as the results of
down south. If Hohn is "with" me in fall, I can go +1 from the
annihilated F Bla, and life will be hunky-dory (I may also yet retreat
to SIL from GAL, if Edi boots me, depending on what Pitt does).
Can you not go Edi-Yor, Ech-Lon, and forestall the convoy? I mean, I
doubt that Germany will try for Edi on an 'end-around." or am I being
naive?
While not wanting to enrage you on this, a sunny Sunday morning in NY, I
thought it best to at least give you a heads-up two days prior to the
moves, me hearty.
The Increasingly-Late-for-Church Tsar Faz
Private message from England to Russia:
On the board:
Here's what I think.
First of all, if I were mad at you and decided I would really like to see
you crash and burn before I did, I would strongly suggest that you move to
Nwg. Because I really think this would be the best way to get Germany to
shift targets. If he thinks he can grab Scandinavia and StP from you,
letting Turkey and Austria clean out the rest of you, I am almost sure
he'll do it. It gives him a relatively secure position (Germany always
hankers after security), very quick builds, and from there he would have no
trouble at all finishing *me* off. So that would not be very good for me at
all, but it would be worse for you. Well, naturally, I may have misjudged
Pitt. Maybe he really wants you to hang around. Sure. :)
Suppose we consider what the board looks like if you just hold in Norway.
Pitt attempts a convoy over Nth; maybe it works, maybe it fails (he and I
have to guess). His new fleet goes to Denmark. So it's Ger F Nth, Ger F
Den, Rus F Nwy. You have to guess whether he will order Den-Swe. If you
move Nwy-Swe, he could convoy an army into Norway through Nth! Disaster.
You would *have* to guess right. (Would Pitt instead use the F Nth against
me? I don't think so. If he's managed to convoy, then I cannot possibly
prevent him from taking one of my centers. If he hasn't managed it, then he
cannot possibly take one of my centers. The F Nth is irrelevant for taking
my centers in the Fall.)
Suppose instead that you support my F Edi into Nth. Now Pitt has to choose
a retreat. Maybe he retreats to Ska (seems as plausible as any retreat).
And now, again, you have to outguess him. He could support an attack on
Sweden. But, I can cut any support he gives (but only by guessing right).
You could order Nwy-Swe, and I would order Nth-Ska or Nth-Den (I'd even let
you choose! It's just a guess). Of course, he could order Ska-Nwy, instead.
I am pretty sure this is still a 50-50 guess. I can work it out if you're
skeptical.
So, it seems to me that it is no worse for you if you support me into North
Sea. (Except that you'd have to believe me when I say I'll have that fleet
give whatever order you want in the Spring. I think that's pretty
believable, don't you? I have nothing else to do with the fleet, after all,
and I am almost freakishly trustworthy.) And in the long run, assuming that
we both *have* a long run, it's a lot better. For one thing, with a fleet
in Nth I tie up quite a lot of German units protecting those Nth-bordering
centers of his. For another, it makes Germany a more tempting target for
France (I think France is still undecided about what to do next). And, if
you *do* manage to get Hohn on your side, it sets up a position with some
real offensive potential if you can manage ever to build another unit up
north.
Off the board:
I've experienced some burn-out myself. Over the last year, or more even,
I've cut down to playing a single game at a time. I hear Dip players
complain about this all the time (not *complain*, exactly, maybe
'bemoan'?). No doubt the day-to-day deception, scheming, suspension of
ordinary morality takes a psychological toll. I speculate that Dip burn-out
is a sign of a healthy moral psychology!
That said, I must say add that I am enjoying this game, despite the
on-the-board problems.
Maybe Pitt and Edi will get into an ugly dispute over something trivial at
the convention, and come back each devoted to tearing out each others'
guts. :)
-Jamie
Private message from Russia to Austria:
Guys: As most of you know, I'm back off leave. However, today's a busy
day, and I haven't yet "SET ADDRESS" back to this address. I imagine
that I can only 'send' from here, but anything you reply with goes back
to the juno.com address.
Will re-set addresses either later today, or tonight, after i read
what's on the web. Much to do after 9 days away from work (ugh...)
Tsar Faz
Private message from Italy to Russia:
> Message from [email protected] as England to Italy and Russia in
> 'ghodstoo':
> Actually, it's fine with me.
> The thing is, having France just be neutral with respect to me, as he more
> or less said he'd decided to be, isn't good enough. It's a slow death
> warrant. So, I'm just as happy if he has to make a different choice. Yes,
> he could choose to send troops into England. But he might choose to
> pressure Germany. That last is my only real chance in the game, so I prefer
> a situation where France at least *might* choose that one.
As I said, I will try to talk him into it. I'd sooner see him involved
with
Germany than you.
> The only thing is, he *might* decide to go to the Mediterranean anyway. I
> think that would be a bad move, but I guess it depends on his relations
> with Germany. (My best guess is that he has no real relations with Germany
> at all.)
If he moves there, I can't really stop him. sigh What makes you think
he
and Pitt have no "real relations"?
> Even if he's perfectly sincere, the question would still be how he will
> feel once he decides AT is no longer a huge threat.
Definitely.
> Holy cow. You're worried about Pitt?
Not as in "Oh geez, I hope he doesn't attack me this turn!", but more
that,
since he's likely to be a power in mid/end game I don't want to piss him
off (well, not yet anyway).
> Ok. My idea was just, if France is genuinely wondering what he can do to
> help IR against AT, you could tell him (truly, I hope) that keeping Germany
> from overrunning those largely unprotected Russian centers is the most
> helpful thing France could do.
I'll probably have better luck talking him into hitting Pitt AFTER Pitt
attacks Germany. Unfortunately, this timing may not be the best thing
for enhancing your survival...
Regards
Cal
Private message from Italy to France:
> Message from [email protected] as France to Italy in 'ghodstoo':
>
> I received your message re England and Germany. I am curious. How do you
> defend yourself against AT while also giving Germany trouble?
If A/T stay a threat, then obviously I won't be up for any attack on
Germany.
Actually, ANY talk about me moving north is strictly speculative. As I
said, that letter was written simply at England's request; I had hoped
the
slight sarcasm was readily apparent. I guess not, eh? :)
Anyway, all I wanted you to do was think about the future and the
possibility of Germany getting too big. I think this will be one of the
ultimate games of "stop the leader"...
Take care
Cal
Private message from France to Italy:
I received your message re England and Germany. I am curious. How do you
defend yourself against AT while also giving Germany trouble?
Private message from France to Germany:
Pitt, I was hoping to hear from you regarding my last message. To remind
you, I asked about your opinion of the AT alliance. I had suggested that
perhaps allowing them to take out Russia and attack Italy unimpeded might
be a bad idea. However, I am not adamant about this. Just wanted to talk
through the implications.
What's up?
John
France
Private message from England to Russia:
I'll think about it a little.
Ok, actually, I think you'd be absolutely crazy to move to Nwg. There's no
doubt in my mind, Pitt would take both Sweden and Norway. I'll be very
surprised indeed if he doesn't move Kie-Den in the Spring.
So I think you should stay in Norway. I know, you think the issue is whether
you *anger* Pitt, but I am pretty sure you have to be careful not to *tempt*
him.
GKJ
Private message from Russia to England:
GKJ,
Actually, I hadn't given the matter much thought (ref conditions for
supporting you in fall). I _know_ that sounds crazy, but I haven't
really thought that far up in the north, other than to say I can help
you. The south has occupied nearly all of my nail-biting worries....
I mean, if I move to Nwg this turn, then the fleet can support you in
Edi, or (God forbid) you or I actually get Nth next turn! If the fleet
holds in Nwy, then I probably still piss Pitt off by not being aggressive
vs you, and then I'm not sure what else it can do, short of supporting
Edi-Nth in fall. And, if I move to Nwg this turn and we hit Nth next
season, he just retreats to Nwy (and if he did Kie-Den, then I lose both
Scandy centers in fall).
To cite Mark, "The spirit is willing, but nature is weak." I'm certainly
willing, but my (mental) nature hasn't really thought this through, other
than to say I "owe" you (in a good way, obviously).
I'd be willing to entertain any and all English thoughts, to include
Spring moves up there for me...hold? nwg? etc.
Thanks for the moral support on game continuance. I used to think I was
a Diplomacy version of "Ironman" Cal Ripken, refusing to burn out from or
quit the hobby, no matter how many years I played. And while I can't
picture myself without an active Dip game or two, I have to admit there
have been an increasing amount of days lately where I'm tempted to just
"mass-resign" and see wat life is like "beyond the hobby." Given that
I'm the guy who dosn't like the first 'dip' into a cold pool, I have a
hunch I'll never "take the plunge" and quit, but I still have my days...
Appreciate the notes, Jamie. Despite the goofy start this game, for some
reason you're the closest 'soul-mate' I can identify with this game, for
what it's worth. Take care, and let me hear your ideas.
Best
Faz
Private message from England to Russia:
I can understand your equivocal feelings. I hope you'll stick it out after
all, even though I might get a little boost if you decided to 'go out with a
bang'!
Now. Could you explain just *what* the circumstances would have to be for
you to offer me a support in the Fall?
GKJ
Private message from England to Turkey:
Witch,
>I think I'm going to dislodge BLA and watch and see what happens in
>Spring, before I decide what to do in Fall and long-term.
Seems sensible.
Mark told me that's what you said you were going to do. (Actually, he told
me after you did.)
>Good luck on your defense. I hope you can stymie Pitt. :)
I believe I can stymie him for a while. Obviously, unless something else
happens to shake things up, I am severely outgunned and my days are
numbered. But I am cheerfully optimistic that something else *might*
happen, though I don't quite see what it could be.
France has implied to me a mysterious plan. Maybe it's just a little
smokescreen (I'm assuming not, since if attacked by Germany and France
simultaneously I have no hope at all). But in any case, I am not counting
on any French help with Germany in the immediate future. So the most
obvious source of aid would be Russia. Thus my interest in Russo-Turkish
relations.
But more of that, if relevant, next season.
Cheers!
Gentle King Jamie
Private message from England to Russia:
Tsar Faz,
> Shot and subsequently 'sacrificed' two model rockets to theTree
>Branch Gods, raced slot cars, built a borderline 'hot' Pinewood Derby
>car, and played hide-and-seek with the kids...
Say, just how old are you, anyway? :)
About Hohn:
I got a note from him last night, very short, but to the same effect. He
said he'd dislodge the Black Sea fleet, then see how things looked.
I don't think that's such bad news. To be reasonable, we have to see that
he can't be happy leaving that fleet of yours in Black Sea. Let him feel
secure, then he'll be most likely to make the moves that will be to his own
long term advantage. And I think you and I are pretty confident that the
moves that are to Turkey's long term advantage are moves into the Balkans.
At least I feel very sure of this.
If it means you get to take back Sev, that's icing. So to you, Half a
league! Half a league! Half a league on!
>Pitt wants me to move to NWG and take his chances with the convoy and/or
>retreat to open center.
Hah!
So he can take Sweden *and* control Baltic, or take Sweden and even Norway.
The face he's presented to me says that he's decided that I'm no real
threat to him, that it would take him a long time to do me in, so he'd go
get all those available Russian centers instead while the gettin' was good.
>FOR GKJ: Understood about the Nwy support thing. Of course, this merely
>makes a SKA retreat inevitable, and then a guessing game of Swe or Nwy.
>But hey, I did say I wanted to go out in supernova, right? -grin-.
Hm.
Well, you know, he's going to move to Den, so you have to guess for Swe and
Nwy anyway.
(Does 'understood' mean that you'll do it?)
>Hey, we could go Ven-Tyo, Gal r SIL, and then put the F'03 whammy on MUN
>in conjunction with anything France might do. It might be crazy enough
>to consider????
Sounds GREAT to me, of course!
>Speaking of France, has anyone heard what he's up to?
Yes.
I explained in another message, one to you and Cal. Cal later confirmed.
Cal rejects the kind offer of French help. (Of course. He's not crazy!)
Now the ball is in France's court. I suggested that you tell France that
the way to help you is to pressure Germany. Maybe that will work now.
Gentle King Jamie
Private message from Russia to Italy:
Gentlemen: I'm back! Leave was "beauteous," to coin a word. Enjoyed
the heck out of the backwoodsy, no-computer lifestyle at my folks' place.
Shot and subsequently 'sacrificed' two model rockets to theTree
Branch Gods, raced slot cars, built a borderline 'hot' Pinewood Derby
car, and pla