Table of Contents
Broadcast message from [[email protected] as] France
in 'backseat':
EOG statement for France
I think my big mistake in this game was to attack England
at the beginning, assuming that Germany would join me. This
didn't work, and after that it was just a matter of defending
myself to avoid annihilation. But I survived!
The advisors system was fun, but I won't try it again, except
maybe as advisor. It is too frustrating not being able to
conduct one's own diplomacy. This is going to be my first and
last game where I can send no press. Thanks a lot to Cardinal
Richelieu, Monsieur Picard, and the staff of Le Monde for their
advice and counsel. Mostly I didn't follow it, but I think I
had good reasons, I hope that wasn't too dissapointing for them.
The part I enjoyed the most was when Jurgy and Lord Landsowne
coordinated so perfectly their moves, that I could always find
the perfect defense against them. This could have gone on
indefinitely, but Germany gained advantage over England little
by little until the obvious happened. Then His Imbecilic
Italian Holiness (forgive me for saying so, but it's the
truth) stabbed me for the first time, and I couldn't take any
of my well deserved English centers.
I turned against Italy, and instead of taking advantage of
this to get into the Med, Germany decided to take Paris. Then
I turned against Germany and Italy made great gains from this,
being able to reach the Norwegian Sea, and could have gone on
to take all of England. But then he stabbed me again! What
can I say? That wasn't smart.
At this point it was clear that neither Germany nor Italy
were interested in my survival, so I did all I could to
survive by myself in safe Iberia.
As for the advisors, the prize undoubtedly goes to Waid Here.
(Jurgy gets second place for being advisor to the winning
power.) Thanks to him, the last part of the game when nobody
else would send press was enjoyable. His press was always
witty and spot on. (My own advisors' press was also very
good, what with who played tennis with whom and all, but
unfortunately they didn't stay until the end of the game.)
Lastly, I have a question for the Czar: Why didn't you try
to stop Germany when you could? It seemed obvious when
Italy started to retreat from Turkey that you had to move
against Germany. It may have made no difference, and I would
probably have been eliminated in that case, so I don't
complain, but still...
Thanks to everyone, players, advisors and Master for a great
game.
Jorge Llambias
Broadcast message from [[email protected]
as] Russia in
'backseat':
End of Game Statement for Russia in game Backseat
Ladies, Gentlemen and fellow Diplomacy players.
I wish to thank all the players, advisors and especially Simon
for a smooth running game. Simon did an outstanding job of
dealing with the judge crashes and adjusting the deadlines when
my so called life got in the way of playing Diplomacy. I also
want to thank Turkey, England, Austria, France and Italy for
sticking with the game.
It has the advantage of having never been tried.
I love this variant and would play in another backseat game
tomorrow. Even the position of advisor appeals to me. I had the
same concern that my lovely advisor Risa Shadouvian pointed out
early in the game. If the player ignores the advisor, the advisor
may lose interest or actually turn against the player. My early
strategy was to follow my advisor's advice and try to win their
trust. Once the other players thought that I was doing everything
my advisors said, I would be in a better position to pull an
unexpected stab. I never got the opportunity as my advisors fell
silent early in the game.
Technicalities.
Working without an advisor when everyone else has one can be good
and bad. You have no one negotiating for you, but no one is
pointing out options that you hope the other players don't see.
There were a few times that I wished my advisors had not said
something because I did not want the other players to consider
that option.
And the golden forked tongue award goes to...
I want to thank ME STOP and Ms. Shadouvian for helping me get off
to a great start. ME STOP came up with the opening moves that
stopped Turkey's attack and saved me from a quick exit. Ms.
Shadouvian proved to be one of the more persuasive advisors.
After reading her messages, I would have thought twice about
attacking Russia. Her negotiating skills were first rate and
helped set up the R/E/G alliance. ME STOP continued to come up
with solid moves. Unfortunately, both of them had to bow out
early on. I can't help but wonder how things would have gone if
they had stuck around. My third advisor, the great Col Rustov,
tried to help me after the fall of Turkey by advocating an I/R
alliance. But the novice, short sighted Italian went for the easy
supply center and sent the game in a different direction.
Decisions, decisions.
When France attacked England, England was forced to pull out of
Scandinavia and I faced my first big decision. Do I take Norway
and hope for Germany to help, or do I stabilize the north and
focus on the south. I got the feeling that Germany was waiting
for me to make the first move against England. Turkey had backed
off from Sevastopol and Austria and Italy were pulling a Lepanto.
The south could not be ignored. I think I made the right choice
in not taking Norway and focusing on the south.
To live and die in Constantinople.
My next decision was no easier. Do I attack or help Turkey. My
first goal in every Diplomacy game is to see one of my neighbors
die a quick death. An R/E/G/T alliance would have left me bottled
up. So, Turkey was gone by the end of 1903.
Nothing is more boring than not having an enemy to fight.
Germany and England were having problems with France and had
their backside fully exposed to me. I needed a new enemy fast.
Austria was the logical choice. He was between Italy and myself
and would have collapsed under the weight of an R/I alliance like
a popped balloon. I took a gamble by convoying my army in Ankara
to Rumania. Italy chose not to ally with me, but decided to take
the easy build in the now empty Ankara. Ah, Italy and I could
have gone far together, but it was not to be. This actually help,
because this allowed me to disband my northern fleet. Germany and
England knew that I would be too busy in the south to attack
them, so I was not too unhappy about the way things worked out.
The long days journey into night.
Now came the long cat and mouse game between Austria and Italy
and Germany and I. This continued for five years until 1908 when
I was forced to pull back and set up a stalemate line with
Germany. To tell the truth, I thought I was in a lot of trouble
at the end of 1907. I had not been thinking about a stalemate
line, but Germany's moves pointed me in the right direction.
There was nothing Italy or Austria could do to stop us from
setting the stalemate line up.
Long live the King!
At the same time, Germany had decided to attack England. I had no
problem with this, but I could tell that Germany was worried
about me coming to England's aid. There was no chance of this
because I was too busy in the south to worry about the north. I
was getting worried when Germany took to long to kill off England
and then seemed to do nothing for a turn while he decided what to
do next. I kept screaming at my computer, "Go for the
Mediterranean, kill France!"
Beware the Ides of March!
Italy proved to be a true Roman by sinking his dagger deep into
the back of Austria in 1910. I guess he was hoping for Germany to
attack me. I saw no chance of him taking out Austria without
letting me out of the corner. Austria did what any advanced level
player would do, he attacked Italy and let Russiatake over all
his supply centers. I was going to let Austria keep one unit just
to piss Italy off, but Austria decided to get cute and bounced me
in Armenia. Not once, but twice! This really pissed me off, so I
decided that Austria would have to die. It took three years to
get rid of Austria. Much longer that I hoped.
If it is not baroque, don't fix it.
About this time, many of you may have wondered why I did not
attack Germany. Up until the stalemate line was formed I never
thought of attacking my only ally. I was too busy in the south
and had no desire to change direction or open up a second front.
After Italy stabbed Austria, I did consider attacking Germany.
Every turn I would work through an attack on Germany, but I kept
coming up with the same answer. I could not take any German
supply centers, and I would have to trust Italy to leave my
exposed underside alone...been there, done that. No way! I
foresaw only two possible outcomes from attacking Germany. One, a
three or four way draw. Two, Germany coming after me the way
Austria came after Italy and I would be out of the game in short
order.
"There are three types of lies; lies, damn lies, and statistics."
I was thinking about justifying my moves with a long diatribe on
utility theory. How in order to maximize my utility, I should
keep attacking Italy. But half of you would have responded with
"What?" and the other half with "No s*** Sherlock".
Then the
whole discussion would have broken down into name calling and
blah blah blah...
And now for something completely different...
I always play to win or to achieve the smallest possible draw. I
could have taken a three or four way draw at any time, but there
was no way for me to win if I attacked Germany. I don't care
about Hall of Fame points. So as long as there is a possibility
of getting a solo win, no matter how small, I will go for it.
Waid Here pointed out that Italy was just postponing the
inevitable by keeping forces in Turkey. I was hoping that he
would set up a line in the western Med and keep Germany out long
enough for me to slip into the eastern Med.
What kind of drugs is the Czar taking?
About this time I made a major mistake in my orders. My life at
home and at work were very busy and I did not take enough time to
look over my moves. For some reason I thought that the Italian
fleet was in the Aegean Sea and not in Smyrna. I had a 100%
chance of taking a supply center from Italy. Not only did I not
take the supply center, but my moves looked like I was playing a
totally different game. Now you know why.
This mistake killed any chance of Russia reaching the Med before
Germany. The next year, Italy let Germany walk into the Med.
Right then I knew it was over. I had passed up the three-way draw
and gambled on two outcomes. One, that Germany would agree to a
two way and I could join a very exclusive club. There have been
only 2 two-way draws in no-press gunboat games. Second, that
Italy would slow Germany down enough to let me go for the win. I
know this was a long shot, but taking an easy three-way draw when
there was so much fight left in this game would have left me
feeling empty.
And the number one reason for killing Italy.
Italy really pissed me off back in 1904 when he took Ankara away
from me. After that, I was willing to do anything to make sure
Italy did not share in any draw, even if it meant letting Germany
win. I was not playing carebear. I was not playing to see Italy
lose. I knew that I still had a chance to win if I could do
better against Italy than Germany did. But my above mentioned
mistake put an end to those plans.
All the hail the Toad Father!!!
The difference between cutthroat and carebear is the risk you are
willing to take based on the probability of a solo win. Everyone
has a different definition of cutthroat and carebear. Everyone
also has a different idea of what is acceptable play. Most of
these definitions fall under the Supreme Court's "I can't define
it, but I know it when I see it" ruling. Please feel free to
label me under any style you wish to define, but be advised that
next game I will not be playing that style. I would also
encourage everyone to read Dan Shoham's excellent article in the
first issue of The Diplomatic Pouch
called
"The Diplomacy Academy".
Thank you, Lansdowne, Mazarin, Picard, Richelieu, Jurgen Pohl and
anyone else I forgot. A special thank you to Waid Here for great
chatter. I hope my style of play did not cause you too much
discomfort.
Parting shot at the purists...
Besides, I did come in second. ;-)
Broadcast message from [[email protected] as] France
in 'backseat':
The Czar, after a loooooooong excuse for not doing what he should
have done, said:
> Besides, I did come in second. ;-)
Yes, a shared second with Italy and France... :)
Le President
Broadcast message from [[email protected]
as] Germany in
'backseat':
EOG statement Germany
Thanks to all of you who played and advised. I had a lot of fun
in the game, and would have even in defeat. I must say that I took
delight in two things that I figured out early on (realy honest) (1)
Jurgy and Waid were the same advisor, and (2) Jurgy=Waid=Eric Scharf. I
have played this game with many of the finest orators around (of whoich I
am certainly not one), but Eric has a style all of his own. He killed me
in Bauer, and damn near pulled off an un-allied assisted victory. Eric,
I didn't holda grudge then nor do I now.
Anyway, I found the game compelling because there were so many
possibilities. One could follow the posted advice which was often
excellent though risk a waiting appropriate defense, borrow some of the
advice, or "build your own". I am usually one who tries to
hold a solid
alliance thoughout the game, and only stab when necessary. Had the
victory not been ABSOLUTELY assured I would have gladly settled for a
split with Russia, he was a very ggod ally. Unfortunately, England
(especially) and France later left me with too many opportunies that
must be seized if one is to survive in this game. My thanks to all of
you, especially Eric. Also, the advisor who made the following remark, I
appreciate it it was priceless. Something to the effect of "I just got
stabbed by Germany and all I got was this bloody shirt." Priceless.
Thanks all...
Broadcast message from [[email protected] as]
Italy in 'backseat':
EOG Statement from Italy in Backseat
First, I found this game to very enjoyable
and would like to thank Simon for running an excellent
game. I found this variant interesting, although I
think it might be better is all players would have
advisors who were active to the same extent all the
way throught the game (although I know this is not
practical).
I decided to start with a conventional
eastward opening, hoping for peace with Austria
which would lead to a Lepanto against Turkey. As
I didn't want to see an R/T, I tried to signal
Russia with spare supports, and that seemed to
work, with our advisors coordinating things.
Everything went well initially, with soon
Turkey head and Italy have a strong foothold in
Asia Minor. After that, I decided I wanted to
move mainly west, hopefully to get a share to
France and get out of the Med before England got
in (or at least bottled me up).
In the east I had to decide between Russia
and Austria. I didn't want a war with Austria as
it would prevent a westward move by me. While,
if I worked with Austria, I could fairly easily hold
Turkey and hopefully we could then drive Russia
slowly back. Even if I didn't make any gains,
I figured I had secured my gains and my rear.
So despite the nasty comments by our Russian
player, I did not grab Ankara from him just for
the one centre but for larger reasons. And bluntly,
I think Russia, I think your accusations of me
being a short sighted novice are incorrect, were
rude and inappropriate. No, my move was not good
for you, but looking back, I still find no
problem with that move and would do the
same again if we replayed the game.
I then started to move west. As my advisor
was involved in discussions with France, I had yet to
decide if I was actually going to attack France or try
to swing around him. So, in the fall of 1905 I tried
to offer France alliance by bouncing 2 of my units over
Marseilles to help protect it ffrom the Germans while
trying to swing my fleets into the Atlantic.
But no one seemed to notice this. All the various
advisors accused me of attacking France, etc. And when
France obviosuly decide not to let me around in the
coming spring, I decided I would have to attack France
This resulted in a long guessing game as I tried to
make Marseilles and/or Spain and/or Mid-Atlantic Ocean.
AT this point, I made my one big, big error that I
really wish I could take back. That was the stab of
Austria. Basically I had gotten frustrated about the
lack of success against France and decided maybe I should
move the other way and offer an alliance to Russia
this time. Major error is all I can say, especially,
as I got my first big break against France the same season.
From then on, I gained in the west, getting around France
and well into the Atlantic but lost in the east. Austria
opposed me to the end, which I deserve (although I disagree
with Russia's comment about advanced players always attacking the
stabber and giving up his centres to another power. I would
think one should do what is best for one's power, if one
can see a way to recover from the stab, which is often
possible. Out of curiosity, what does everyone else think
on this?).
From then on, things were downhill until Germany went
on to victory.
Two more comments I would like to make:
1) Why does everyone think I allowed Germany easily into
the Med.
I had a fleet in NAF to defend it and WMS.
I moved NAF-MAO. That is the same as NAF hold,
which is a 50% guess either way. I guessed wrong,
but my move was one of the two valid choices.
2) Unlike some other people, I try not to hold
grudges just because someone attacked or stabbed me.
If it suits my purposes to work with them later,
I will (albeit with care). Also, I will always try
my hardest to prevent someone from easily winning
and would rather work with someone who had stabbed
me than give someone else an easy win.
Paul
Broadcast message from [[email protected]
as] Russia in
'backseat':
Greetings again from the frozen tundra of Moscow.
> So despite the nasty comments by our Russian
First, I would like to apologize to the Italian for being rude
and inappropriate. I wrote my EOG statement with a set purpose in
mind; to get the other players to put some thought into their EOG
statements and to answer some of my questions. By taking a
confrontational tone, I hoped to get some discussion going about
everyone's actions, including my own style of play. I seem to
have achieved my goal. As we in the government like to say, it is
easier to ask for forgiveness for your actions than to get
permission. I like to act without worrying about the consequences
of my actions, because I can always say I am sorry.
Thank you for explaining the reason behind your taking of Ankara.
I find it totally justifiable and I may well have done the same
thing.
> AT this point, I made my one big, big error that I
We all made mistakes this game. There was a discussion a while
back on r.g.d that most wins could be traced to a mistake by
another player. I do not want to take anything away from Germany,
but I do feel that his success in the mid-game was do to his
ability to take advantage of other people's mistakes. Yes, you
could say that I let Germany win. I was walking a fine line
pushing for the best ending I could achieve. Up until the last
year or so, the Germany win was in doubt. After my mistake, the
German win was assured and there was nothing I could do to stop
it.
> From then on, I gained in the west, getting around France
This too has been discussed in the news group. Everyone has a
different opinion about this, but when actually put in the
situation, most people act on their emotions. Once again I wanted
to inspire some discussion on the topic, not offend anyone.
>Two more comments I would like to make:
I saw your move as valid, but diplomacy is a lot like the six
(seven?) blind men and the elephant, everyone looks at it from a
different perspective. Most people do not take the time to put
themselves in the other person's position and try to see what
they see.
>2) Unlike some other people, I try not to hold
Okay, my comments about doing anything to see Italy loose were
out of line. I want to assure everyone that my goal was not to
see Italy loose. I would have liked to get the two-way draw with
Germany just to say I had been part of one in a no-press gunboat
game. I also would have taken the win if I had gotten far ahead
of Germany. I have seen too many games end in five-way draws
because everyone thought that there was no more "play" left in
the game. The fact is that no one knows how the game will end
until one of the players captures an 18th center. I don't care
about HoF points. I play for the win or smallest possible draw I
can get. I did not attack Germany because I still had a small
chance of winning and a chance of being in a two-way draw.
I would like to caution everyone against forming opinions about
players and labeling there style of play. Some people have been
so bold as to publicly label themselves as following only one
style of play. There are also people like me who change there
style from game to game. Yes, we do sometimes try options that
may be unorthodox. I don't like to be predictable and I don't
like playing against others that are too predictable. What I am
trying to say is that I would like the opportunity to play with
all of you again some day, and I hope that my comments have not
given you cause to write me off as just another ass. When I am
wrong, I will admit it. Thank you for you time and thanks for the
game.
Czar Albert
Broadcast message from [[email protected] as] France
in 'backseat':
I will also apologise to Italy, sorry about calling you names,
you shouldn't pay attention to those things, it's part of the
game, also it's nice to blame one's own mistakes on others.
Since I couldn't do it during the game, I had to do it in
my EOG. ;)
Anyway, responding to your comments:
> So, in the fall of 1905 I tried
I certainly noticed, and was very glad.
> All the various advisors accused me of attacking France, etc.
Yes, I was unhappy that nobody pointed out that you wanted an
alliance. But you didn't keep it up. You couldn't really expect
me to let you in the Atlantic just based on that, especially
since at the time Germany had not attacked me yet.
> And when
I don't really blame you for this first stab, since it
wasn't clear what I would be doing. But I don't think it
was a good idea for you when you attacked Brest. At that
point, you and I had the advantage over Germany, I was clearly
on your side, and you could take all of England without much
difficulty, while I kept Germany busy in the continent.
It was very unlikely that you could take Brest (I could
defend it, and Germany could also have bounced you), so
I didn't see the point for you to do that.
> (although I disagree
I totally agree that attacking the stabber just because of the
stab is a bad policy. Even as the stabber, I try to ally again
with the stabbee as soon as possible, it works great when they
agree, because you can take everyone else by surprise.
> 1) Why does everyone think I allowed Germany easily into
I don't. At that point, you could just guess. I think the point
when you gave Germany the advantage was when you attacked me
instead of him. I was attacking Germany at that point! Did you
think I would keep banging my head against him while you took
my centers from behind?
> 2) Unlike some other people, I try not to hold
I never hold grudges. (Although I often act as if I do ;)
It's a game, grudges only take the fun out of it. But acting
grudgingly can be fun too.
Le President
Broadcast message from [[email protected] as]
England in 'backseat':
Well, it has been a long time since I got slammed by Germany. I guess if
people wanted to, it might be easiest to blame the German victory on me.
It is interesting that my most trusted advisor had it out for me from the
beginning. I find it slightly dishartening. My attitude in this game was to
follow my advisors advice to the letter.
I don't remember much of this game. I do remember following some of Landsdown's
suggestions knowing they were not in my best interests. This of course is
close to real life.
Thanks to all expecially Simon. This is a great variant.
Rick Dagenais
Broadcast message from [[email protected] as] Master
in 'backseat':
***EOG for Turkey*****
Turkey is normally a fairly defensible position to play and can be played
either conservatively or agressively. In this variant style, the
"driver" of the country has very little to say and also has no
control
over his "backseat advisors". This, of course, makes the game very
interesting. In my case, my first advisor was excessively agressive for
my style of play. I also felt his comments (WAID Here) to be too strong
and could not be backed up by force. I was torn between following this
advise or demonstrating that I did not agree with such an agressive
stance. Unfortunately for both WAID Here and myself, the advisors of
france and italy took on a religious Role-Playing style as Cardinals of
the Church. WAID Here's comments started a crusade against turkey with
everyone jumping on board.
To me, it is suicide to move against Italy
with both russia and austria as unknown forces. So I used my forces to
show an agressive stance against russia hoping that either WAID Here
would understand his style was too agressive or that austria would join
me. Well austria sat in the bush so to speak, but WAID Here did seem to
understand and became less agressive. Unfortunately, it was too late for
turkey.
I asked for a second advisor as only diplomacy could save
turkey now and received General Zarg, a slightly insane dude. After his
first message, I saw a chance, then after his insanity appeared, I saw
only death. Now I opened myself completely to russia in the hope that at
least the spoils would not go to Italy. Russia did not act.
Needless to say, there was not much of a chance.
In hindsight, turkey could only have succeeded if a mechanism existed for
the "Driver" and the "Backseat advisor" to talk.
For example, at the beginning of each spring move only.
Although I died early, I would play another variant game of this style.
Glenn
<[email protected]>
France in "backseat"
By Czar Albert Macias
[email protected]
- Benjamin Disraeli, British PM 1868, 1874-1880
Paul Myers
[email protected]
>player, I did not grab Ankara from him just for
>the one center but for larger reasons. And bluntly,
>I think Russia, I think your accusations of me
>being a short sighted novice are incorrect, were
>rude and inappropriate. No, my move was not good
>for you, but looking back, I still find no
>problem with that move and would do the
>same again if we replayed the game.
>really wish I could take back. That was the stab of
>Austria. Basically I had gotten frustrated about the
>lack of success against France and decided maybe I should
>move the other way and offer an alliance to Russia
>this time. Major error is all I can say, especially,
>as I got my first big break against France the same season.
>and well into the Atlantic but lost in the east. Austria
>opposed me to the end, which I deserve (although I disagree
>with Russia's comment about advanced players always attacking the
>stabber and giving up his centers to another power. I would
>think one should do what is best for one's power, if one
>can see a way to recover from the stab, which is often
>possible. Out of curiosity, what does everyone else think
>on this?).
>
>1) Why does everyone think I allowed Germany easily into
>the Med. I had a fleet in NAF to defend it and WMS.
>I moved NAF-MAO. That is the same as NAF hold,
>which is a 50% guess either way. I guessed wrong,
>but my move was one of the two valid choices.
>grudges just because someone attacked or stabbed me.
>If it suits my purposes to work with them later,
>I will (albeit with care). Also, I will always try
>my hardest to prevent someone from easily winning
>and would rather work with someone who had stabbed
>me than give someone else an easy win.
> to offer France alliance by bouncing 2 of my units over
> Marseilles to help protect it ffrom the Germans while
> trying to swing my fleets into the Atlantic.
> But no one seemed to notice this.
> France obviosuly decide not to let me around in the
> coming spring, I decided I would have to attack France
> This resulted in a long guessing game as I tried to
> make Marseilles and/or Spain and/or Mid-Atlantic Ocean.
> with Russia's comment about advanced players always attacking the
> stabber and giving up his centres to another power. I would
> think one should do what is best for one's power, if one
> can see a way to recover from the stab, which is often
> possible. Out of curiosity, what does everyone else think
> on this?).
> the Med.
> grudges just because someone attacked or stabbed me.
[email protected]
(EOG report posted by Master for Turkey)
Turkey in Backseat
Back to the Backseat Driver Variant article....