Broadcast message from [email protected] as France in barney:
Well, this will probably be the last thing I say about Barney, so please bear with me. I was very intrigued by the EOGs from everyone else. I thought I pretty much had everyone pegged, but I saw a few surprises.
One thing that perhaps none of the players had really counted upon was my own paranoia throughout the game. Having entered as a replacement for a France who was in very real danger of being eliminated soon, despite being the third-largest power (of six) remaining, and not really knowing the personalities of the other players very well, I committed probably the cardinal sin of Diplomacy: not only assuming everyone is an enemy, but playing that way. The first stab of England, under King Stephen, was natural: he was intent upon gobbling up France, and was 5 centers shy of a solo win. There was no way I could give him ground, and his offer of "letting me survive" after he had won was meaningless. The subsequent stabs of England and Turkey, though, were a product of my paranoia because in each case one or the other would be sending units through my corner of the Med. There is much talk about how England allowing foreign fleets into northern waters is disastrous. The same can almost be said concerning the France and the Western waters. My goal in the stabs was to establish and secure that area as, once and for all, French. After that, I got on with the business of winning.
The second failure on my part was my inability to be flexible at all times. Certainly I deviated from my original goal, which was to wipe out England first, then turn on the Sultan. But once I committed to breaking Turkey's lines, I blinded myself to the possibility of an English stab, and lost the game.
My third, and also fatal, mistake was assuming an English-Turkish alliance would have the same problems that any similar two-way alliance involving France would. However, since neither had stabbed the other, and since there were more natural ways to set up defensive lines, it was almost inevitable.
[I've already mentioned my other cardinal sin of failing to diplome with Turkey after my last stab, so I won't bore you all again.]
Now, some of the things that surprised me?
>[From England's Thierry Carrez]
>Even reduced to a few centers, Carragher was still a menace. With him
>alive, I thought, rather stupidly, that there was still someone that could
>prevent me from winning this game. This is probably why I preferred to
>destroy him entirely rather than use his last armies to have a try to an
>impossible solo win.
You flatter us, or rather Daniel. In the beginning, I certainly outlined the plans for those rather surprising stabs, but it was Dan in the later years who engineered the slow crawl into the Med and the (failed) stalemate lines. Someone criticized me (rightfully so) in chess some months ago that I prefer energetic games and can be beaten easily in a more static game. I'm working to overcome that. B-)
>[From England's Thierry Carrez]
>My apologies to Bob Carragher for the "unnecessary" last stab. Your error
>was perhaps you appeared too smart to me. I was so impressed I realized I
>couldn't be sure to win until you has no more units on the board... I
>didn't know it was Dan that organized the campaign against Turkey...
Apology accepted. Matter forgotten.
>[From Turkey]
>After that, for some reason, eliminating England seemed to be the plan.
>Although Italy was left wide open, I saw little use in taking it, as
>I could not get 18 centers, but probably could have guaranteed that
>I would be alive at the end. I was beginning to regret my inaction
>when I realized that if France and England remained firm allies, I
>would eventually die. But this confused me some, since I was going
>out of my way to ease French fears of an Italian invasion, and suggested
>that he put a few armies down there, so that I could not effectively
>attack him. And just as I thought we were going to make progress in
>Germany against England, and eventually have either a 2 or 4 way draw,
>France decided to try and attack me. The confusion really came in when
>I could stop France from taking any of my centers, and only England
>would benefit. Well, I suppose eventually I would lose ground in the
>South, but I imagine the English would have taken quite a few centers
>before France would have seen one. I didn't include trading centers
>in Germany however. In any case, I am interested in what opportunity
>France passed up that would not come again.
Again, this was motivated mostly through the fear that, by concentrating on England, I would simply be allowing you to stab me in the rear, even with armies to guard my back. The problem as I saw it was that your only avenues of expansion were through the bottlenecks in Germany and St. Petersburg. Well, England had that completely closed off, and could continue holding it with but two units. And Germany posed a problem since I still needed those centers (a) to keep up the Good Fight against the Blokes and (b) to keep you from growing to large. If you were to actually get most of Germany, you'd be very close to a solo win.
I realized it would be easier to get England to try to penetrate through Russia, since the path would be a little clearer there. Unfortunately, I let myself be lulled into a false sense of security and he accomplished what I always feared you would do.
>[From Turkey]
>I got back in a few years anyway, he stabbed France, and unfortunately
>France didn't follow through on my guaranteed win.
No, though it was a very close thing. (Anger vs. rational planning.)
>[From Turkey]
> France's propaganda
>was quite effective against me, as I almost decided to just try
>for the four way draw, but England lulled me into a sense of trust
>by not going for the Med right away. Fortunately France decided not
>to help England take Tunis, so things ended up ok for me.
Ah, well that makes me happy, knowing it wasn't all quite for nothing. Thanks for making me feel better. B-)
>[From Russia's Daniel Shoham]
> However, when president Carragher took over France the
>next year, he had the spirit to present me with a truly audacious plan
>of how to win despite his rather weak position. I didn't quite believe
>he fully intended to follow that plan, but it certainly fitted my needs.
>I had found my ally.
Well, having just won my first judge game, and presided over an easy draw in another, I was flushed with my own invincibility. It's a good thing I had Barney to bring me back to earth.
I little suspected Russia would turn on me, until very late in the game, when he convinced me that a play for a stalemate line is *always* better than outright revenge. In fact, it was at that time that I considered the possibility that Daniel had engineered the stab by England, by very direct means.
To answer his unseated question: initially I intended to follow the plan, because with Italy I could keep Turkey from easily setting up a stalemate position, and England was the initial Big Threat. If I secured England while keeping Austria and Turkey from allying (and at each other's throats), my win would be almost assured. Unfortunately, things didn't quite work out that way.
>[From Russia's Daniel Shoham]
>Thus went a period of many years. I was making myself useful to France
>by providing tactical options and strategic plannings, and in return was
>provided with life and safety. When it came to stalemate lines - and their
>counter-part, trench warfare, I would really work the details through.
For which I was eternally grateful and decided not to eliminate the Tsar.
>[From Russia's Daniel Shoham]
> I encouraged France to send as much of his fleet as possible
>to break the Turkish lines, while warning him against vacating France
>too much. Unfortunately, he went a little too far (for my taste) on
>vacating France.
I still do not see how I could have been successful otherwise, successful meaning a breakthrough. Once I passed up the golden opportunity at Venice, it really came down to putting more fleets around the Ionian than Turkey and forcing my way through. I don't see how I could have accomplished this without either (a) English fleets (unacceptable) or (b) using my own forces. Ah well.
Again, thank you everyone for a very enjoyable game (and a valuable learning experience). I should have done this before, but I will take the time now to thank Martin for putting up with me (having taken three separate trips and being late more than once). And, I must thank David Kovar for bringing to EFF, and to us, the judge. I once was the adjudicator (and player) for a Diplomacy game played at a company I worked for many years ago, and it was a lot of pain. (Amazingly enough, they all trusted me! B-)
Retired-Presidente-in-Exile Carragher
Go Back to the Diplomacy Academy
Read the next article (Russia's Response)