| Press for Fall of 1902 in ghodstoo |
Movement
Private message from Russia to Austria:
Edi
You rascal. My (self-fulfilling?) fears came true, it seems. I did
nothing to wean Turkey to my side, because I thought he'd be willing to
hit his tormentor after I hit you...apparently you not only beat me to
the punch, but you and Hohn now have me over a barrel down there.
Luckily Italy also realized the danger of unimpeded Austrian growth--at
least you'll have to cover your backside as you pummel me from the
front.
En garde, oh BinSauronGungaDin.
Tsar Faz
Down, But Not Out
Private message from England to Turkey:
Hi there, other witch.
So, the tide has turned! And this tide has left *me* high and dry!
A blessing on your fortunes, a curse on mine.
I now have an unusual, a strange request. I am supposing, for the sake of
argument, that considerations in your corner still have *some* balance,
even though the one of your tormentors has just helped you and the other
has not. And if I'm right, then I beseech you to take a close look at
whatever Russia has to offer.
My reason is that the Bear turns out to be a peculiar animal. He steals
from me, says he, only out of his instinct of self-preservation. If he were
to feel that your forces would be directed against Austria, or at least not
against his ursine self, he would be my last hope of help in my quarter of
the world. Otherwise he will leave me to the dogs. Quite an offer!
Naturally, you have other considerations far more pressing than my
hardships. However, if you were to lean in the direction most helpful to
me, and if as a result I (and you!) managed to make it to the endgame, I
think my presence in the Other corner would redound to your advantage.
Again, it's a small carrot to offer, but I thought if you were undecided,
or close to undecided, a bit of carrot for your salad might be enough to
round out the meal.
In any case, the best of luck to you,
Other Witch
Private message from Russia to Turkey:
Hohn:
Look, I'll take whatever lumps you want to send my way. Yes, I lied to
you when you were sincere with me. Why shouldn't I have done so, when
Edi had asked us to form a 4-way alliance and (a) crush France with EI
and (b) crush you with AR? But don't hand me this "chutzpah" crap, ok?
I worked in an alliance ENGENDERED BY EDI, thank you very much, against
a target--you. I did what I had to do for my gains in an alliance, just
as you are now doing. I respect you and your moves. Give ME some
credit for my past actions as part of an AR. (Btw, I find it
interesting that Edi--the master of this all--gets no slam from you
whatsoever. He had the plan to level you, then "supposedly" hit I and G
in conjunction with me. I accept my role as Bad Guy toward you. But
don't make Edi out as the benign observer, ok? Don't tell me you're
that blind.)
Why didn't I contact you last turn? And say what? "Hohn, I'm going to
stab Edi this turn; please don't tell him. And by the way, I really
desire you to forget about my last two turns of evilness toward you, and
want you to hit Edi with me." What options were thus available to me?:
(1) You agree to it all, and we live happily ever after; (2) You see the
perfect chance to warn Edi, have him cover vs me, and start a war
against both your tormentors while you observe -- or choose sides.
Who's to say you'd even BELIEVE what I'd say?
Sure, in hindsight the worst option happened anyway, so maybe I
should've called. But I thought that once I was in SER and GAL (and
not trying stuff vs Arm, despite your "guarantee" of going there), then
you'd see I was after him for good. Is letting him take BUL my way of
being a good ally? No, it's not. It was greed, pure and simple,
designed to build up my country against unknown, expert players. But
please note: he took BUL even without my support. A subtle nuance
perhaps of no import to you, but still reeking of evil intent toward you
from Aus nonetheless. But that doesn't matter to you if you're an
Austrian puppet, right?
Frankly, Hohn, I find your tone surly, even for (especially for) a game
of wooden blocks. I overlook it because you caveated it as "your
style," and you obviously meant it to be "for effect" to stress your
intentions. So be it. Be advised, though, I'm NOT trying to impugn
your intelligence or smother you with BS. My first note SAID that I
tried to kill off BUL; even my 1901 notes told you that I was a rat for
hitting you. How many times would you like me to flagellate myself with
a whip?
I had an ally; I did what was good for the alliance at the time; the
alliance is finished; I'm now trying to work a deal with you. OK?
You want me out of BLA; fine. Where do I go? Does it sail to RUM? Do
I un-ass SEV and try something with the armies? YOU tell ME what you
envision, Hohn; you (and Edi) are now in the driver's seat. I tried my
grand pro-Aus plan, and it failed miserably. As I'm sure I won't be
talking to him for awhile, I'll be much more in touch with you (mail and
phone), given that you have stressed repeatedly your desire for
discussion and/or teamwork. I always believed you; the window for me
opened now that AR fell apart.
The ironic thing about this is that RT--natural allies--are fighting
(caused by me, yes) over the same thing: Aus perfidy. And Edi is the
only one who gains from it. I'd like to change that situation, and it
will take us both to fix it.
I accept your points in the letter, and hope mine wasn't too blunt in
reply. I am, indeed, "willing to deal."
Tsar Faz
Private message from Turkey to Austria:
Edi,
Thanks for the support into Rumania! It was extremely gratifying to
demolish that Russian army. :)
I'm now more firmly convinced than ever that most people on this board
have gone stab-happy. I'm feeling pretty confident that the two of
us, working well together as always, will be able to weather the stab
storm and come out in decent shape. And I'm still more than happy to
play junior partner to your senior. I just want to get Mark off my
back!
Regarding other matters, Cal and Mark are conducting a full court
press on me to work with them against you. I've responded by sending
them a blunt letter, calling Mark out for various things, but which
does hold out the possibility of working with them if Mark vacates
Black Sea. I doubt it will work, but you never know. I could have
just played along, but I don't think they would have bought it, and I
also didn't think one turn's worth of potential tactical benefit
merited the deception.
Please let me know what you think we should do this turn. I'll offer
any refinements I can, but I'll of course support whatever it is you
want to do.
Hohn
Private message from Turkey to Russia:
Dear Mark and Cal,
I've read both of your letters. Preliminarily, I'm
interested in responding to only one major point.
> Hohn: Yes, I supported Edi to BUL. My goal was to see
> your unit get annihilated (I'll be up-front about that
> part), but ONLY in the context of luring Edi out of SER
> and allowing me to slide in behind it. I think you can
> see that I really intended no further harm to you--else I
> would've supported to ARM (as Edi no doubt suggested and
> expected!). That would've bounced you, kept us fighting
> with mistrust, and allowed Edi to complete his conquest
> not just of BUL, but of RUM. I was hoping for better
> tactical position, and then support you back to BUL and
> beyond, as an ally. I just couldn't "let on" my plans
> unless Edi found out--that's why I never called you when I
> said I would.
I must confess that I find your current diplomatic stance
extremely curious, Mark. You said not one word to me this
entire past turn. So of course I am going to assume we are
still at war. Now, when you decide for independent reasons
of your own to go for Edi, when you decide not to move to
ARM (which, barring certain risky guesses on your part, I
was guaranteed to take anyway, I might add) for specific
perceived tactical benefits to _yourself_, while at the same
time _continuing_ to demonstrate hostility towards me
(_regardless_ of your ostensible "true reason" of sneaking
into SER, you still ordered RUM S SER-BUL), you apparently
expect me to happily forget that you have twice gone back on
your word to me and work with you against my sole ally?
Man, that's chutzpah.
As I said before, Mark, you're going to have to take some
unilateral action to decrease tension between us, you're
going to have to make good on at least one promise before I
can begin to consider working with you in any significant
fashion. Tell you what. Get the hell out of BLA, and I'll
be happy to work with you. Until you do, I'm going to
continue working with Edi as his loyal puppet.
> Of course, you and Edi were on the phones,
> and you took "the best offer" at the time.
> Understandable.
Of course it's understandable. You and I are at war, and
had no contact this past turn. You really don't need to
state the obvious with me, Mark. It's unnecessary, and just
FYI, I personally don't appreciate it.
> I did you wrong in that year, and intended to make it up
> this year by the hit on Edi. You just didn't anticipate
> it, so I guess "we're even."
Finally, this is simply laughable. You expect me to equate
your two stabs of me with my legitimate diplomatic
negotiation with Edi to make a coordinated tactical move
against you, with whom I am unquestionably at war?
Especially when you gave me _no_ indication of what you were
going to do? Come on, Mark. You did what you felt was in
_your_ best interest, not mine. Your support of SER-RUM
trumpets that fact to all.
There is such a thing as the moral high ground, Mark, even
in Diplomacy. Your attempt to avoid personal responsibility
here, your cavalier disregard of our true history, and your
recasting of your own motivations, insults my intelligence.
Please stop it.
Look, I'm going to be up front with both of you. I _have_
been up front with _both_ of you, this entire game. I could
have smiled and nodded and played yes-man, agreed to
whatever you wanted like a good lackey, and then stabbed you
as well as I could. And there are those who would argue
that that is what I should have done. But that's not what I
chose to do. Because I'm _genuinely_ interested in working
things out with you, Mark, and I'm interested in working
with you as well, Cal. I'm not just looking for the short
term gain by a quick lie-n-stab. But in order to do work
together, we need to be honest with each other, in _all_
things. I've told you what I require in order to work with
you. So be honest with _me_ now.
I am a blunt person. And this message has been extremely
blunt. But I'm being blunt with you here because I want to
make sure we completely understand each other, without risk
of any confusion. Also, I know you are both of the highest
caliber of player, who probably will not take bluntness the
wrong way, and who could see through a bunch of flowery
bullshit anyway.
Let me know. I'm certainly open to further discussion, so
long as it's honest and up front. I just wanted to make
sure we had these basic understandings in place, so that we
won't be wasting our time if our fundamental outlooks cannot
or will not be reconciled.
Hohn
Private message from Russia to England:
GKJ,
And I would retort that this isn't the response I expect from you.
First off, you are far from "out of this game." You may be the kind of
chess-like DipMaster who surveys the next 45 moves and figures your
future standing and outcome. And if you are, then I truly admire the
heck out of you even MORESO than I already do. But for you to say that
your 'endgame' may be coming soon is a bit overexaggerated, methinks.
For one thing, France can see the German handwriting just as well as
you, I'd say. You can easily make the case that IRA left you high and
dry, an unwitting stooge to their perfidy. France surely must see the
danger to a reconciled EG as regards PAR and beyond. He too must see
the dangers inherent in a Grmany who has control over Nth, Bel, and
having two units IN France to boot! Can you not use that to your
advantage and rebalance the front?
Also, your diplomacy is pretty doggone good, Jamie. Why not entice the
Hun to support you to Nwy this season, and make-up over France? Offer
him an EG over anything smacking of RG and see what happens. I don't
buy your bankruptcy of options.
Second, why am I the lone "fall guy" for all your QC-less frustrations?
Because of one center? You chide me for "selling out" for one center,
yet you're willing to forget Italy's retreat from France, Edi's
forfeiture of hitting Germany, ALL of that -- just to potentially
suicide out against me for taking "your" center? Had Edi stuck to the
plan and convinced me of his intentions, I'd be in BAL and SIL, and we'd
have Ber and/or Mun in a vise. In Criminology we use the "but for" rule
to prove a point: But for Austria sticking to the alliance and hitting
Germany, but for Italy staying the course, you'd not be in a bad
position at all. (And yes, I'll say it: "but for" me not moving to Nwy
you'd have a center, too.)
You want to show me why my "perfidy" was wrong, and why YOUR judgment of
my interests must prove more rational than my own. (Expected from a
philosophe, naturally!) I accept that. But I don't know you any more
than you know me. Who's to say you DIDN'T have an alliance with
Germany? Witness your support of him last turn -- yes yes, it could've
been to lure him in deeper to France...or it could've been something
even longer-term. No one knows anyone here, or how we deal...game
dynamics, and all that. But I'll wager that offer (to Gas, vice Par)
propelled Ger to hit you, when you couldn't justify using it to support
him to PAR instead. Germany didn't need me to turn on you, Jamie. He
has more Dip smarts in his little finger than I do in my whole body.
I guess I would say this: You now want me to abandon a center that I
need to face off against REAL perfidy from within "our" alliance, or
you'll direct your forces entirely against me (at least that's what
seems implied) for the alliance-breaking move to take Nwy? So I should
abandon my chance to stay afloat in order to give you the life
preserver? All this over one center, good King?
I will deal with Hohn to the utmost to get him to come over from The
Dark Side. As my last note said, if that happens, you'll see me leave
Nwy. But if AT stay united, should I just throw in the towel, abandon
center gains of my own to your largesse instead, and trust to the Fates?
Is this what's being asked of the Tsar?
Tsar Faz
Private message from England to Russia:
That's not exactly the response I expected from you!
You've left me as high and dry as an Englishman can get. You have cashed in
an absolute long term ally for the sake of a single supply center. I admit
that I am not used to the dynamics of your usual environment, but it is
hard for me to see how that could be a good deal. Was it really 'insurance'
against possible G/A collusion? Your best possible insurance was a friend
to protect your interests and keep Germany otherwise occupied. You are in
the process of canceling that insurance policy. And for one center! And you
will certainly have to use that extra unit in the north, in Scandinavia, so
your net gain is nil. It's an attitude that is so foreign to me.
I will refrain from harsh judgment. I am just swimming in unfamiliar
waters, that's all. But, I can only draw the obvious conclusions, and I'll
play the sequel according to my own style.
Here is where we stand. If you exit Norway by the end of the year, I
retract all of my recriminations, and my forces would be at your disposal.
What else could I do? Otherwise, I'm afraid I am your sworn enemy. Do you
see how I must view the matter? I had no alliance with Germany, his attack
is merely what one expects in this sort of game. France is defending
himself as best he can. You, on the other hand, are in the process of
proving yourself the worst possible 'ally'.
I am very pessimistic about my chances, at the moment. As I see it, in the
next few moves I will be spending my last coins, not to improve my own
standing (which appears doomed) but to affect the outcome of the game. Let
me explain.
I have just misjudged the situation on the board very badly. Whenever I do
that, I have to think why. I judged that my allies would not stab me: why
not? Because I thought it would not be in their interests to stab me. My
prediction was wrong, but I must, if I can, prove that my underlying
judgment was sound. I will have to show that my judgment of your interests
was better than yours. I will have to do what I can to fulfill my own
prophecy. When it's time to look back and survey our mistakes, it is
important to me that you see your perfidy as a mistake. Do you see what
moves me?
That is what I will do just as soon as I have decided that my prospects for
participation in the endgame have vanished. That may happen very shortly
indeed. I expect it will. I don't expect you will give me back my only
hope. As you say, 'anything can happen'. But the avenues to me are closing
very rapidly.
Your move, Tsar!
Gentle King Jamie
Private message from Russia to Germany:
Kaiser Pitt
Well, sir, you see the Russian honor is true--and I see your mettle, as
well! I hope you're feeling better (both from the metaphysical sense
this game, and from a physical sense after your recent illness).
I'm a little chagrined over the AT reunification down there. Part of me
sees Edi as crafting this all along. But part of me sees Edi as using
Hohn (much like I planned to do in spring); witness his sneaky slide
into BUL behind Hohn's advance!
I had intended to kill of Hohn's army BUl, but then ally with him and
offer him fleet build potential (and Austrian centers!) as recompense.
Edi, master that he is, once again beat me to the punch. Any
suggestions on what to do down south?
As for the north: I'll hold in Nwy, obviously. Your moves showed the
"beyond the horizon vision" that mkes you a helluva player. I mean, if
you ally with France, BEL and Bre can fall. if you re-ally with Eng
(not desired, obviously), then Paris is a goner, and you have the
position over F and E in the region at a later date.
If you go for the "basics," then you have a convoy potential this turn
(Hol-Yor, Ruh-Hol, Pic S Bur-Bel). If England hits F nth, you retreat
to Lon or Edi. If not, his internal defense is imploded. You are,
indeed, in a nice position.
I will do nothing to upser the RG applecart. As I've said before, I
want peace with you, and I need a quiet northern front in order to focus
on the dreaded AT now forming. Any persuasion you can do to "wean" Hohn
from The Dark Side and hit Edi in conjunction with me would be obviously
appreciated.
Good hunting against whatever province(s) you hit, and here's to the RG.
Tsar Faz
Are all of you observers watching carefully??? That makes three straight
seasons with considerable "surprises" and more twists and turns about
"who's on top". Hey, Manus, I'll bet you're displeased that you weren't
running that Diplomatic Pouch Bourse on THIS game. Then you'd watch
those prices soar and crash. Compared to this, the game you are doing
the bourse on is tres boring..... heh, heh, he....
Your friendly GM Jim-Bob
Private message from Russia to Italy:
Cal,
Despite the invective being flung about (see my reply, below), I think I
can work with Hohn. If I can't, well...they're after me, anyway. May
as well take some chances here. WE need to coordinate some moves,
either with Turkey (support him to Bud?) or without him...
What say you?
Tsar Faz
---------------------------------------------------------------
>press to t
>Hohn:
>Look, I'll take whatever lumps you want to send my way. Yes, I lied to you
>when you were sincere with me. Why shouldn't I have done so, when Edi had
>asked us to form a 4-way alliance and (a) crush France with EI and (b) crush
>you with AR? But don't hand me this "chutzpah" crap, ok? I worked in an
>alliance ENGENDERED BY EDI, thank you very much, against a target--you. I
>did what I had to do for my gains in an alliance, just as you are now doing.
>I respect you and your moves. Give ME some credit for my past actions as
>part of an AR. (Btw, I find it interesting that Edi--the master of this
>all--gets no slam from you whatsoever. He had the plan to level you, then
>"supposedly" hit I and G in conjunction with me. I accept my role as Bad Guy
>toward you. But don't make Edi out as the benign observer, ok? Don't tell
>me you're that blind.)
>
>Why didn't I contact you last turn? And say what? "Hohn, I'm going to stab
>Edi this turn; please don't tell him. And by the way, I really desire you to
>forget about my last two turns of evilness toward you, and want you to hit
>Edi with me." What options were thus available to me?: (1) You agree to it
>all, and we live happily ever after; (2) You see the perfect chance to warn
>Edi, have him cover vs me, and start a war against both your tormentors while
>you observe -- or choose sides. Who's to say you'd even BELIEVE what I'd
>say?
>Sure, in hindsight the worst option happened anyway, so maybe I should've
>called. But I thought that once I was in SER and GAL (and not trying stuff
>vs Arm, despite your "guarantee" of going there), then you'd see I was after
>him for good. Is letting him take BUL my way of being a good ally? No, it's
>not. It was greed, pure and simple, designed to build up my country against
>unknown, expert players. But please note: he took BUL even without my
>support. A subtle nuance perhaps of no import to you, but still reeking of
>evil intent toward you from Aus nonetheless. But that doesn't matter to you
>if you're an Austrian puppet, right?
>
>Frankly, Hohn, I find your tone surly, even for (especially for) a game of
>wooden blocks. I overlook it because you caveated it as "your style," and
>you obviously meant it to be "for effect" to stress your intentions. So be
>it. Be advised, though, I'm NOT trying to impugn your intelligence or
>smother you with BS. My first note SAID that I tried to kill off BUL; even
>my 1901 notes told you that I was a rat for hitting you. How many times
>would you like me to flagellate myself with a whip?
>
>I had an ally; I did what was good for the alliance at the time; the alliance
>is finished; I'm now trying to work a deal with you. OK?
>
>You want me out of BLA; fine. Where do I go? Does it sail to RUM? Do I
>un-ass SEV and try something with the armies? YOU tell ME what you envision,
>Hohn; you (and Edi) are now in the driver's seat. I tried my grand pro-Aus
>plan, and it failed miserably. As I'm sure I won't be talking to him for
>awhile, I'll be much more in touch with you (mail and phone), given that you
>have stressed repeatedly your desire for discussion and/or teamwork. I
>always believed you; the window for me opened now that AR fell apart.
>
>The ironic thing about this is that RT--natural allies--are fighting (caused
>by me, yes) over the same thing: Aus perfidy. And Edi is the only one who
>gains from it. I'd like to change that situation, and it will take us both
>to fix it.
>
>I accept your points in the letter, and hope mine wasn't too blunt in reply.
> I am, indeed, "willing to deal."
>
>Tsar Faz
Let me know your ideas, Cal.
>endpress
>signoff
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
(Tsarist Winter Palace, Summer 1902): His Majesty's Ministry of
Information is pleased to inform the readership that peace has been
achieved with the great Kaiser Pitt in all regards. The seizure of
neutral Norway, despite invective from certain western governments, was
entirely in self-defense and specifically as insurance against any
southern perfidy. Sadly, the Southern Front witnessed such perfidy last
spring. Austria, breaking all terms of the Quadripartite Continuum
Alliance, launched an aggressive campaign in collusion with the
revanchist Sultan Allah Allah In-Free, aka Hohn the Exalted. The dark
smoke from Transylvania shadows the gloom that BirSauron and his evil
minions have wrought.
Tsarist forces are in full retreat from the Balkans. We hope diplomacy
can restore the battlefield situation, but we are not sanguine about its
prospects. Luckily Doge Cal -- leading an army of Papal crusaders -- is
en route to pull the Tsarist chestnuts from the fire.
Vive le France! Bravo Italia! Heil Viktoria! And Huzzahs for Johnny
Bull! May our friends realize the growing pus-ball that is now the AT
alliance, and may they lance it with Swords of Righteousness. Russian
weakness will engender the emergence of an AT cancer across the lands of
our friends by mid-game.
End of Ministry Broadcast.
Private message from Russia to Turkey:
Hohn
Thanks for the quick reply. No, I'm not taking it personally. There's
a difference between personal invective (which neither of us should be
flinging, as neither of us deserve it) and game stuff. it's all
personality, really. If I may reply to your replies (I'll be at the
**)...
>
>> Look, I'll take whatever lumps you want to send my way.
>> Yes, I lied to you when you were sincere with me. Why
>> shouldn't I have done so, when Edi had asked us to form a
>> 4-way alliance and (a) crush France with EI and (b) crush
>> you with AR?
>
>We all make choices. You chose to go with Edi instead of
>me. That's totally fine. But IMO you should take
>responsibility for that decision, rather than try to play it
>off as no big deal like you did in your past letter.
** IMO, I have accepted responsibility. I've mentioned more than either
of us care to recount, the number of times I said I was a bad boy. But
it's also the game, isn't it? Sort of, "Hey, I allied with what I
thought was an ally. Dodn't work out. Sorry. Nothing personal vs
you." IS IT "a big deal?" Haven't you ever made peace with someone YOU
stabbed and then mutually worked with? Did you have to have a pound of
flesh extracted from you, or did you treat it as part of your
negotiating and dynamics of the game?
>> But don't hand me this "chutzpah" crap, ok?
>
>Why not? It seemed a particularly apt word, in light of
>your earlier message.
** You call 'em as you see 'em. I don't think I had "the gall" to write
what I did. But if that's how you interpreted it, that's your call.
>> I worked in an alliance ENGENDERED BY EDI, thank you very
>> much, against a target--you. I did what I had to do for
>> my gains in an alliance, just as you are now doing.
>
>No. I'm fighting for my survival. I'm in a position which
>your own actions forced me into. The causation analysis
>therefore differs, as does the moral calculus.
** Is the moral caluclus part dealing with the non-claimable "moral high
ground" from your last letter?
I would submit to you that the fortunes of war have now caused me to
fight for my survival. I could easily say that I'm now in a position
which your actions (puppeting for Edi) forced me into. But how far back
do we trace stuff? You're fighting for survival, UP TO A POINT.
Unless Edi hits you again, you're in no danger anymore. I certainly
can't hurt you now.
> I respect you and your moves. Give ME some credit for my
>> past actions as part of an AR. (Btw, I find it
>> interesting that Edi--the master of this all--gets no slam
>> from you whatsoever. He had the plan to level you, then
>> "supposedly" hit I and G in conjunction with me. I accept
>> my role as Bad Guy toward you. But don't make Edi out as
>> the benign observer, ok? Don't tell me you're that
>> blind.)
>
>I fully realize you were operating under the assumption that
>there was an AR.
** Then why castigate me for my actions against you? And why not open
your eyes to Austria's actions?
>
>Of course, that changes not one whit the fact that you have
>been hostile towards me, including this immediately previous
>turn, and that you've lied to me twice, and that despite
>what you said in your previous letter, your motives in going
>against Edi were not in my best interests as you claimed,
>but rather your own.
** Yes, indeed; I have been hostile (mea culpa #546). But let's define
"hostile." Edi making a plan that calls for your destruction is
"hostile." Edi taking BUL (and probably RUM) from you is "hostile."
My acting as part of that alliance was also singularly "hostile."
Granted.
As the Monkees song says, "that was then; this is now."
>
>As for me and Edi, I fully realize what is going on with him
>and me.
** Do you? Would that be the presence of F Aeg and A Bul influencing
you, perhaps?
>Your paragraph above is making some unwarranted
>assumptions, but since we've still not established what I
>would term a working relationship, I'm not going to tell you
>what those unwarranted assumptions are. I hope you
>understand.
** In all honesty, I do. You may be trying to tell me that you also
fear Edi, did this because you couldn't trust me, but you still don't
trust Edi, either....I understand your reticence. believe me, after the
RUM thing, i clearly see the Master's hand in fomenting perfect RT
hatred toward each other while he pulls the strings.
>> Why didn't I contact you last turn? And say what? "Hohn,
>> I'm going to stab Edi this turn; please don't tell him.
>> And by the way, I really desire you to forget about my
>> last two turns of evilness toward you, and want you to hit
>> Edi with me." What options were thus available to me?:
>> (1) You agree to it all, and we live happily ever after;
>> (2) You see the perfect chance to warn Edi, have him cover
>> vs me, and start a war against both your tormentors while
>> you observe -- or choose sides. Who's to say you'd even
>> BELIEVE what I'd say?
>
>That's a straw man argument, Mark. I'm not disputing your
>actual _decision_ not to say anything to me. Reread what I
>wrote carefully. What I took issue with was your attempting
>to use your stab of Austria as some sort of equalizing
>device, to make us "even" as you put it. I also used your
>silence to make the point that I could only assume that we
>were still at war. And that's a reasonable assumption.
** I think you misunderstood what I wrote (or at least mean), Hohn.
When I said we were "even," it wasn't to say "I've expunged all guilt
about the past, let's wipe the slate clean." You never sullied the
slate.
What I MEANT (but obviously garbled) was: you didn't hear from me; you
made a logical choice (understandable); you got me. We're even in the
sense that I tried to hose you, and you did hose me. Does that mean you
wanted to nail me? No. It just was a statement of fact. I'm sorry if
you read into (or if my note said more) than what I intended it to mean.
> Sure, in hindsight the worst option happened anyway, so
>> maybe I should've called. But I thought that once I was
>> in SER and GAL (and not trying stuff vs Arm, despite your
>> "guarantee" of going there), then you'd see I was after
>> him for good.
>
>Fair enough. Just don't seek to use your uncommunicated
>stab, which you made for reasons of your own, as some sort
>of moral leverage over me,
** "Moral leverage?" How so? Like you're so untermensch that I
"graciously" would allow back to the ranks of the living after I spin my
webs? Wrong-o. I wanted to get Edi before he got me. Your country
was going to be nailed for one more turn in the process. Morally wrong,
but I was hoping to be "tactically right." I foresaw your growth as
coming when I had Edi reduced. if that bugs you, I'm sorry. That was
how I was trying to play it.
> like you did in your previous
>message. Just because you stab Austria doesn't change the
>fact that your relationship with me has been poor so far
>this game, poor as a result of your actions.
** No, it doesn't. But I was hoping that my being in GAL and
(hopefully) SER would've rang the little bells that intimated a Russian
change-of-action. I never said I wasn't a rat toward you.
>Thus the
>necessity of seeing you take some action to repair that
>relationship, if you really want to work with me.
>
>Regardless of what Edi "planned" with you, regardless of
>what the relationship is between you and him, that doesn't
>matter overly much. It was _your_ decision to stab me,
** IT WAS EDI'S DECISION TO "STAB" YOU. The fact that I was the
hatchet man and made the first alliance moves vs you makes me the heavy,
I guess. But I fully realize you were under the assumption there was an
RT.
>plain and simple. Edi held no gun to your head. It was
>your decision. Not Edi's. And in order to repair your
>relationship with me, you're going to have to make good with
>_me_, not by pointing at some stab of a third-party.
>Do you understand what I'm trying to say?
** Loud and clear, pal.
>
>> Is letting him take BUL my way of being a
>> good ally? No, it's not. It was greed, pure and simple,
>> designed to build up my country against unknown, expert
>> players.
>
>I can't say I understand what you're trying to say here.
** What I'm trying to say is that I'm not on a par with you guys. As a
consequence, I wanted rapid growth and one foe taken down. I wanted
centers to face off whoever was going to be my future foe.
>
>> But please note: he took BUL even without my
>> support. A subtle nuance perhaps of no import to you, but
>> still reeking of evil intent toward you from Aus
>> nonetheless. But that doesn't matter to you if you're an
>> Austrian puppet, right?
>
>If I'm an Austrian puppet? Nope. Doesn't matter at all.
** I sense the implication here. I'll merely say this: If I was after
you, I would've remained the Austrian puppet. Edi's gameplan called for
RUM S Ser-Bul, Bla S Sev-Arm...again, to continue the Arm war (or anger
over it). He was then going to support me to Con (Bul S Sev-Con, Bla
C), or so he said...Now, YOU don't know those details, and I wasn't
about to spill them over the phone. I made the blatant anti-Aus moves I
did (and invading Gal and trying for SER can't be much more blatant)
because I wanted a deal with you in the long run, realizing the error of
my previous ways. If I didn't, I would've gone "per the plan" and tried
to get CON in fall, reducing you to two. That was the better Russian
option in the long run.
>> Frankly, Hohn, I find your tone surly, even for
>> (especially for) a game of wooden blocks.
>
>
>
>I'm simply calling 'em as I see 'em. What better place to
>do that than in a game? I'm surprised you're taking it so
>personally, to be honest. I certainly am not.
** It's not personal, as I said above. I just find venting spleen a bit
of "overkill" for a game of blocks.
>
>> I overlook it because you caveated it as "your
>> style," and you obviously meant it to be "for effect" to
>> stress your intentions. So be it. Be advised, though,
>> I'm NOT trying to impugn your intelligence or smother you
>> with BS. My first note SAID that I tried to kill off BUL;
>> even my 1901 notes told you that I was a rat for hitting
>> you. How many times would you like me to flagellate
>> myself with a whip?
>
>That's not the point, nor is it my intent. I'm asking you
>to take responsibility for your past actions, not to have
>you berate yourself over them. And by doing so, by
>understanding that I will need to see you vacate BLA or make
>some other unilateral action to better our relationship
>(just as you unilaterally worsened it), we can thus move
>beyond it.
** geez, how many times are we going to kill this "personal
responsibility" part? Are you moralizing here?
>
>I want you to reread what you wrote to me in that first
>letter this season. You tried to play off your stab of Edi
>as some sort of big favor you were doing for me, and you
>tried to unilaterally declare that we were "even" when, as I
>mention above, what you do to a third party does not really
>have relevance to your relationship with me. You claim
>certain motives which, although I suppose are possible, I
>find to be quite dubious in light of actual events.
** I answered some of this up above. And interpret my moves as you see
fit. They were anti-Austrian, with no qualms. I'm sorry I can't change
1901.
>That's what I didn't appreciate, Mark, and that's why you
>received the response you did.
** Understood. Hopefully dead and buried.
>> I had an ally; I did what was good for the alliance at
>> the time; the alliance is finished; I'm now trying to work
>> a deal with you. OK?
>
>Sure. And I told you what I needed to see from you, and
>that is honesty and a vacating of BLA.
** If I wasn't honest, I'd have stopped writing and figured we'd be
enemies to the death. I wouldn't have written the e-mail that said I
would call you sometime soon. You either believe me or you don't. if
you don't, then I'm sorry my diplomacy 9and all this e-mail) is so
miserable in convincing you.
>> You want me out of BLA; fine. Where do I go? Does it
>> sail to RUM? Do I un-ass SEV and try something with the
>> armies? YOU tell ME what you envision, Hohn; you (and
>> Edi) are now in the driver's seat. I tried my grand
>> pro-Aus plan, and it failed miserably.
>
>I will get back to you on this, as I have yet to study the
>tactical situation in depth.
** I'll be waiting.
>
>> As I'm sure I
>> won't be talking to him for awhile,
>
>Why? You kept in touch with me despite our history. Well,
>except for this immediate past season, that is.
** true. But Edi masterminded one stab of you by using me as his
(willing) puppet. He's apparently capitalized on your survival to
mastermind a second stab, all for his benefit. before I deal with him
again, I'd like to be on a more equal basis, and/or let him feel some
hot breath down HIS back. As for this immediate past season, I've
already discussed that to death.
>
>> I'll be much more in
>> touch with you (mail and phone), given that you have
>> stressed repeatedly your desire for discussion and/or
>> teamwork. I always believed you; the window for me opened
>> now that AR fell apart.
>
>Sure. The window opened for _you_. And what I've been
>trying to tell you is what I'm going to need to see for that
>window to open for _me_, to cooperate with you.
** Again, go the board and analyze how you want the window opened, Hohn.
I want a Balkan center, regardless. I'll support you to BUD, BUL, or
wherever. Or I'll accept your support, and we NEED Italy's help here.
I wouldn't be writing so doggone much if I wasn't trying to show that
I'm willing to open the window.
>
>> The ironic thing about this is that RT--natural
>> allies--are fighting (caused by me, yes) over the same
>> thing: Aus perfidy.
>
>I'll withhold comment on this, except to reiterate that your
>understanding is based upon certain unwarranted assumptions.
>Personally, I see no irony.
** If you and Edi planned this eons ago, then yes, there's no irony.
But if you can't see how ironic it is that Edi convinced me to war vs
you while he sat back--and then how he's got you fighting vs me as a
foil to gain revenge or counterattack--then maybe one of us isn't seeing
the whole picture.
>> And Edi is the only one who gains
>> from it. I'd like to change that situation, and it will
>> take us both to fix it.
>
>This is true, however, and I am in sync with your desire to
>change that situation.
** Excellent. After all the above is said and done, the key is this
paragraph.
>> I accept your points in the letter, and hope mine wasn't
>> too blunt in reply. I am, indeed, "willing to deal."
>
>I prefer bluntness, so long as people don't take it
>personally. I'm certainly not. I hope you're not, although
>I fear you might be. And I'm glad you're willing to deal.
>Let's try to work something out, then.
** Good enough. Analyze your map and let me know how you see things.
Thanks for the note(s).
Mark
Private message from England to Russia:
Tsar Faz,
I will try to be brief (but that's not my forte).
First, I think you have overinterpreted my remarks. I do not yet think that
I am ruined. I think rather that I am very likely to be ruined, I am on the
brink of the abyss, not yet in free fall.
I'll be down to three centers, if you don't follow through on our
agreement, and though I *might* manage to convince either France or Germany
that I would make a useful puppet, I am not very sanguine about it. I shall
certainly try.
I was explaining my alternatives, that's all.
Second, you're a fine pot calling a kettle black! There you are fussing
about how your only alternative to seizing Norway was to 'throw in the
towel', and then you complain that *I* exaggerate my woes! But you have a
fine friend in Italy, and I have no one, for all of my erstwhile friends
have stabbed me. Even against a united T/A you are on one team in an equal
fight. I have no such equality. Then who can cry 'NEED' with more justice,
you or I?
Third, I must very stridently object to your use of the word 'largesse', as in,
>Nwy. But if AT stay united, should I just throw in the towel, abandon
>center gains of my own to your largesse instead, and trust to the Fates?
Largesse, is it, to execute one's promises taken in good faith? To honor
one's straightforward agreement to one's allies? Is that largesse? Or did
you mispeak? I must say that it is this feature of your apology that truly
galls me.
Fourth, I am not under any illusion, as you seem to think I am, that you
and only you have sold me up the river. I am very well aware that *all
three* of my allies have dumped the Quad alliance, and simultaneously. (You
must understand that my wounds are aggravated by self-disgust -- how could
I have been so stupid as to have been deceived into trusting both you and
Cal???) If I die as a result, then if it were possible I would work ruin on
all the three of you! (If you come up with a good way to do that, given
that I shall have exactly three units, do explain it to me, I will be
forever grateful.) But no, there is only one from whom I could exact any
direct payment, and you are the one. If it comes to that. *IF*. As for the
others, I would have to take small comfort in helping/allowing France to
construct a large navy and Germany a large army, to the respective
detriments of Cal and Edi.
Fifth, I don't take seriously your insinuations that I may have had in mind
to ally with Germany all along. If the insinuations were serious, let me
know and I will address them. But I think that was a bit of
conscience-soothing rationalization on your part. No shame, everyone does
it. It takes a man on the brink of disaster to see through the cobwebs of
his own mind! I speak from immediate experience, having just watched my own
cobwebs fall away.
Last, I will certainly attempt utmostly to convince Hohn that you are not
an untrustworthy knave. His is the only quarter in which I can still deal
plainly. You could make my job and my convictions a whole lot easier to
carry off, you know. There are honest errors retracted, even in Diplomacy.
It profit a man not to sell his soul and gain the world, said Sir Thomas
More, "but for Wales, Richard, for Wales!" Or Norway, he might have said,
though it wouldn't have been so punchy. Punchy guy, Thomas.
Still Gentle, but now *per force*,
King Jamie
The Pouch bourse game boring? Well, at least it's being called SOMEthing.
Since it kind of died in the water a while back, I'm glad to see that
someone remembers it. Rick Desper is in the process of putting it back
together, I believe, but I've lost track of where he might be with that
process....
However, we at the Pouch are always willing to add any game (such as, need
I spell it out, this one) to the Showcase section, which has unfortunately
also been a great idea untended. Since all the partial press is being saved,
and the players are commenting on their moves, and since (with the exception
of my own surely inadvertent exclusion :-) the players are among the most
talented out there, this game would be a nice permanent addition to the
Showcase. I know that this is TAP has dibs on the thing (but only because
you're doing all the work :-), but if you want, Jim, to also consider it for
inclusion in the fledgling Showcase section of TDP, feel free.
SYS,
Manus
> Rick Desper is in the process of putting it back
together, I believe, but I've lost track of where he might be with that
process....
I need the bourse info from Stephen. I asked him for it a few weeks
ago. I guess I have to ask again. :(
Rick
Private message from Turkey to Russia:
Mark,
> Look, I'll take whatever lumps you want to send my way.
> Yes, I lied to you when you were sincere with me. Why
> shouldn't I have done so, when Edi had asked us to form a
> 4-way alliance and (a) crush France with EI and (b) crush
> you with AR?
We all make choices. You chose to go with Edi instead of
me. That's totally fine. But IMO you should take
responsibility for that decision, rather than try to play it
off as no big deal like you did in your past letter.
> But don't hand me this "chutzpah" crap, ok?
Why not? It seemed a particularly apt word, in light of
your earlier message.
> I worked in an alliance ENGENDERED BY EDI, thank you very
> much, against a target--you. I did what I had to do for
> my gains in an alliance, just as you are now doing.
No. I'm fighting for my survival. I'm in a position which
your own actions forced me into. The causation analysis
therefore differs, as does the moral calculus.
> I respect you and your moves. Give ME some credit for my
> past actions as part of an AR. (Btw, I find it
> interesting that Edi--the master of this all--gets no slam
> from you whatsoever. He had the plan to level you, then
> "supposedly" hit I and G in conjunction with me. I accept
> my role as Bad Guy toward you. But don't make Edi out as
> the benign observer, ok? Don't tell me you're that
> blind.)
I fully realize you were operating under the assumption that
there was an AR.
Of course, that changes not one whit the fact that you have
been hostile towards me, including this immediately previous
turn, and that you've lied to me twice, and that despite
what you said in your previous letter, your motives in going
against Edi were not in my best interests as you claimed,
but rather your own.
As for me and Edi, I fully realize what is going on with him
and me. Your paragraph above is making some unwarranted
assumptions, but since we've still not established what I
would term a working relationship, I'm not going to tell you
what those unwarranted assumptions are. I hope you
understand.
> Why didn't I contact you last turn? And say what? "Hohn,
> I'm going to stab Edi this turn; please don't tell him.
> And by the way, I really desire you to forget about my
> last two turns of evilness toward you, and want you to hit
> Edi with me." What options were thus available to me?:
> (1) You agree to it all, and we live happily ever after;
> (2) You see the perfect chance to warn Edi, have him cover
> vs me, and start a war against both your tormentors while
> you observe -- or choose sides. Who's to say you'd even
> BELIEVE what I'd say?
That's a straw man argument, Mark. I'm not disputing your
actual _decision_ not to say anything to me. Reread what I
wrote carefully. What I took issue with was your attempting
to use your stab of Austria as some sort of equalizing
device, to make us "even" as you put it. I also used your
silence to make the point that I could only assume that we
were still at war. And that's a reasonable assumption.
> Sure, in hindsight the worst option happened anyway, so
> maybe I should've called. But I thought that once I was
> in SER and GAL (and not trying stuff vs Arm, despite your
> "guarantee" of going there), then you'd see I was after
> him for good.
Fair enough. Just don't seek to use your uncommunicated
stab, which you made for reasons of your own, as some sort
of moral leverage over me, like you did in your previous
message. Just because you stab Austria doesn't change the
fact that your relationship with me has been poor so far
this game, poor as a result of your actions. Thus the
necessity of seeing you take some action to repair that
relationship, if you really want to work with me.
Regardless of what Edi "planned" with you, regardless of
what the relationship is between you and him, that doesn't
matter overly much. It was _your_ decision to stab me,
plain and simple. Edi held no gun to your head. It was
your decision. Not Edi's. And in order to repair your
relationship with me, you're going to have to make good with
_me_, not by pointing at some stab of a third-party.
Do you understand what I'm trying to say?
> Is letting him take BUL my way of being a
> good ally? No, it's not. It was greed, pure and simple,
> designed to build up my country against unknown, expert
> players.
I can't say I understand what you're trying to say here.
> But please note: he took BUL even without my
> support. A subtle nuance perhaps of no import to you, but
> still reeking of evil intent toward you from Aus
> nonetheless. But that doesn't matter to you if you're an
> Austrian puppet, right?
If I'm an Austrian puppet? Nope. Doesn't matter at all.
> Frankly, Hohn, I find your tone surly, even for
> (especially for) a game of wooden blocks.
I'm simply calling 'em as I see 'em. What better place to
do that than in a game? I'm surprised you're taking it so
personally, to be honest. I certainly am not.
> I overlook it because you caveated it as "your
> style," and you obviously meant it to be "for effect" to
> stress your intentions. So be it. Be advised, though,
> I'm NOT trying to impugn your intelligence or smother you
> with BS. My first note SAID that I tried to kill off BUL;
> even my 1901 notes told you that I was a rat for hitting
> you. How many times would you like me to flagellate
> myself with a whip?
That's not the point, nor is it my intent. I'm asking you
to take responsibility for your past actions, not to have
you berate yourself over them. And by doing so, by
understanding that I will need to see you vacate BLA or make
some other unilateral action to better our relationship
(just as you unilaterally worsened it), we can thus move
beyond it.
I want you to reread what you wrote to me in that first
letter this season. You tried to play off your stab of Edi
as some sort of big favor you were doing for me, and you
tried to unilaterally declare that we were "even" when, as I
mention above, what you do to a third party does not really
have relevance to your relationship with me. You claim
certain motives which, although I suppose are possible, I
find to be quite dubious in light of actual events.
That's what I didn't appreciate, Mark, and that's why you
received the response you did.
> I had an ally; I did what was good for the alliance at
> the time; the alliance is finished; I'm now trying to work
> a deal with you. OK?
Sure. And I told you what I needed to see from you, and
that is honesty and a vacating of BLA.
> You want me out of BLA; fine. Where do I go? Does it
> sail to RUM? Do I un-ass SEV and try something with the
> armies? YOU tell ME what you envision, Hohn; you (and
> Edi) are now in the driver's seat. I tried my grand
> pro-Aus plan, and it failed miserably.
I will get back to you on this, as I have yet to study the
tactical situation in depth.
> As I'm sure I
> won't be talking to him for awhile,
Why? You kept in touch with me despite our history. Well,
except for this immediate past season, that is.
> I'll be much more in
> touch with you (mail and phone), given that you have
> stressed repeatedly your desire for discussion and/or
> teamwork. I always believed you; the window for me opened
> now that AR fell apart.
Sure. The window opened for _you_. And what I've been
trying to tell you is what I'm going to need to see for that
window to open for _me_, to cooperate with you.
> The ironic thing about this is that RT--natural
> allies--are fighting (caused by me, yes) over the same
> thing: Aus perfidy.
I'll withhold comment on this, except to reiterate that your
understanding is based upon certain unwarranted assumptions.
Personally, I see no irony.
> And Edi is the only one who gains
> from it. I'd like to change that situation, and it will
> take us both to fix it.
This is true, however, and I am in sync with your desire to
change that situation.
> I accept your points in the letter, and hope mine wasn't
> too blunt in reply. I am, indeed, "willing to deal."
I prefer bluntness, so long as people don't take it
personally. I'm certainly not. I hope you're not, although
I fear you might be. And I'm glad you're willing to deal.
Let's try to work something out, then.
Hohn
>
> Broadcast message from [email protected] as Observer in 'ghodstoo':
>
> The Pouch bourse game boring? Well, at least it's being called SOMEthing.
> Since it kind of died in the water a while back, I'm glad to see that
> someone remembers it. Rick Desper is in the process of putting it back
> together, I believe, but I've lost track of where he might be with that
> process....
>
I watched the beginning and found it boring enough that I stopped
watching it.... so much so that I was unaware it wasn't still going.
Whoops.... can't be omniscient, can we.... besides, what I was
really after was to tweak you for declining the opportunity to play
in this game when initially asked ;-) Mission accomplished!
> However, we at the Pouch are always willing to add any game (such as, need
> I spell it out, this one) to the Showcase section, which has unfortunately
> also been a great idea untended. Since all the partial press is being saved,
> and the players are commenting on their moves, and since (with the exception
> of my own surely inadvertent exclusion :-) the players are among the most
> talented out there, this game would be a nice permanent addition to the
> Showcase. I know that this is TAP has dibs on the thing (but only because
> you're doing all the work :-), but if you want, Jim, to also consider it for
> inclusion in the fledgling Showcase section of TDP, feel free.
>
> SYS,
> Manus
>
Manus, you were not inadvertently excluded, you excluded yourself!!!
Heh, heh, heh... I'll go look at it, but remind me again how the
Showcase section works. When the game is over I certainly want
to store the records on diplom.org and have them connected to the Pouch.
Do you want to do a hot link for the moment to Dave Kleiman's
web page on the game at USIN? that's certainly fine too.
Jim
Private message from Italy to Master:
> Message from [email protected] as England to Italy in 'ghodstoo':
>
> ooooh! I've been stabbed!
> :-)
>
> Ok, well, looks like I'm alone up here. Good luck getting that next
> center of yours.
>
> Gentle King Jamie
I hear you... grin Good luck to both of us.
Cal
Private message from Turkey to England:
Jamie,
Fear not, I have not foreclosed my options in the South.
I'm talking with Mark extensively now. And your carrot
might make the difference, believe it or not. I'm of
two evenly divided minds on the subject right now.
We'll see how things shake down. Good luck to you.
Hohn
Private message from England to Russia:
Re: Edi the Mesmerizer:
Yes, indeed. Only don't allow yourself to be hypnotized, please! Once is
enough.
>If Germany remains hostile to you and you drop to 3 (and only one unit =
>is adjacent to me), then it's gonna take awhile to make my life a living =
>hell up there. Not that I'm trying to be a smarty (I'm not), but your =
>threat is viable, credible, and perhaps a 'tad' exaggerated against me, =
>nicht war?
Jawohl.
I can't say I'd 'take you down'. But then again, it might not take much,
huh? House of cards, kind of thing, by your own estimate.
No, I will only do what damage I can. Er, that is: I *would* only do what
damage I *could*. Enough, I reckon, to make taking Norway count as a
mistake in the final ledger, when the 'ccountin's done. It would be
tasteless to get more specific.
>Dulce et decorum est, pro patria mori
Sic semper tsarius.
Hic hoc horum!
GKJ
Private message from Russia to England:
GKJ,
Indeed, my whole point is that Master Edi isn't called the Master for =
nothing. I mean, don't you also see the betrayal he engendered? For =
one thing, not only was there no GA incursions, but they both went =
opposite ways (hence my fear of a friendly AG). Not only that, but why =
did he cover Bud and support Hohn? Yes, Hohn chewed up his phone lines =
whereas I never spoke to him once last turn (for fear he'd reveal my =
anti-A plans; ouch). But Edi obviously had this greased, and never =
intended to see you or I make the light of day. My view is that he =
planned to make an A/puppet t vs me, A/puppet I vs F, and then AG cleans =
up the remnants.
Well, 'tis all water under the bridge. I will indeed "recalculate the =
math" up north. You may need to 'do some cipherin'" yourself, though. =
If Germany remains hostile to you and you drop to 3 (and only one unit =
is adjacent to me), then it's gonna take awhile to make my life a living =
hell up there. Not that I'm trying to be a smarty (I'm not), but your =
threat is viable, credible, and perhaps a 'tad' exaggerated against me, =
nicht war? But I follow your reasoning and veiled (not-so-vieled?) =
implications, BELIEVE ME.
Dulce et decorum est, pro patria mori
Tsar Faz
Private message from England to Russia:
Tsar Faz,
I take it, then, that you are not especially optimistic about the chances
of peace with Hohn (your own personal condition for removing the knife from
my back).
I think the upshot is, you were manipulated by Edi. That's what happened.
He did it deliberately, and awfully well. He inadvertantly manipulated
Italy, too, so that things may not work out so terribly well for him in the
end.
Rather than continue the various earlier points of contention, I will say
merely that you *CAN INDEED* mend what is broken. Nothing could be easier.
And though you would then have fewer units of your own, of course, you
would have mine on your side rather than devoted to your pain. (Just do
some arithmetic. Six units, but if you use five in the south you can't
possibly hold Scandinavia, so four in the south and two against me, or if
I'm very fortunate, against me and Pitt. Or, five units, one in the north
with my eternal support, and again four in the south. What profit, then,
for Norway?)
If I am right that you were manipulated, then you have my sympathy. If (but
only if) you let me take Norway, you have my endless cooperation as well.
Otherwise, you will have to make do with sympathy. I'm sure Caesar felt
great sympathy for poor Brutus.
Ave,
Gentle King Jamie
Private message from France to Germany:
Pitt,
That went nicely. Thanks for coming through.
I was not counting on Italy turning east, but it's a nice bonus. I thought
I might have to defend Spain.
Any ideas on how to play this?
John
France
Private message from Russia to England:
Hi GKJ,
Let me comment on your note; I'll asterisk my points, if that's ok...
>First, I think you have overinterpreted my remarks. I do not yet think that
>I am ruined. I think rather that I am very likely to be ruined, I am on the
>brink of the abyss, not yet in free fall.
>I'll be down to three centers, if you don't follow through on our
>agreement, and though I *might* manage to convince either France or Germany
>that I would make a useful puppet, I am not very sanguine about it. I shall
>certainly try.
>I was explaining my alternatives, that's all.
** Yes, after my recent barrages with Turkey, I've been accused of
everything under the sun...I have a hunch this 'charge'
(overinterpretation of your remarks) is also true, alas...
You'll be down to three centers, "perhaps." Much depends on how Germany
moves. ECH can support BRE if Germany focuses on Paris and/or only
goes after BEL. The big threat to you is if he convoys Hol-Yor, as you
can't stop it, nor dislodge Nth without him retreating to a home SC.
But yes, I see your points.
>Second, you're a fine pot calling a kettle black! There you are fussing
>about how your only alternative to seizing Norway was to 'throw in the
>towel', and then you complain that *I* exaggerate my woes! But you have a
>fine friend in Italy, and I have no one, for all of my erstwhile friends
>have stabbed me. Even against a united T/A you are on one team in an equal
>fight. I have no such equality. Then who can cry 'NEED' with more justice,
>you or I?
** Again, the moral and logical arguments lean toward you. Yes, I do
have a friend in Italy, although he can't help me much this year, other
than force Edi to look backward as regards GRE and TRI. Still, it IS
more than you have at the moment.
You have a need, indeed; but so do I. And if I cede Nwy to you and go
-1 (or worse), then do we not have the same situation in reverse (i.e.,
a weak Eng doesn't help Russia, but does a wounded Russia do a 4- or
5-center E any good, either)?
>Third, I must very stridently object to your use of the word 'largesse', as
>in,
>
>>Nwy. But if AT stay united, should I just throw in the towel, abandon
>>center gains of my own to your largesse instead, and trust to the Fates?
>
>Largesse, is it, to execute one's promises taken in good faith? To honor
>one's straightforward agreement to one's allies? Is that largesse? Or did
>you mispeak? I must say that it is this feature of your apology that truly
>galls me.
** Please, stand along the gauntlet line and whip me severely as I pass
through. Turkey used the more colorful word for gall (chutzpah) in
conversation today. The ability to use words to maim others must be an
enduring character trait of mine...sigh. My intent was to basically
ask, What happens if I give you Nwy? Now I'm not even in the driver's
seat as regards my own foolishness (as seen by you), but instead am
dependent on everyone for future goodwill and support."
And quite honestly, what's out there right now for easy Russian gain?
That's what I meant about "largesse;" it wasn't a slam on you, who has
done nothing to cause grief.
>Fourth, I am not under any illusion, as you seem to think I am, that you
>and only you have sold me up the river. I am very well aware that *all
>three* of my allies have dumped the Quad alliance, and simultaneously. (You
>must understand that my wounds are aggravated by self-disgust -- how could
>I have been so stupid as to have been deceived into trusting both you and
>Cal???) If I die as a result, then if it were possible I would work ruin on
>all the three of you! (If you come up with a good way to do that, given
>that I shall have exactly three units, do explain it to me, I will be
>forever grateful.) But no, there is only one from whom I could exact any
>direct payment, and you are the one. If it comes to that. *IF*. As for the
>others, I would have to take small comfort in helping/allowing France to
>construct a large navy and Germany a large army, to the respective
>detriments of Cal and Edi.
** As for all your allies dumping you: Had Edi stuck to his guns (yeah,
let's blame him, why not) and hit Germany, the QC probably would've
lurched along for awhile longer. However, we would've had to hit Edi by
1903 or so anyway, so I imagine a truncated France would've been left
around anyway. But please, please don't say you were "stupid" to trust
both Cal and I. Cal means you no ill will, and neither do I. My
decision to take Nwy came from Austrian unease, and was submitted about
two days prior to due date. It wasn't some long-term simmering plan to
hose you. You are definitely not a stupid player. Again (to make Edi
the bogeyman), had Austria not engendered such mistrust and fear on
Cal's part (and mine)--and had he shown some willingness to really make
the QC work--this would be a different ballgame, and no one would've
dumped you. It's a sin of omission, rather than of comission, I think
(although still lousy for you).
>Fifth, I don't take seriously your insinuations that I may have had in mind
>to ally with Germany all along. If the insinuations were serious, let me
>know and I will address them. But I think that was a bit of
>conscience-soothing rationalization on your part. No shame, everyone does
>it. It takes a man on the brink of disaster to see through the cobwebs of
>his own mind! I speak from immediate experience, having just watched my own
>cobwebs fall away.
** Part of it is self-rationalization. But do we really know anyone
this game, or in life? Can you really say what you'd be doing as an
Englishman with x-centers in year y, faced with neighbors p and q? I
never doubted your short-term intentions, but long-term is wide open for
everyone this game, yes?
>Last, I will certainly attempt utmostly to convince Hohn that you are not
>an untrustworthy knave. His is the only quarter in which I can still deal
>plainly. You could make my job and my convictions a whole lot easier to
>carry off, you know. There are honest errors retracted, even in Diplomacy.
** Hohn has let me know that I am the lowest of dirtbags and a glib,
BS-slinging
louse who treated him cavalierly for the whole game, and now must atone
for my sins before he's ready to deal. If you manage to get him onto my
side, then you are the Mother of All Diplomats, and will get Nwy out of
sheer stupification at your success, if for no other reason!!!
Hohn is weaving his own crap, quite frankly, but if there is any "moral
high ground" in this game, I'm certainly not occupying it in dealing
with him.
>It profit a man not to sell his soul and gain the world, said Sir Thomas
>More, "but for Wales, Richard, for Wales!" Or Norway, he might have said,
>though it wouldn't have been so punchy. Punchy guy, Thomas.
** Wasn't it Shakespeare who said something about ..."a tangled web we
weave..?" I have been caught in my own web regarding AT (or is it
"hoisted on my own petard?").
I'll stay in close touch, and will weigh every option from everyone,
Jamie. As much as you're embittered (rightly so) by the sudden
solo-ness of the QC, I can't fix what's broken regarding the alliance.
Nwy, though, is something I can fix. Help me "work the Turk."
Tsar Faz
> I watched the beginning and found it boring enough that I stopped
> watching it.... so much so that I was unaware it wasn't still going.
>
Well, at three moves a year, it's hard to be exciting. ;-)
> Whoops.... can't be omniscient, can we.... besides, what I was
> really after was to tweak you for declining the opportunity to play
> in this game when initially asked ;-) Mission accomplished!
> Manus, you were not inadvertently excluded, you excluded yourself!!!
>
Mission accomplished indeed (except either I missed the invitation or
I forget declining the invite [probably too dang busy just then; that's
been happening a bit lately]. In any case, I surely would have declined
it in favor of any of the seven now assembled before us -- I was surely
joking about feeling slighted). But I'll watch my mailbox closer for
ghodsthree. And I'll win it. Bwaa haa haa haa haaaa! :-)
> When the game is over I certainly want to store the records on diplom.org
> and have them connected to the Pouch.
>
Done deal.
> Do you want to do a hot link for the moment to Dave Kleiman's
> web page on the game at USIN? that's certainly fine too.
>
Didn't know about it -- I will set it up post-haste! Thanks!
SYS,
Manus
Private message from Italy to Master:
> Message from [email protected] as Russia to Italy in 'ghodstoo':
> Cal,
> Despite the invective being flung about (see my reply, below), I think I
> can work with Hohn. If I can't, well...they're after me, anyway. May
> as well take some chances here. WE need to coordinate some moves,
> either with Turkey (support him to Bud?) or without him...
[Much invective snipped in which you respond quite nicely to Hohn's
invective]
> Let me know your ideas, Cal.
I have a hard time believing that Hohn will accede to any requests to
attack Edi. Not so much because of the tone of his letter, but because
he's smart enough to realize what would come after: if three of us take
Edi out Hohn's STILL the next most likeliest target.
I'm going to put out some feelers and see what I hear. I'll get back to
you once I know something
Cal
Private message from Russia to England:
King James
Indeed, the Mesmerizer (anything like the Energizer Bunny?) will not
succeed in luring me in twice. And perhaps, just perhaps, the Sultan
will see better advantages in helping poor ol' Tsarman, rather than risk
Smy, Con or Bul/Rum to the Ed-Machine, devourer of all before it.
You know, this game had a lot of promise to it when it started up, too.
You were kicking some severe butt on F, asnd G and T were isolated. All
the more reason I want a piece of Edi's carcass for wrecking it all.
I fully understand your frustration ("so gimme Nwy already, da** it,
Faz!"). What I can do, I will. Stay tuned for further late-breaking
news.
Hic hoc harrumph to you too.
Tsar Faz
Private message from England to Turkey:
Good witch!
I had a hunch (about the first one that's been correct).
If you do decide to go with the Bear, you might mention that I was at least
a bit influential. I need all the chips I can get! (If you decide to cut him
to bits, hm, you needn't mention me :))
Other Witch
Private message from Russia to Italy:
Fellow (Ex-) QC'ers,
Thought you'd like to read the current state of A-R realtions. 'Tis a
sad day for the QC...
Tsar Faz
>----------
>From: Fassio, M. MAJ SOC
>Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 1997 6:47 AM
>To: 'Edi Birsan'
>Subject: RE: A--->R
>
>press to a
>Edi, My replies are at the ** asterisks...
>
>Well my dear Tzar I must say that I felt that the situation had fallen apart
>in the Fall of 01 when you did not move to Armenia. This was critical for me
>along with the break down of Italy-England over Portugal.
>** I see precious little in here about your culpability in all this. I have
>severe doubts that my not going to ARM spelled the end of this alliance, and
>the "breakdown of E-I over POR" ass a reason for you to do what you did is
>hogwash. They didn't break anything down. In fact, Italy only decided at
>the last moment--based on the threat you posed as a 6-7 center Austria
>unencumbered by Turkish threats--to hit you, lest he be hit himself by you in
>'03.
>
>Now we have an interesting situation in which our strategic points have great
>danger for us both. The Italians if they enter into the conflict will not be
>as significant tactically as it will be to cement the French-German alliance
>and that will be your doom since we know that Pitt is a vulture style player
>and will fall on you after building an army and a fleet. This would be a
>winning German strategy which I am sure is not missed by Pitt.
>
>** Perhaps yes, perhaps no. Had you been a little more aggressive vs Pitt
>and moved as you'd planned--or at least given the "diplomatic warm fuzzies"
>to the QC that you planned on adhering to the original plan--Pitt would be
>facing F Bal, A Sil and two in Tyo/Boh--a much different picture.
>
>As long as the Italians and you are allied I am forced to stay with the Turk.
>
>** C'mon, Edi. Had the Italians NOT moved eastward, you wouldn't have to
>even include this self-rationalizing justification.
>
>You will note that my moves in the south with the move to the Aegean and
>behind the Turks to Bulgaria were designed to give me total flexibility in
>the
>Turkish front in the event that your situation was different.
> ** Read: You provided the capability to have the RT players screw each
>other, continue their venomous antagonisms, and have Aus reap the centers out
>of it all. As always, masterful play on your part. I mean, I'm bummed, but
>only because you've bested me. It's good work by you.
>
>From a strategic side for us to mend things so we can face the resurgence of
>the German requires that we do not get embroiled with an Eastern War.
>
>** You mean like when you supported Turkey against me in RUM after I still
>supported you to BUL?
> That means that diplomatically we have to turn Italy either west or against
>the
>Turk via the Eastern Medit but that it be made clear by you to the Italians
>not to enter the conflict with me and to let things cool for a turn.
>
>** By letting things cool for a turn, you mean, so you and Turkey can keep
>hitting me in GAL and SEV, perhaps? Sorry, old chap. I'm asking Italy to
>attack Greece and Trieste this turn unless you return a center or so to me
>and end this pro-Turk charade.
>
>The Germans are going to be all over you quickly so I would suggest that we
>play things along the lines of moving Army Galicia out to either Silesia or
>Warsaw and with your build go to Moscow. This will allow you to bottle up
>Sevas while at the same time opening the door with me diplomatically.
>
>** How's about YOU opening the door diplomatically to me, hmm? What are YOUR
>armies going in all of this? I get to move out, while you take RUM or CON,
>perhaps?
>
>The key is to give us diplomatic flexibility which you being in Galicia does
>not provide.
>
>** The key is to finish off Turkey while giving me some centers/growth, to
>prevent Pitt from clambering all over me. Hanging me out in SIL with an
>"even" or "-1" Fall turn only waves the red flag to Pitt and INVITES him to
>hit me, Edi. Meanwhile, just as against Turkey, your 'front-line minion(s)'
>go out and draw the fire, while you sit in the rear areas and get fat from
>all the war profiteering. This time, my friend, that won't be the case.
>And if FG grow fat from it all, too bad. After E dies and they turn on me,
>they can come for you and your puppet.
>
>Unless you show some flexibility and a desire to cut me in on some of your
>"profit."
>
>My hit of Nwy was designed to give me some flexibility vs the onrushing Hun.
>The south has ruined it all.
>
>So how about it...let's see your pieces do some diplomacy here.
>
>** It takes two to tango, as my Mom says. Let's see YOUR pieces do some,
>too. Otherwise, I'll see you in Bud or Hades, whichever comes first.
>
>The Disapppointed Tsar Faz
>endpress
>signoff
>
>
>
Private message from Germany to England:
>Gosh. Your food poisoning has left *me* with an upset stomach.
Heh...actually, the plan was pretty much finalized before I fell ill. I
just wasn't able to implement it on time as a result.
>Hm, you appear to be in a pretty good position. And to all appearances, Edi
>has manipulated all of my erstwhile allies while I was sleeping.
Well, as I know you know better than most, nothing is carved in stone. My
defection from our early EG alliance shows that. I am always willing to
consider any plan which I believe maximizes my chances of success. Please
don't think that we are now quits (at least not as far as I'm concerned).
FWIW, I felt compelled to take this action because I saw myself getting the
*very* short end of the stick in our alliance. The way it looked to me,
you were going to get BRE, NOR, POR, and possibly SPA, while I got PAR. I
had originally expected to get BEL, too, which would have been a more
equitable distribrution but you grabbed it in 1901 instead of NOR, which
was not a violation of any agreement we had (due an oversight on *my* part)
but was certainly, in my opinion, a violation of the spirit of our
alliance. Frankly, I expected to be at the top of a very short list for
your next target and I saw a pre-emptive strike as my only alternative.
>I wonder whether you can get a big chunk out of me before he finds he needs
>something for all of those armies to do. I don't think you can. We shall
>see!
I'm sensitive to the situation. However, I felt I had no other choice. I
considered broaching the subject with you but I ultimately decided not to
because I thought it would accomplish nothing other than tipping my hand.
If I was wrong in that assumption, I apologize. I won't insult you by
telling you that I'm now going to pull back and pretend it never happened
but I hope that we can still talk and, if the opportunity presents itself,
perhaps work together again (on a more equitable basis, of course).
-Pitt
Private message from Germany to Russia:
>Well, sir, you see the Russian honor is true--and I see your mettle, as
>well!
Yes sir! Thank you for your faith and follow through.
>I hope you're feeling better (both from the metaphysical sense
>this game, and from a physical sense after your recent illness).
Both, thanks.
>I'm a little chagrined over the AT reunification down there.
I don't blame you. Of course, as you say, Edi's more or less just doing
what you planned to do but Hohn found Edi more suitable based on your 1901
actions, I assume... Can't really blame Hohn, either, he's just trying to
stay alive.
>Edi, master that he is, once again beat me to the punch. Any
>suggestions on what to do down south?
Well, I didn't know that this was going to happen but I'm not surprised,
either. Hohn tried early on to get me to attack you to relieve the
pressure on him. When I politely demurred, Edi was his only other option.
Frankly, I expected Edi to go after Cal because I thought you and Edi were
in cahoots. At this point, I think the best ideas would be a) for you to
try to get Cal to slip a shiv into Edi's back and b) begin to patch things
up with Hohn. Once you start that, I can continue to stay in touch with
Hohn and, as appropriate, subtly point out the danger that Edi poses. If
any of these work, it should help you out down south.
>As for the north: I'll hold in Nwy, obviously.
Yep.
> Your moves showed the
>"beyond the horizon vision" that mkes you a helluva player.
Hang on a sec. Gotta put on my high top boots. It's getting deep in
here...;-)
>You are, indeed, in a nice position.
At the moment, true. Of course, experience shows that it doesn't pay to
have too high a profile (especially with this group of barracuda...;-)
>I will do nothing to upser the RG applecart.
I'm counting on that, Faz. I need to focus my efforts westward. I will
endeavor to be sure that you and I both maintain a friendly, non-tempting
border, of course (allies is allies but an open invitation is just asking
for it...I don't plan on asking for it) but I truly do hope that we can
continue to build on the foundation we've laid so far. If we do so
successfully, we'll both be in good position to profit and to deal with
problems elsewhere.
>Good hunting against whatever province(s) you hit, and here's to the RG.
Thanks. Same to you.
-Pitt
Private message from England to Russia:
Suddenly and unexpectedly:
I have high hopes of delivering the Sultan's renewed friendship. Stay tuned!
If I am crushed under the Franco-Prussian onslaught but (i) have our old
agreement unbroken in the end, and (ii) see the Grand Duke Mesmer swinging
from the steeple of the Cathedral in Sophia, I shall die happy.
Gentle King J
Private message from Russia to Italy:
Cal: The saga continues. Check out this guy.
Faz
>----------
>From: Fassio, M. MAJ SOC
>Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 1997 12:32 PM
>To: 'Edi Birsan'
>Subject: RE: A-===-->R
>
>Hi Edi,
>I'll address you points below.
>
>Consider this: because of the annilation and the gain of Norway you will get
>a build. Regardless of Rumania. You still hold the Black Sea and Turkey is
>still way out classed by the position he is in vs. me. You will have 6
>centers and if I hold Bulgaria or take Rumania from the Turks and I guess
>right with the Italians I will have 6.
>
>Indeed, I will go +1 due to the annihilation (thanks for promoting that).
>And you even say you might take RUM, i.e., not just support Turkey against my
>center, but then steal it from him/me? Wow.
>
>If you are out of Galicia I then have the opportunity to employ forces
>against
>Germany-Italy and Turkey as needed.
>Didn't you have the chance to do that LAST turn, when you were supposed to,
>per the plan?
>
>You will still have the build of Army
>Moscow to consider flexibility to go into the North, continue to bottle the
>south or even reopen the war with me.
>The build goes to StP, due to England's burning desire to take me down with
>him over the "stab" of Nwy. It is not a flexible unit.
>
>Turkey is not going anywhere fast with you in the Black and me in the Aegean
>if I do not have to worry about Italy. The elimination of Turkey is very do
>able with the strategic freedom from Italy.
>The elimination of Turkey was very do-able in the past year, too. Only, of
>course, you would've had to share some of the spoils with me back then; now
>you have it surrounded for yourself.
>
> Having a Russian presence in the
>North will help long term stability and we both border on Germany who is the
>future problem.
>Maybe he is a future problem. But I have more immediate problems in my own
>sector, as you're well aware. Why anger a friend?
>
>So consider a pull back to Warsaw and we can get to the Turks in the Spring.
>I'll say what I've said in the last couple notes:
>1) Identify some of YOUR plans, instead of recommending my front-wide
>retreats and goading of current friends.
>2) You have still failed to mention word one about what you want to do, how
>you want to do it, what MUTUAL gains could accrue, etc. You're
>smokescreening, and not doing a very good job of it, frankly.
>3) Until you show me tangible gain --and, frankly, now that there's an AT and
>a hostile E, I'm under a Survival Threat as well -- then I can't see why I
>should go along with nebulous Austrian plans that seemingly shows no gain.
>4) Italy will indeed press home the attacks. For one thing, he's got nothing
>better to do. For another, what do you expect him to do? Re-turn on France?
> Hold? Watch you grow to 6, 7 or 8 ANYWAY and then move out smartly? He's
>not blind, Edi.
>
>Russia will consider any and all options, yours included. But go back and
>reread your notes: WHAT have you offered me? Alliance again (not mentioned
>specifically)? Centers (mentioned NOWHERE)? Concrete, joint plans or
>options (ditto)? I really don't think you're serious, Edi. But I am.
>
>Faz
Private message from France to Russia:
[The following message I sent yesterday bounced back due to my error.]
>My Friend,
>
>Yes, it appears I am in your debt for your most effective intervention
into
>the western situation. I was on my way out, but I am now revived, at
least
>for the time being. I am sure that France's revival will do Russia great
>good, and I am glad for that.
>
>I will play a cautious round to see how much I can count on my new German
>ally. After all, he jumped the fence once. What's to say he won't do so
>again if given sufficient inducement?
>
>In gratitude,
>
>Jean Barquemondieu
Private message from Russia to France:
Monsieur
Thanks for the reply. I didn't want to overly stress Russia's role in
helping you--merely wanted to say that "you have a friend in court" here
in StP. I will help you as much as I can, and I ask but one favor in
return: FI peace, to allow the reduction of traitorous Austria.
Edi has the Gaul (snicker) to ask me to go Gal-Sil, rebuild the
destroyed RUM (thanks to him) in Mos, and head vs Pitt!! "It is to
laugh," as they say.
In fact, I have a second favor: if you could put in a plug/good word
for Russia when you next speak to the Sultan, life would be just ducky.
He and I have had some acrimonious exchanges, but I want to get past the
words, realize the joint Austrian threat, and have him link with me.
I'd appreciate any "character references" if you could, kind sir.
All glory to France!
Tsar Faz
Private message from Russia to Turkey:
Hohn:
Edi's letters to me sound a lot like mine probably sound(ed) to you; I
at least find myself using the same...ahem..thought processes and
verbiage that you (and I) used yesterday, and I also find that Edi is
trying to dangle me out of the water yet again:
He's asking for joint action vs you in spring;
He tells me to rebuild the destroyed A Rum in the north, and then hit
Germany;
Also wants Italy out of the picture, to give him ("us") 'freedom of
maneuver' vs you and Germany;
he then proceeds to say, "Russia will be at 6," and "I've manuevered to
allow myself maximum flexibility for the tactical situation, i.e., Bul
and Rum)." ((So not only does he aid you in taking my center, but now
he plans to take it from you and advance to seven centers.))
Quite honestly, Hohn, I can see the same frustration in dealing with Edi
(at this time) that you obviously had with me. God has repaid me in
spades for the hassles I've caused.
I would like RUM back, there's no doubt; I need a build in the event
Germany does indeed come marching eastward next turn. BUT:
whatever I can do to support you somewhere, anywhere (Bud, Bul, etc) AND
get out of BLA, I'll do it. Ideally I'd like to take RUM with the
fleet, and/or support you to BUL again, but I'm open to your
ideas...convoyng Arm out, whatever...
One (prelim) option: (ASSUMES Italian moves on Tri and Gre)
1) Rum-Bul (Bla and Con S), Ank S Con, Arm-Smy
Sev-Rum (Ukr S), Gal-Bud
or perhaps
2) Rum-Bud (Gal S), Bla-Rum (Sev S), Ukr S Gal????
Consider me a friend. (No sugar-coating on the words, either.) I mean,
we either smash Edi before he goes up to 7, or you guys stay together
and smash my south. If the latter happens, "ugliness for all" will
occur, guaranteed.
Tsar Faz
Private message from England to Germany:
Pitt,
>FWIW, I felt compelled to take this action because I saw myself getting the
>*very* short end of the stick in our alliance. The way it looked to me,
>you were going to get BRE, NOR, POR, and possibly SPA, while I got PAR.
Ahem.
You've already stabbed me, we can be honest about the past now!
I wasn't going to get Spain unless I went off to fight Italy; presumably
you wouldn't object to *that*. Counting Norway in the division of France is
not terribly plausible, either. (Why not count Denmark?)
Por and Bre vs Par, true, I was getting two and you one. Doesn't seem so
unreasonable. The truth is, had I decided to ally with Italy next (I was
unsure), I would have let him take Mar, Spa, and Por, all three. I probably
would have let him have Por anyway, and decided after that whether to
snatch it back and sail into the Med., or let him keep it to fuel a war
against Austria, and go attack you or Russia. Well, no point thinking about
*those* options!
However, you decided you could get more by going for my throat. Yeah, you
may well be right about that! The big difference, though, (I mean the other
big difference, getting more is a big difference!) is that by engaging
France you would have been in and out with a quick gain, ready for another
fight; unless I miss my mark, your attack on me will take a whole lot
longer. You've just got to hope that the battle between Austria and Russia
takes a long time, too.
>had originally expected to get BEL, too, which would have been a more
>equitable distribrution but you grabbed it in 1901 instead of NOR, which
>was not a violation of any agreement we had (due an oversight on *my* part)
>but was certainly, in my opinion, a violation of the spirit of our
>alliance. Frankly, I expected to be at the top of a very short list for
>your next target and I saw a pre-emptive strike as my only alternative.
Well, I had no firm plan for what to do after France, had it gone that way.
You were in the middle of a medium-sized list, let's say. :) I always
expect I'm somewhere on everyone's list.
I'm surprised to hear what you thought about Bel, though.
>I'm sensitive to the situation. However, I felt I had no other choice. I
>considered broaching the subject with you but I ultimately decided not to
>because I thought it would accomplish nothing other than tipping my hand.
>If I was wrong in that assumption, I apologize.
Oh, your most gracious apology is most graciously accepted, fully in the
spirit in which it was intended. :)
You just haven't been very active talking in this game, that's all. So you
have to play more strategically and less diplomatically. I was playing more
diplomatically, which turned out to be a serious mistake, because I never
did manage to get a 'feel' for any of the postal players. (Obviously? Do
you realize that Russia and Italy just stabbed me, too? And as for Edi,
well it's really all his fault, everything. I'm sure of it. I just don't
know how.)
>I won't insult you by
>telling you that I'm now going to pull back and pretend it never happened
>but I hope that we can still talk and, if the opportunity presents itself,
>perhaps work together again (on a more equitable basis, of course).
Hm.
Obviously, I am in pretty dire straights. I'll tell you, if we have to wait
and see if a long shot comes in and I do ok, and then you want to be
friends again, that seems really extremely unlikely. If I manage hold out
until Russia or Austria come for you, I doubt I'll have any incentive to
help. Well, who knows?
But you are kind of suggesting that *I* come up with some alternative, and
you'll consider it. Ok, I will. (I'll need a day or two. There's a chance
that I could actually come up with a *good* alternative, so I won't have to
tell you an absurd story, but I'll have to do some investigation first.)
By the way, in case it's not obvious: I don't really blame you at all. My
judgment of the situation doesn't exactly agree with yours, but your stab
does seem fairly reasonable given your fairly reasonable assessment of the
situation. (This distinguishes you from Italy and Russia in my book :)).
Still Gentle, but now only *per force*,
King Jamie
Private message from Russia to Turkey:
Hello Hohn
Take your time analyzing the moves. I _know_ the Bla Sea sticks in your
craw, and I'd like to move it; it's just figuring out where. And for
this turn, anyway, its utility might be better used as an extra support
piece, vice a fleet-on-the-coast (Rum or Bul).
But I'm (finally) sensitive to your wishes, and your moves have nothing
to fault them; I'm not trying to sway you with my moves or
anything--just thought a few more options might be nice.
Let me know what you think (tomorrow, per your note), and we can hash it
out.
I've contacted Cal and asked for his plans & ideas. If Edi is really
sweating (and not just faking it), then he's going to pull out all the
stops to hose me by enlisting you (stab time?) or getting Italy to "see
the RT danger" and cool his jets. Frankly, I can't see Cal doing
anything BUT hitting Edi, but Austria is a silver-tongued devil...
Will anticipate your reply tomorrow; thanks.
Mark
Private message from Russia to Turkey:
Hohn,
A quick postscript. Without getting overly gushy, I'd like to thank
you for your style of play and for your willingness (or seeming
willingness) to "stay the course" with Russia this game. Edi (here we
go again!) painted you as THE Wonderchild of the board, an expert, savvy
diplomat (and it's true, naturally, but he overplayed it to bring in the
Unknown Bogeyman fear). From there it was easy to jump on the
bandwagon and try my deeds. Luckily for me, you've played this thing
calmly and rationally, and it's much appreciated up here in St
Petersburg.
I don't know where (if) you ever heard of me (I knew nothing of you,
Jamie or John before we started), but if you did, you'd know I was a
strong alliance player for the first 10 years of my Dip playing. Oh,
I'd stab once every three or four (REAL) years, but my style tended to
gravitate toward 17-17 ties, the feeling of tension as we both tried for
the tie (and looked over our shoulders for a stab), etc. Not really the
'correct' style of play, of course, but I play for fun..._intense_ fun,
but fun nonetheless. If I have an ally--one that I say (and know) is
indeed my ally--then I'm usually the stabee, not the stabber. Only in
the last 4 or 5 years have I tried to be a "normal" player, and
truthfully, I am hideously rusty at stabs and such. I have a lot to
learn regarding timing...but I'll manage -grin-.
Anyway, thanks for the moves, the "up front" philosophy a la Hohn, and
the desire to see this through. Time will tell if you're spoofing me or
if you're sincere, but I sense it's the latter...haven't had anything to
the contrary since game-start! And while I admire the heck out of
everyone this game, it would give me "great joy" to have Edi's greed
repaid in spades.
Thanks.
Mark
Private message from Russia to Turkey:
Hello again Hohn
Thanks for the note. I'm ok. My back was wiped out last Friday, when =
we had a Department party at the ice skating rink. I went on skates =
(and my knees!) for the first time, and then played broomball, a =
tennis-shoe-on-the-ice version of hockey. I fell hard on my back and =
got body-wide muscle spasms, so says the doc. The bottom line: a =
40-year old with a 30-year old mind was trying to act like a 20-year =
old, and "paid the price." I'm now "Mr Medication." Thanks for =
inquiring.
Thanks for the move validations. I'm going to send them in today or =
tomorrow. They're fine, and what I consider "locked and cocked" for RT =
action. I think we're going to wake up the board big-time when this =
happens, Hohn. We should have some fun getting the Observers to rewire =
their jaws after they drop to the ground. (Of course, I haven't seen =
much Observer commentary to date, so perhaps this may be the catalyst.)
Fear not worrying over a "thrid stab." Having failed miserably on the =
first two has been a sobering experience, and having you in a center of =
mine with bad-guy Edi's support has made me a total convert to the need =
for equal partnership. Short of you stabbing me, Russia will be =
extremely harmless (and benevolent) toward his Turkish partner.
What do you do, btw, that you're in at work past midnight? Software =
design? Consulting? Suffice it to say, "I don't envy you." I grade =
papers at home sometimes until 2 a.m., but I consider that "cruel and =
unusual punishment."
=20
The moves below are the ones I'm going with.
RUM-BUL
CON S RUM-BUL
ANK S CON
ARM-SMY
BLA S RUM-BUL
SEV-RUM
UKR S SEV-RUM
GAL-VIE (coupled with Italian VEN S VIE-TRI)
Thanks again for gutting this out, Hohn, and here's to us.
Mark
Private message from Turkey to Master:
Jim,
Thoughts on this past turn and my negotiations prior to the
upcoming turn.
I can't tell you what a thrill it was to demolish Russia's A
RUM. Feelings like that are why I play Diplomacy. Edi came
through, like I was hoping he would. And in light of Cal's
and Mark's perfidy, I suspect Edi will stay with me. I've
tried to paint myself as the only reliable neighbor he has,
which has, aside from Spring 1901, been true. I think he'll
run with that, again, due at least in part to our past
history together.
I didn't particularly like Edi's move to BUL, but he had
disclosed it prior to last turn, so I knew it was coming. I
debated arguing against that move, but I decided that since
whether he would go with me was still very much in doubt, I
didn't want to make any waves. Such is often the fate of a
junior partner. I also figured he could take BUL from me if
he wanted, anyway. As it turns out, if Edi does in fact
stay with me, his army in BUL will be quite useful, so it
hopefully turned out fine.
My diplomatic strategy has consisted of taking an initial
hard line against Mark and Cal (particularly Mark), for
several reasons:
1) I suspected strongly that any flowery messages from me
would be dismissed as less than credible, in light of my
past tone and my poor history so far with Mark;
2) It was kinda fun and satisfying to write those hardline
letters ;) ;
3) I figured the worst case scenario was that I'd antagonize
him and he and I would remain at war, which was no surprise
or big tragedy; and
4) I thought the hardline, coupled with more no-nonsense
talk and concrete proposals (including the "get out of BLA"
bit, which I thought was pretty inspired and believable,
even though I wasn't overly concerned about it) would create
a better chance that Mark might actually follow-through for
once, and make him believe I'd follow through as well. To
be honest, I think he'll believe me. I've spent a lot of
time with him building up my credibility. And now that I
have, I'm going to use it all up, hoping to make a coup in
SEV. If I can blow him out of there, coupled with another
risky move or two, he's going to be hurting. And I'll build
F ANK and blow him out of BLA, too. This is a critical
juncture, and if my gambit fails, well, such is life.
Considering my less-than-ideal position, I have to take some
risks.
Cal has been silent so far. I'm going to call him right
before deadline, in an effort to get him to turn around. Edi
has suggested that I take a "point of honor" type position
with Cal, that I feel compelled to go after Mark in light of
his past perfidy, and I think I agree with Edi, that that's
the right tack. Since I don't know Cal, I'm trusting Edi's
word for it, but since Cal turning around is in Edi's best
interest, I see no reason why Edi would lie to me. As for
the late phone call, I'm hoping that the natural laziness of
all people coupled with perhaps a sense of apathy towards
Mark will prevent him from calling Mark to tip him off. And
I'm hoping that Mark won't be checking his e-mail. ;) Again,
are these meta-game considerations, and perhaps improper
stratagems? Personally, I don't think so, any more than
listing a game to see which particular powers are late and
taking that into consideration is against PBEM rules. Or
submitting two sets of orders (one of which was shown to
another player, ostensibly to "prove" goodwill) in FTF play.
Etc. etc.
Aside from that, I fear Pitt. His growth promises to be
impressive, and I suspect he'll do well in this game. I'm
only hoping I'm around long enough to do something about it.
Hohn
Private message from Turkey to Russia:
Mark,
> How's everything going? I've been hearing from Edi (he apparently
> called Thu night, so he says, and definitely called last night--I slept
> through it due to medication for my back).
What's up with your back? Are you OK?
> So he's serious (qualify
> that term, of course) about trying to keep his comm lines open and
> wheel-and-deal. I'm not buying it, Hohn.
Well, to be fair, I think Edi has a general policy of
calling everyone every turn. Nice to have free phone calls
on Fridays! ;)
> Hopefully you've had a chance to analyze the move proposals; again, I'm
> willing to try just about anything to prove my "change of attitude."
> (Naturally, paranoia runs in when I hear lots from Edi and a little
> silence from you.)
> Let me know what you want to do; I can send the moves anytime before
> Monday.
Sorry; work has been hell lately. I was at work until after
midnight each of the last three days.
Let's go with your proposal. To make sure there's no
confusion, I understand that proposal to be:
RUM-BUL
CON S RUM-BUL
ANK S CON
ARM-SMY
BLA S RUM-BUL
SEV-RUM
UKR S SEV-RUM
GAL-VIE (coupled with Italian VEN S VIE-TRI)
Please confirm.
Although it's probably needless to say, I'll say it anyway:
having been "bitten" once (the second time I didn't bite, so
I won't hold that against you), I obviously won't take
kindly to being bitten again. In fact, that'd pretty much
finish us for the rest of this game, Mark. No, no "pretty
much" about it; it'd definitely finish us, at least as far
as I'm concerned.
But anyway, enough dire predictions. Let's do it. Then,
after Edi's gone, we can roll over Cal as a long-deferred RT
juggernaut. Much to everyone else's shock and amazement, I
suspect. ;)
Hohn
Private message from Russia to Turkey:
Hello Hohn
How's everything going? I've been hearing from Edi (he apparently
called Thu night, so he says, and definitely called last night--I slept
through it due to medication for my back). So he's serious (qualify
that term, of course) about trying to keep his comm lines open and
wheel-and-deal. I'm not buying it, Hohn.
Hopefully you've had a chance to analyze the move proposals; again, I'm
willing to try just about anything to prove my "change of attitude."
(Naturally, paranoia runs in when I hear lots from Edi and a little
silence from you.)
Let me know what you want to do; I can send the moves anytime before
Monday.
Mark
Private message from Russia to Italy:
Hi Cal
No, I don't think you spilled the beans to Edi; in fact, it was more of
a pointed barb at Eng, who cries "foul" quite often, but wouldn't
surprise me as planning our joint demise in the ling run, only to see it
all come apart. I agree that Italy would've benefited MUCH more from
successful Russian moves, vice this last turn setback. My big concern
is AG cooperation. Maybe I'm overly paranoid, but the two "Grand
Masters of the Order" don't seem to worry about their collective
backsides, despite Pitt's earlier big-time worries about an AR attack on
him. And they they surprisingly head in oppositie directions, both to
great gain for themselves. A little unsettling...
I think we're on the right track here. One thing you can think of would
be Ven S Vie-Tri, if we both figure he'll try a bounce on tri or
something,,,might enable me to get into Tri (or Bud), rather than Edi
just bouncing you and standing pat. Much to decide, but I want to hear
if Turjey has anything of merit to mention....I think he may be
malleable for a turn or two, but in the long-run, trust me or you?
yeah, right (and vice versa, of course)!
Hang in there, partner.
Faz
Private message from England to Russia:
Former and Future(?) Allies,
>Whether IR will 'retrospectively' "win English kudos" for making the
>correct move remains to be seen.
'retrospectively' was quoting me. "win English kudos", quoting ...???
All I was saying is that it is much too soon to be insisting that the move
was justified by the outcome. Of course, all moves are justified by their
ultimate outcomes, since this is a game with winners and loser, etc. So the
end always justifies the means, I suppose. All I meant is that the end is
not in sight, so the assessment of the moves is yet unripe.
> Quite honestly, my biggest Dip flaw is
>that i tunnel-vision for the short-term tactical, vice plan for the
>long-term strategic
I'll say!
:-) :-) :-) What a straight line.
>Right now, breaking off to hit Edi, aligned with Cal, was, in my mind,
>both necessary and justified, given Edi's moves.
I know. Ok, ahem, I really didn't mean to harp on this, I really only meant
to register my take on it one time. I know that you both understand my
view, and I don't really have any intention of trying to convince you of
its correctness. I honestly don't want you guys to think I'm off stewing
about it. I'm moving on, too. That's the beauty of the game, huh? It's fun
to get mad, and the dynamics inflame the passions, but it's also easy to
let go of it.
>Hmmm...makes you
>wonder if someone didn't tip him off, or if he was just plain greedy and
>planned this all himself. (I'll go with the latter).
Hey, hey. Just WHAT are you insinuating?
>I will indeed talk to F and point out the logic of having friendly EF
>relations (I've already mentioned--twice--the benefits AND RUSSIAN
>DESIRE--of friendly Franco-Italian relations).
Good, yes, that low-key, general kind of thing seems best. Plant the seed,
let him draw the conclusions himself.
It really does help when the point on which you're trying to convince him
is *true*.
> Pitt is the great
>unknown at this point. If you listen to Edi, he's going to build 2 and
>come a-callin' on me next year. If that happens, Jamie, I've just
>'indirectly' saved you (please, don't thank me now...)
Ok. (Actually, I don't understand what you said, but I know I'm not
supposed to thank you. I also love your construction, "If you listen to
Edi...." I feel that one could fill in the dots there with pretty much any
sentence in English :) "If you listen to Edi, monkeys make the best
diplomats. If you listen to Edi, the moon is made of green cheese. If you
listen to Edi, you're a bigger fool than I ever imagined.")
Yeesh, three more messages since I started typing this one. Interesting,
Cal and I each thought ourselves the target of Mark's insinuation of a 'tip
off', and it turns out he meant Pitt!
Only one other thing from those three recent notes: drawing conclusions
based on a paucity of information distinguishes us from computers?? Only if
we do it well! The only hunch I like here is that Hohn is a good player,
and, well, was that really a hunch? Oh well. I have my own hunches.
Ciao,
GK Jamie
Private message from Italy to Russia:
> Message from [email protected] as Russia to England and Italy in
> 'ghodstoo':
> Having said that, I will revert to a recent Monkees' song, "That was
> then; this is now."
A RECENT song? Hmm, methinx I've missed something...
> Whether IR will 'retrospectively' "win English kudos" for making the
> correct move remains to be seen. Quite honestly, my biggest Dip flaw is
> that i tunnel-vision for the short-term tactical, vice plan for the
> long-term strategic (you think I'd learn after 20+ years...-grin-).
> Right now, breaking off to hit Edi, aligned with Cal, was, in my mind,
> both necessary and justified, given Edi's moves. Hmmm...makes you
> wonder if someone didn't tip him off, or if he was just plain greedy and
> planned this all himself. (I'll go with the latter).
Hmm, was that an accusation? After all, only you and I knew about our
intended moves. Suffice it to say, I categorically deny the charge. I
would have been in much better position had your moves worked.
In my previous note, I mentioned how I acted on a hunch. Well, the
info I based it on was simply this: Hohn is definitely a very good
player.
After the initial Russian/Austrian perfidy in S01, I did not hear word
one from him. Mark said he was getting only static from Turkey. This
leaves only Edi that Hohn could profitably be talking to. Since the
silence stretched out for a couple of turns, this implied that they
were doing a LOT of talking. Since Edi's notes to me were becoming
infrequent, I drew the only conclusion I could. An A/T was in the
works.
Since I was being stone-walled in the west, I thought it was in my best
interest to see that Edi and Hohn did not have a free rein against Mark.
Once he went down, *I* was the obvious next target for A/T. hence my
attack
> Cal, hope you're feeling better (real-life), and that your moves are
> "gainful" for you soon. I will be telling Germany that I'm knee-deep in
> an AT, and that if I go down quick in the Balkans, he'll be faced with
> Edi and Hohn. Could encourage him to join in the "Russian spoils," of
> course, but it may buy time while he futzes with F...or E.
> Anyway, rest assured that I'll try and make the best of this sticky
> wicket for us all. Barring that, I want to make life a living inferno
> for Edi.
A most honourable cause... grin
Regards
Cal
Private message from Russia to Italy:
Guys:
Just commenting on Cal's last entry in his note (below):
>Pitt contacted me and said that he and I have "interesting possibilities
>to discuss". I'll wait to see what he has in mind before deciding how to
>approach him about easing off on you.
** My only concern is that, somehow at the bottom of this all, my
reassurances to Pitt about not attacking him were passed on to Edi, thus
giving Edi the "alert" that the plan was changing. What's the big
deal? I don't put it past Edi & Pitt doing the "diverging expansion"
routine and really being the ultimate allies here,
Cal, please be careful about what exactly you deal with Pitt on (I know,
I'm preaching to the choir), and make sure he doesn't completely
"dilute" your anti-Aus attack. if he's pro-Aus, he might talk you away
from hitting Edi by offering golden fleece in France or elsewhere.....
But whatever you can gain--from whomever--have at it, mon ami!
Hang in there, GKJ.
Tsar Faz
Private message from Italy to Master:
> Message from [email protected] as England to Italy and Russia in
> 'ghodstoo':
> I think it's quite obvious that the present situation is worse for all four
> of us than the situation would have been if all four of us had continued
> with the plan. I blame you collectively, not individually. I thought the
> 'put on an unusual show' ethos was a good one, and that it would be a much
> better game, and certainly better for *us* if all four of us had taken it
> seriously.
Oh, I agree. I certainly wish the QC was still going strong and Edi HAD
hit
Germany and Mark & I HADN'T had to make our pre-emptive strikes.
Unfortunately, that's all in the past. This is a (VERY) fast flowing
game
and we "gots to go wid the flow".
> Given that the two of you broke away, I certainly agree that Edi's move was
> a good for him (and mutatis mutandis for Russia's moves, and also but
> somewhat less clearly for your moves, Cal).
>
> Whether these moves will turn out to be in your 'enlightened
> self-interests' remains to be seen. I believe you have reached your
> conclusion with a severe paucity of information, always dangerous. If you
> win, I'll retrospectively grant your point. Off hand, my best guess is that
> you have just *diminished* your chance of a good ending. But it's awfully
> hard to say at this point.
Well, reaching a conclusion with a paucity of information is what makes
us
different from computers, no? Whether we acted on full info or not,
both
Mark and I had a feeling that Edi was going to do something distinctly
non-kosher last turn. We acted on this hunch and it turned out we were
right.
I've been playing this game for 24 years and I've learned to listen to
my
hunches.
> Gosh, it's becoming pretty clear that we don't have much of anything real
> to say to each other now, huh? Maybe the General Theory of Diplomacy is
> better discussed in the Newsgroup.
Perhaps AFTER the game... grin
> >I wish you luck and will do (diplomatically) what I can to help.
I've already written to France and suggested that Pitt is about to grow
too strong too fast. Since this game has been very much a case of
"stop the (perceived) leader", I can only hope he'll go for it (or at
least
consider it...).
Pitt contacted me and said that he and I have "interesting possibilities
to discuss". I'll wait to see what he has in mind before deciding how to
approach him about easing off on you.
Later
Cal
Private message from Italy to Master:
> Message from [email protected] as France to Italy in 'ghodstoo':
>
> My forces will all be well away from you. If I do by chance gain another
> fleet, I intend that it quickly set sail for Liverpool.
As I said in my last note, I can't stop you so I have to hope you're
telling me the truth.
> To tell you the truth, though, the observer comment that all the goings-on
> in the west are a ruse to take me out even faster had crossed my mind as
> well. So this all may be moot.
For what it's worth, England has been deluging me with "Life is so
unfair" notes, so I doubt that the "fix" is in.
I don't know how you play the game in terms of dealing with him wot just
stabbed you, but have you thought about trying to work with England?
The way the game is shaping up now, Germany is going to be the REAL
power on the board in about a year. Once England is gone, Russia is
probably Germany's next target, but how long can he afford to have you
behind him? This is going to be hell's own "balance of power" style
game, so you really ought to
consider what I've said.
Regards
Cal
Private message from Russia to Germany:
Hi Pitt
I apologize for the delay in writing anything "meaty" to you as of late.
Classes are rather involved right about now (testing, papers, etc), and
free time is minimal. Hope you're feeling better, btw.
Edi has been burning up the phone lines to try and get me to 'see the G
danger', "give him freedom of maneuever," etc etc. He wants me out of
GAL, wants me to rebuild in WAR, put two on you in 1903, and allow him
the leverage he needs to take care of Turkey. Who's he been kidding?
As I see it, I've got a hostile Turkey (he and I have exchanged some
blistering letters), a weasel in Austria, and an unknown quantity in
Italy. (Yes, I expect Italy to hit GRE and TRi this turn--at least I'm
hoping for that! But Edi IS a silver-tongued devil...). Edi tells me
you're a "vulture" player who will sense my weakenss and send forces vs
me next year. I don't buy that, and I figure you'll prefer a
strong(er) Russia holding off AT, vice a house-of-cards Russia that dies
while you're pestering E and/or F.
Eng is upset; France non-committal, and the East is, well, the East.
Hence my desire for RG stability and continued friendship. I hope you
see it the same way.
Well, anyway, time's up; I have tests to collate. Take care, and let me
know how you see things.
Best
Mark
Private message from Russia to Italy:
Gentle People
The news isn't the best, and I agree that the QC would've been MUCH
better for us all had it continued. And the game would've had a certain
joi de vivre of 'difference' from the same-old startup alliances and
whatnot.
Having said that, I will revert to a recent Monkees' song, "That was
then; this is now."
Whether IR will 'retrospectively' "win English kudos" for making the
correct move remains to be seen. Quite honestly, my biggest Dip flaw is
that i tunnel-vision for the short-term tactical, vice plan for the
long-term strategic (you think I'd learn after 20+ years...-grin-).
Right now, breaking off to hit Edi, aligned with Cal, was, in my mind,
both necessary and justified, given Edi's moves. Hmmm...makes you
wonder if someone didn't tip him off, or if he was just plain greedy and
planned this all himself. (I'll go with the latter).
I will indeed talk to F and point out the logic of having friendly EF
relations (I've already mentioned--twice--the benefits AND RUSSIAN
DESIRE--of friendly Franco-Italian relations). Pitt is the great
unknown at this point. If you listen to Edi, he's going to build 2 and
come a-callin' on me next year. If that happens, Jamie, I've just
'indirectly' saved you (please, don't thank me now...)
Cal, hope you're feeling better (real-life), and that your moves are
"gainful" for you soon. I will be telling Germany that I'm knee-deep in
an AT, and that if I go down quick in the Balkans, he'll be faced with
Edi and Hohn. Could encourage him to join in the "Russian spoils," of
course, but it may buy time while he futzes with F...or E.
Anyway, rest assured that I'll try and make the best of this sticky
wicket for us all. Barring that, I want to make life a living inferno
for Edi.
Best
Tsar Faz
Private message from England to Russia:
>I really don't think that guilt trips are part of the game, at least not
>at this level.
No kidding! Well, go figure, there's a significant difference between us, then.
I think practically anything a person could say is part of this game.
When I'm betrayed, I'll complain about it, too, you can bet on that! You
are free to call it 'guilt trips' if you like, of course, that's also part
of the game.
> This is a game of enlightened self-interest, and you
>certainly
>can't discard the fact that all three of us, Edi, Mark and myself were
>RIGHT
>in the moves we made.
:)
In a way.
I think it's quite obvious that the present situation is worse for all four
of us than the situation would have been if all four of us had continued
with the plan. I blame you collectively, not individually. I thought the
'put on an unusual show' ethos was a good one, and that it would be a much
better game, and certainly better for *us* if all four of us had taken it
seriously.
Given that the two of you broke away, I certainly agree that Edi's move was
a good for him (and mutatis mutandis for Russia's moves, and also but
somewhat less clearly for your moves, Cal).
Whether these moves will turn out to be in your 'enlightened
self-interests' remains to be seen. I believe you have reached your
conclusion with a severe paucity of information, always dangerous. If you
win, I'll retrospectively grant your point. Off hand, my best guess is that
you have just *diminished* your chance of a good ending. But it's awfully
hard to say at this point.
Gosh, it's becoming pretty clear that we don't have much of anything real
to say to each other now, huh? Maybe the General Theory of Diplomacy is
better discussed in the Newsgroup.
>I wish you luck and will do (diplomatically) what I can to help.
That hadn't occurred to me. Thanks for the offer. Let me think....
If you get a chance, the line to sell Pitt is probably that you expect to
be tied up against Austria and Turkey indefinitely, and that the faster he
can arrange to tackle Austria, the better. Hm. It's delicate. Well, my main
idea is that if Pitt wants centers *fast*, he should go for them in France;
but if he wants a *lot* of centers and doesn't care about how soon they
come, he should just dismantle me instead. So I'd like other diplomats to
suggest that Pitt should feel in a hurry. There are all kinds of reasons he
might have, of course. He might think that Russia will be done with Austria
sooner than it appears and has Germany in mind. Or he might think that
Austria will be held still for a couple of years and that the way to cross
the stalemate line is to prepare to invade Vienna before the southeast
gells.
The line for France, I dunno. Ok, I'll tell you what my line was. I pointed
out that Germany would be a huge power, and a huge threat, if the present
tendencies continue, and asked whether he (John) thought he'd be allowed to
keep Paris. My feeling here is that it really is in France's best interests
to make peace with England, but that he (quite reasonably) doesn't trust me
any farther than he can throw me. Hm. Maybe Mark would be a better person
to approach France. He could express grave worries about Germany, and
speculate that if things go ok for a while Russia would be glad to prevent
England, which would be a relatively small power even in the best
situation, from stabbing France (again). Well, anything either of you can
think of would be appreciated. I wrote to both Pitt and John, but they
aren't responding.
GK Jamie
Private message from France to Italy:
My forces will all be well away from you. If I do by chance gain another
fleet, I intend that it quickly set sail for Liverpool.
To tell you the truth, though, the observer comment that all the goings-on
in the west are a ruse to take me out even faster had crossed my mind as
well. So this all may be moot.
John
France
Private message from Italy to Master:
Hopefully, this won't be as incoherent as I feel right now...
> Message from [email protected] as Russia to Italy in 'ghodstoo':
>
> Hi Cal,
> Just wanted to drop a short note and say THANKS AGAIN for moving as you
> did. I think it's pretty obvious from Edi's moves that we did the right
> thing (Eng's previous e-mail note notwithstanding).
You're welcome. :)
> I think we should press to have Turkey work with us vs Edi. Yes, it
> will cause him growth, but hopefully delayed growth, and thus give us
> both time to maximize our tactical position and get stuff ourselves. I
> say this without knowing Turkey's true intentions--for all I know, there
> could be a long-term AT being played out right now, to crush us while
> we're apart. But if I have to vouch for the devil (T) to fight Hitler
> (A), then I'll do it on a temporary basis....one foe at a time.
I agree. Despite your "exchange" with Hohn, he seems at least willing
to
consider an attack on Edi. I have a gut feeling he WON'T however, as
he'll
decide not to trust us again. I will keep working on him as best as I
can.
> We have to think of good moves for you. The logical ones are Ion-Gre
> and Ven-Tri, for they force Edi to use two of his units to cover (or
> risk having you take them).
>
> Another otion is for you to do:
> Ion C Apu-Alb
> Ven S Vie (or Bud)-Tri, figuring he might try and stand you out...of
> course, then it's a guessing game.
>
> This move would be in conjunction with "nasty" press to Edi from you,
> making it unequivocal that you're going to those centers. The idea
> being, Edi covers uselessly, while you get ALB and force Gre or Tri in
> '03.
>
> Another idea is for you to "see the light," to fall in with Edi's logic,
> and realize how silly you were to listen to Faz or Jamie, and how the
> Birsan Way is the enlightened way, etc etc...in other words, tell him
> that you and he should make a team vs RT.. AND THEN STAB HIM!
> Edi will either seriously clutch at your straw (and you thus hose him),
> or he will still cover against you anyway, but now you've made him spend
> double the anguish in trying to decipher your goodwill. Mind game
> stuff.
I'm already trying to sell Edi on the idea of he and I working together
against Hohn. I told him my moves last turn were simply, in my mind,
pre-emptive and that I hadn't done him any real physical harm. I'll let
you know if he bites.
In the meantime, the moves I'm favouring are f ion-adr; f tyn-ion; a
ven-tri;
a nap-apu, but that's far from final yet.
> I'll help you anyway I can, Cal. The rat made the right moves last
> time, which precludes us from easy, adjacent-force grabs together...at
> least for this year. But we need to finish him off, AND for you and
> France to achieve a single alliance vs G in the long run. I would think
> John would be glad to expel someone with two units in his home country,
> and who may grow even more next fall....
I'm talking to both John & Pitt right now, but I don't know how good it
looks.
John has already asked me if I'd mind if he'd build F Mar so as to take
it to
Mid and fight against England (yeah, uh huh, right). I'm still waiting
to
hear from Pitt (he did write and say he'd talk to me when I'm feeling
better).
Talk to you soon
Cal
Private message from Italy to Master:
> Message from [email protected] as Germany to Italy in 'ghodstoo':
>
> >I'm a little late getting replies back to the flood of letters I'm
> >getting. My apologies but, out of respect for Pitt's illness last turn,
>
> You are too kind...;-)
No shit. WAY too kind... grin
> >I am currently suffering a rather nasty bout of upper respiratory
> >infection. Hopefully, I'll be coherent enough to get back to everybody by
> >the weekend.
>
> I hope you're feeling better soon. Drop me a line as soon as you're up to
> it. I think we have some interesting possibilities to dicuss.
Thanx guy. At the moment, I'm not feeling too bad, so I'm trying to get
at
least a few letters cleared up.
I think the rather drastic moves in the East last turn have put you in
the
driver's seat for this game (of course, the way this game has played,
who knows
how long THAT will last, eh?). Since I don't see this as threatening to
me, at
least in the short term, I'd be quite willing for us to work together,
even
if it's only at the strategic level for now.
Probably of most importance to me at this time is the disposition of
France
once England is out of the way. Should he continue to work with you,
his
next obvious route of expansion is thru the Med toward ME. I don't find
this particularly appealing, to say the least. Any suggestions (he
said slyly...)?
later
Cal
Private message from Italy to Master:
Second attempt: first try got sent (?) before I was finished.
> Message from [email protected] as France to Italy in 'ghodstoo':
>
> I am quite pleased to see that peace has been restored between us. As you
> might expect, I have been asked to move against you already, but you may be
> assured that no such thing will transpire. However, I do wish to secure
> your blessings for one thing. In the event that I prosper this Fall, which
> is by no means assured, I may want to build F Mar. This might appear
> dangerous to Italy, but you can see that I have no other option for
> building a fleet with which to reoccupy Mid-Atlantic Ocean.
>
> If this creates misgivings for you, please contact me. Although it is
> strictly hypothetical at this point, I don't want to cause renewed problems
> between us on any account.
Um, well, yeah, it would create BIG TIME misgivings for me. Given the
way the
game has progressed so far, it would seem obvious that, if you stick
with
Germany, your next move after England would be to come back through the
Med.
I would have a very hard time seeing a French fleet in the Med so
quickly.
However, there's little I can do about it. As hard as Edi is trying to
get
me to turn BACK against you, I don't consider that a viable option. My
lot
is now cast where it probably should have been right from the start - in
the East. Therefore, if you build a fleet in Marseilles, I have little
to
say about it. If you think you'll have to make that fleet build, I'd
feel
more comfortable if the rest of your forces were as committed as
possible
in the north.
Anyway, this is about as much writing as my health will allow. Forgive
me
if it seems a bit incoherent. Coherency isn't my strong point right now.
:)
Regards
Cal
Private message from Italy to Master:
> Message from [email protected] as France to Italy in 'ghodstoo':
>
> I am quite pleased to see that peace has been restored between us. As you
> might expect, I have been asked to move against you already, but you may be
> assured that no such thing will transpire. However, I do wish to secure
> your blessings for one thing. In the event that I prosper this Fall, which
> is by no means assured, I may want to build F Mar. This might appear
> dangerous to Italy, but you can see that I have no other option for
> building a fleet with which to reoccupy Mid-Atlantic Ocean.
>
> If this creates misgivings for you, please contact me. Although it is
> strictly hypothetical at this point, I don't want to cause renewed problems
> between us on any account.
Oh yeah, BIG time misgivings, but then I can hardly stop you, can I?
Even with the re-establishment of a neutral zone between us, a fleet in
the Med
Private message from Italy to Master:
> Message from [email protected] as England to Italy and Russia in
> 'ghodstoo':
> Look, I do think it is just a *bit* disappointing that after all the cute
> words about how nice it would be to put together an unusual and interesting
> opening for a demo game, ALL THREE OF YOU dumped the plan in one year when
> it looked like it might not be ideally to your advantages. And now you're
> just bogged down in a stale-looking battle, which you certainly could have
> done right from S1901 and not left me in this hideous position. Frankly, I
> think you're all three getting what you deserve! Sadly for me, I am also
> getting what I deserve for getting sucked into the fairy tale. Oh well,
> live and learn!
I really don't think that guilt trips are part of the game, at least not
at
this level. This is a game of enlightened self-interest, and you
certainly
can't discard the fact that all three of us, Edi, Mark and myself were
RIGHT
in the moves we made. If Edi hadn't made the moves he did, he'd be
toast
right now. Same goes for Mark and for me (although if *I* hadn't moved
the
way I did, it would also be Mark who would be in trouble. Okay, BIGGER
trouble)
> For my part now, I am trying to convince Hohn Cho that although Russia is
> obviously not to be trusted for a nanosecond, it's not as though Edi is the
> perfect choice for a steadfast ally either. As far as I can tell, Hohn is
> on the fence. I'll play the weak, low cards I have left to tip him against
> Austria.
As Mark said, this would be appreciated.
> And, needless to say, I'm saying everything I can think of to convince
> France that despite my opening viciousness I'm the lesser of two evils (and
> would certainly be the smaller of two evils) between his northern
> neighbors; and I'm even trying to convince Pitt that he could, with my
> help, swallow huge gulps of supply centers on the continent and be rapidly
> ready to smash into Austria and be the endgame's front-runner, trying to
> present that as an alternative to sacking my possessions. On these topics
> (G and F) my assessment is that my efforts have been less than successful.
> But we shall see.
I wish you luck and will do (diplomatically) what I can to help. Right
now,
I'd have to say that Pitt is in the driver's seat of this game. Of
course,
THAT has changed every turn so far... :)
> Oh, Edi has told me that my best chance would be to convince Cal to change
> his mind again and go for France. So, sure, I hereby advise Cal that that's
> what he ought to be doing now.
Advise noted....
Regards (coff, coff)
Cal
Private message from Germany to France:
>How about if I slide Mar over to Gas or Spa? I can be fighting for Mid
>next fall rather than waiting for a build in the following year.
Sounds fine with me.
Good luck.
-Pitt
Private message from Germany to Italy:
>I'm a little late getting replies back to the flood of letters I'm
>getting. My apologies but, out of respect for Pitt's illness last turn,
You are too kind...;-)
>I am currently suffering a rather nasty bout of upper respiratory
>infection. Hopefully, I'll be coherent enough to get back to everybody by
>the weekend.
I hope you're feeling better soon. Drop me a line as soon as you're up to
it. I think we have some interesting possibilities to dicuss.
-Pitt
Private message from Turkey to Russia:
Mark,
> TUR: Rum-Bul (Con S) RUS: Bla S Rum-Bul
> Smy-Arm Sev-Rum (Gal S), or vice versa
(ARM-SMY, certainly) ;)
> Ank S Con Gal-Vie (if Italy does Ven S Vie-Tri)
> This move plays it conservatively, but instead of "wasting" BLA as a
> convoy train, gives you an extra "oomph" against retaking BUL. If Edi
Hmm.
Hmm.
Well, I kind of hate the idea of still having you in BLA (I
thought the convoy thing might have been worth the
risk...but then I also might have just been fixating on the
neatness of the idea of a convoy, too).
The moves does have its merits, though.
Tell you what: let me think about it. I like this one best
out of all of the ones I've seen you propose. The thing I
like about it is that I'm almost guaranteed BUL, and between
you, me and Cal, Edi just _can't_ protect everything. The
only question that remains is whether I like any of the
moves that _I_ proposed any better. ;)
I'll get back to you tomorrow.
Hohn
After that long discussion concerning observer press there seems to be a
roaring silence. Let me for one change that...
Executive Summary of Spring 1902 position
I don't know what the heck is going on here.
Discussion
Subject 1. The West
At first I thought that England and Germany were going to beat the crap out of
France and leave his bones to the vultures by 1903. Now it looks like Germany
is going to be dining on roast beef and Yorkshire pudding. How else to
explain DEN-NTH and the attack on BEL?
If E defends EDI with NWG and Germany lets him move back then R can move
NOR-NWG. And then EDI is lost soon enough.
BEL is lost no matter what E does.
BRE is lost no matter what E does. Unless G helps defend it, and if G is now
out for E, then why should he help. So BRE is lost.
Or is this all just a planned ruse to deceive the French?
Subject 2. Italy
What does Italy want? At first I thought that I was allied with A against T.
Then I thought I was heading west to get some French wine.
Now it looks like Italy has a hankering for some Vienna pastry.
But could there be a convoy NAP-ION-AEG-SMY in store? I don't think so.
If I and A were in cahoots I would have expected PIE-TYR (then TYR-BOH) rather
than PIE-VEN.
Subject 3. The East
Looks like A has turned T's initial attack on R into an alliance.
But it looks like I is riding to R's rescue. (See above.)
Well I certainly have a headache about now. Where are the aspirin?
God I love this game.
Ken
Private message from Italy to Master:
Didn't want to post this for all the world to see.
The gf and I are currently having a dispute with the phone company, not
about cash, but about something else that has resulted in our phone
service getting disconnected. If you wish to reach me, you have a chance
if you call me on my cell phone at 416 560 9206. If I'm close enough to
hear it, I'll answer; if not, please try later.
Thanx
Cal
I'm a little late getting replies back to the flood of letters I'm
getting. My apologies but, out of respect for Pitt's illness last turn,
I am currently suffering a rather nasty bout of upper respiratory
infection. Hopefully, I'll be coherent enough to get back to everybody by
the weekend.
Thanx
Cal
Private message from Russia to Italy:
Hi Cal,
Just wanted to drop a short note and say THANKS AGAIN for moving as you
did. I think it's pretty obvious from Edi's moves that we did the right
thing (Eng's previous e-mail note notwithstanding).
I think we should press to have Turkey work with us vs Edi. Yes, it
will cause him growth, but hopefully delayed growth, and thus give us
both time to maximize our tactical position and get stuff ourselves. I
say this without knowing Turkey's true intentions--for all I know, there
could be a long-term AT being played out right now, to crush us while
we're apart. But if I have to vouch for the devil (T) to fight Hitler
(A), then I'll do it on a temporary basis....one foe at a time.
We have to think of good moves for you. The logical ones are Ion-Gre
and Ven-Tri, for they force Edi to use two of his units to cover (or
risk having you take them).
Another otion is for you to do:
Ion C Apu-Alb
Ven S Vie (or Bud)-Tri, figuring he might try and stand you out...of
course, then it's a guessing game.
This move would be in conjunction with "nasty" press to Edi from you,
making it unequivocal that you're going to those centers. The idea
being, Edi covers uselessly, while you get ALB and force Gre or Tri in
'03.
Another idea is for you to "see the light," to fall in with Edi's logic,
and realize how silly you were to listen to Faz or Jamie, and how the
Birsan Way is the enlightened way, etc etc...in other words, tell him
that you and he should make a team vs RT.. AND THEN STAB HIM!
Edi will either seriously clutch at your straw (and you thus hose him),
or he will still cover against you anyway, but now you've made him spend
double the anguish in trying to decipher your goodwill. Mind game
stuff.
I'll help you anyway I can, Cal. The rat made the right moves last
time, which precludes us from easy, adjacent-force grabs together...at
least for this year. But we need to finish him off, AND for you and
France to achieve a single alliance vs G in the long run. I would think
John would be glad to expel someone with two units in his home country,
and who may grow even more next fall....
Take care; let me know what you think. Death to Austria!
Tsar Faz
Private message from Russia to Italy:
Gents
Thanks for GKJ's last missive. Edi has been burning the comm lines to
me more in one day, than he did when we were "allied." He now wants to
call me because "obviously, we aren't in sync on this, and he wants room
to maneuver." And, oh, btw, "RUM is lost (to Russia) for now." So says
he.
Hohn and I have had some severe words (all within game constraints,
natch), but I may see light at the end of the tunnel. The ideal world
is having him and Edi blow their mutual brains out, but for now I'd take
him on and have Edi dealt a crippling blow.
Edi's latest notes are a scream to read. I am the one who "stabbed"
three of my four neighbors. I Edi really "hasn't done anything to
Turkey, and vice versa," and, given my intransigence, he's going to
'stick with Turkey for the time being until things cool down.' His
going-in position: no mention of gains for me; Edi possibly grabs Rum
(in addition to BUL), and he wants me to (a) call off Cal, and (b) get
out of GAL. His moves? Who knows? I wonder why I even got suckered
into this.
Jamie, the "abandonment" of the QC by RI was timed for max effect
against Edi. YES, it did leave you high and dry. But when were we
going to hit Edi? 1903? 1904? Would I even be alive by 1904? Would
Cal? Better to strangle the Bolshevik baby in its crib early, than to
let it grow to adulthood. If Cal fights for his fifth vs France (with
unchecked AT growth in his rear), or if he fights for it in conjunction
with me (and keeps AT suppressed), the rational act was to get Edi now.
The fact that the QC fell apart in one big "poof!" as opposed to a
whimper, is an unfortunate byline that I gleefully throw back in
accusation at Edi.
Please continue to work on Turkey to help us kill Edi. Italy is pretty
much committed now, I would think, unless (until?) FG link up. I would
HOPE that adroit EI diplomacy can blame everything on Edi, and convince
France of the need for one/both of you to help 'bulwark' against the
rising Hun threat...heck, blame me and send him/them eastward; I don't
have much else occupying my time.
The only (bitter) satisfaction of all this is seeing Edi squirm (at
least it seems that way) by trying to offer half-a**ed options while
coveting everything, and having me so 'no' for five straight e-mail
replies. I also told him not to waste the dime (for his call) if he is
just going to weasel-word the same pap over and over again. Should
prove interesting.
Tsar Faz
Under Siege III, The Sequel
Private message from France to Italy:
I am quite pleased to see that peace has been restored between us. As you
might expect, I have been asked to move against you already, but you may be
assured that no such thing will transpire. However, I do wish to secure
your blessings for one thing. In the event that I prosper this Fall, which
is by no means assured, I may want to build F Mar. This might appear
dangerous to Italy, but you can see that I have no other option for
building a fleet with which to reoccupy Mid-Atlantic Ocean.
If this creates misgivings for you, please contact me. Although it is
strictly hypothetical at this point, I don't want to cause renewed problems
between us on any account.
John
France
Private message from France to Germany:
How about if I slide Mar over to Gas or Spa? I can be fighting for Mid
next fall rather than waiting for a build in the following year.
I will contact Italy about this. I don't think he will object.
Private message from England to Russia:
That press from R to A was a bit hard to decipher. Fortunately, Faz's
sentences are readily identifiable without ***'s.
Edi told me several times that he thought I was threatening the 'stability'
of the Quad by being unreasonable in my dispute with Italy over Portugal. I
told him straight out that there was no such dispute, that there was at one
point some disagreement but rapidly resolved. I don't think any of us have
much doubt that he was just supplying rationalizations in advance for what
he knew all along that he wanted to do. Similarly, he reported to me that
Russia was 'unstable', that he (you) (Faz) had told him that what you
really wanted to do was to build F Stp(nc). Edi said he was very worried
about this. Again, I find it a bit insulting that he expected me to swallow
that line.
Look, I do think it is just a *bit* disappointing that after all the cute
words about how nice it would be to put together an unusual and interesting
opening for a demo game, ALL THREE OF YOU dumped the plan in one year when
it looked like it might not be ideally to your advantages. And now you're
just bogged down in a stale-looking battle, which you certainly could have
done right from S1901 and not left me in this hideous position. Frankly, I
think you're all three getting what you deserve! Sadly for me, I am also
getting what I deserve for getting sucked into the fairy tale. Oh well,
live and learn!
For my part now, I am trying to convince Hohn Cho that although Russia is
obviously not to be trusted for a nanosecond, it's not as though Edi is the
perfect choice for a steadfast ally either. As far as I can tell, Hohn is
on the fence. I'll play the weak, low cards I have left to tip him against
Austria.
And, needless to say, I'm saying everything I can think of to convince
France that despite my opening viciousness I'm the lesser of two evils (and
would certainly be the smaller of two evils) between his northern
neighbors; and I'm even trying to convince Pitt that he could, with my
help, swallow huge gulps of supply centers on the continent and be rapidly
ready to smash into Austria and be the endgame's front-runner, trying to
present that as an alternative to sacking my possessions. On these topics
(G and F) my assessment is that my efforts have been less than successful.
But we shall see.
Oh, Edi has told me that my best chance would be to convince Cal to change
his mind again and go for France. So, sure, I hereby advise Cal that that's
what he ought to be doing now.
Your erstwhile ally,
Gentle King Jamie
Private message from England to Germany:
You know, you could quite easily take Paris and Belgium this turn. If I
ordered Bre-Gas, I mean. And, supposing your fleet were also to position
itself next to Sweden, I don't think there would be much of a problem
getting you Sweden next year. If I were to get that fleet into MAO, I can't
see how you'd have much trouble getting Marseilles very rapidly, either.
I'd come out of that process looking pretty good, all things considered.
Not as well off as you'd be (but that's part of the point!). And you might
not get quite as many centers that way as you would by gutting my
possessions... but you'd get them a lot quicker, ready for action against
Austria or Russia, whether they were preparing to strike you or not.
What I'm trying to think of, generally speaking, is a proposal which would
increase your chance of winning and also increase my chance of making it to
the endgame. If I can't do that, well, then I don't think I'll make it to
the endgame!
And I do want to. Because I would dearly love to sail into St. Petersburg
some day bearing a dagger with dried blood all over it, and present it to
the Tsar with a little note about Norway. And if it could be managed, I'd
also like to bring a little message to the Cosa Nostra in Sicily. As I said
last note, some betrayals I can understand even if I don't agree with the
reasoning behind them, but others are just ugly and deserve punishment. To
put it another way, the reason I didn't expect Russia and Italy (and
Austria, in that inscrutable way I'm sure he had but the details of which
have yet escaped me) to stick me in this horrible situation is that I
thought it would be foolish of them to do so. And I'd like to prove to them
that I was right. I'm hoping you'll think this might be to your advantage.
Cheers!
Gentle King Jamie
> Broadcast message from [email protected] as Italy in 'ghodstoo':
>
> I'm a little late getting replies back to the flood of letters I'm
> getting. My apologies but, out of respect for Pitt's illness last turn,
> I am currently suffering a rather nasty bout of upper respiratory
> infection. Hopefully, I'll be coherent enough to get back to everybody by
> the weekend.
>
> Thanx
>
> Cal
>
Wow, and I understand Mark is on medication after a back injury last
weekend. Is this a sick ward or a Diplomacy game??? I may regret
before long that I'm not the right kind of Doctor to be Gming this
game. I will remind everyone that the default deadline always is
a goal, but the nature of E-Mail and the speed of the games requires
flexibility --- not to mention the fact that this game is intended
to be a showcase. In other words, if these illnesses/medicated
woozyness, or vacations and other such travel stuff, require you
to ask for additional days or two to negotiate, please do not hesitate
to ask. I don't even need to announce reasons for short one-two
day delays.
Your friendly GM, just catching up with all the messages,
Jim
PS remember that I'm reading all of the messages (or at least
skimming them) as we go.
Private message from England to France:
Dear M. President,
I would like to tell you a story.
Once upon a time, England was trying to decide what country to visit first.
The Germans suggested France. The Italians and Russians and Austrians
together came up with an unusual plan, one which involved Russia and
Austria attacking Turkey, Italy and England attacking France, and then
various members of this group attacking Germany all together. Well, who
knows? But given the state of the world, England thought a visit to France
looked best, practically mandatory. Trying to cover the bases, England
tried hard to stay on good terms with Germany, too, just to see what would
happen.
Sadly (for England), not a single one of the aforementioned schemers was
sincere. Imagine! Lying, in Diplomacy! One can scarcely believe such a
thing could happen. But there you have it. All of a sudden, England found
herself betrayed by at least three allies, and really four, if you count
Austria. Probably you do not know how it feels to find all of one's
neighbors, and even some non-neighbors, suddenly and unexpectedly aligned
against one. Do you?
Not that the story amounts to an *excuse*, or even that it provides much of
a reason for France to forgive and/or forget, but I just thought I'd share
it.
I don't feel entitled to ask you drop all grudges and forsake various
possible benefits of an attack on English shores, so I won't. But, I think
I won't bother defending Brest (though I'm not completely sure I won't),
and I have no idea whether you're expecting Germany to lay off Paris. If
the prospect of a really gigantic (seven center?) Germany is frightening
enough to overwhelm and overcome other motivations and thoughts, you should
know that I am as ready as could be to return what is rightfully yours and
direct all future forces against (to defend against) Germany.
Gently, as ever,
King Jamie
Private message from Russia to Turkey:
Hi Hohn
Have reviewed some moves -- we're pretty much thinking alike here.
I looked at "mutating" the orders we've both bantied around, and came up
with something like this:
TUR: Rum-Bul (Con S) RUS: Bla S Rum-Bul
Smy-Arm Sev-Rum (Gal S), or vice versa
Ank S Con Gal-Vie (if Italy does Ven S Vie-Tri)
This move plays it conservatively, but instead of "wasting" BLA as a
convoy train, gives you an extra "oomph" against retaking BUL. If Edi
covers vs Gre, then you're guarenteed BUL back with this option. My two
on RUM either gets it for me, or lets me keep it "by default," in the
event Edi somehow puts two in it himself. With this option, you're
closer to 'home" in BUL (as I am in RUM), instead of having our armies
flip-flopped in reverse provinces (altho' they can admittedly be easily
swapped out later).
The GAL thing is a crapshoot. It could go to BUD (to bust any
supports), do the Vie thing, I don't know.
Another, more "gutsy" option is:
Rum-Bud (Gal S)
Ukr-Rum
Sev-Bla-Bul (Con S)
Smy-Arm
Ank S Con
I haven't even BEGUN to figure out who would gain what, given all the
permutations associated with the move. But a 'first cut" shows it might
have a surprise factor (regarding BUD), as well as potentially hurting
BUL and/or bouncing RUM.
Again, these are two parallel options to the ones you proposed. I'm
game for just about anything, but wanted to float these by you...your
opinions?
Oh, btw, Edi wrote again (interesting how he has written more in 2 days
than he has since the game started...). Said he wants to call me
tonight or tomorrow. Quote: "I am going to be staying with the Turk
until I feel comfortable with Russia..." Says he's trying to keep
options open, but it's obvious we're not on the same wavelength...If and
when he calls, rest assured I'll clue you in.
Again, I welcome comment and/or critique of these proposals.
Mark
Private message from Russia to Turkey:
Hohn:
Am in receipt of your last note, with the moves at the end. I will
cease with my "comments to the comments," as I'm sure we're both tired
of "moral one-upmanship" or arguing our various points. I know I am.
(My one last observation, though: if you were in court and said "I
plead the Fifth" three times, the jury would look askance at the
utterances. Yet your last note had three "I'm afraid I can't comment
about that" kind of statements. Reticence about saying anything to a
former stabber? Understood. Confidence-builders for a future alliance?
Not.) Not that the "Hohn-and-Edi" show has some secret plan to fool
us all and kick butt as a permanent AT (at least I'm praying "it ain't
so!"), but anything's possible, I guess. (I know, "I'm afraid I can't
comment...)
I have the moves printed out, and will look them over in between
classes, getting back to you later today; ok?
Edi wrote again. Says that since I'm the stabber of three of my four
neighbors, I should be the one to initiate goodwill, and that he needs
room to grow and to "keep the alliance he has now, and its options."
("...and, btw, RUM is lost to Russia for now.") I asked him if his
memory was really so bad that he, Edi, was the one who volunteered the
"hit T and G" plan, then advised me to build F StP(nc) in '02, rather
than hit Germany! He has offered nothing except "get out Gal and get
Italy off my back." That's pap. Frankly, I'd love an RT, just to see
the Master sweat with no friends in the neighborhood...
If you guys stay tight, then an RI is a necessity, and I'll go down
fighting. If you're serious about an RT (and there's little doubt right
now that you aren't), then Italy is useful to the death of Austria, but
not going to obstruct an RT. That's a fact from the tsar. We have big
potential here.
Let me review the stuff, and thanks for writing quickly and with
positivist feedback, Hohn.
Mark
Private message from Germany to France:
>That went nicely. Thanks for coming through.
And I thank you. It was a leap of faith for both of us. I hope that it;'s
teh start of a strong alliance.
>I was not counting on Italy turning east, but it's a nice bonus.
Yes, indeed. And, frankly, it's for the best for both of us. If he keeps
Edi occupied, perhaps he'll have less time to think of interesting ways to
help others stick to you and me...;-)
>Any ideas on how to play this?
Well, the key issue is where you are going to build. My strong preference
is for you to build a fleet so you can get to England more quickly.
However, you can only do that if you build it in MAR, which might worry
Italy. My suggestion is that you approach him and ask for his approval.
I'll be glad to help with that, if you'd like.
If that doesn't work out, your only other options are to build an army in
MAR or PAR or waive the build. I don't want to push but I'd like you to
consider the waive option. Frankly, I don't see that you're going to have
much use for another army any time soon (at least, not so long as you and I
are working together...;-) If you do waive the build, you'd lose nothing
that would be of any use to you next year and you'd then have the option of
building a F BRE. In fact, now that I consider it, that might be the best
overall option since your fleet would get into play even sooner that way.
No matter what you decide to do on the build, I think you should attack BRE
from GAS with PAR support. I will also support from PIC and you'll be in.
I'll be taking BEL from BUR in order to DMZ BUR for our mutual comfort
(please confirm the DMZ).
Please let me know what your thoughts on all this are.
-Pitt
Private message from Turkey to Russia:
Mark,
> Thanks for the quick reply. No, I'm not taking it
> personally. There's a difference between personal
> invective (which neither of us should be flinging, as
> neither of us deserve it) and game stuff. it's all
> personality, really. If I may reply to your replies (I'll
> be at the **)...
>
> >responsibility for that decision, rather than try to play it
> >off as no big deal like you did in your past letter.
>
> ** IMO, I have accepted responsibility. I've mentioned
> more than either of us care to recount, the number of
> times I said I was a bad boy.
Mark, it's easy to say, "I'm a bad boy." It's easy to say,
"I'm sorry." The hard thing is making substantive amends,
and you haven't yet done that. You had offered to after
Spring 1901, but you chose to stab again. Obviously, I must
look with suspicion at further diplomatic forays initiated
by you. That's not to say I'm foreclosed to the idea,
though; the length of this letter should hopefully tell you
otherwise.
> But it's also the game,
> isn't it? Sort of, "Hey, I allied with what I thought was
> an ally. Dodn't work out. Sorry. Nothing personal vs
> you." IS IT "a big deal?" Haven't you ever made peace
> with someone YOU stabbed and then mutually worked with?
> Did you have to have a pound of flesh extracted from you,
> or did you treat it as part of your negotiating and
> dynamics of the game?
Certainly I have. But I didn't pretend it was nothing and I
didn't make certain less-than-credible representations,
which in some ways I felt you did.
> >> But don't hand me this "chutzpah" crap, ok?
> >
> >Why not? It seemed a particularly apt word, in light of
> >your earlier message.
>
> ** You call 'em as you see 'em. I don't think I had "the
> gall" to write what I did. But if that's how you
> interpreted it, that's your call.
OK.
> >No. I'm fighting for my survival. I'm in a position which
> >your own actions forced me into. The causation analysis
> >therefore differs, as does the moral calculus.
>
> ** Is the moral caluclus part dealing with the
> non-claimable "moral high ground" from your last letter?
> I would submit to you that the fortunes of war have now
> caused me to fight for my survival. I could easily say
> that I'm now in a position which your actions (puppeting
> for Edi) forced me into. But how far back do we trace
> stuff? You're fighting for survival, UP TO A POINT.
> Unless Edi hits you again, you're in no danger anymore. I
> certainly can't hurt you now.
Your attempt to compare your situation and mine is, IMO, a
poor analogy in that I have done nothing improper. We
aren't in the same boat or in the same position, because you
have yet to establish trustworthiness with me. In contrast,
I've never betrayed you. This of course goes back to my
point about requiring some gesture of goodwill before I will
be comfortable working with you.
As for how far we trace stuff, in terms of relationships in
game, I take into account the entire history of a game
relationship, until affirmative later goodwill erases past
perfidy. I haven't yet seen that from you. I hope I will.
> >I fully realize you were operating under the assumption that
> >there was an AR.
>
> ** Then why castigate me for my actions against you? And
> why not open your eyes to Austria's actions?
My eyes are fully open, I assure you. As for my
"castigation," the fact that you chose to go with your AR
assumption again changes nothing about the fact that you
still chose to stab me twice. Again, your understanding (or
misunderstanding) of your relationship with a third party
has nothing to do with your current poor relationship with
me. This again goes back to what it will take to restore my
faith in you, and my failure to see that in your first
letter to me this turn.
> ** Yes, indeed; I have been hostile (mea culpa #546). But
> let's define "hostile." Edi making a plan that calls for
> your destruction is "hostile." Edi taking BUL (and
> probably RUM) from you is "hostile." My acting as part of
> that alliance was also singularly "hostile." Granted. As
> the Monkees song says, "that was then; this is now."
Anyone can make a plan or say what they want to say in
Diplomacy. What matters is what they actually do.
You chose to stab me in Spring and Fall of 1901. That was
your choice, regardless of what Edi promised you. Edi did
what he did. And my relationship with him is what it is.
> >As for me and Edi, I fully realize what is going on with him
> >and me.
>
> ** Do you? Would that be the presence of F Aeg and A Bul
> influencing you, perhaps?
I'm afraid I can't comment here.
> >Your paragraph above is making some unwarranted
> >assumptions, but since we've still not established what I
> >would term a working relationship, I'm not going to tell you
> >what those unwarranted assumptions are. I hope you
> >understand.
>
> ** In all honesty, I do. You may be trying to tell me
> that you also fear Edi, did this because you couldn't
> trust me, but you still don't trust Edi, either....I
> understand your reticence. believe me, after the RUM
> thing, i clearly see the Master's hand in fomenting
> perfect RT hatred toward each other while he pulls the
> strings.
I'm afraid I can't comment here.
> >That's a straw man argument, Mark. I'm not disputing your
> >actual _decision_ not to say anything to me. Reread what I
> >wrote carefully. What I took issue with was your attempting
> >to use your stab of Austria as some sort of equalizing
> >device, to make us "even" as you put it. I also used your
> >silence to make the point that I could only assume that we
> >were still at war. And that's a reasonable assumption.
>
> ** I think you misunderstood what I wrote (or at least
> mean), Hohn. When I said we were "even," it wasn't to say
> "I've expunged all guilt about the past, let's wipe the
> slate clean." You never sullied the slate.
IMO, that was unclear.
> What I MEANT (but obviously garbled) was: you didn't hear
> from me; you made a logical choice (understandable); you
> got me. We're even in the sense that I tried to hose you,
> and you did hose me. Does that mean you wanted to nail
> me? No. It just was a statement of fact. I'm sorry if
> you read into (or if my note said more) than what I
> intended it to mean.
OK, thanks for the clarification. I hope you understand why
I was confused.
> >Fair enough. Just don't seek to use your uncommunicated
> >stab, which you made for reasons of your own, as some sort
> >of moral leverage over me,
>
> ** "Moral leverage?" How so? Like you're so untermensch
> that I "graciously" would allow back to the ranks of the
> living after I spin my webs? Wrong-o.
There was a clear undercurrent in your message, at least a
clear undercurrent to me, that I should somehow be grateful
to you for stabbing Austria and choosing not to go for ARM.
I wanted you to know that that wasn't sufficient with
respect to restoring my faith in you, not by a long shot,
especially when, as you now seem to concede, it was hardly
done with my best interests in mind (as you previously
claimed), but rather with your own interests in mind. I was
just trying to be honest, Mark. Honest and blunt and
straightforward. I reiterate: I could have _lied_ and
played along and stabbed you right back. I chose not to do
so, with all of the attendant risks. I hope you can
appreciate that fact.
> I wanted to get
> Edi before he got me. Your country was going to be nailed
> for one more turn in the process. Morally wrong, but I
> was hoping to be "tactically right." I foresaw your
> growth as coming when I had Edi reduced. if that bugs
> you, I'm sorry. That was how I was trying to play it.
It doesn't bug me at all. I just wish you had said this up
front at the beginning of this turn rather than go through
all of the contortions and kilobytes of text which we've
_both_ gone through to get to this point.
> > like you did in your previous
> >message. Just because you stab Austria doesn't change the
> >fact that your relationship with me has been poor so far
> >this game, poor as a result of your actions.
>
> ** No, it doesn't. But I was hoping that my being in GAL
> and (hopefully) SER would've rang the little bells that
> intimated a Russian change-of-action. I never said I
> wasn't a rat toward you.
Oh, I definitely see that. That much is obvious. But
that action with respect to a third party is not sufficient,
standing alone, to repair the relationship between us.
That's one of the primary things I've been trying to say
this entire time.
> >Regardless of what Edi "planned" with you, regardless of
> >what the relationship is between you and him, that doesn't
> >matter overly much. It was _your_ decision to stab me,
>
> ** IT WAS EDI'S DECISION TO "STAB" YOU.
Come on, Mark. You can't blame this on Edi. Did he hold a
gun to your head and force you to type those moves? Sure,
maybe he formed a plan. But with respect to negotiations
and promised moves, you were the only one that broke faith
with me in 1901. Edi never once broke faith with me in
1901. It was your decision.
He can tell you whatever he wants; but what matters is what
you and he both decide to actually do.
> The fact that I
> was the hatchet man and made the first alliance moves vs
> you makes me the heavy, I guess. But I fully realize you
> were under the assumption there was an RT.
Of course. It was a knowing, intentional action by you.
You had seemed to acknowledge this before. Why the sudden
change of heart? I'm not sure I understand how you're
blaming this all on Edi.
> >Do you understand what I'm trying to say?
>
> ** Loud and clear, pal.
Well all right then, good buddy! :)
> >> Is letting him take BUL my way of being a
> >> good ally? No, it's not. It was greed, pure and simple,
> >> designed to build up my country against unknown, expert
> >> players.
> >
> >I can't say I understand what you're trying to say here.
>
> ** What I'm trying to say is that I'm not on a par with
> you guys. As a consequence, I wanted rapid growth and one
> foe taken down. I wanted centers to face off whoever was
> going to be my future foe.
After this game is over, please tell me whether this
"inferiority complex" you seem to hold is in fact existent,
or if it was all a big act. :)
Mark, no one I've talked to has given any indication that
you're less than the real deal, or any worse a player than
anyone else. I've heard only good things about you. And I
dare say that your play in this game so far has been better
than mine. Sure you may have made an error or two. But who
hasn't? You're certainly in a better position than me, your
setback of Spring 1902 notwithstanding.
The thing I didn't understand was your part about "letting
him take BUL."
> >If I'm an Austrian puppet? Nope. Doesn't matter at all.
>
> ** I sense the implication here. I'll merely say this:
> If I was after you, I would've remained the Austrian
> puppet. Edi's gameplan called for RUM S Ser-Bul, Bla S
> Sev-Arm...
(...which would have failed...)
> again, to continue the Arm war (or anger over
> it).
For the record, you trying for ARM certainly wouldn't have
angered me, or caused any real change in my position towards
you. Our relationship was already pretty dead at that
point.
> He was then going to support me to Con (Bul S
> Sev-Con, Bla C), or so he said...Now, YOU don't know those
> details, and I wasn't about to spill them over the phone.
> I made the blatant anti-Aus moves I did (and invading Gal
> and trying for SER can't be much more blatant) because I
> wanted a deal with you in the long run, realizing the
> error of my previous ways. If I didn't, I would've gone
> "per the plan" and tried to get CON in fall, reducing you
> to two. That was the better Russian option in the long
> run.
OK, I understand where you're coming from. I even believe
it to a significant degree. I reiterate that your not
moving to ARM doesn't really impress me all that much, since
it was mine for the taking anyway, but the other things you
say in the above paragraph do impress me a decent amount.
> >> Frankly, Hohn, I find your tone surly, even for
> >> (especially for) a game of wooden blocks.
> >
> >
> >I'm simply calling 'em as I see 'em. What better place to
> >do that than in a game? I'm surprised you're taking it so
> >personally, to be honest. I certainly am not.
>
> ** It's not personal, as I said above. I just find
> venting spleen a bit of "overkill" for a game of blocks.
Venting spleen? Is that what you thought it was? I was
just trying to be completely honest. I don't believe in
sugarcoating, Mark. I call a spade a spade. Some people
might be put off by that, but I had been hoping that people
in this experts' game would not be. None of it's personal;
it's just a game. And thus I prefer blunt honesty. You
can't always do that in real life, after all.
> >understanding that I will need to see you vacate BLA or make
> >some other unilateral action to better our relationship
> >(just as you unilaterally worsened it), we can thus move
> >beyond it.
>
> ** geez, how many times are we going to kill this "personal
> responsibility" part? Are you moralizing here?
Moralizing? Maybe a bit. But the reason I've been harping
on this fact is because it still hasn't been clear to me
that you're willing to make any gesture of good faith with
respect to your relationship with me. Things like the
"blame it on Edi" thing above also still tend to make me
wonder about where you're coming from at times.
> ** I answered some of this up above. And interpret my
> moves as you see fit. They were anti-Austrian, with no
> qualms. I'm sorry I can't change 1901.
OK, fair enough.
> >That's what I didn't appreciate, Mark, and that's why you
> >received the response you did.
>
> ** Understood. Hopefully dead and buried.
OK.
> >Sure. And I told you what I needed to see from you, and
> >that is honesty and a vacating of BLA.
>
> ** If I wasn't honest, I'd have stopped writing and
> figured we'd be enemies to the death. I wouldn't have
> written the e-mail that said I would call you sometime
> soon. You either believe me or you don't. if you don't,
> then I'm sorry my diplomacy 9and all this e-mail) is so
> miserable in convincing you.
Your diplomacy was very effective in convincing me once.
I'm sure you understand if it's a bit more difficult to
convince me a second time.
But if you can convince me, you can count on me following
through with what I promise, I assure you.
> >I will get back to you on this, as I have yet to study the
> >tactical situation in depth.
>
> ** I'll be waiting.
See below.
> >> As I'm sure I
> >> won't be talking to him for awhile,
> >
> >Why? You kept in touch with me despite our history. Well,
> >except for this immediate past season, that is.
>
> ** true. But Edi masterminded one stab of you by using me
> as his (willing) puppet. He's apparently capitalized on
> your survival to mastermind a second stab, all for his
> benefit. before I deal with him again, I'd like to be on
> a more equal basis, and/or let him feel some hot breath
> down HIS back. As for this immediate past season, I've
> already discussed that to death.
OK.
> >Sure. The window opened for _you_. And what I've been
> >trying to tell you is what I'm going to need to see for that
> >window to open for _me_, to cooperate with you.
>
> ** Again, go the board and analyze how you want the window
> opened, Hohn. I want a Balkan center, regardless. I'll
> support you to BUD, BUL, or wherever. Or I'll accept your
> support, and we NEED Italy's help here. I wouldn't be
> writing so doggone much if I wasn't trying to show that
> I'm willing to open the window.
OK.
> ** If you and Edi planned this eons ago, then yes, there's
> no irony. But if you can't see how ironic it is that Edi
> convinced me to war vs you while he sat back--and then how
> he's got you fighting vs me as a foil to gain revenge or
> counterattack--then maybe one of us isn't seeing the whole
> picture.
I'm afraid I can't comment here.
> >This is true, however, and I am in sync with your desire to
> >change that situation.
>
> ** Excellent. After all the above is said and done, the
> key is this paragraph.
Indeed.
> >I prefer bluntness, so long as people don't take it
> >personally. I'm certainly not. I hope you're not, although
> >I fear you might be. And I'm glad you're willing to deal.
> >Let's try to work something out, then.
>
> ** Good enough. Analyze your map and let me know how you
> see things. Thanks for the note(s).
I'm also in receipt of your other note, the one about your
talks with Edi. In light of that, and having looked at the
map, here is what I propose:
SEV-BLA-BUL
BLA C SEV-BUL
UKR S RUM
GAL-BUD or VIE (assuming Italy orders VEN S VIE-TRI)
CON S SEV-BUL
ARM-SMY
ANK S CON
RUM S SEV-BUL (if GAL moves to VIE) or S GAL-BUD
Looking at the potential support cuts and other factors, I
think the above has the best chance of working. It's true
that you're not guaranteed BUL or BUD (or VIE), but I think
the chances are pretty good of you at least getting one.
This is riskier for both of us, as it also leaves you in
BLA, which is not my preference, but I'll live with it in
exchange for the potential tactical upside.
Alternatively, we can play things more conservatively, and
try the following:
BLA-RUM
SEV S BLA-RUM
UKR-GAL
GAL-VIE (assuming VEN S VIE-TRI)
RUM-BUL
CON S RUM-BUL
ANK S CON
ARM-SMY
Technically, this doesn't guarantee you RUM either, since
Austria might be able to attack RUM with a force of two in
his own right, but there's also a chance that RUM-BUL will
succeed, and a standoff will result in RUM (which would
remain under your control since it wasn't occupied in a fall
season). It's not as effective as certain other moves, but
as I said, I have a pretty strong desire to see BLA vacant.
Let me know what you think.
Hohn
Private message from Observer to Master:
Cal sent a couple of judge commands (and orders) to me instead of the
judge. I've explained it to him, but thought you should know that he's
struggling a little bit with the judge world.
Dave
Private message from Master to Russia:
Obviously if this message gets through the Judge is not down.
It has been for a couple of brief one hour periods or so in the
last three days, but Dave has told me he is working on it (thus
the "test" messages). So, try again?
Lastly, if you want more time, just tell me today and I'll
move the deadline to Wednesday or something. I won't say who
asked.... leaving it open that it could have been any of you
"sickies" ---- defines the whole lot of you, in any case!!!
Jim-Bob
Vienna, (Free Press)
The Dark Tower was the back drop to a small twilight gathering of nine
horsemen and the cloaked figure of BirSauron. The events of the previous
Spring had caused strong currents to swirl in the events the Palantir was
projecting though the strain was not yet showing in the voice of the Tower's
champion. The shadowed one spoke to each of the riders in turn:
"Take to the Island Kingdom that does not recognize its United status and see
if King Jamie has overcome the shock of his sudden Germanic storm. Of special
concern is to understand the thinking in terms of his move from Scapa Flow to
the Norwegian rather than the more to be expected North Sea. What could have
been the thought in the move for it would appear that by ill or good the North
Sea calling should not have been denied."
"Take the route through Switzerland and seek out the French whose capital we
are unsure of at the moment. It could be that with their ghostly repulse of
the Italians that they may move their focus to Marseilles in recognition of
that cities deliverance from the dogs of war. The times are tense in the land
of the French and what dance they may have with the Normans and the Germanic
hordes has yet to be played to its final cord. Much is still left to swing
about."
"For the Romans and their circular pattern laced with more paranoia than
hostile intent, we must find what is the essence of their souls. For their
appears to be a duality in their approach to life and thus two of you should
go. One to explore his dark side and the other to find his strength. They
may be responding more to their fears than the calls for perfidiousness from
the western steppes."
"The Berliners need to be, understood for from the poisoning of their food
that brought them to near civil disorder they have brought forth some vile
actions across the lowlands and the North Sea that have upset the Gentle King
Jamie. The future seems to hold to a major expansion of the German Fleet and
one can only guess as to the priorities of them over the Islanders. What is
the nature of their seeming cooperation with the Cossack?"
"The road to Consantinople is an easy flight, and the winds of the draft have
been well greased by the staging of multiple thrusts by the Cossack. Will
they seek to reclaim the Bulgars or shall we seem rejoice at the slaughter of
the Russian First Rumanian army. Though our thoughts are drawn by the blood
spilled on those wondrous Transylvanian heights, the time is not right for
their return to their birthright holder."
"The Cossack is a problem and three of you shall be needed there. The first
amongst you shall explore the tactical views from the Winter Palace and see if
the Galician gambits are well under consideration or if he sees them as sole
objects of projection. The next shall look to the halls of the couriers and
see what manner of excitation is implanted in his Western fancy and what hopes
he has to remain secure in there possession with a resurgent Germanic horde
from the Pitt of Darkness. The last of you shall explore the strategic views
and see if the panes are not clouded by some spell or illusion, for surely the
Spring jump off would have left little strategic flexibility in its moves
given the personalities involved. The cults of the ruling classes across the
world seem somewhat out of synch in this perception and may be a matter of our
own weakness in seeing as he does. Thus more is needed in this field of view
possibly from both sides."
With that the riders lifted their unnatural steeds to the night wind and were
gone. The master of the ebony tower returned to the tall shadow across the
city and once more summoned up the images in the Palantir for study and
excitation.
Private message from England to France:
M. Pres.,
Not sure whether your silence is a snub or sign of too much to do in
another life.
Will have to assume it is the former (not unreasonable), though prefer
strongly to convince myself that I still have some chances....
Cheers!
Gentle King Jamie
Private message from Russia to England:
GKJ,
Am heading out the door to administer an exam, so this will be brief.
May be a breakthrough in the Turkish camp. Am working a deal to support
him (Rum-Bud, Gal S) and perhaps reliberate RUM at the same time.
Italy says he'll probably move to Gre and/or Tri, or perhaps support a
piece of Edi's to Tri (rather than bounce). If he does the latter
(i.e., if he believes what Edi tells him he's moving), then I might try
Gal-Bud or Gal-Vie instead. but for now, Turkey's goodwill is one of my
few options (and this, the guy I stabbed twice in two seasons...yoiks).
Will see how this all works out. May have Norwegian reprecussions.
Faz
Private message from Russia to Master:
>
>To my fellow board members:
>Russia (that's me) will be on leave (military vacation) from 15-21 March. I
>will be at a home with (gasp!) NO modems or computers, enjoying Mom's
>chocolate chips, visiting friends from school, buying Steeler memorabilia at
>the local mall, helping my boys build Pinewood Derby cars and model rockets,
>and just unwinding after a crazy two months of teaching this semester.
>
>If you need to reach me in those 5 days (i.e., if we can't agree on something
>in the days before I go, or during the couple days before the next deadline
>after I return), then let me know and I'll provide you a local phone number
>for EMERGENCIES ONLY. Remember, I'm trying to _escape_ from the real world
>for those few days...
>
>UNTIL 15 March, however (and AFTER 21 March, naturally), the Ruler of All
>Russias will indeed be holding an active court...
>
>Tsar Faz
>
Private message from Russia to Turkey:
Hohn
I've had some SEVERE computer problems in trying to send info through my
home (remoted) server. Have to send everything thru the work one, it
seems, at least until I address the problem.
Please don't take any silence I've had for deliberateness, a la last
turn. I'm VERY MUCH "with you," will be sending in "our" orders next
message, and plan on a wonderful anti-Austrian honeymoon with you. In
fact, if there's any stabbing to be done, it'll be from you, not me.
Italy writes and says he's unsure of what he'll do with Ven, i.e., hold
and lure Edi back, bounce, guess which unit's going there, etc. Edi
aparently told him that he's moving SER-TRI (yeah, right), bit Italy
isn't sure how to respond. Scary, if Edi wins him over!
Will talk to you again when the results come out, if not sooner. here's
to reliberating BUL and RUM. Thanks, Hohn.
Mark
PS) Note my temporary absence away from the computer, coming Saturday...
Private message from England to France:
Hm.
Listen, I understand, you feel there's no point in discussing the future
before you see what you can do about home.
But, do you understand my position? What I do now depends a whole lot on
what I think might happen in the future. Just to take an example, I have to
decide whether to keep you locked up in Portugal or not.
Can you give me anything just a little more, um, informative, than that you
plan to recapture your home center?
I have already said that I won't support myself to hold in Brest, and I'll
stick to that.
Cheers!
Gentle King Jamie
Private message from England to France:
That's good enough for me.
I will have my army move to Picardy. That might possibly prevent Germany
from taking Paris along with Belgium. Probably not, but it can't hurt.
As for my having many friends...
Well, I am not surprised that many other powers are afraid of Germany
growing at the present projected rate.
I would offer to convoy my own army out of Brest...
Hm.
Y'know, I might just do that. But (a) I probably won't unless you ask me to,
and (b) I would have to order it to London, and you must realize that it is
at least possible that Germany will order Nth-Lon.
You don't have any word of possible German moves, huh? Or none that you are
willing to share?
Gentle King Jamie
Private message from France to England:
Yes, other duties have occupied me, but not so much that I won't correspond
with my English friend! I received your brief note following last season's
results, but I did not think it called for a reply. Given the presence of
your army in my home center, I had thought we had very little to discuss.
But I am glad you wrote, because you have many friends in this game. I
have been urged by all and sundry to patch up my relations with you. It
seems fears are growing regarding the German threat.
I don't think I can do anything this turn except strive to free my homeland
of foreigners, but I do want you to know that the lines of communication
remain open in Paris.
Jean
Private message from Russia to Turkey:
Hi Hohn
Will keep this brief; am grading 60 exams by Friday, when they give me
60 term papers (and spring "break" begins, how ironic). Hope you're not
as swamped at work...
Judge is indeed up and running; my home system is screwed up, so you'll
just get the messages during work hours (in case I forgot to mention
this -- don't remember who I told already).
I re-sent my orders to clear the error flag. The Norway piece wouldn't
take until I finally "cracked the code." As agreed, Bla S Rum-Bul,
Sev-Rum (Ukr S)...I may alter GAL, based on what Italy does(n't)
do...Edi's been telling him "Gal must go," so it's either going to be
booted, or he's bluffing Cal to try and keep BUL/gain RUM...we'll see
tonight!
I'm also enthusiastic, if brief, here. I think the RT will cause
surprise and consternation among the board, and surprise from the
Observers. Maybe keep the game at its high level of fun...
Take care; will talk when the moves are out, if not sooner.
best
Mark
Private message from Turkey to Russia:
Mark,
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1997 09:51:01 -0500
From: "Fassio, M. MAJ SOC"
To: "'[email protected]'"
Subject: RE: I'm here
>Hohn: The Judge (or my system) is down, so I don't know if my last message
>made it through before the darkness fell...
As you should be able to see (assuming the mail route from
the Judge to you is still up), the Judge is back up, at
least for me. My orders of RUM-BUL, CON S RUM-BUL, ANK S
CON, ARM-SMY are in and we're good to go, at least as far as
I'm concerned.
>If it didn't, then this is to reassure you that I do indeed confirm the
>moves you/we discussed as 'the good ones," and will order accordingly.
You might want to reverify your moves, now that the Judge is
back up, if you're uncertain about whether they got through
the Judge down time. Being certain is a good thing. ;)
>I will also NOT be doing any more Turkish stabbing, which should go
>without saying (but which I'm sure you'd like to hear again,
>regardless).
>Thanks again for everything. Let's see what damage we can do to the
>board, and what surprises we can bring to the Observers!
All sounds good; I've gotten your messages of the last day
or two, btw. Please don't mistake my lack of responses and
my brevity here for lack of enthusiasm. I appreciate your
efforts and your kind words, and I'm feeling confident about
this upcoming turn. I've just been (and continue to be)
swamped at work. I hope your back feels better soon, and
barring any crucial last-minute info I obtain from any of
our neighbors that might interest you, I'll talk to you
again after this turn processes.
Hohn
I thought that E/G didn't have orders in because they hadn't noticed the
Judge was accepting messages again. I was surprised to see the notice
saying they were late this morning, especially as I thought there would
be a day or two added to the deadline because of the Judge probs.
My $0.02 (Canadian)
Cal
Private message from Russia to England:
GKJ,
Look, Jamie, I don't want to be a bone in your throat. But look at my
side, too...
1) I HOPE that Turkey's with me, but won't know until it might be too
late; don't I have a right to 'err on the side of caution" too?
2) Germany may get fat quickly and may be heading east -- I have NO
central armies and NO defense of Scandanavia if he would build in BER or
MUn next turn.
3) Would I give you Nwy if I could, i.e., with no adversity to myself?
Absolutely. Despite my press (or apparent "game face"), I've been
branded an "alliance player playing only for draws" for 10 of my first
20 years of PBM. I honor the value of an alliance. but I'm just d**n
paranoid over uncertainties this game to voluntarily give up a center
with the AT and G guys staged the way they are.
4) Part of it is cold cost-benefit. Am I willing to take my chances
"riding the G tiger" and hoping to survive, or should I expose my manly
honor, stand by E, anger Germany when I'm pretty weak vs him, etc, when
you may be going -1 or -2? I'm being brutally realistic here, vice
honorable, but that is a way to look at the board right now. Will G
turn on me anyway, after I've thrown away any E goodwill? We'll see.
You can say "I told you so" when he does; I won't get mad.
5) Finally, a point we once discussed: the English "vent my spleen vs
Eng because he's the only QC'er I can reach." I'll say this. You're
not an idiot. You're an expert, shrewdly calculating Dipper who knows
what must be done FOR himself and TO others. I respect you and everyone
else here. I'm assuming you will make the coldly logical English
defens moves, rather than charging off half-cocked at me in a fit of
kamikaze rage because I'm a convenient whipping boy. If that's not the
case, then bring on your 3 to 4 units; convoy up there somehow, and take
me down with you. But I would hope you have better things to do than
that.
I guess I just don't understand your continuing moral rage at me when
you have the Hun crawling all over you--other than Nwy would help you
stay solvent (as it hopefully will do for me).
Tsar faz
Private message from England to Russia:
I asked you repeatedly a simple question, whether you would be vacating
Norway. I thought you were not replying. I now understand that you were
replying after all! You were saying, "No, I will not, but please order
Nwg-Nwy anyway."
I now understand your answer. You needn't reply further.
Gentle King Jamie
Private message from England to Italy:
Cal,
I have pointed out to Master Mark that if he decides to try to hold Norway,
Sweden, and St. Petersburg against an Englishman bent on revenge, he will
surely lose more than Norway. Whereas if he vacates Norway and takes and
holds Sweden, he is perfectly solid in the North.
Originally (just after last week's results), he agreed to let me take
Norway, and give me some chance to survive to the endgame, if only I would
help him talk Turkey into joining his side (and yours). I did that. Turkey
has agreed. But Faz has changed his mind.
He may think I am not serious about revenge (it's not quite exactly revenge,
but that will have to do for this short version), or he may think that I
can't really harm him.
I wonder whether you might be able to convince him. Of course, you may agree
with his judgment! In that case, I will have the pleasure of proving both of
you wrong :) But if you agree with me that it is wiser from the perspective
of Russia's own security not to sell out his only northern alliance for a
single, unholdable supply center, you might put in a word.
It's *almost* too late. Maybe it's too late. But I'd hate to have to do what
I'm about to have to do, without having tried everything else first.
Cheers!
Gentle King Jamie
Private message from Russia to England:
>
>Well, what do you mean, "know that for a fact"? We never know such things
>for facts, strictly speaking.
** No, we don't. So you want me to ASSUME he is, throwing away my
chance for stability/gain, just to honor a pledge made in times past, so
YOU can gain?
>
>When you said you'd let me have Norway *if* Turkey would come to your side,
>I thought that was said in good faith. Does nothing count as meeting the
>condition?
** Russia does what Russia must do.
>
>>>I am certainly not going to order my fleet to Norway unless you are going
>>>to
>>>vacate Norway. What are you thinking? You must have been joking.
>>** It is to laugh. Ha ha, those wacky, zany Russians!
>>>You know
>>>perfectly well that I have other things to do with the F Nwg. I am
>>>obviously
>>>not going to waste the move.
>>** Indeed. Moving to Barents (or not defending Edi) would be, IN MY
>>HUMBLE OPINION, A WASTED MOVE. Oh, that darned cap lock key...
>
>You are *seriously* suggesting that I order Nwg-Nwy when I might instead
>defend Edinburgh, even though you will not tell me that you are vacating
>Norway? Then you must simply think I am an idiot.
** Don't read so much into this, Jamie. You're the farthest thing from
an idiot, and please don't imply I meant that.
>
>I preferred to believe you were joking.
** Good call!
>
>I hope you can explain what you were thinking. I would be chagrined if the
>explanation turned out to be that you thought I was an idiot.
** See above. Save your chagrin. ChaGRIN and bear it.
>
>>>There is no 'just in case'. We are past the deadline. You have already
>>>submitted your move.
>>** You have shown by all these notes that moves are moot--even beyond
>>the dealine date--if we can still negotiate, GKJ. Nothing that says my
>>earlier moves can't be changed--or, more importantly, AREN'T ALREADY
>>>BENEFICIAL TO ENGLAND.
>
>This really is getting very insulting.
>
>>Transmitting possible Russian changes of heart at this stage
>>would also be, shall we say, dangerous if others were to acquire said
>>info.
>
>Sorry, I don't understand. Tell me plainly what you mean.
** I mean that Edi got info from someone about the impending hit on him.
I mean that I trust no one about any thing. I'm not just talking with
you about "us," and I'd prefer to hold my cards close to the chest, is
all.
>
>>We all have choices here. Taking Nwy while having Germany take Edi
>>doesn't strike me as logical...unless you and Pitt already have some
>>secret code worked out...
>
>Don't be absurd.
** Hey, things change; people are swayed. Look at the QC's downfall.
>
>>Test grading awaits; ah, the joys of impending spring break!
>But plenty of time to complain about Jim's deadline rule, huh?
** Consider it a diversion from staring at papers, Jamie. Tunnel-vision
creeping in after #29...
You know, sort of like being a day overdue for sending in moves, but
having time to write last-minute move/order requests ad nauseam...
Please make the move you feel you need to make as England, for the best
interest of your country. That's what I'm trying to do. You may
disagree--vehemently--with my choice or my playing style (or lack
thereof). God bless America for the freedom to voice opinions!
That's why you guys are the experts, and I'm the
"please-play-in-this-game-with-the-Big-Boys" filler for a seventh
person. If it turns out that I'm an idiot and have no business plotting
strategy, then we'll all have a good chuckle about it in the after-game
press. Fair enough?
Still gentle up there?
Tsar Faz
Private message from England to France:
In case the thought even crossed your mind:
My lateness and Pitt's are purely coincidental. I don't know what's caused his.
-Jamie
Private message from England to Russia:
>>Turkey is on board. We've discussed it, he and I. I think you know he is.
>>That was the 'condition' you presented me with.
>** I'm hoping he is. If you know that for a fact, then you're a better
>man than I, Gunga Din.
Well, what do you mean, "know that for a fact"? We never know such things
for facts, strictly speaking.
When you said you'd let me have Norway *if* Turkey would come to your side,
I thought that was said in good faith. Does nothing count as meeting the
condition?
>>I am certainly not going to order my fleet to Norway unless you are going to
>>vacate Norway. What are you thinking? You must have been joking.
>** It is to laugh. Ha ha, those wacky, zany Russians!
>>You know
>>perfectly well that I have other things to do with the F Nwg. I am obviously
>>not going to waste the move.
>** Indeed. Moving to Barents (or not defending Edi) would be, IN MY
>HUMBLE OPINION, A WASTED MOVE. Oh, that darned cap lock key...
You are *seriously* suggesting that I order Nwg-Nwy when I might instead
defend Edinburgh, even though you will not tell me that you are vacating
Norway? Then you must simply think I am an idiot.
I preferred to believe you were joking.
I hope you can explain what you were thinking. I would be chagrined if the
explanation turned out to be that you thought I was an idiot.
>>There is no 'just in case'. We are past the deadline. You have already
>>submitted your move.
>** You have shown by all these notes that moves are moot--even beyond
>the dealine date--if we can still negotiate, GKJ. Nothing that says my
>earlier moves can't be changed--or, more importantly, AREN'T ALREADY
>>BENEFICIAL TO ENGLAND.
This really is getting very insulting.
You expect me to believe for even one nanosecond that you may already have
ordered your fleet out of Norway, but declined to tell me that you had? Why
on earth would you do such a thing? What could possibly induce me to believe
that you had done that?
So please explain. Are you expecting me to order Nwg-Nwy on the faint hope
that you *might* let me in? Why? If you order the fleet out of Norway, tell
me that you have done so, and then I will order Nwg-Nwy.
>Transmitting possible Russian changes of heart at this stage
>would also be, shall we say, dangerous if others were to acquire said
>info.
Sorry, I don't understand. Tell me plainly what you mean.
>We all have choices here. Taking Nwy while having Germany take Edi
>doesn't strike me as logical...unless you and Pitt already have some
>secret code worked out...
Don't be absurd.
Nobody knows what Pitt will do. Obviously, since he does not expect you to
vacate Norway, he will think that probably I'll cover Edi, so attacking Edi
is not one of his most likely moves.
Come on, don't make me explain such trivia at this stage. If you wanted me
to explain that you could have asked me a week ago.
>but again, my moves may surprise you.
I don't want your moves to surprise me! I want you to tell me what your F
Norway is doing!
> Don't
>sweat the small stuff, noble one.
That's all I have left to sweat.
>Test grading awaits; ah, the joys of impending spring break!
But plenty of time to complain about Jim's deadline rule, huh?
GKJ
I'm going to make an observation; lambaste me as a troglodyte if you
will, but it's JUST an observation, NOT a condemnation...
I'm afraid I don't agree with the GM/Judge policy of allowing for
negotiation after the deadline when some folks haven't submitted orders.
I mean, what's to keep E and G (or ANYONE in the same boat) from using
"the other non-submittee" as an excuse to continue to negotiate, until
one of them 'caves in' and submits orders? In the meantime, we are
'creeping around the edges' of the deadline waiting for The Final
Submissions. The "No NMR" policy that Jim has is good--to a point. It
allows for guys that are genuinely sick (like Pitt and Cal) or oveworked
(Hohn, perhaps, with his mega-hour days, or me, writing this when I
should be grading 60 papers by Friday) to have extra time to negotiate
and recover from illness...Or perhaps (again) guys like me, taking
leave, would like a little extra time top recover when returning to a
computer screen and reading game mail. I will beg and grovel with the
best of 'em soon enough, probably...
Having said that, if I as a player can't make a deal with my allies (or
foes) in two or three days of intense message-writing, then why do I
need an extra few days? (Again, I'm NOT accusing E, G or anyone of
shamming/misusing the system...heck, their computers could be broken for
all we know!). I'm merely saying that the game shouldn't have to extend
artificially for every game turn because we're allowing No NMRs and/or
because we're not big boys here. I haven't NMRed in 20+ years of
PBMing. I sent moves from combat zones, through morale calls patched
through 10 different relays, etc....why can't we get a week's moves in
on time when we're all in the States staring at screens?
Again, I apologize if someone's taking this personally. BELIEVE ME,
even though the game dynamics here have caused me to fume (over my own
lack of apparent skill to date), I really am an understanding, 70s-era
"peace love and rock-n-roll" kinda guy. I just wonder why we allow
post-deadline negotiations, and why the post-deadlines are so "post"
every turn.....
The Oft-Confused and Seemingly (But Not, Really) Tactless
Tsar Faz
Private message from Russia to England:
>Faz,
>
>Turkey is on board. We've discussed it, he and I. I think you know he is.
>That was the 'condition' you presented me with.
** I'm hoping he is. If you know that for a fact, then you're a better
man than I, Gunga Din.
>
>I am certainly not going to order my fleet to Norway unless you are going to
>vacate Norway. What are you thinking? You must have been joking.
** It is to laugh. Ha ha, those wacky, zany Russians!
>You know
>perfectly well that I have other things to do with the F Nwg. I am obviously
>not going to waste the move.
** Indeed. Moving to Barents (or not defending Edi) would be, IN MY
HUMBLE OPINION, A WASTED MOVE. Oh, that darned cap lock key...
>There is no 'just in case'. We are past the deadline. You have already
>submitted your move.
** You have shown by all these notes that moves are moot--even beyond
the dealine date--if we can still negotiate, GKJ. Nothing that says my
earlier moves can't be changed--or, more importantly, AREN'T ALREADY
>BENEFICIAL TO ENGLAND. (Man, that key...)
>
>You are right that if I make friends with France right away I will have a
>chance again. We shall see about that.
** I'm hoping you do. I wouldn't want to see England as a nation -- or
GKJ a a person --vamoose from the board.
>
>However, come what may with France, I hope I have made it abundantly clear
>to you that IN MY EDUCATED OPINION, YOU WOULD BE MAKING A SERIOUS TACTICAL
>MISTAKE BY REFUSING TO VACATE NORWAY. Oh, that darned cap lock key.
** The board is rife with potential for making mistakes, Jamie. I made
one when I trusted Edi. I can make another by p**sing off Pitt and
trying to fend off an angry Germany with NO builds to protect WAR or
SWE. That, too, would be a (possibly unrecoverable) mistake at this
stage...Transmitting possible Russian changes of heart at this stage
would also be, shall we say, dangerous if others were to acquire said
info. (Gosh, I sound more like A and T with each passing day; quick, a
lobotomy!)
We all have choices here. Taking Nwy while having Germany take Edi
doesn't strike me as logical...unless you and Pitt already have some
secret code worked out...but again, my moves may surprise you. Don't
sweat the small stuff, noble one.
Test grading awaits; ah, the joys of impending spring break!
Tsar Faz
Private message from England to Russia:
Faz,
Turkey is on board. We've discussed it, he and I. I think you know he is.
That was the 'condition' you presented me with.
I am certainly not going to order my fleet to Norway unless you are going to
vacate Norway. What are you thinking? You must have been joking. You know
perfectly well that I have other things to do with the F Nwg. I am obviously
not going to waste the move.
There is no 'just in case'. We are past the deadline. You have already
submitted your move.
You are right that if I make friends with France right away I will have a
chance again. We shall see about that.
However, come what may with France, I hope I have made it abundantly clear
to you that IN MY EDUCATED OPINION, YOU WOULD BE MAKING A SERIOUS TACTICAL
MISTAKE BY REFUSING TO VACATE NORWAY. Oh, that darned cap lock key.
Cheers!
Gentle King J
Private message from Russia to England:
GKJ,
I understand the tactical vs strategic picture, honest. But I also
understand that Turkey may not yet be in my camp. And if France is
sincere with this upsurge of communication, then perhaps some pressure
has been taken from you.
And, quite honestly, Italy may not be making an all-out assault vs Edi
this turn. Coupled with Turkey's unknown status ("roll the dice and see
what comes up"), I am loathe to abandon a center...especially when I can
rebuild the destroyed A RUM if I have to, or to remain even if RT stay
unified--as the case may yet be.
I will do what I can to not antagonize the English (any moreso than it
seems I have). Go ahead and move to NWY, just in case I leave -- I can
always explain it as a "head-fake to BAR" if Germany asks. No promises,
but I'll see what I can do....
Tsar Faz
Private message from England to Russia:
Here are a couple of bits of information for you.
1. I feel I'm having some success with France, though no definite
commitment. He has become much more talkative rather suddenly.
2. I very strongly believe that it would be a serious tactical error for you
to keep Norway.
Gentle KJ
Private message from England to France:
John,
Jim has already made a ruling on post-deadline diploming.
Here's what he said (it was in a broadcast about two weeks ago)
*********
Again, just as obviously, having a player wait until after the deadline
to finish negotiating is not fair to the rest of the players. Still,
in the same light as the way I adjudicate postal games, I don't feel it
is out of bounds, given the "no NMR" style of play.
***********************
Good enough?
-Jamie
Private message from England to Russia:
Faz,
>Jamie,
>Aren't the moves past due? I see there are no E *or* G orders yet
>submitted (hmmmm....)
>
>Are we allowed to continue to negotiate beyond the deadline?
>
>Faz
Yes, we are. Here's what Jim said in a public broadcast:
********************************
Again, just as obviously, having a player wait until after the deadline
to finish negotiating is not fair to the rest of the players. Still,
in the same light as the way I adjudicate postal games, I don't feel it
is out of bounds, given the "no NMR" style of play.
**************************************
So, are you going to vacate Norway, or not?
Let me strongly urge you to do so, at this last moment of decision, in case
you were still not entirely decided on the matter.
Gentle King Jamie
>
> Broadcast message from [email protected] as Italy in 'ghodstoo':
>
>
> I thought that E/G didn't have orders in because they hadn't noticed the
> Judge was accepting messages again. I was surprised to see the notice
> saying they were late this morning, especially as I thought there would
> be a day or two added to the deadline because of the Judge probs.
>
> My $0.02 (Canadian)
>
> Cal
>
Not worth much, eh? I put out that message about someone letting me know
if they wanted the deadline extended. I received no such request, so
I didn't extend it. I haven't gone through all the mail yet, but
after I do, I will extend the deadline if I find no reason not to,
until tomorrow (Wednesday).
Sorry if I confused anyone.
Jim
Private message from France to England:
Jamie, I am not ignoring you. I left the office soon after I sent my
message. Now it seems we are ina grace period.
I don't recall the house rules on diplomacizing during grace periods, so I
think it prudent to refrain, unless Jim says otherwise. Jim?
Private message from Russia to England:
Jamie,
Aren't the moves past due? I see there are no E *or* G orders yet
submitted (hmmmm....)
Are we allowed to continue to negotiate beyond the deadline?
Faz
Private message from England to Russia:
Tell me whether you have ordered your army out of Norway.
GKJ
Private message from Master to England:
Jamie, I want to emphasize that everything you did was fine, especially
since you were not the only one not to have orders in. In the future,
I'd appreciate the note along the lines I suggested in the broadcast.
(I realize you implicitly did it -- and note that I would not say
"Jamie asked for another day" if you did ask). On the other hand,
some of their concerns (F/R) are worth considering too.
Jim
Private message from Master to Germany:
Pitt, what happened to you?????? Please let me know your situation,
I'm willing to be reasonable, but you have to let me know what's
going on.
Let me be very, very clear about this:
1) "No NMR" has been a Judge standard from the beginning because of the
vagarities of the E-Mail system.
2) I support the basic idea of "No NMR" even in my postal szine where
I call players for orders and accept orders up until the time I adjudicate.
Sometimes negotiation takes place during that time and this is OK, but
not encouraged. If I reach you by phone, the answer "let me write a
few letters, E-Mail a few people, and wait for replies before calling
me back with orders" would not be visited too kindly.
3) This is a Demo game and some leeway so that "screwy" forced results
occur is to my mind something to be avoided, but this is soft thinking.
I also will not take kindly to being manipulated for advantage and the
demo system allows me access to most of the information I need to
determine this.
4) I am an active Internet person, but I have a life and a job and am
not hardwired 24 hours a day. Obviously, some discussion took place
today (you see what was broadcast) after the deadline. I checked in
at about 7AM this morning, but then was busy all day until now.
Rather than have you guys wait all day for me to respond, sure, go
ahead and negotiate during the grace period. Some people might
logically have thought the Judge was still down and the deadline
was not valid, BUT as soon as they logged on and saw the traffic
and my earlier message WITHOUT a deadline extension, the logical
assumption was you were supposed to get your orders in.
5) At that point, if you wanted more time because of the problems
over the weekend, a private message to me like this: "Jim, I'm
going to keep negotiating, would you please set the deadline
until Wednesday, we lost a few days of negotiating with these
judge problems" would be a good courtesy.
6) I don't wish to point any fingers or cast any blame, but I
really want orders before the Wednesday deadline or a message
to me explaining why.
7) This is an intense game, everyone is OK by my book so far,
but I want to make the limits clear so they are not extended
in the future. After my message over the weekend, I really
expected one of three outcomes: (a) orders all in by deadline
(b) a request for a few days extension from one or more players
(c) a Judge-Keeper extension if the Judge really had been down
for a significant amount of time (this was not my perception,
but my experience may not have paralleled yours.
Again, let me emphasize that I just am trying to be clear.
A deadline in general is still a deadline, yet deadline
extensions are reasonable with prior or even "current"
notice.
Thanks for everyone's understanding, please send me a private
note if this clarification did not resolve any remaining uncertainty
you might have. I'm assuming that I am extending the deadline
until tomorrow to adjust for the Judge uncertainty over the last week.
Your cheery GM, Jim
Private message from Turkey to Master:
My orders have been in for quite some time now. After I saw
Cal's broadcast, however, I sent him a private diplomatic
note, wanting to touch base. Was this improper in your
opinion?
Hohn
Let me be very, very clear about this:
1) "No NMR" has been a Judge standard from the beginning because of the
vagarities of the E-Mail system.
2) I support the basic idea of "No NMR" even in my postal szine where
I call players for orders and accept orders up until the time I adjudicate.
Sometimes negotiation takes place during that time and this is OK, but
not encouraged. If I reach you by phone, the answer "let me write a
few letters, E-Mail a few people, and wait for replies before calling
me back with orders" would not be visited too kindly.
3) This is a Demo game and some leeway so that "screwy" forced results
occur is to my mind something to be avoided, but this is soft thinking.
I also will not take kindly to being manipulated for advantage and the
demo system allows me access to most of the information I need to
determine this.
4) I am an active Internet person, but I have a life and a job and am
not hardwired 24 hours a day. Obviously, some discussion took place
today (you see what was broadcast) after the deadline. I checked in
at about 7AM this morning, but then was busy all day until now.
Rather than have you guys wait all day for me to respond, sure, go
ahead and negotiate during the grace period. Some people might
logically have thought the Judge was still down and the deadline
was not valid, BUT as soon as they logged on and saw the traffic
and my earlier message WITHOUT a deadline extension, the logical
assumption was you were supposed to get your orders in.
5) At that point, if you wanted more time because of the problems
over the weekend, a private message to me like this: "Jim, I'm
going to keep negotiating, would you please set the deadline
until Wednesday, we lost a few days of negotiating with these
judge problems" would be a good courtesy.
6) I don't wish to point any fingers or cast any blame, but I
really want orders before the Wednesday deadline or a message
to me explaining why.
7) This is an intense game, everyone is OK by my book so far,
but I want to make the limits clear so they are not extended
in the future. After my message over the weekend, I really
expected one of three outcomes: (a) orders all in by deadline
(b) a request for a few days extension from one or more players
(c) a Judge-Keeper extension if the Judge really had been down
for a significant amount of time (this was not my perception,
but my experience may not have paralleled yours.
Again, let me emphasize that I just am trying to be clear.
A deadline in general is still a deadline, yet deadline
extensions are reasonable with prior or even "current"
notice.
Thanks for everyone's understanding, please send me a private
note if this clarification did not resolve any remaining uncertainty
you might have. I'm assuming that I am extending the deadline
until tomorrow to adjust for the Judge uncertainty over the last week.
Your cheery GM, Jim
Private message from Master to Germany:
Pitt, what happened to you?????? Please let me know your situation,
I'm willing to be reasonable, but you have to let me know what's
going on.
Private message from Master to England:
Jamie, I want to emphasize that everything you did was fine, especially
since you were not the only one not to have orders in. In the future,
I'd appreciate the note along the lines I suggested in the broadcast.
(I realize you implicitly did it -- and note that I would not say
"Jamie asked for another day" if you did ask). On the other hand,
some of their concerns (F/R) are worth considering too.
Jim
Private message from Italy to Turkey:
> Message from [email protected] as Turkey to Italy in 'ghodstoo':
> Hey, you're back! Great. Hope things are better for you
> now. In any case, I never heard back from you after my last
> letter. Shall we touch base? I can give you a call if you
> like.
Heh heh, a phone call would do absolutely no good unless you're
into soliloquys... I have absolutely no voice whatsoever. Other
than that I feel pretty good, but the voice thing is lasting.
Have you decided as to which way you're going this year? I mean
have you decided to hit Edi or stick with the attack on Russia?
I HOPE you'll do the former, but suspect the latter (and can't say
as I'd blame you).
Edi has been trying his best to get me to go to the Eastern Med and
"promises" to hit Con if I'll just leave him alone. I admit I
considered this course, but I don't like it (bet you don't
either...:) ), so I'll head straight east.
Let me know what you're doing and we'll work from there. All I can
say is, if you DO decide to attack Edi, you'll have a faithful ally
in Italy. I'm getting a little tired of Mark's impetuousness and
don't really see him as a long term ally any more.
Regards
Cal
Private message from Italy to Russia:
Houston, we have a problem... :(
> Message from [email protected] as England to Italy in 'ghodstoo':
>
> Cal,
>
> I have pointed out to Master Mark that if he decides to try to hold Norway,
> Sweden, and St. Petersburg against an Englishman bent on revenge, he will
> surely lose more than Norway. Whereas if he vacates Norway and takes and
> holds Sweden, he is perfectly solid in the North.
>
> Originally (just after last week's results), he agreed to let me take
> Norway, and give me some chance to survive to the endgame, if only I would
> help him talk Turkey into joining his side (and yours). I did that. Turkey
> has agreed. But Faz has changed his mind.
>
> He may think I am not serious about revenge (it's not quite exactly revenge,
> but that will have to do for this short version), or he may think that I
> can't really harm him.
>
> I wonder whether you might be able to convince him. Of course, you may agree
> with his judgment! In that case, I will have the pleasure of proving both of
> you wrong :) But if you agree with me that it is wiser from the perspective
> of Russia's own security not to sell out his only northern alliance for a
> single, unholdable supply center, you might put in a word.
>
> It's *almost* too late. Maybe it's too late. But I'd hate to have to do what
> I'm about to have to do, without having tried everything else first.
Just thought I'd pass this along as I consider his threats of revenge,
while
a tad panicky, most real. I've responded that I would talk to you,
while at
the same time, asking him to reconsider as his suiciding against you
would
tip the balance of the game. I'll let you know what he says.
Is there any chance you could do as he asks? I haven't checked the SC
Chart;
will you lose a unit by vacating Norway? It may be worth it in light of
"Gentle" King Jamie's threats.
Let me know what you think.
Regards
Cal
Private message from Italy to England:
> Message from [email protected] as England to Italy in 'ghodstoo':
>
> I have pointed out to Master Mark that if he decides to try to hold Norway,
> Sweden, and St. Petersburg against an Englishman bent on revenge, he will
> surely lose more than Norway. Whereas if he vacates Norway and takes and
> holds Sweden, he is perfectly solid in the North.
>
> Originally (just after last week's results), he agreed to let me take
> Norway, and give me some chance to survive to the endgame, if only I would
> help him talk Turkey into joining his side (and yours). I did that. Turkey
> has agreed. But Faz has changed his mind.
>
> He may think I am not serious about revenge (it's not quite exactly revenge,
> but that will have to do for this short version), or he may think that I
> can't really harm him.
>
> I wonder whether you might be able to convince him. Of course, you may agree
> with his judgment! In that case, I will have the pleasure of proving both of
> you wrong :) But if you agree with me that it is wiser from the perspective
> of Russia's own security not to sell out his only northern alliance for a
> single, unholdable supply center, you might put in a word.
>
> It's *almost* too late. Maybe it's too late. But I'd hate to have to do what
> I'm about to have to do, without having tried everything else first.
I will try to put a bug in his ear, but I don't know how effective it
will be.
I definitely don't want to see you and him at total war/revenge as it
can only
hurt my position down here to see a weakened Russian. Unfortunately, if
I'm
not mistaken, won't that (vacating Norway) force him to remove a unit?
I
have severe doubts as to any effect of my urging such a move on him. In
the
face of A/T belligerence, he'd be in real trouble if he has to lose a
unit
(almost as much if he has you to worry about...)
I will try as best I can, but I also urge you to reconsider going all
out for
revenge. That would turn the game drastically in Pitt & Edi's favour
(who I am
suspecting of a game long alliance since S'01). On my personal GT/BT
Scale
(Good Thing/Bad Thing Scale), this would definitely clock in as a bad
thing.
I'll talk to Mark, but please reconsider. Just because things look bad
now,
this game hs had so much give and take, you could be very easily be on
the
upswing VERY shortly.
Regards,
Cal
Private message from Russia to Master:
Good night, fellow board warriors. I'm leaving the transmitter room,
heading for the bridge. Will check results tomorrow ca 0645 and get
with you all(?) tomorrow.
Are we having fun yet?
Tsar Faz
Private message from Russia to England:
GKJ,
Can't answer now; my daughter is in the parking lot waiting for me.
Will be sending 'signoff note' immediately after this one. Regardless
of move results, will send something in the a.m. I'm not sure I agree
with everything you said here (but I only skimmed parts). My hair is
already curling.
More tomorrow; I promise.
Tsar Faz
Private message from England to Germany:
Just out of curiosity, what did you think was the big problem with the plan
I outlined?
I do appreciate the frankness, by the way. [I believe I hinted at the
following, but may as well say it outright: ours was a modus vivendi, and
that last move your stab was the fatal one, tactically speaking, but I was
stabbed by others in a much uglier way. I don't expect I have to spell it
all out.]
But I honestly don't see how there could me much room for rapprochement
later, for purely tactical reasons, not diplomatic ones. This seems to be
the key move. If you carry out your obvious attack, I will have to spend
all of my remaining efforts in holding onto what I've got. That's too bad,
because quite frankly I don't relish watching some southerners or
easterners grow fat while I try to keep the brakes on your growth. I'd much
rather see your coffers filling while I tried for some revenge against
Russia (for instance).
It's kind of a pity that you don't know me better, I think my offer might
seem more attractive if you did.
Gentle King Jamie
Private message from England to Russia:
Tsar Faz,
I'm not sure what else there is to discuss. What I meant was, I now have
your message loud and clear. And you could not have had mine more plainly,
I think, so I have nothing more to add.
After a little more thought, I believe I understand your reasoning. There
were a lot of rationalizations in your last few notes, but you did come
right out and say you were doing some cold cost-benefit analysis. To you,
the benefit of screwing me out of Norway is worth the cost of friendship.
How could this be, I wonder. How could that center possibly be worth the
headache you'll incur?
I think I know.
Stabbing me, and continuing to twist the dagger, you think, is cost-free.
Doing something that might possibly, in some conceivable way, make Germany
the tiniest bit cross with you, that is a cost. Giving up your stolen booty
is a cost. But you think there is no cost to stabbing me, because you
honestly don't believe I would ever carry out my threat.
Here is something I thought I'd explained adequately, but I see that I have
to explain it again.
You write of "moral rage" and "venting spleen", of "kamikaze rage" and
"going off half cocked". I've carefully explained to you my motivations,
and you ought to know that those are not appropriate terms. What I must do
is to demonstrate that your judgment of costs and benefits was incorrect
and mine was correct. I am calculating coldly, rest assured.
GK Jamie
Private message from Russia to England:
GKJ,
I'm a little dismayed at your last note. Are you saying that there's no
sense in us communicating anymore, now that my intent to hold in Nwy is
out? Has all R-E correspondence now become 'tainted' due to this one
flap? I can't honestly believe that, and am hoping you meant, "Don't
waste your breath ((this turn)) justifying your steal." I would think
there's "life beyond 1902" for E-R talks. Nothing (not even Germanic
kow-towing) is forever.
If you are that genuinely miffed that you desire no further notes,
please tell me now, and I'll not darken your in-basket any more. But
quite honestly, you're one of only two reliable mail senders, and I'd
find that a tad difficult to take.
Tsar Faz
Private message from England to Italy:
Cal,
I appreciate what you say.
I'm afraid I understand my own position (on the board, I mean, not my
rhetorical position!) better than you do -- I wish your assessment were
correct.
If I go down to three units, which is what will happen if I don't get
Norway, then my position is just about hopeless. I could certainly play to
slow down Pitt. I know this is what's better for you. I might get some help
from France, maybe, and I could slow down Pitt significantly. But I could
not make it through to the endgame. At three I would not be able to stop
the slide; I would be down to two units at the end of next year. And then
my effect on the game would be negligible.
I intend to have a significant effect on the game. At four units, I think
my best bet is to hold the fort as hard as I can, hope for French help, and
hope that Austria collapses and Pitt gets some pressure before I'm wrecked.
In any case, I would do absolutely everything possible to repay Russian
help. At three units, I think that's a vain hope, and I will just use my
units as best I can to tip things the way I want them tipped. And, I'm
afraid, I prefer them to be tipped in Germany's favor, given the
circumstances of my downfall. As I said, it's not exactly a matter of pure
revenge. I have explained it to Mark like this:
When I am stabbed unexpectedly, that's (usually) because I figured that
stabbing me would not be a good move. (Different case with Germany; I just
wasn't too worried because I expected he'd be having major problems
shortly.) It then becomes important to me to show that I was right, that
stabbing me *wasn't* a good move.
I am well aware that Russia may go down a unit if he doesn't finish off
this stab against me. But in fact he may very well not -- Turkey *says* he
has decided to take sides against Edi (so Russia could manage to keep
Rumania this year after all). And in any case, while Russia's going down to
five would be very sad (violins....), I firmly believe it's more prudent
for him to do it that way. Suppose he does get an extra (sixth or seventh)
unit for Norway. He will have to build it in StP and send it to defend
against me. So he wouldn't get to use it in the south anyway, and his
northern position would be extremely precarious (believe me!). Whereas if
he just takes the loss (or stays even), he would have my everlasting
support to maintain Sweden, and his northern border would be, well, as
secure as borders get in Diplomacy.
Needless to say, I've pointed these things out already. In the end, his
answer was, "Russia has to do what Russia has to do." Well, England has to
do what England has to do. I think he doesn't believe me. I would very much
prefer that you persuade him, but if not, I'm afraid I don't have many
options.
To the remnants of our grand alliance,
Gentle King Jamie
Private message from England to Master:
Jim,
Thanks, no problem here with your rulings. At least I don't think so.
Let me explain my own style/views/etc.
Myself, I prefer to have a rule against negotiation during grace period,
especially, a rule against negotiation by or with powers who are late.
However, since there is no such rule in this game, I can't regard it as
cheating to take advantage of whatever house rules there are. That's
Diplomacy, after all. There's cheating, and then there's taking advantage
of loopholes, and the latter is admirable (when it works). Diplomacy is not
cricket!
I'm not sure I really understand your thinking. You are allowing grace
period negotiation, but you don't really want anyone to do it? Sorry, I
know you were trying to be absolutely 'very very' clear.
Do you see my point/problem? If there's a loophole, I fully expect everyone
to try to take advantage of it, and I'd just be asking to be taken
advantage of myself if I didn't try to take advantage of it.
I'll read over your recent comments again.
-Jamie
Private message from Germany to England:
I apologize for the tardiness of my orders, folks. When I tried to check
my mail last night, I discovered that my ISP had lost their mailserver.
The problem has since been fixed but I've just now had the opportunity to
send my orders in today. I haven't had a chance to read any pending
messages, yet, so any of you who replied to my recent messages, please keep
in mind that my orders are being sent in based on pre-Monday discussion.
-Pitt
Private message from Master to England:
>
> Message from [email protected] as England to Master in 'ghodstoo':
>
> Jim,
>
> Thanks, no problem here with your rulings. At least I don't think so.
>
OK, good, I think I should tell you that if you were the only one without
orders in, it would have been inching closer to the line. If you had
been "essentially as I saw it in the press" holding up the turn solely
to say "I won't submit orders until you give me my way" and you were
the only one we were waiting for, then I would have had a problem with it.
I didn't think we were anywhere close to that.
> Let me explain my own style/views/etc.
>
> Myself, I prefer to have a rule against negotiation during grace period,
> especially, a rule against negotiation by or with powers who are late.
>
I certainly do understand that rule, I just don't like to have
essentially unenforceable rules. You always could resort to
off judge press and what of phone calls? Players in my postal
szine very commonly call other players after the deadline before
calling or E-Mailing me their orders.
> However, since there is no such rule in this game, I can't regard it as
> cheating to take advantage of whatever house rules there are. That's
> Diplomacy, after all. There's cheating, and then there's taking advantage
> of loopholes, and the latter is admirable (when it works). Diplomacy is not
> cricket!
Absolutely.
>
> I'm not sure I really understand your thinking. You are allowing grace
> period negotiation, but you don't really want anyone to do it? Sorry, I
> know you were trying to be absolutely 'very very' clear.
>
I want you to request an extension, but then I don't want you to waste
time waiting for me to grant an extension before you go on negotiating.
I thought that was clear, but it probably wasn't.
> Do you see my point/problem? If there's a loophole, I fully expect everyone
> to try to take advantage of it, and I'd just be asking to be taken
> advantage of myself if I didn't try to take advantage of it.
>
Yes.
> I'll read over your recent comments again.
>
> -Jamie
>
>
Let me know.
Jim
>
> Message from [email protected] as Germany to Master, France, Russia, Italy,
> Austria, Turkey and England in 'ghodstoo':
>
>
> I apologize for the tardiness of my orders, folks. When I tried to check
> my mail last night, I discovered that my ISP had lost their mailserver.
> The problem has since been fixed but I've just now had the opportunity to
> send my orders in today. I haven't had a chance to read any pending
> messages, yet, so any of you who replied to my recent messages, please keep
> in mind that my orders are being sent in based on pre-Monday discussion.
>
> -Pitt
>
This illustrates part of my point. I'm not changing my adjusted
deadline. If everyone gets orders in and wants the turn to process,
those of you who have "set wait" will have to order a "set nowait".
Otherwise, the deadline will still be Wednesday night (as Pitt will
discover when he reads those messages).
Jim
Private message from Russia to Italy:
Guys:
My home system (routed thru the local server on post) is acting funky.
I can receive your mail, but can't answer from home. So my replies have
to wait until I'm at work. I'm trying to get another e-mail carrier, or
fix what I have at home...but until that happens, please be patient.
I'll write during work when I'm not swamped, and will try to be
reasonably prompt whenever possible. Bottom line: don't take my
'blocked-off hours" of non-response for non-interest.
Remember also, I'll be off the net from 15-21 March. So let's talk
before and after that time frame. Thanks.
Faz
Private message from Russia to Master:
Jim:
I hope you're not mad at me for sending out that note...I remember last
time 'going private' and didn't want to burden you with another off-line
note. But neither did I wish to embarass you (or any of the players)
with the broadcast note. Can't win for losing, sometimes.
I'm a little dismayed at the stretching of the deadlines, e.g., until
tomorrow for EXACTLY the reasons you mentioned. No one requested a
delay, and anyone (ahem, England) who sent notes today could see the
Judge was up...yet there's no explanation, no request...zippo. As a
military (anal-retentive type) guy, I just find that frustrating. But
not game-ending, if you catch my drift. if it's No NMR and flexible
periods, then those are the rules we play by.
Again, I apologize if this escalated beyond what was "understood
territory." I just got a little mad at Jamie's badgering about Nwy
(and you see it did get a little testy toward the end). But if he can
write me all day to leave Nwy, he could've written a moment and send
orders in on time.
I don't know, Jim; the e-mail crowd seems a bit harsher and temper-prone
than the mailing/PBM crowd...or am I the rough hillbilly outsider than
doesn't fit in?
Faz
Private message from Turkey to Italy:
Cal,
> I thought that E/G didn't have orders in because they hadn't noticed the
> Judge was accepting messages again. I was surprised to see the notice
> saying they were late this morning, especially as I thought there would
> be a day or two added to the deadline because of the Judge probs.
> My $0.02 (Canadian)
Hey, you're back! Great. Hope things are better for you
now. In any case, I never heard back from you after my last
letter. Shall we touch base? I can give you a call if you
like.
Hohn
Private message from France to England:
Jamie, in response to your earlier questions, no, I do not have info
regarding Germany's moves. I assume that, as most people do, he provides
that on a need to know basis, and I have no need to know. If I were to
start asking now, I don't think he'd take it too well.
I have no strong preferences regarding A Bre. It can't hurt anything to
convoy it back to London and just might put the army where it is most
needed. But I also see some merit to a move to Pic. It is up to you.
Best,
John
Private message from Turkey to Master:
Jim,
> Nope. What I am trying to do now though is to ask that people
> give me concurrent notice that they are asking for deadline
> extensions to keep negotiating. I really don't want to break
> any confidentiality and say anything more about specific
> behavior that you didn't observe directly. No one actually
> stepped over any lines that I would or did draw (including you).
I didn't request a deadline extension because the nature of
my negotiation with Cal was not mandatory or crucial enough
to warrant such a request, I thought. My view was that if
he didn't get back to me before moves processed, it was no
big deal. I didn't want to hold the game up for everyone
else just for me. But I figured I'd give it a shot with the
note, and if he happened to respond before moves triggered,
that's cool too.
Hohn
Private message from Master to Turkey:
>
> Message from [email protected] as Turkey to Master in 'ghodstoo':
>
> My orders have been in for quite some time now. After I saw
> Cal's broadcast, however, I sent him a private diplomatic
> note, wanting to touch base. Was this improper in your
> opinion?
>
> Hohn
>
Hohn,
Nope. What I am trying to do now though is to ask that people
give me concurrent notice that they are asking for deadline
extensions to keep negotiating. I really don't want to break
any confidentiality and say anything more about specific
behavior that you didn't observe directly. No one actually
stepped over any lines that I would or did draw (including you).
Jim
Private message from Master to Russia:
>
> Message from [email protected] as Russia to Master in 'ghodstoo':
>
> Jim:
> I hope you're not mad at me for sending out that note...I remember last
> time 'going private' and didn't want to burden you with another off-line
> note. But neither did I wish to embarass you (or any of the players)
> with the broadcast note. Can't win for losing, sometimes.
>
I'm not upset at all. This is a demo game and I expect to be pushed.
To me, all things are in play. What I'm saying is: don't hesitate
to E-Mail me privately; also, broadcast anything you want.
> I'm a little dismayed at the stretching of the deadlines, e.g., until
> tomorrow for EXACTLY the reasons you mentioned. No one requested a
> delay, and anyone (ahem, England) who sent notes today could see the
> Judge was up...yet there's no explanation, no request...zippo. As a
> military (anal-retentive type) guy, I just find that frustrating. But
> not game-ending, if you catch my drift. if it's No NMR and flexible
> periods, then those are the rules we play by.
Yes, and if Jamie (doing what he was doing) was the only one missing,
then that would have been a problem. You "assumed" that Jamie was
"getting what he wants", but as now should be apparent I was granting
the extension for Pitt. Remember that I have to be very careful not
to reveal what I know about on-going negotiations. So, I "knew" that
Pitt was nowhere to be found on the mail. But, I couldn't tell you
that. Now that Pitt has told you, I am free to tell you. I also
told Jamie that the only reason he got away with what he did was because
Pitt was missing. Again, you want to be careful about what you say
in public here -- and I ***REALLY*** have to be careful. I'm not perfect
and I will slip at times, please let me know if I have.
>
> Again, I apologize if this escalated beyond what was "understood
> territory." I just got a little mad at Jamie's badgering about Nwy
> (and you see it did get a little testy toward the end). But if he can
> write me all day to leave Nwy, he could've written a moment and send
> orders in on time.
Sure, that is understandable. IIf I may step just a hair toward the
line, Jamie was taking advantage of the situation.
>
> I don't know, Jim; the e-mail crowd seems a bit harsher and temper-prone
> than the mailing/PBM crowd...or am I the rough hillbilly outsider than
> doesn't fit in?
>
> Faz
>
That is precisely the rub..... which is the case? You tell me. My opinions
(mostly) will be kept to myself until the game is over). Do you know
what happened in ghods? This is not a big secret and I will tell you if
you like. I also wrote some of my opinions in a DW article on E-Mail vs.
Postal Dip. Did you see that?
Jim
Hi, all,
Just wanted to give you a little insight into the USIN judge problems, etc.
First, USIN has been in operation for 14 months and is one of two LARGE
judges. USEF is the other.
Last summer, my employment changed (company was sold) and I no longer had
the luxury of a FREE connection for the judge server. I spent some time
researching alternatives and concluded that the judge would operate in a
non-traditional dial-up connection environment. The use of a
non-traditional setup was due primarily to the fact that my new employment
offered me a way of placing an NT server on the internet for work purposes.
The judge software does not run under NT. The "non traditional" setup is
that the NT server actually does all of the mail work for the USIN system
and they talk together "behind the scenes" on a small network in my house.
Unfortunately, this solution started to fail a month or so after the
implementation primarily because of some limitations of Microsoft's DNS
server and my ignorance about the Linux implementation of sendmail. I've
struggled with that problem for some months now.
Last night, I believe I successfully solved most of my technical issues by
being able the eliminate the need for the DNS software at all. 90% of
USIN's failures since last November and ALL lengthy failures are attributed
to this DNS/Mail problem (known to all of you as the "too many hops"
issue). The other NASTY side of this problem is that the judge NEVER SEES
this mail so it has no way of managing the situation.
Anyway, thanks for all of your patience. I think I've solved the problem
permanently, but we'll see. I've been in this business long enough to know
I should have said that!
Dave
Private message from Russia to Master:
Guys: We got hooked up to another e-mail service at home and I wanted
to pass it along. Last night I tried doing an "IamAlsoat jm..etc"
command, to see if the Judge would broadcast it, but nothing came from
it. (Would the Judge do that as a normal function, though? Don't know
enough about it. Maybe I typed it incorrectly.)
ANYWAY...you can now also send mail to me (any time, any hour) at
[email protected]
If you send something to my work e-mail, remember that after-hours I
can't reply via that system (I'd end up reading it off of the system and
then replying via juno).
BOTTOM LINE: somehow, someway, I'll crack the code on when to send, and
from what system. Please bear with me, Mr Roadkill on the Info
Superhighway.
Tsar Faz
Private message from Russia to Italy:
Hi Cal
Got your reply to Jamie's ominous thunderings about Nwy. I'm in a bind,
true, but I'm willing to ride it out. I mean, look at it from my (our)
view:
1) Who knows what's going on with AT? If I give up NWY and Hohn stays
with Edi, I'm at least -1 (Rum), and maybe -2 (Sev), with me also out of
Gal.
2) If I abandon Nwy, Germany then senses lack of will on my part. If he
goes +2 and has peace with France, then waht's to stop him from sailing
to BAL and heading for WAR via Sil or Pru? Do I voluntarily reduce
myself of forces -- forces needed for OUR front vs Edi -- to honor a
deal with England so HE can stay even or possibly even gain (who knows
what he and F & G are discussing, too)?
Jamie is calculating, and I know he's not a kamikaze player--at least I
hope not. But if he comes after me, it'll either be with Germany (in
which case I'll lose Nwy anyway), or solo, with G on his heels. If he
sails to Bar and (eventually) to Nwg, I'll build F StP(nc) and hunker
down, or boot him before the rest of his units come on-scene. If he
really pisses me off, I'll hit Nwg next turn with German support, but I
don't really want that to happen. I don't want him dead -- just
occupying EF's attention, is all, so they stay off of US...
If he "screws me" by throwing centers to Germany, well...so be it. But
I don't think he'll do that in a demo game.
Frankly, I get a little dismayed by his actions. They remind me of the
5 year-old's threats of "If we don't play my way, I'm taking my ball and
going home" response. THAT's why I think he's "above that" and may be
making some of this as theatrics. But if it's not theatrics, then it's
silly: he's penalizing ME for a security breach, when you and Edi are
equally un-QCish (though you and I not be desire, admittedly)...so he'll
wildly flail against the only guy he can hurt for his loss of anti-F
help??? Hopefully not...
I mean, what do YOU think? Are you willing to risk me facing an enraged
Germany with an even (or loss) build count, just to satisfy Eng honor
and have him be "my buddy" against G? Does this detract from the
anti-Edi crusdae? You tell me; I want honest ally feedback here...
Thanks, pardner...
Tsar Faz
>
> Guys: We got hooked up to another e-mail service at home and I wanted
> to pass it along. Last night I tried doing an "IamAlsoat jm..etc"
> command, to see if the Judge would broadcast it, but nothing came from
> it. (Would the Judge do that as a normal function, though? Don't know
> enough about it. Maybe I typed it incorrectly.)
>
iamalso was never a command that I understood very well. Would one of
our bright observers please clue Mark in as to how iamalso works? Thanks
very much. This is the (very small) price of watching this fascinating
game. I can call on you to help me out.
> ANYWAY...you can now also send mail to me (any time, any hour) at
> [email protected]
>
> If you send something to my work e-mail, remember that after-hours I
> can't reply via that system (I'd end up reading it off of the system and
> then replying via juno).
>
> BOTTOM LINE: somehow, someway, I'll crack the code on when to send, and
> from what system. Please bear with me, Mr Roadkill on the Info
> Superhighway.
>
> Tsar Faz
>
C'mon, Faz, don't dump on yourself so much. This E-Mail stuff isn't
that hard......
Jim
Private message from Russia to England:
GKJ,
OK, back at the terminal, and ready to review this missive! I'll type
as I read (always a dangerous thing), so the 'first cut" may not be
vintage Fassio...but when the 'vintage' is right up there with Mad Dog
and Boone's farm, I guess that's ok! Hope this finds you well.
ADMIN NOTE: I'm sure the other 14 messages in my queue may say this,
but if it doesn't, I'm also at a new (home) e-mail address, to allow
evening communications (post 5 p.m.): [email protected].
OK, your note...
>I'm not sure what else there is to discuss. What I meant was, I now have
>your message loud and clear. And you could not have had mine more plainly,
>I think, so I have nothing more to add.
** OK, interpreted as such by me! The "loud and clear" part from me
wasn't meant to "yell," but I know what you mean. It is an unequivocal
transmission not loved by English ears.
>
>After a little more thought, I believe I understand your reasoning. There
>were a lot of rationalizations in your last few notes, but you did come
>right out and say you were doing some cold cost-benefit analysis. To you,
>the benefit of screwing me out of Norway is worth the cost of friendship.
>How could this be, I wonder. How could that center possibly be worth the
>headache you'll incur?
** Before I read further, let me game it out and answer here, then see
if it matches as I go down the line.
1) From the cost-benefit side: I reasoned, is English friendship AT
THIS TIME worth one center? In other words, do I need this center given
the board set-up, or should I possibly sacrifice Russian defense to stay
chummy with England...an England who should know a survival instinct
when he sees one?
2) I then said, is one center worth hacking off Pitt, who clearly holds
the leverage over me AT THIS TIME? Again, is the honor of keeping
England even (and facing Germany) worth the reality of me keeping Pitt
quiet (hopefully) and staying solvent, to boot?
3) Lastly, I reasoned, is England a grudge player who will carry this
slight over Nwy to his grave in some sort of snit, or will he calculate
and deal as expected?
I thus decided for short-term greed, schizo security feelings, and the
hope that you'll be amenable for future discussions. The board's set-up
in Fall 1902 will obviously affect the ER dealings and
correspondence....
>I think I know.
>Stabbing me, and continuing to twist the dagger, you think, is cost-free.
** How so, "continuing to twist the dagger?" You mean, sailing Nwy to
Nwg and then continuing to hit you with German help? Hadn't been my
intent....
>Doing something that might possibly, in some conceivable way, make Germany
>the tiniest bit cross with you, that is a cost. Giving up your stolen booty
>is a cost. But you think there is no cost to stabbing me, because you
>honestly don't believe I would ever carry out my threat.
** No, untrue. I'm HOPING you don't get into this "jihad" vs the
available guy" mode, but if you do, then I expect a timed assault (while
you shift to BAR, Nwg, etc, and make my life a nuisance. And I'll
build F STP(nc) in such an event). I just reasoned that the
"cost-benefit" for you would make it a less than optimal choice, is all.
But no, I expect you to try something of that variety if you're mad
>enough....
>
>Here is something I thought I'd explained adequately, but I see that I have
>to explain it again.
>
>You write of "moral rage" and "venting spleen", of "kamikaze rage" and
>"going off half cocked". I've carefully explained to you my motivations,
>and you ought to know that those are not appropriate terms. What I must do
>is to demonstrate that your judgment of costs and benefits was incorrect
>and mine was correct. I am calculating coldly, rest assured.
** Ha! Semi-vindication of my above para. And while I tend to write
colorfully at times, there are psychological implications of what I
write....they don't always work, but it's part of the game
correspondence. You are the antithesis of erratic, kamikaze behavior,
from what I've seen.
My thrust is this, GKJ: I don't want one center to be the bone of
contention betwene us. I know for you this is symptomatic of a larger
trust (and security) issue, rather than just Nwy.
I just feel this way:
Edi hosed me, and I hosed Hohn, yet we're all communicating and ready to
bargain with whomever, whenever, to make our countries secure. I fully
expect you to try and nail me, even possibly with German help(!)
Nothing would surprise me this game. But I would also HOPE that you
realize there is "ER life beyond 1902" and I sincerely hope our comm
lines haven't been irretrievanly shattered just because of this.
Calculate away, oh cold one.
Tsar Faz
>Vienna, (Free Press)
>I am a little concerned about the aura of this game:
>Spring 01: Hohn is over burdened by reality and turns are delayed
>Fall 01: Pitt is poisoned and his turns are delayed
>Winter 01: Cal is diseased with some flu plague
>Spring 02: Mark tosses his back out and is drugged up
> Cal's phone is disconected
>Fall 02: Pitt and Jamie are late
> Klienman's Judge gets hopping mad and bops about
>What next: the second coming? Is it possible that we can get through a turn
>without something weird outside of figuring out what we are all doing with
>our
>pieces...on the board.
** What really bothers me is that I just saw Marilyn Monroe and Elvis
aboard a UFO, and Jim-Bob Burgess was with them (or was the Joe-Bob
Briggs)? If this is just 1902, I' can't WAIT to see 190...hey, the
ground's shaking...what the h- .....................-FEED INTERRUPTED-
>Broadcast message from [email protected] as Observer in
>'ghodstoo':
>
>First, USIN has been in operation for 14 months and is one of two LARGE
>judges. USEF is the other.
As keeper of the alliance of the third largest judge North American judge
(USWI) (formerly the second largest), USNM and CAWA, I'd like to object
to Dave's exclusive comments and declare war on USIN.
USWI-USIN
CAWA s USWI-USIN
USNM-USMA
>Anyway, thanks for all of your patience. I think I've solved the problem
>permanently, but we'll see. I've been in this business long enough to know
>I should have said that!
Good luck Dave, thanks from all of us for trying to stabilize your platform.
(you'd think that Micros__t NT would be a bit more network friendly, eh ...)
Nick
>
> Broadcast message from [email protected] as Austria in 'ghodstoo':
>
>
> Vienna, (Free Press)
> I am a little concerned about the aura of this game:
>
> Spring 01: Hohn is over burdened by reality and turns are delayed
>
> Fall 01: Pitt is poisoned and his turns are delayed
>
> Winter 01: Cal is diseased with some flu plague
>
> Spring 02: Mark tosses his back out and is drugged up
> Cal's phone is disconected
>
> Fall 02: Pitt and Jamie are late
> Klienman's Judge gets hopping mad and bops about
>
> What next: the second coming? Is it possible that we can get through a turn
> without something weird outside of figuring out what we are all doing with our
> pieces...on the board.
>
>
This is indeed diconcerting. Should I inquire of the magic eightball
about the future of this game?
Vienna, (Free Press)
I am a little concerned about the aura of this game:
Spring 01: Hohn is over burdened by reality and turns are delayed
Fall 01: Pitt is poisoned and his turns are delayed
Winter 01: Cal is diseased with some flu plague
Spring 02: Mark tosses his back out and is drugged up
Cal's phone is disconected
Fall 02: Pitt and Jamie are late
Klienman's Judge gets hopping mad and bops about
What next: the second coming? Is it possible that we can get through a turn
without something weird outside of figuring out what we are all doing with our
pieces...on the board.
Private message from Master to England:
Jamie, this is a short answer that is preceding a longer answer that
won't come back to you today. I do indeed know that you were walking
up to the line in a way that you wouldn't have done under other
circumstances. So, I am in agreement with your statements in
general. You must recall my stance on unenforceable rules during
the various house rule debates. Still, I must think about your
comments further. I do see that you have your orders in with set wait.
We're fine for right now. It's your choice whether or not to
remove the set wait etc., etc.
Still, I want to say more, but don't have time right now.
Jim
Private message from England to Russia:
>1) From the cost-benefit side: I reasoned, is English friendship AT
>THIS TIME worth one center? In other words, do I need this center given
>the board set-up, or should I possibly sacrifice Russian defense to stay
>chummy with England...an England who should know a survival instinct
>when he sees one?
I know a survival instinct, yes I do. You are screwing me for your fifth
center or your sixth. You are reducing me to three centers. I've got a keen
survival instinct.
But to me this means, I have to put something on the table that counts for
something. And I really don't have much. So what I put on the table is
this: give me what is due to me, what was promised, and I am your friend to
the end; otherwise, I'm your enemy to the end. I have to put up high
stakes, because my survival is on the line.
You don't believe I am serious about that, that's the problem. My problem,
and it will be yours, too. But, you'll see.
>2) I then said, is one center worth hacking off Pitt, who clearly holds
>the leverage over me AT THIS TIME?
I think this is pure pretense. The idea that Pitt would drop this all-out
attack against me and spend seasons re-arranging his units to attack you is
totally ridiculous.
> Again, is the honor of keeping
>England even (and facing Germany) worth the reality of me keeping Pitt
>quiet (hopefully) and staying solvent, to boot?
If it were only honor? Maybe not. That's why I have upped the stakes.
For some players, honor is enough. I had hoped you were one of those. Since
you aren't, I have to put more chips on the table. So I have.
>3) Lastly, I reasoned, is England a grudge player who will carry this
>slight over Nwy to his grave in some sort of snit, or will he calculate
>and deal as expected?
Again, you are quite deliberately misdescribing my motivations. I'll let
that slide. I suppose you are just trying to get me mad.
I'll calculate my deal all right. But what will I be aiming to maximize?
You assume I will always aim to maximize my survival duration. Not true. I
will maximize my effect on the game in my dying years. I know how to do
that now.
>>Stabbing me, and continuing to twist the dagger, you think, is cost-free.
>** How so, "continuing to twist the dagger?" You mean, sailing Nwy to
>Nwg and then continuing to hit you with German help? Hadn't been my
>intent....
No.
Stabbing me last move. Then, promising me that if I help convince Hohn to
join you instead of Edi, you will give me Norway. Then, after I have done
that, saying, "Hah, sucker, you mean you actually BELIEVED that?"
That's twisting. And if that's the way it is, then you are someone with
whom there is no point in dealing at all. There is zero expectation that
you will carry through.
>** No, untrue. I'm HOPING you don't get into this "jihad" vs the
>available guy" mode, but if you do, then I expect a timed assault (while
>you shift to BAR, Nwg, etc, and make my life a nuisance. And I'll
>build F STP(nc) in such an event).
You will build F Stp if I move to Bar now. Interesting.
In that case, you will have gained absolutely nothing by stabbing me! You
won't have that unit to play in the south. So, you are stabbing me for no
gain at all.
And what if I don't move to Bar now? Will you then figure that I won't move
there next Spring? Or will you build in StP anyway?
I'll tell you what. I warn you: you had better build in StP this winter, no
matter where my fleets are.
>My thrust is this, GKJ: I don't want one center to be the bone of
>contention betwene us.
Then give me the bone. That's the only way out.
What you really mean is, you want the center and you don't want me to try
to do anything about it. You want your stab to be cost-free. It will not
be. You can mark that down in your book of certainties. Other things are
merely probable, unlikely, possible... this is certain: stab me as you are
stabbing me and I will do something about it.
>I know for you this is symptomatic of a larger
>trust (and security) issue, rather than just Nwy.
True.
>I just feel this way:
>Edi hosed me, and I hosed Hohn, yet we're all communicating and ready to
>bargain with whomever, whenever, to make our countries secure. I fully
>expect you to try and nail me, even possibly with German help(!)
>Nothing would surprise me this game. But I would also HOPE that you
>realize there is "ER life beyond 1902" and I sincerely hope our comm
>lines haven't been irretrievanly shattered just because of this.
Not at all. I will continue to communicate with you. I'll set up a
telegraph office in St Petersburg.
But it still does seem to me that you simply don't believe I'll carry out
my threats. Because if you did, your own cool cost-benefit analysis would
tell you that continuing to stab me isn't worth it, it will be costlier to
you than pulling out your dagger. So, you don't believe me. I take that as
a challenge.
Gentle King Jamie
I keep four folders for game-related stuff. "Ghodstoo" is for stuff I
receive from my fellow players; "Ghodsent" is for copies of stuff *I*
send out; "Results" is self-explanatory, and; "Ghodstalk" is for stuff
like the broadcast below, observer comments, messages from Jim-Bob,
anything that doesn't fit in the other folders.
Unfortunately, I now am finding a problem with Netscape Gold, which I
use as a newsreader. Seems that once I name a folder, I can't change
the name without deleting the whole thing. After reading the notes
today from Hohn, Jamie and Mark, I am forced to admit that "Ghodstalk"
must be changed to "gd_whine". Anyone have any suggestions about
changing the folder name?
I am quite surprised to have to remind the people in THIS game that
we are, in fact, playing a game. All our communications are being
archived for future players to read. I sure wouldn't want to go down
in Dip "history" as having authored some of the childishness I've read
recently.
Lighten up, folks!
Cal
PS: I'm not just picking on the three people who have written broadcasts
today. The whole tone of communications has gotten pretty whiny lately.
Stabbing is part of the game. Learn to live with it without the
pettiness.
CW
> Broadcast message from [email protected] as England in 'ghodstoo':
>
> Sultan Funneiman,
>
> >Last I checked, Edi wasn't holding any guns to your head, forcing you
> >to type in sev-bla, mos-sev.
> >
> >It's that personal responsibility thing, don'tcha know.
>
> I'm afraid I will have to join the Sultan's urging that Tsar Fazzio join
> Stabbers Anonymous. A twelve-step program. Accepting responsibility for
> one's stabs is the first step. Reparations come next.
>
> There's a very respectable chapter in Oslo, by the way.
>
> >We all plan and scheme. What's important is what we actually *do*,
> >though, as far as I'm concerned.
>
> The William James of Ankara!
>
> Let's hope some of his philosophy rubs off.
>
> >(Man, was I this bitter when Mark stabbed me? I certainly hope not.)
>
> I couldn't say, I've never tasted either of you. I suspect you are both
> pretty salty, myself.
>
> Whereas I remain, as always, my saccharine self,
>
> Gentlissimo King Jamie
Private message from Russia to England:
GKJ, I'm back, albeit briefly. See below...
>First:
>You won't be offended, I trust, by my broadcast. I've been abstaining, but
>couldn't miss the opportunity for some fun. And, it's calculated, of
>course. I have reasons for wanting the general populace to think I'm mad at
>you. In fact: take broadcasts quite generally with a grain of salt. I think
>it's like that in PBM, too, though I can't speak from experience.
** No, none taken. Even Hohn's (which I swallowed with slight humble
pie stuck in my throat) is taken as part of the game dynamics...and I
started THAT one, too, this a.m....couldn't help myself, heh heh...
>Now....
>
>>** My guess is that energize France and see what you guys can do. Just
>>as I'm no threat to Hohn, neither is England a threat to France...but
>>those big black blocks in PIC may convince John of your offering....
>
>Yes, of course.
>
>You should always assume that I'm doing everything I can on that front.
>Only I don't generally tell you about it.
** I figured as much, but it doesn't hurt for self-reassurance from time
to time. I certainly wouldn't want to think that I'm the object of ALL
your daily e-mails... :>)
>
>>** You're right. I'll be on him like a big dog to leave. Only this
>>time, I'm botting his ass out of my centers as part of the deal. Fair
>>is fair, i.e., screw the guy who screwed you..once. Then kiss and make
>>up. He deals a la my wishes for mutual gain, or I delaythem until the
>>board is 2/3 Germanic...
>
>Ahem.
>
>Think that through again, sir. And maybe read over some of those 500
>messages you sent me.
>
>The past is over. And in any case, you have no good grounds for resentment
>against Hohn. You started it.
** Indeed. And I've already echange of two NASTYgrams with him today.
I'll wager it's personality more than game at this stage. If he's a
hot-shot legal-eagle (or some high-spped ad exec, or whatever relates to
"clients"), then he's probably as type A anal-rententive as I am, wants
the last word, etc etc...We're not getting along well, unfortunately.
(If I wasn't so anal, I'd keep mail linger than 45 seconds, and send you
a recent exchange. Would give you a good chuckle.)
>
>My advice, for what it's worth:
>take your losses, make it attractive to Hohn to get those Balkans and
>prevent Edi from becoming the big fish in the south.
>
>I've put off any plan to regain Norway. You ought to put off any plan to
>regain Sevastopol.
** I agree, to a point. But that puts me COMPLETELY at his trust, and
gives me nowhere else to build. Now, G is after me to sail for Nwg this
turn...says he's determined to take you down (I had asked him to build
in MUN, go Mun-Tyo, then have my GAL retreat to BOH, and he, Cal and I
put a whammy on VIE/TRI. All I got was a "hmmmm....let mt think about
that...I expect you to hold off the southern hordes..." and a "...that
move would leave France alone over there..." ???
I only thought of SEV as a way of making the AT fight for every inch.
Now, that's probably the wrong mindset. I KNOW I want Hohn to jump
ship. In fact, even in the most vitrioloc of our exchanges today, I've
told him he's made great moves, I'm just "mad" at myself for my own
stupidity and gullibility, and that I'm always available for
mutually-benficial plans. Let's see what he says in reply...
>Hard to swallow? Believe me, I know!
** No harder to swallow than the humble pie I've had the last two days,
me bucko.
>
>>** Double-ditto. give me a slow PBM game with one ally any time.
>
>:)
>No comment.
** I said PBM, not PBEM. If this was PBM, you and I would already have
half the board under control.
>
>> here
>>I feel like I have to "run faster, go farther, etc" just because I'm
>>visible in front of all these ghods and the associated satraps in the
>>observer stands...
>
>No, ignore them. To quell your worries, have a look at the analysis they've
>given. Most observers will quite properly assume that they have no real
>clue about what's going on. The others' opinions should be of no interest
>to you.
** Logic (and you) says to ignore them. And I try. Rather hard in my
first "intro to ghods" PBEM, though....
>
I'm here, GKJ.
two related points:
1) edi sent a note today, implying he'd like me to keep F Bla, and to
tell Hohn I'm fighting (vice surrending dots to G). He thinks Hohn will
then NOT destroy F BLA (to allow me an army rebuild), but will instead
play cat-and-mouse with it down south. Now, as I've told Hohn, why
would EDI ask me to fight on and keep the fleet active....?
2) Edi also mentioned a snippet about "Germany being part of the plan"
to keep FE occupied...don't know if it was a generic statement, meaning
I should worry about the Balkans, or whether the expected A-G Axis is
really here underneath all the layers....
tsar Faz
> >
> > Broadcast message from [email protected] as Italy in 'ghodstoo':
> >
> >
> > I keep four folders for game-related stuff. "Ghodstoo" is for stuff I
> > receive from my fellow players; "Ghodsent" is for copies of stuff *I*
> > send out; "Results" is self-explanatory, and; "Ghodstalk" is for stuff
> > like the broadcast below, observer comments, messages from Jim-Bob,
> > anything that doesn't fit in the other folders.
> >
Those messages from Jim-Bob are the most important of the whole lot ;-)
> > Unfortunately, I now am finding a problem with Netscape Gold, which I
> > use as a newsreader. Seems that once I name a folder, I can't change
> > the name without deleting the whole thing. After reading the notes
> > today from Hohn, Jamie and Mark, I am forced to admit that "Ghodstalk"
> > must be changed to "gd_whine". Anyone have any suggestions about
> > changing the folder name?
> >
> > I am quite surprised to have to remind the people in THIS game that
> > we are, in fact, playing a game. All our communications are being
> > archived for future players to read. I sure wouldn't want to go down
> > in Dip "history" as having authored some of the childishness I've read
> > recently.
> >
> > Lighten up, folks!
> >
> > Cal
> >
> > PS: I'm not just picking on the three people who have written broadcasts
> > today. The whole tone of communications has gotten pretty whiny lately.
> > Stabbing is part of the game. Learn to live with it without the
> > pettiness.
> >
> > CW
As if I had to say anything about this:
To my view, so is whining, at times. Everything is part of the game.
I guess I just want to say that all is fine with me and to say that
I haven't had a chance to read through all of this (plus the private
stuff) and won't until tomorrow some time. If there is anything
urgent for me to see before then, please send it to me at
[email protected] outside of the judge and I will get to it.
I also think it is important for the Gm to tell people where he is.
Thanks for your understanding,
Jim
Private message from Russia to Italy:
Hey Guys:
I think I'm hooked up for home. JUNO being what it is, however, doesn't
have "real time viewing," i.e., the lines only open long enough to
send/receive that 'dose" of e-mail. So by the time the Judge sends
the comeback copy (or you reply 5 mins later), it's another dime to open
the lines again to receive.
Anyway, I'll try and access Juno at least a couple times a night--maybe
moreso tomorrow and/or Fri, as those are my only two 'real' days to
negotiate before I take that 6-day leave (Sat-Thu)...and I imagine the
next due date will be next WED, the 19th.
Spokojnoj nochij (Good night),
Tsar Faz
Private message from Russia to Austria:
Hi Edi
I won't be able to read any reply you send until the 21st, as I'm leaving
in about 30 mins (and I doubt you're reading this a 3:30 a.m....but you
never know).
I'd like to know if there's a chance for further cooperation or not, and,
if so, when and how. Quite honestly, if there's not -- or if you're
just going to try and bamboozle me -- then I'll work to get G and I
energized in the west, and T to the east, and try to hit your country
from every direction. Now, whil;e that sounds extremely bellicose, you
surely realize the "bellicosity" is coming from desperation, not
arrogance. I'm in a "hurt box," and need some relief. As YOU are the
one who have maneuvered so as to get behind Hohn (to the point I'm not
even in SEV anymore), then I was hoping you would help take a hand in
re-altering the balance down there. I'd certainly like to get AND KEEP
Sev and Rum (either order would be fine); beyond that, you can be the
Grand Puppeteer down south for all I care...
Anyway, we can work a deal if you're serious and interested. if not, we
can continue to fight. If the latter, I will work on Pitt to provide
some aid (and to come 'rescue' me), I will work to keep Italy active vs
you, and I will try and wean Hohn away (yeah, right). I'd have no other
option if that was the case.
if you want to realistically deal, I'll work on Italy to call him off,
and forget about asking Pitt for stuff. But I'd like to hear your view
on things, and what there even IS to 'deal on the table."
Your thoughts?
See you in a5 days or so...
Tsar Faz
>O.....MY.....GHOD
Isn't that so be Ghodstoo....
Edi Birsan
Midnight Games
[email protected]
Web site: www.mgames.com
>I also think everyone should know that I defend the state against prisoner
>law suits.
O.....MY.....GHOD
He's a _government_ lawyer...
We're doomed.
-KaiserPitt
(sticking my head between my legs and kissing my _ass goodbye)
Private message from Russia to Master:
Gang: Going off the net in 5 minutes. See you tonight on juno.com, or
(more realistically), next Thursday night on juno.com.
The phone's always open if you wanna talk...
Tsar Faz
Private message from Russia to Italy:
Cal,
One more thought, based on your last note.
Independent of your note to me, I also relooked the board, and sent the
following to Hohn just now. Note how I make it "us" vs Aus and Ita,
i.e., this keeps A/I fighting, we gain, etc etc. I'd ultimately love to
chop off the stringy necks of both A and T, but first we need Hohn's
help.
I asked him to essentially tell me what's WRONG with a three-way dump on
Edi. I imagine I'll be 'amused' at the reply...if I get one.
Take care of your ankle and your sickness. Don't breathe on me from
your screen. :>)
Best
Faz
>---------------------
>Message sent to Turkey:
>
>Message from [email protected] as Russia to Turkey in 'ghodstoo':
>
>Hohn
>Was relooking over the map. Assuming you're serious about cooperation,
>why don't we smoke Edi ASAP with Cal? It can be done -- he can't defend
>everywhere. Look:
>
>Ion-Gre (cuts support)
>Ven-Tri (Adr S)
>
>Con S Bla-Bul(ec)
>Arm-Ank (then to Con, or Smy, or hold...whatever)
>Sev-Rum
>
>Rum-Bud (Gal S)
>F Ank? - Bla (if you're going there); otherwise F Smy-Aeg (we'll need
>them later anyway).
>
>If Edi uses Vie to defend Bud and/or hit Gal, he loses TRI. If he
>defends TRI, then Bud falls. If he uses Bud & Vie to hit Gal (Bud-Gal,
>Tri S), then he could lose BOTH Tri and Bud!
>
>In the south the (hated) Russian F Bla * could * get out of your hair by
>going to BUL...again, we can GUARANTEE its fall this way...you can
>always annihilate it later and make some sort of swap as we deal in
>Rum-Sev-Bul-Bud ownerships...you know, the rough parity thing...
>
>In this arrangement, we "could" all go +1. But at the minimum, SOMEONE
>goes +1, or maybe more. And Edi DOES get reduced.
>
>The more I look at it, the more appeal it has. Cal will surely bite,
>and his support can be crucial for us this turn. Plus, it keeps Aus and
>Ita fighting!
>
>I'm curious to hear your critique of this plan.
>
>Best
>Mark
>
Private message from Russia to Turkey:
Hohn
Was relooking over the map. Assuming you're serious about cooperation,
why don't we smoke Edi ASAP with Cal? It can be done -- he can't defend
everywhere. Look:
Ion-Gre (cuts support)
Ven-Tri (Adr S)
Con S Bla-Bul(ec)
Arm-Ank (then to Con, or Smy, or hold...whatever)
Sev-Rum
Rum-Bud (Gal S)
F Ank? - Bla (if you're going there); otherwise F Smy-Aeg (we'll need
them later anyway).
If Edi uses Vie to defend Bud and/or hit Gal, he loses TRI. If he
defends TRI, then Bud falls. If he uses Bud & Vie to hit Gal (Bud-Gal,
Tri S), then he could lose BOTH Tri and Bud!
In the south the (hated) Russian F Bla * could * get out of your hair by
going to BUL...again, we can GUARANTEE its fall this way...you can
always annihilate it later and make some sort of swap as we deal in
Rum-Sev-Bul-Bud ownerships...you know, the rough parity thing...
In this arrangement, we "could" all go +1. But at the minimum, SOMEONE
goes +1, or maybe more. And Edi DOES get reduced.
The more I look at it, the more appeal it has. Cal will surely bite,
and his support can be crucial for us this turn. Plus, it keeps Aus and
Ita fighting!
I'm curious to hear your critique of this plan.
Best
Mark
Private message from Italy to Russia:
> Message from [email protected] as Russia to Italy in 'ghodstoo':
>
> Hi Cal,
> Will be departing here shortly, and wanted to drop a line before the
> screen went dark for a week. Hope you're doing ok.
Still sick and the sprained ankle/knee forced an early departure from my
first day at work in two weeks... sigh. Ah well, I'm improving, but
s-l-o-w-l-y.
> Turkey has been expressing a "tentative" interest in working together,
> but "only as it involves realigning the front (ha!)" and that 'there's
> no way in hell we can work together if you think you're getting both SEV
> and RUM back, even next year."
>
> Man, there's a great way to be diplomatic. God, he's just lording his
> control over me right now, and it's painful to smile through it. He has
> the attitude of "take it or leave it" if I want his terms, so for now
> I'll take it. But I keep telling myself, Edi's the one behind this all,
> and _we must press on with his doom._ I hope you continue to share that
> thought.
I wrote a LONG letter to Hohn trying to sell him on the idea of a sneak
attack on Edi. Between he and I (and with maybe a little help from
you),
we could take up to three centres off him in one swell foop. He hasn't
replied and it's now the second evening after I wrote. I hope that
means
he's thinking long and hard about it. I think I'll try and phone him
tonight and push it that way. FYI, I DIDN'T try to get him to back off
from you because I didn't want him thinking I had ulterior (ie
pro-Russian)
motives. If he goes along with my plan, I figure that will buy you some
time anyway.
> In that regard: I've asked Germany to build/move Mun-Tyo. Coupled with
> you in Ven and Adr (and me soon to be in BOH when he boots me out of
> GAL), we can put a severe hurt on Vienna and points north.
I'm not sure how I like Pitt being in Tyrolia as that gives him an early
foot across the stalemate line, but if he does then it at least means
Edi is doomed. I can work with that. Better though if Hohn can come
over to our (well, for now, MY) side.
> Hohn's out to crush my F Bla; has already said he's building F Ank and
> coming after it. That's fine. I'll crush SEV or RUM as a tit-for-tat
> (he's already expecting that, so he says). Fine.
Better than fine. If he builds a fleet in Ankara, that puts the kibosh
on my plans and probably my future...
> Again, I wish you well over the Alb gambit and anything else. "You done
> good" last turn by preventing a build. Don't let the Master's Voice
> lure you over to the dark Side, Cal Skywalker...
My name is Juan Antonio Valdez. You killed my father. Prepare to die.
Yeah, well MY name is Darth Vader. I AM your father. Prepare to die.
> See you on the juno.com next week....
Have a great time on vacation back in the bush. Sounds like the Indian
Reserve where I grew up... sigh. Ah, for the back woods, a canoe and
a backpack...
Forest Ranger Cal
(I'm a lumberjack and I'm okay... :) )
Private message from Russia to Italy:
Hi Cal,
Will be departing here shortly, and wanted to drop a line before the
screen went dark for a week. Hope you're doing ok.
Turkey has been expressing a "tentative" interest in working together,
but "only as it involves realigning the front (ha!)" and that 'there's
no way in hell we can work together if you think you're getting both SEV
and RUM back, even next year."
Man, there's a great way to be diplomatic. God, he's just lording his
control over me right now, and it's painful to smile through it. He has
the attitude of "take it or leave it" if I want his terms, so for now
I'll take it. But I keep telling myself, Edi's the one behind this all,
and _we must press on with his doom._ I hope you continue to share that
thought.
In that regard: I've asked Germany to build/move Mun-Tyo. Coupled with
you in Ven and Adr (and me soon to be in BOH when he boots me out of
GAL), we can put a severe hurt on Vienna and points north.
Hohn's out to crush my F Bla; has already said he's building F Ank and
coming after it. That's fine. I'll crush SEV or RUM as a tit-for-tat
(he's already expecting that, so he says). Fine.
Again, I wish you well over the Alb gambit and anything else. "You done
good" last turn by preventing a build. Don't let the Master's Voice
lure you over to the dark Side, Cal Skywalker...
See you on the juno.com next week....
Tsar Faz
Private message from Russia to Turkey:
Hi Hohn
Quick reply...
>Regarding the bulk of the letter, it seems we're in agreement.
** Would be nice to what what part of the "remaining" non-bulk that
we're NOT in agreement on...
>Regarding RUM and SEV specifically, I want you to know that in any
>scenario where the two of us work together, I'll require rough parity
>between us in centers.
** That goes without saying. I voice the same statement to you.
> And if that means you need to defer taking RUM
>until later, that's what I'll need to see.
** I won't be in any position to take both centers anyway, you know
that. You'll kill BLA and Edi will boot me out of GAL, so I'll get one,
if I'm lucky. You're overly concerned on this point.
> I have no objection to the
>idea of giving it back to you when I can get builds in other places,
>but to be blunt, there's no way in hell I can agree to work with you
>if you expect to take both back this year. Or even by next year if
>you would have more centers than me.
** That's understandable, but the reverse is true too. You require
rough parity, but so do I.
I'm at 5 with a (small) second front up north. You're at 5 with NO
second front (yet?) in the west. You will gain ANYTHING sooner than me
at this stage, Hohn. After the "love taps" we've both done to each
other, we'll both need to "'fess up" fair-and-square to make this work.
But we _have_ the whole Balkan front to "slice the pie" to fit both our
security desires! There's more than enough to go around....
I'm sitting here as I type this, trying to figure out what good you'd
get by hitting Edi, and what good you'd do by staying with him, and
doing a cost-benefit analysis. I'm hoping the lure of many red centers
entices you more than the thought of no more white ones.
>I just want to be up front.
** Good. No surprises next turn, then.
Btw, being "up-front" might address that ARM and BLA question at a
not-too-distant point in the future..??? I don't require/want/expect
any specifics as to convoys, movements away, etc...just a truthful "no
threat to you" response. If you can utter those words without your
nose growing 10 feet, RT cooperation will go a VERY long way.
>If this requirement of mine sinks any
>chance of us working together, so be it.
It doesn't. It _sounds_ cavalier; very
"take-it-or-leave-it-I'm-in-the-driver's-seat." But I know by you that
you're fond of directness, and I have no desire to be the one to
re-upset the applecart of cooperation at this stage. (Of course, you
haven't said whether you're riding the cart w/me or not--only that we'll
assess the situation (uh, yeah).)
This is the best I can hope for, and it's a darn sight better than
fighting a definite AT. Agreed.
>
>Mark
>
>
Private message from Turkey to Russia:
Mark,
>Again, sounds ok. Sort of like a "(your) gun to (my) head" choice, i.e.,
>"Nothing you can do about it; lay back and enjoy it." As I'm sure you
>wouldn't like hearing that from me, neither do I relish the prospect, given
>last turn. BUT:
> I do indeed have no choice. And I do indeed want to work with you. Time
>will tell if you're serious. Post-spring should indeed be a nice "decision"
>timeframe...with no more Russian F BLA, you'll have to make the visible move
>one way or the other. I am indeed urgently hoping for the anti-A move.
>I won't cry over BLA if you won't cry over RUM or SEV; deal? Take care.
Regarding the bulk of the letter, it seems we're in agreement.
Regarding RUM and SEV specifically, I want you to know that in any
scenario where the two of us work together, I'll require rough parity
between us in centers. And if that means you need to defer taking RUM
until later, that's what I'll need to see. I have no objection to the
idea of giving it back to you when I can get builds in other places,
but to be blunt, there's no way in hell I can agree to work with you
if you expect to take both back this year. Or even by next year if
you would have more centers than me.
I just want to be up front. If this requirement of mine sinks any
chance of us working together, so be it.
Hohn
Private message from Russia to Turkey:
>Hohn:
>Again, sounds ok. Sort of like a "(your) gun to (my) head" choice, i.e.,
>"Nothing you can do about it; lay back and enjoy it." As I'm sure you
>wouldn't like hearing that from me, neither do I relish the prospect, given
>last turn. BUT:
>
> I do indeed have no choice. And I do indeed want to work with you. Time
>will tell if you're serious. Post-spring should indeed be a nice "decision"
>timeframe...with no more Russian F BLA, you'll have to make the visible move
>one way or the other. I am indeed urgently hoping for the anti-A move.
>
>I won't cry over BLA if you won't cry over RUM or SEV; deal? Take care.
>
>Mark
>endpress
>signoff
>
>
>
Private message from Turkey to Russia:
Mark,
Bottom line for me is that I'm certainly willing to deal and work
together. As for your security concerns, I can only tell you that
I'll be happy to demilitarize BLA if and when we work out a
substantive deal, which probably won't be until after Spring moves at
least. What guarantees do you have that I won't stab? Absolutely
none. But as you say, there's little you can do about it. I
recommend that you simply look to your defense until I unilaterally
pull out of BLA per some prearranged agreement.
Sound reasonable?
Hohn
Private message from Russia to Turkey:
Hi Hohn
Thanks for the note; "one for the road," as it is. Hope this finds you
well.
As my previous day's notes generally alluded to, I was more upset with
myself for believing all the moral pap and the guilt trips you applied,
rather than with the stab itself. It was a fine stab! The fact that
you planned this whole thing all along--stab included--while abusing
_me_ (in a game sense) for the same thing is just bitter irony that no
player likes to be reminded of. But, all part of a good the game, what
can I say? (I also forgot that Edi and you knew each other from
previous games--hence a degree of friendship and 'insider knowledge" of
each others' styles, as opposed to "outsider" Fassio. I should've had
little hackles raising on my neck...getting too old for this stuff...)
OK, moralizing and rationalizing now all washed away. Trust remains the
only big issue. Why should I trust you to stop at BLA after you get it?
Why not use it as a convoy force for further aggression? But of course
this is all rhetorical...there's nothing I can do to prevent you from
killing BLA, so I am, indeed, a "captive audience." And so I am ready
to deal--as I was last turn.
>The question now is: where do we go from here? It would be easy to
>write each other off and just be enemies for the rest of this game.
>But I submit that my impending build and our upcoming moves present us
>with a unique opportunity: the chance to demilitarize and reorganize
>such that we are in more secure positions, all while not needing to
>rely on the others' goodwill and promises.
** As with the above -- I believe you. But how does having YOU in BLA
contribute to "demilitarization" -- unless you plan to sail out after
you kill off MY BLA? Is it not just a case of the "shoe on the other
foot" if we substitute Turkish unease over BLA with a Russian unease?
>
>I am going to build F ANK and dislodge you in BLA.
** Ok; figured as much. I'll plan accordingly.
>It is my sincere
>hope that I can destroy that fleet.
** How could you not destroy it, with 2 vs 1? I can't stop you, and of
course Edi wouldn't do anything against you.
>You have an extremely high chance
>of dislodging me from SEV,
** (or RUM, don't forget)
>and quite possibly destroying THAT unit. We can do these things, which are in
>our best interests, without the need for cooperation from the other. It's
>the best kind of trust,
>Mark. The kind that isn't needed. ;)
* I'm with you on this one, Hohn, but...are we talking perhaps some
LONG-TERM dealing here? Because if we are, I'd hate to think we have to
keep 'checking six" on each other while simultaneously trying to
value-maximize. Now, if you're merely offering tactical restructuring
("here Mark, try and get one of your two seized centers back"), then
it's a very optimal short-term approach.
>
>I submit that once we arrange a swap, we'll be much more comfortable.
** Yes, once that Turkish BLA fleet gets addressed....or that guy in
ARM....???
>I'll have achieved my original goal of a Russia-free BLA, which indeed
>solves the age-old problem of what to do with that fleet anyway.
>You'll have a secure southern border.
** Secure as in "up to the water's edge," and nothing further in the
Balkans? Or perhaps a glimmer of hope for retaking RUM while you, shall
we say, expand elsewhere?
>And we can THEN move on to
>other options if we so choose.
** The "we" here applies to _you_, Hohn. As of last turn (and into this
turn!) I was/am ready for "other options." I have no desire for
continued AT. You've got to make the commitment.
>Options that require an initially low
>amount of coordination (in the sense of you supporting my moves and me
>supporting yours), until we can gradually rebuild our trust and work
>together more substantively, if that is what we desire.
** The old joke: "We?" Do you have a mouse in your pocket? :>)
I'll say it this way, as you like bluntness (but please don't interpret
this as a sour-grapes, or a smart-a** reply...it's not....maybe I should
say 'direct,' vice 'blunt.'):
1) I don't want an AT.
2) I'll do whatever I need to do to convince you to work with me, but
_not_ with the same unease you professed, only now dumped back at me.
After all, if you planned this for awhile, what's to say you're not just
stringing me along now, to break the 'final defense line" with Edi?
Right? Trust works both ways.
3) You appear to be offering--right now--a short-term "straightening of
the lines", IN THE EVENT "we" decide "we" want to deal with each other.
That's ok by me, for now, but see #s 1 and 2, above.
4) I think Edi and Cal would collapse like a house of cards if you and I
worked things out. I urge you to consider that approach. I've already
been bugging Pitt to send an A Tyo in this turn, so when Edi boots me
out, I retreat to BOH, giving a joint G/I/R hit on Vienna. That's just
one phase of a larger plan -- and the bulk of Austrian booty is in YOUR
neighborhood. I just want RUM and perhaps one of Edi's domains, nothing
more. FG are the long-term threats to you and me.
5) I won't be made a chump again. I GLADLY accept your ideas and your
intent for better relations! But good play or not, if you and Edi
stick together, count on seeing a strong Germany in your neighborhood
very quickly. I will do everything I can to bring your two empires
down.
6) I don't want #5 to happen to any of us. I want good RT relations.
Fair enough?
If you can answer my questions of security (post-BLA Sea positioning,
the guy in ARM, etc), I'd love to hear them.. if you're going to say
"I'm afraid I can't comment on that right now," then spare the
keystrokes. -grin-
BOTTOM LINE: I'm here, I'm willing to deal, and once "you" want to do
it, "we" can get the ball rolling. I would enjoy it, after spewing
verbiage back and forth.
I'll be here 'till 4 if you can reply; if not, the juno.com line will be
up tonight, or when I get back.
Thanks again for the letter, Hohn. Have a good weekend!
Mark
>So it looks like I nulify myself.
I thought that's what all lawyers did, sit around and nulify themselves all
the time. Listen, there's nothing wrong with that, I've done it, I admit it.
How do you look when you look like you nulify yourself? Do you have hair on
your palms or something?
Gentle King Jamie
Private message from Turkey to Russia:
Mark,
A quick note before you leave.
I'm dispensing with all of the moral/ethical type discussion. As far
as I'm concerned, none of it really matters any more. We now both
have "unclean hands," and the question is simply whether we ever want
to bother to try to get past it. And yes, I did hammer away at you
morally all while plotting to use that to my advantage. And I'm sure
that does look incongruous in light of the result. All I can tell you
is that it was part of my conscious negotiation strategy for that
turn, although I don't know whether that makes you feel better or
worse. Of course, it was nothing personal. I just felt that it was
to my better interest to stab you in that situation.
The question now is: where do we go from here? It would be easy to
write each other off and just be enemies for the rest of this game.
But I submit that my impending build and our upcoming moves present us
with a unique opportunity: the chance to demilitarize and reorganize
such that we are in more secure positions, all while not needing to
rely on the others' goodwill and promises.
I am going to build F ANK and dislodge you in BLA. It is my sincere
hope that I can destroy that fleet. You have an extremely high chance
of dislodging me from SEV, and quite possibly destroying THAT unit.
We can do these things, which are in our best interests, without the
need for cooperation from the other. It's the best kind of trust,
Mark. The kind that isn't needed. ;)
I submit that once we arrange a swap, we'll be much more comfortable.
I'll have achieved my original goal of a Russia-free BLA, which indeed
solves the age-old problem of what to do with that fleet anyway.
You'll have a secure southern border. And we can THEN move on to
other options if we so choose. Options that require an initially low
amount of coordination (in the sense of you supporting my moves and me
supporting yours), until we can gradually rebuild our trust and work
together more substantively, if that is what we desire.
That's what I think, Mark. Please let me know what your thoughts are.
Hohn
>I know it's a risk but the only way to nullify a LAWYER is to bring in a
POLITICIAN.
I ran for office once. Got 22% and missed the run-off. Might try again
some day. So it looks like I nulify myself.
I also think everyone should know that I won my first trial two days ago.
I also think everyone should know that I defend the state against prisoner
law suits. I have yet to see a prisoner law suit that I thought had even a
little bit of merit.
I also think I should shut up and let y'all get back to playing Dip.
El Dread
Private message from Russia to Master:
Gents:
If you don't mind me repeating my admin note one last time:
Remember, I'll be leaving for my folks' place (read: NO connectivity)
tomorrow (Sat/15 Mar) and returning to my "wired" house again Thursday
(20 Mar) in the p.m. Three points of note:
1) Jim: Could you please make sure the deadline for S'03 submissions is
NO EARLIER than Friday night (21 Mar)? This will give me a day to come
home and 'unwind,' read the mail, and submit my moves. (As no one's
writing anyway with proposals, a day's turnaround for a dying nations
shouldn't be that stressing...) Thanks, old buddy.
2) Those of you who mail me stuff while I'm gone: please send it all to
my [email protected] address via the Judge. I'm going to "shut off" this
address at work and "turn on" (SET ADDRESS) my home one for this period.
I WON'T READ ANY MAIL SENT TO THE USMA.EXMAIL ADDRESS (this one) UNTIL
MON, 24 MARCH.
(Oh, Edi: yes, per your question, the juno.com address is permanent,
altho' I only read it after 5 p.m. on weeknights (all day on weekends).
3) IF you _really_ want to deal, you can try and reach me at (412)
842-7366 from Sun-Wed. If I'm not out building pinewood derby cars or
model rockets, eating cookies, shooting the .22 in the woods, or a
combination of the above, I'd love to talk!
4) Finally, one football-related note: Edi wonders what kind of teams
are associated w/the players here. I think that's a neat "initiative."
I've already figured I AM a Steeler, a "meat-and-potatoes" offesne with
no great insightful 'trick moves' (even the ones I TRY and run!), no
special teams support, and occasional flashes of great gaming, followed
by games-long lack of offensive drive. VERY mch the persona of my team.
I find it interesting that Edi picks the Niners, the
plastic/astroturf/TEFLON, pull-it-out-your-booty
while-doing-it-with-great-skill-team. Much as I "hate" SF for winning
more Bowls than Pgh, I have to admit that they WERE the team of the 80s
(and Edi IS a team in his own right)! Of course, 'Frisco did it with a
QB from western PA....go figure!!
Take care, guys. I'm here all day until 4 p.m., then off the net 'till
the 21st at HOME.
MARK A. FASSIO, Maj, USAF
Instructor, Dept of Social Sciences
Room B117, Lincoln Hall
ph (914) 938-3198 e-mail: [email protected]
CREDERE! UBIDDERE! COMBATTERE!
> Broadcast message from [email protected] as Russia in 'ghodstoo':
>
> To Gaffe200:
> You're getting ten times more mail this game compared to others because
> we're ten times more the "witty raconteurs" than the chirping field of
> crickets that inhabit many other games, they who are merely content to
> sit in the fields, ponder moves of Great Import, and only occasionally
> peep.
Really? What messages are YOU getting that I haven't seen? :)
Cal
To Gaffe200:
You're getting ten times more mail this game compared to others because
we're ten times more the "witty raconteurs" than the chirping field of
crickets that inhabit many other games, they who are merely content to
sit in the fields, ponder moves of Great Import, and only occasionally
peep.
You want MORE stabs? In a game that--in three turns--has seen two
Russian stabs of T, one T stab of R, two "stabs" by A (c'mon, Edi, admit
'em), a n R stab over nwy of E, EI hits on F and subsequent turn-around,
etc?! Man, you are one glutton for punishment. Remind me not to be
YOUR neighbor in a game! -grin-
Tsar Faz
>----------
>From: USIN Diplomacy Judge[SMTP:[email protected]]
>Sent: Friday, March 14, 1997 12:28 AM
>To: Fassio, M. MAJ SOC
>Subject: Diplomacy notice: ghodstoo
>
> News about USIN can be found at
> http://kleiman.indianapolis.in.us/usin.htm
>
> All unmoderated games will be removed.
> Judge keeper is [email protected].
> Judge address is [email protected]
>
>Broadcast message from [email protected] as Observer in 'ghodstoo':
>
>
> Riddle me this, fellow Dippers: Why am I getting more ten
>times more mail from this game than all of my other games combined? Less
>talk, more stabs!!!!!
>
> And while we're here, I might as well do some diplomacy of
>my own.... Charlie Eldred/Emperor Longhorn, when are you going to move on
>Russia? Do you need a permission slip from me? Please respond through
>the usual channels, i.e. my regular email.
> Later.
>
> Lord Calderwood, visiting from Colonial Dip game "resolute"
>
>
> Message from [email protected] as Observer to Austria, England, France,
> Germany, Italy, Russia, Turkey, Master, Observer and alternate in 'ghodstoo':
>
>
> Wow! It's one of those eerie "Connections" things that an alternate (and
> acceptable in this message) local name for my team is the Donkeys and that
> the West Point mascot was just discussed in a recent posting. Anyone else
> hearing the Twilight Zone theme?
Even funkier is that the two teams that have done the best this last year,
were named after the famous mountains of Colorado, where the best skiing
in the world is! Maybe the Donkies should change their name?
Another Donkie fan.
Go RUSSIA! Kill those Turkish hordes!
Riddle me this, fellow Dippers: Why am I getting more ten
times more mail from this game than all of my other games combined? Less
talk, more stabs!!!!!
And while we're here, I might as well do some diplomacy of
my own.... Charlie Eldred/Emperor Longhorn, when are you going to move on
Russia? Do you need a permission slip from me? Please respond through
the usual channels, i.e. my regular email.
Later.
Lord Calderwood, visiting from Colonial Dip game "resolute"
>Broadcast message from [email protected] as Observer in
>'ghodstoo':
[...]
>The Other Lawyer
Awright! Everybody out of the pool! That's right, you too, observerboy.
Assume the position!
Now which one of you bozos is going to cop to letting TWO lawyers in here?
We ease up just a bit and let one of the slim...er..scu...uh...creatures
out of their pit and they ALL want to come out and just ruin it for everyone.
Well, there's only one way to fix this little problem.
I know it's a risk but the only way to nullify a LAWYER is to bring in a
POLITICIAN.
...easy, ma'am...we're prepared...we've got a tactical nuke ready to go in
case they decide to caucus...
>Broadcast message from [email protected] as England in 'ghodstoo':
>And this is a huge advantage in a game like ours. Were that I were
>nothing.
You know, my little cupcake, I have a very strong intuition that you're
about to become a highly advantaged fellow...
-KaiserPitt
>Go Turkey. Indeed. Don't you have some tort claim to go fix?
Oh, hey, is it a sacher tort? I'll have some.
-KaiserPitt
(dictiowhat?)
>Broadcast message from [email protected] as Observer in
>'ghodstoo':
>Sub-paragraph (a)(1):
>Sub-paragraph (a)(2):
>Sub-paragraph (b):
Keerist! It even plays Dip like a LAWYER!
Where's that damn launch button when you really need it...?
-KaiserPitt
>Germany and Austria seem to have all the options and control the Continent,
>maybe they will soon turn against each other.
That sounds entirely too familar for my taste.
Besides, I thought it was the Turks who went in for that sort of thing...
-KaiserPitt
>not that having Met Edi and quaffed said quaffs has
>stopped me from attacking this game...heh heh. I'm just doing it
>in a, uh, "civil" manner, right Edi? :)
Attacking me...really, is that what you call what you are doing, and here I
thought it was a drop back stalemate line against a resurgent France. What
can I tell you...learn something every time.
Couldn't have said it better myself!
I should point out that there have been major feuds all through
postal history, even long after the DipCons were started.
Edi's main point is certainly valid though. It's much harder to
be uncivil to someone who you have actually met and had a couple
of beer with (not that having Met Edi and quaffed said quaffs has
stopped me from attacking this game...heh heh. I'm just doing it
in a, uh, "civil" manner, right Edi? :)
Cal
> Broadcast message from [email protected] as Austria in 'ghodstoo':
>
> >And, to cite a theory of mine (good for toilet paper), I think computers
> >encourage more "vebal lisence" than one would use comfortably in ftf
> >encounters.
>
> Actually the experience of Postal Diplomacy is probably substantially clearer
> on this aspect. There is no doubt that the injection of the written word
> without faces, sounds and delivery enhance misscommunication and players are
> more encouraged to go off on the deep end and to be less willing to retreat
> from public positions. The history of postal play is rife with feuds which
> are fueled by the written blasts that people level at one another.
>
> One of the main reasons for the promotion of the face to face DipCon (and I
> was there at the begining) was to get feuding players together in a face to
> face so that a lot of the hostility can be broken down. As we move towards
> our 30th year of a DipCon in Seattle this August, I have to say that it has
> been a successful effort at introducing people from around the country and has
> helped to reduce friction.
>
> So Mark is quite right that the nature of Email communication encourages
> friction, which is also why I strongly urge all of you in your Diplomacy to
> also use the phone as a means of communication since it allows you to soften
> approaches and react in a little more social manner. It is after all a social
> game in which the 7 players around the table are more important than the 34
> pieces on the board.
> Broadcast message from [email protected] as Austria in 'ghodstoo':
>
> >I respectfully request that all rooting for the Cowboys be banned from this
> >game, on the grounds that it is of its very nature whining.
>
> While there may be those who wish to root for the Bovine Persons as the
> Cowboys are known in politically correct California, we 49nr fans per to rout
> them. Then again, unlike both the Steelers and the Cowboys we have never lost
> a Super Bowl.
>
> Anyway, back to Diplomacy...what NFL teams do you think would be associated
> with each of the countries in the game?
Can we at least discuss REAL football ie the Canadian Football League?
None of this three yards and a cloud of astroturf crapola.
And if you're comparing countries to teams, make sure you count Italy as
the Toronto Argonauts, who could kick the collective asses of the entire
NFL (No Fun League)...
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSSSS
Cal
(who REAL religion is baseball. Draft Day is this Saturday! Go White's
Lightning!!!!)
>And, to cite a theory of mine (good for toilet paper), I think computers
>encourage more "vebal lisence" than one would use comfortably in ftf
>encounters.
Actually the experience of Postal Diplomacy is probably substantially clearer
on this aspect. There is no doubt that the injection of the written word
without faces, sounds and delivery enhance misscommunication and players are
more encouraged to go off on the deep end and to be less willing to retreat
from public positions. The history of postal play is rife with feuds which
are fueled by the written blasts that people level at one another.
One of the main reasons for the promotion of the face to face DipCon (and I
was there at the begining) was to get feuding players together in a face to
face so that a lot of the hostility can be broken down. As we move towards
our 30th year of a DipCon in Seattle this August, I have to say that it has
been a successful effort at introducing people from around the country and has
helped to reduce friction.
So Mark is quite right that the nature of Email communication encourages
friction, which is also why I strongly urge all of you in your Diplomacy to
also use the phone as a means of communication since it allows you to soften
approaches and react in a little more social manner. It is after all a social
game in which the 7 players around the table are more important than the 34
pieces on the board.
Edi
>Know why West Point has the mule for a mascot, and the State of
>California has the lawyer as its mascot?
>Army got first choice.
Well actually it is because we prefer our jackasses educated.
Edi Birsan
Midnight Games
[email protected]
Web site: www.mgames.com
>I respectfully request that all rooting for the Cowboys be banned from this
>game, on the grounds that it is of its very nature whining.
While there may be those who wish to root for the Bovine Persons as the
Cowboys are known in politically correct California, we 49nr fans per to rout
them. Then again, unlike both the Steelers and the Cowboys we have never lost
a Super Bowl.
Anyway, back to Diplomacy...what NFL teams do you think would be associated
with each of the countries in the game?
Edi Birsan
Midnight Games
[email protected]
Web site: www.mgames.com
>The latest A/T move was cool!
>** Like, I'm hip, man.
Actually the move was below par. The correct set of moves would have been to
move A Vienna to Galicia with support from Budapest and to have A Serbia
bounce F Aegean in Greece. Now that would have been COOL.
Edi
>Is Texas A&M the same as Texas Tech?
Smile when you say that, podner.
Seriously, you are confusing the school that had its football team on
probation for giving no-work jobs to its players with the school that had
its basketball team withdraw from consideration for the NCAA tournament for
having two players declared academically ineligible.
Big difference, see??
>Judge elDRED (any relation to the Sly Stallone character Judge Dredd?)
I am much more powerful than he. He only has high-powered weapons
and futuristic gadgets, while I have dumptrucks full of paper and the
resources of the greatest state in the world. It wouldn't even be close.
>Is Texas A&M the same as Texas Tech?
No. I know more about the differences between Texas and Texas A&M,
however. For cheerleaders, Texas uses pretty girls who wear nice
outfits and use pom-poms. Texas A&M uses young boys dressed in
tight white t-shirts and shorts who use homo-erotic gestures to whip the
Aggie crowd into a frenzy.
For a mascot, Texas uses a manly, mighty Longhorn steer. A&M uses a
cute little doggie. (The inbred Oklahomans use a "Sooner," which is a
person who violated the law by stealing Indian land by forcibly taking it
over. Such an inspiration.)
Texas fans simply show up at the game and cheer their team to victory.
Functionally retarded A&M fans have "yell practice" where they practice
cheering for their team, in conjunction with the above-mentioned
homo-erotic gestures from their cheerleaders. One of their more famous
"yells" consists of all of them putting their hands on their knees and
swaying back and forth and moaning.
Texas is a co-ed school. Texas A&M is an all-male school where men
are men and sheep are women. Sometimes you will see "female" A&M
students but these are really men who are giving their fellow "students"
some variety.
Texas has a wide variety of students, from all walks of life, all races,
and all types of background. A&M students are all named Bubba Joe,
wear Perot-like flat tops haircuts, and are all in something called "The
Corps" where they all dress up in military-type uniforms and pretend to
be army guys.
Texas fans salute their team with a neat, powerful symbol called "Hook
'em Horns," where the index and little finger are outstreched. Aggies
salute their team with a pathetic imitation of "Hook 'em Horns" called "Gig
'em Aggies" which consists of the highly unoriginal thumbs up sign.
They also use the Hook 'em Horns sign upside down (so do the inbred
Sooners) since they can't think of anything original. Nobody really wants
to know what it means to "gig" somebody.
The Texas fight song is an uplifting number which encourages the team
to do their best. The A&M fight song contains the line, "Goodbye to
Texas Uni . . .versity." (A&M people get a kick out of saying "T.U."
instead of "U.T." Obviously, Aggies are quite mentally challenged.) (The
inbred Oklahomans use a fight song which goes, "Boomer Sooner,
Boomer Sooner, Boomer Sooner, Boomer Sooner, Boomer Sooner,
Boomer Sooner, Boomer Sooner, Boomer Sooner, Boomer Sooner,
Boomer Sooner, Boomer Sooner, Boomer Sooner, Boomer Sooner,
Boomer Sooner, Boomer Sooner." Nobody wants to know what this
means.)
Finally, Texas has won more Big 12 football championships than A&M,
Oklahoma, and the rest of the Big 12 *combined*.
HOOK 'EM HORNS!!!!!!!!!!!
Dred Scott
[email protected] as Russia in 'ghodstoo' wrote:
Know why West Point has the mule for a mascot, and the State of
California has the lawyer as its mascot?
Army got first choice.
Lawyer humor, ar ar ar.
Go Turkey. Indeed. Don't you have some tort claim to go fix?
Tsar faz
E Pluribus Unum
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Faz,
The way I heard it was... Why does New Jersey have all of the toxic waste
dumps and Washington have all of the lawyers? New Jersey had first choice.
Toxic waste humor, ar ar ar.
Ken from off Exit 145 on the Garden State Parkway
Judge elDRED (any relation to the Sly Stallone character Judge Dredd?)
is indeed correct. The Steelers manhandled the egotistical, overpaid
and sometimes-arrested-but-never-convicted Cowboys only TWICE in the
20th century, not thrice. I had Dallas confused with Minnesota and the
(former) LA Lambs, equally great powerhouses (sniff) in their time.
Suffice it to say, though, that the majority of folks watching that game
were no doubt universally rooting for ABD (Anyone But Dallas), the
self-styled "Albania's Team."
But pleeeease, don't get me started about this! if you think I whine
about Dip (we ARE in a game, aren't we?), don't start me on
football....As for last season's 28-3 whupping in beantown, I can only
say, yes, we got whupped.
And France, I already submitted MY builds and adjudications for
1902....ZERO. Thanks to this lawyer's buddy. But hey, I'm not _itter.
:>)
Is Texas A&M the same as Texas Tech?
Tsar Faz
Private message from Observer to alternate:
> >Oh yeah? Four words. Cowboys 27, Steelers 17.
>
> I respectfully request that all rooting for the Cowboys be banned from this
> game, on the grounds that it is of its very nature whining.
>
> I don't mean 'banned', of course. Debarred.
>
As a resident of Denver and a large fan of the local team, which will remain
nameless here and which may not even remain local unless a new stadium is
approved and...er...constructed, I must say that I have absolutely no problem
adhering to Jamie's completely legitimate request. As someone who, if it
weren't for the fact that complaining is forbidden in this game, would admit
to having had the same feelings regarding the Cowboys that he has had ever
since a certain sad day in 1978, I only regret that this sensible rule of
Jamie's is probably not extensible into the real world. (Another indication
that Diplomacy is superior than the real world.)
Wow! It's one of those eerie "Connections" things that an alternate (and
acceptable in this message) local name for my team is the Donkeys and that
the West Point mascot was just discussed in a recent posting. Anyone else
hearing the Twilight Zone theme?
SYS,
Manus
Since Russia said:
Thank you, DESPERate Citizen @ Fermentation U!
I feel compelled to respond to
"if It Ain't the Steelers, it ain't Diddly"
I guess it was Diddly that knocked the Steelers out of the playoffs,
eh?
I have to stand by the only pro Boston team currently showing any
competence.
Rick
p.s. "So I can dig where you're coming from, hep cat." What can I
say? As the immortal Meg Ryan said in the (vastly underrated) Joe
vs. the Volcano, "I have no response to that."
>As for Super Bowl XXX, two things:
1) 3-out-of-4 Steeler Bowl wins ain't bad (That's "three Dal-ass losses
in the past, where you were doubtless a young whippersnapper)
Sub-paragraph (a)(1): In Super Bowl X, which I watched, Pittsburg(h)
defeated Dallas (or "Dull-Ass" as silly towel-wavers sometimes call it)
21-17 because Lynn Swann defied the laws of physics and because of
a lucky interception in the end zone on the last play of the game. O.K.,
Pittsburg/h won, fair and square, but it weren't no blowout. Furthermore,
this atrocity occurred in 1977.
Sub-paragraph (a)(2): In Super Bowl XIII, which I watched except for a
little bit in the early fourth quarter when all appeared lsot, Pittsburg[h]
defeated Dallas 35-31because Hall of Famer Jackie Smith dropped a
pass and because Cliff Barnes had a phantom pass interference penalty
called against him because John Stallworth tripped. This abomination
occurred in 1979.
Sub-paragraph (b): The Pitts have defeated Dallas twice, not thrice, and
this happened during the Carter administration.
>Hook 'em horns!
Indeed!
France is right; I for one have blathered on for too long...papers to
grade, and such.
Hey: who's yer buddy, who's yer pal, mon-sewer?
Carry on the bantering sans moi, si vous plais.
Tsar Faz
>Austria: Fleet Aegean Sea -> Greece.
Now I understand it. It was the usual austrian opening to get Greece with
the fleet, but the Admiral is incompetent and it took him two years circling
around the coast before finding a port.
Italy seem to be pretty well set up for a convoy to Tunis and a Lepanto, I
imagine that the fleet in Adr is not real, just disinformation.
FG are trying to explain me why I never saw the english "welsh" opening
(I forgot the name) before, but maybe moving to the Nth rather than Nwg last
spring would have made quite a difference.
Russia managed to lose Sev being nice with Turkey. It seems that the paranoid
who suggest never to trust the one you stabbed, especially in fall, have
some reasons to do so after all.
Germany and Austria seem to have all the options and control the Continent,
maybe they will soon turn against each other.
What did France do to convince all the others to back off. Was it simply
a consequence of Austria threatening Italy and of Germany not wanting a
possible junior partnership with England and seeing a great chance in the Nth?
Or maybe France managed to say "it's not fair if you all attack me, at least
*you* should back off" to all of his neighbours individually?
Turkey is a lawyer? If what they say it's true he will soon be at the throat
of Austria and Italy, and possibly manage to have Norway to fight on his side.
Bye,
Luca
Since we seem to have so much time on our hands, how about sending in those
build orders?
Meanwhile, I'll enjoy the _latherings of my partners in nonsense.
Jean Barquemondieu, aka the Resurrected
>"if It Ain't the Steelers, it ain't Diddly"
>
>Oh yeah? Four words. Cowboys 27, Steelers 17.
You know, it's bad enough we have lawyers here...but a Texas lawyer?!
Yoiks! The old 1-2 punch!
As for Super Bowl XXX, two things:
1) 3-out-of-4 Steeler Bowl wins ain't bad (That's "three Dal-ass losses
in the past, where you were doubtless a young whippersnapper)
2) Had O'Donnell (the $25M Jet WonderFlop QB) not been such a boob, the
game woulda been coulda been different. Ah, to quote Jethro Tull,
"Let's go living in the past..."
Hook 'em horns!
Tsar Faz
>Oh yeah? Four words. Cowboys 27, Steelers 17.
I respectfully request that all rooting for the Cowboys be banned from this
game, on the grounds that it is of its very nature whining.
I don't mean 'banned', of course. Debarred.
Gently,
King Jamie
>But I hear they not only
>have their only lottery pick, but also the pick of Dallas, so they
>have the best shot in the Tim Duncan sweepstakes.
As a Mavericks fan, I feel that the NBA should give Dallas' pick back to
them. Sorry, Celtics, but it's for the good of the league. The NBA can't
survive if it has a team that thinks re-tooling consists of trading for Nets
rejects, like, God save us, Shawn Bradley.
"if It Ain't the Steelers, it ain't Diddly"
Oh yeah? Four words. Cowboys 27, Steelers 17.
The Other Lawyer
A GAME OF SUPERLATIVES
> I found the
>Austrian opening to be very opening.
Me too. It was the openingest opening I've ever seen. Why, it just opened
all over the place. The paradigm of glasnost.
> Italy has thus far done little
>of great interest.
I agree. Though he has done little, it has been of the greatest possible
interest. The greatness of its interest is exceeded only by the openingness
of Austria's opening. However, I have little interest in interest. It's the
principal of the thing that matters, and St. Cal the Archaic is nothing if
not principled. (In fact, though, he is not principled. Ergo, he is
nothing. And this is a huge advantage in a game like ours. Were that I were
nothing. Will that I will be. Just be patient!)
> The latest A/T move was cool!
The coolest!
> Germany really
>hosed England in a bad way.
The baddest!
>And the Celtics still only have 12 wins. :(
The :(est.
King Jamie the Gentlest
Know why West Point has the mule for a mascot, and the State of
California has the lawyer as its mascot?
Army got first choice.
Lawyer humor, ar ar ar.
Go Turkey. Indeed. Don't you have some tort claim to go fix?
Tsar faz
E Pluribus Unum
> Broadcast message from [email protected] as Russia in 'ghodstoo':
>
> 1) Eureka! I've discovered that my broadcast press releases are
> indirectly proportional to my playing skill; the more I spew forth here,
> the more hideous I play.
Don't _e so hard on yourself, Mark. I think it's pretty clear to all
involved that the hideousness of your play is totally independant of
of how much tripe, er, broadcast messages you write...
> 2) Aren't we supposed to be the gamers, and OTHERS supposed to comment?
> Other than Manus, the Observer Corps has been a tad, shall be say,
> quiet.
> C'mon, give us your two cents (Canadian money is fine, I
> guess)!
Hey!
> Where's the scintillating comment and the insightful analyses?
> I mean, WE don't know what we're doing; why should the Observers?
Agreed. I defy ANY observer watching this game carefully to do anything
other than to stutter "um, um, um..." Hell, that's what *I've* spent
the last couple of weeks doing.
> Oh, did I mention that I'm not _itter about my game fortunes or my
> playing style?
Think of it as evolution in action... hee hee.
> Stick that in your Funk & Wagnalls and smoke it, Mr Unnamed College
> Smarty!
Well, SOMEONE watched far too much "Laugh-In" in the 60s...
Ciao 4 now
Cal
>Other than Manus, the Observer Corps has been a tad, shall be say,
quiet. C'mon, give us your two cents (Canadian money is fine, I
guess)!
O.K. GO TURKEY!! WOO-HOO!!!! HOHN RULES!!!! YEAH!! GET THOSE
RUSSKIES!!!! TURKEY! TURKEY! TURKEY! TURKEY!
Signed,
An E-mail Pal Of Hohn Cho's And A Fellow Lawyer
Huzzah! Life among the observers! Thank you, DESPERate Citizen @
Fermentation U! Good to see someone's reading this tripe.
The pro-Turkish commentary reminds me of a bawdy (immaturely bawdy, of
course) high school chant sung during bad referee calls at football
games; remember this blast from the past?
Munch munch munch
The ref brought his lunch
Eat it ref , eat it ref
Rah, rah, rah
Sure you do. And yes, I'm much happier now.
>
>I had thought that this game was going to see the fastest dismantling
>of France in history.
** So did many of us, as we listened to a CERTAIN someone...
>The revival is very interesting. I found the
>Austrian opening to be very opening.
** to be the very opening you've always waited for? To be the very
opening that would bring my feeble empire crashing down? To be or not
to be?
>Italy has thus far done little
>of great interest.
** Don't mortgage the farm yet. Cal's coming down to punch you for
maligning him, eh?
>The latest A/T move was cool!
** Like, I'm hip, man.
>Germany really
>hosed England in a bad way. I think this game is seeing something
>I've observed before in 'expert' games. Too many people are reading
>long-term trends in short-term moves.
** A-menski on that call! Of course, one of my fellow buds this game
think that I am the Ultimate Short-Term freak. So I can dig where
you're coming from, hep cat.
>And the Celtics still only have 12 wins. :(
** are they a basketball team?
>But I hear they not only
>have their only lottery pick, but also the pick of Dallas, so they
>have the best shot in the Tim Duncan sweepstakes.
** is that why it's called Slam Duncan?
The Very Knowledgeable About Basketball
Tsar Faz
"if It Ain't the Steelers, it ain't Diddly"
> Broadcast message from [email protected] as England in 'ghodstoo':
> "doth" is for third person, archaic (like Cal, he is the third person, and
> he's certainly archaic).
bI bprotest!!! bBig bTime!! bI bam bnot barchaic!
bAnachronistic, bhell, byes! bBut barchaic, bnever! bThat's
bbbbullbshit!
bBye bfor bnow
bCal
Russia said:
2) Aren't we supposed to be the gamers, and OTHERS supposed to comment?
Other than Manus, the Observer Corps has been a tad, shall be say,
quiet. C'mon, give us your two cents (Canadian money is fine, I
guess)! Where's the scintillating comment and the insightful analyses?
I mean, WE don't know what we're doing; why should the Observers?
OK, here it is.
Go, Turkey! Go, Turkey! Rah, rah, rah!
Happier?
I had thought that this game was going to see the fastest dismantling
of France in history. The revival is very interesting. I found the
Austrian opening to be very opening. Italy has thus far done little
of great interest. The latest A/T move was cool! Germany really
hosed England in a bad way. I think this game is seeing something
I've observed before in 'expert' games. Too many people are reading
long-term trends in short-term moves.
And the Celtics still only have 12 wins. :( But I hear they not only
have their only lottery pick, but also the pick of Dallas, so they
have the best shot in the Tim Duncan sweepstakes.
That's all for now.
Rick
Hey, two quick points of note:
1) Eureka! I've discovered that my broadcast press releases are
indirectly proportional to my playing skill; the more I spew forth here,
the more hideous I play.
2) Aren't we supposed to be the gamers, and OTHERS supposed to comment?
Other than Manus, the Observer Corps has been a tad, shall be say,
quiet. C'mon, give us your two cents (Canadian money is fine, I
guess)! Where's the scintillating comment and the insightful analyses?
I mean, WE don't know what we're doing; why should the Observers?
Oh, did I mention that I'm not _itter about my game fortunes or my
playing style?
Stick that in your Funk & Wagnalls and smoke it, Mr Unnamed College
Smarty!
Tsar Faz
Private message from England to Master:
>> > Stabbing is part of the game. Learn to live with it without the
>> > pettiness.
>> >
>> > CW
>As if I had to say anything about this:
>
>To my view, so is whining, at times. Everything is part of the game.
I was going to broadcast that, myself.
But then it occurred to me...
So is complaining about how everyone is whining. That's part of the game, too.
:-)
Still, I do actually believe that Cal is mistaking within-the-game
posturing of all sorts, for genuine hysteria. I know you aren't reading all
the press. A while ago Cal chided me for "guilt-tripping", saying that "at
this level" that's no part of Diplomacy. Ha! I was about to conclude that
the PBM hobby must be awfully different from the PBEM, but maybe it's just
Cal.
-Jamie
I knew Manus would have something to say about that.
>Hey, GKJ, what's a thesaurus, anyway? Methinks I doth proTEST too much
>(second person declension).
>
>Tsar Faz
Good lord help us.
A thesaurus is a
"I" is the first person, not the second.
"doth" is for third person, archaic (like Cal, he is the third person, and
he's certainly archaic).
"protest" is infinitive.
And verbs do not decline. Nouns and empires, pronouns and fortunes. Not verbs.
You utthead.
Cheers!
Gentle King Jamie
Private message from Observer to alternate:
Jamie has exposed one of the greatest problems with judge Diplomacy. Nearly
every single message (not this one, though) that is sent to everyone watching
or playing in this (or any) game on the judge violates the cardinal rule.
Witness:
> Broadcast message from [email protected] as England in 'ghodstoo':
>
Just take a look at the first letter of the first word! I think the
judge-maint coding team must change this immediately. (I'd call for one of
those organized group activities where no one uses something until it gets
changed -- however, I cannot use that word for obvious reasons.) What do
they think they're doing? Computer programming or something really
important? No! This is Diplomacy, for God's sake. They should have some
respect!
And Jamie -- get that University of yours to change its name. When we start
holding judge-maint's feet to the fire on this one, you'll have to count
yourself lucky if it still accepts e-mail from your address.
Stab you soon,
Manus
I agree with Jamie, who agrees with Cal, who I just agreed with in my
last note on this subject.
Before I Begin to deliver any Biting retorts, or Blab about BS on the
net, I'd like to stop using the letter "b" in any future conversations
with Jamie. That _ufoon had the nerve to ...oh, wait; I can't _e
vitriolic anymore. I forgot. Sorry, Jamie you _onehead.
hahahhahahahahaha (demented cackle).
And Jim-_ob _urgess; he wants to "just let us know where the GM is."
Well, where the heck ARE you, Jim? Texas? Kansas?
I feel silly, oh so silly....
Hey, GKJ, what's a thesaurus, anyway? Methinks I doth proTEST too much
(second person declension).
Tsar Faz
With Better Things to Do and,
Not Currently Doing Them
> Broadcast message from [email protected] as Russia in 'ghodstoo':
>
> I agree with Jamie, who agrees with Cal, who I just agreed with in my
> last note on this subject.
Huh, I'm sooooo confused. I suppose that's what I get for being busy
with work all week and then getting up on Saturday morning and trying
to decipher these mad meanderings.... when I should be getting my
postal/Internet szine out the door!!
> Before I Begin to deliver any Biting retorts, or Blab about BS on the
> net, I'd like to stop using the letter "b" in any future conversations
> with Jamie. That _ufoon had the nerve to ...oh, wait; I can't _e
> vitriolic anymore. I forgot. Sorry, Jamie you _onehead.
> hahahhahahahahaha (demented cackle).
I am such a _oo_ and that ruins everything! Though it may LOOK better...
>
> And Jim-_ob _urgess; he wants to "just let us know where the GM is."
> Well, where the heck ARE you, Jim? Texas? Kansas?
No, there's no place like home, there's no place like home....
I clicked my ruby slippers together and here I am. I was in Florida
and will be in Georgia on Monday and Tuesday.... Then I actually may
stop travelling for a while. Then some of you are going to World
Dip Con! I think you should demand Internet hookups so this game
can go on from sunny Scandinavia!
>
> I feel silly, oh so silly....
>
How do you think ***I*** feel! I started this thing that is becoming
a monstrosity!
> Hey, GKJ, what's a thesaurus, anyway? Methinks I doth proTEST too much
> (second person declension).
>
> Tsar Faz
> With Better Things to Do and,
> Not Currently Doing Them
>
Methinks archaicisms doth just be a way to soften ways of saying:
"Journey with Orpheus to Hades"....
Jim-_oo_ _urgess who is pretty pissed off to lose his "C".
Private message from Master to England:
>
> Message from [email protected] as England to Master in 'ghodstoo':
>
>
> >> > Stabbing is part of the game. Learn to live with it without the
> >> > pettiness.
> >> >
> >> > CW
> >As if I had to say anything about this:
> >
> >To my view, so is whining, at times. Everything is part of the game.
>
> I was going to broadcast that, myself.
>
> But then it occurred to me...
> So is complaining about how everyone is whining. That's part of the game, too.
>
And complaining that everyone is complaining about whining... and so on.
As you should recall, that's what I've called levels of the game in
the more generic sense.... and this game has lots of levels.
> :-)
>
> Still, I do actually believe that Cal is mistaking within-the-game
> posturing of all sorts, for genuine hysteria. I know you aren't reading all
> the press. A while ago Cal chided me for "guilt-tripping", saying that "at
> this level" that's no part of Diplomacy. Ha! I was about to conclude that
> the PBM hobby must be awfully different from the PBEM, but maybe it's just
> Cal.
>
> -Jamie
>
I actually am trying to read (or at least skim) all of the press. This
morning I am getting caught up on the last few days..... 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. 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.
Jim
I most heartily agree with the Grand Doge Cal's recent (shrill) complaint
to the effect that whining has no place whatsoever in Diplomacy.
I would like to add that I am very disturbed by another, similar trend.
Many, many of the messages that I have received (and I certainly do not
mean to single out Cal, who is merely the worst offender) contain words
that start with the letter 'b'. This really is uncalled for. It's just a
game! This is Diplomacy! It's not as though it were computer programming,
or something really important! There is simply no reason that you have to
use words that, uh, start with the letter 'b'. I think we all have large
enough vocabularies that we can easily avoid such words altogether. Get
yourself a good thesaurus if you must.
There, I've said my piece.
Oh, wait. I also think that there is entirely too much complaining. Did I
say that already? It's the most important thing I want to say. And I really
wish Jim would do something about it, instead of just sitting around
smoking those fat cigars of his. Stinkin' up the place. Cancer. Supporting
communist governments. Throw 'em out, I say. And do something about the
complaining.
Cheers!
Gentle King Jamie
For one of Cal's seven hundred Dip-related files....
What's a Russian's favorite "wine?"
"Take me to Miami!"
I agree with Cal. Much of MY stuff is part whine, part sarcasm, and a
dash of bitterness at myself. Bitterness at allowing myself to be
deceived by better players, and looking silly in front of people witb
e-mail addresses like %$#^&yt*[email protected]. (I imagine there are others
who've felt that way at one time or another.)
Part of the reason for this, I'll wager, is that not a few of us (and
I'm in here) are Type A
"last word" types, who respond in messages in the same intense way that
they play Dip: for a challenge, to let no challenge go by (verbal
and/or game-related), or just because (in my case) we're crotchety old
farts who havn't much else to do.
And, to cite a theory of mine (good for toilet paper), I think computers
encourage more "vebal lisence" than one would use comfortably in ftf
encounters. Maybe I'm wrong, but after sitting in on a couple chat
rooms, where you're as anonymous as you want, with a fine e-mail name,
you can be as nice or as obnoxious as you see fit, and no one can 'stop"
you. Hey, so I'm a psychologist in training; sue me!
I'll save any vitriol for off-line comments. But as far as acting
rationally (ha!) because this stuff is being documented for posterity:
I say no one but gamers reads it anyway--and we all already know he we
act. So I for one could give a flying fardullah if someone doesn't like
it. Heyyyy...maybe this could be the start of a HOBBY FUED, to breathe
life into the hobby.......um, nah.
It IS just a game of blocks, anyway....but oh, is it ever addictive.....
:>)
I promise to be a "kinder, gentler" Tsar, stabs and all. Watch:
1) Hohn is a swell guy. I'm glad he got even with me and took my
center. I deserved it.
2) Edi is a swell guy. I'm glad he abandoned the QC and masterminded
everyone to lose while he watches us all fight and gains from it. I
deserved it.
3) I'm glad I got England mad at me over Norway. Now I have enemies on
both flanks (why be niggardly about it, after all)? I caused it AND
deserved it! (And Jamie even gives me verb declension advice on top of
it all!)
4) I LOVE THIS GAME! And I love YOU, man! (Whew; gotta stop taking
these muscle relaxants...)
Tsar Faz
Private message from Italy to Turkey:
Hohn:
I suspect this will be the most important letter *I* write this game (at
least from the point of view of Italy.
As you can see, despite Edi's pleading with me to go to Eastern Med, I
decided to stick with the attack on Austria. Attacking you would serve
no purpose except to place my units so far away from home as to be
useless against an Austrian (or French) attack. I'm hoping that you and
I can now work together to make both our positions stronger.
The way the board stands now, Pitt and John are very much in the
driver's seat. They stand to be finished with England within two or
three turns. Once he's taken care of they can present a united front
towards the east. With the way the east is now (you and Edi against
Mark; Edi against me, you and I not cooperating), they (E/F) will be
able to wade through the chaos. Whichever of them stabs the other first
would have a clear shot at an outright win.
After thinking long and hard about the east, I'm convinced the only way
to shorten the time before an eastern alliance emerges victorious is for
you and I to team up. I know you're still interested in taking out Mark
- you can still continue to do this. What I would ask is that you help
me against Edi as well. If we can do this properly, the element of
surprise should allow us to take at least two of his centres
immediately. That would cripple him enough that we could have him down
and out very fast. Done right, we should be no more than a turn or so
away from matching the pace of F/G as you and I come out on top in the
east.
If things worked out perfectly, we would have a shot of taking Gre, Bul
& Tri in one turn. The only share of centres I am asking is Tri, Vie &
Ser (or Bud; your preference). We can re-distribute later if need be.
Well, please consider this offer. I honestly think it's the only shot
we have at being able to handle F/G given the current board situation,
but we really need to work something out now.
Please send me any questions you might have.
Regards
Cal
Private message from England to Russia:
First:
You won't be offended, I trust, by my broadcast. I've been abstaining, but
couldn't miss the opportunity for some fun. And, it's calculated, of
course. I have reasons for wanting the general populace to think I'm mad at
you. In fact: take broadcasts quite generally with a grain of salt. I think
it's like that in PBM, too, though I can't speak from experience.
Now....
>** My guess is that energize France and see what you guys can do. Just
>as I'm no threat to Hohn, neither is England a threat to France...but
>those big black blocks in PIC may convince John of your offering....
Yes, of course.
You should always assume that I'm doing everything I can on that front.
Only I don't generally tell you about it.
>** You're right. I'll be on him like a big dog to leave. Only this
>time, I'm botting his ass out of my centers as part of the deal. Fair
>is fair, i.e., screw the guy who screwed you..once. Then kiss and make
>up. He deals a la my wishes for mutual gain, or I delaythem until the
>board is 2/3 Germanic...
Ahem.
Think that through again, sir. And maybe read over some of those 500
messages you sent me.
The past is over. And in any case, you have no good grounds for resentment
against Hohn. You started it.
My advice, for what it's worth:
take your losses, make it attractive to Hohn to get those Balkans and
prevent Edi from becoming the big fish in the south.
I've put off any plan to regain Norway. You ought to put off any plan to
regain Sevastopol.
Hard to swallow? Believe me, I know!
>** Double-ditto. give me a slow PBM game with one ally any time.
:)
No comment.
> here
>I feel like I have to "run faster, go farther, etc" just because I'm
>visible in front of all these ghods and the associated satraps in the
>observer stands...
No, ignore them. To quell your worries, have a look at the analysis they've
given. Most observers will quite properly assume that they have no real
clue about what's going on. The others' opinions should be of no interest
to you.
>** Actually, I like AND hate it at the same time. Just like dating,
>whatever that was years ago...
:)
An apt analogy.
Gentle KJ
Private message from Russia to Turkey:
Hohn, Just a follow-up here...
>> I hope you and Edi enjoy your moves.
>
>I know *I* certainly did.
** Doubtless you did. Poor maligned Turkey, now wrecking Russia AND in
the driver's seat down south. Who _wouldn't feel good?_ Well done.
>> And _thanks_ for the
>> opportunity to let me to show you my change of heart, and for showing me
>> yours. It warms my cockles!
>
>Hey, any time. After your earlier stabs of me, though, you won't be
>seeing a very receptive audience in me with respect to any sort of
>moralizing.
** Weren't you the one who talked about no moral high ground, or
something like that? believe me, I'm not moralizing here. Turnm about
is fair play. I certainly hope you and Edi stay "allied" here...sure
glad you're in between us, is what I mean...
>Yes, I stabbed you. Just like you stabbed me twice.
>It's Diplomacy, big deal.
** True, it's not. But I just find it funny how you played the big
Guilt Trip, and how you demanded cooperation and "by the book" dealings
from here on in if I expected teamwork, and then you stab. Sure,
standard Dip tactics, and I fell for them; silly me to think you
actually meant it. But now I'll be hard-pressed to trust you if
there's a counter-offer....(To which Hohn replies, " Don't worry; there
isn't going to BE one, you clod")
>
>> Being that this IS a demo game, I shall be "demonstrating" how to throw
>> as many centers as possible to Pitt and Jamie as is possible, before I
>> vaporize in this game with a small "poof!" If I have my way, SEV is
>> the (last) bone you'll get -- may it stick in your throat.
>
>A little early for throw-game leverage,
** Wait a minute. Didn't you try some of that in 1901...maybe not
worded exactly that way, but I remember something about going "full
thrust" vs me and no one else if the stabs continued....???
> but hey, if that's the way you
>want to play it, by all means, do what you want.
** Just another weapon (however puny) in the old arsenal...interpret it
as you see fit.
And plan your wiles against me if you will. I expect nothing less.
Tsar Faz
Private message from England to Turkey:
Hohn,
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.) 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. (Just don't let Edi win, that's all.)
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.
This thumbnail psychological profile brought to you by British Overseas
Cognitive and Behavioural Research, Ltd., free of charge for our fellows in
witchcraft.
-Jamie
Private message from Russia to Turkey:
Hohn
ref the broadcast note:
No, you were actually a little _less_ bitter. You just used a few more
_underlines_ and capital letters, if I recall.
Glad to see you're keeping a count on the "stab-meter." Wouldn't want
to think you're being flexible for options or anything, is all. Here,
let me vacate MOS and let you get your second stab in now, so we can
**perhaps** work on Edi. You know, that guy who now surrounds you,
while placing us adjacent to each other for the cat-and-dog show? The
guy who offers the gun and the bullets, but allows us to put it up to
our own heads...
Am indeed glad your client won his trial, or whatever. You never did
tell me your occupation during your hours of midnight work. I should've
realized this crowd, though -- Jamie's a philosophy professor, you a
legal-eagle (I assume?)...and me, the military guy, is getting
pummeled...gads, how ironic.
Now, on a more earthy plane....Take the early morning diatribe as you
see fit. I just felt like releasing a little sarcasm, after being
haragued by you for being such a goon, and how this was "the last time"
for RT dealing if I tried to nail you again, etc etc...All the moral
righteousness and (effective) persuasion, just so you could get your
licks in. And had I done it, you could've done your famous -shrug- on
the net and said, "See, you can't be trusted." Oh yes, I'm wiping the
All-Day Sucker off my face. And you guys did it well. I will be the
first to say you guys made one heckuva good move....(perversely) fun to
watch--up to a point, of course.
But we need to figure out the future. You can build F Ank and crush the
hated Black Sea, and purge yourself forever of your 1901 chagrin. And
I'll rebuild up north. That's what Edi just mentioned in a note, btw,
i.e., to imply that I will indeed "fight on" (vice becoming a G
satellite), so you will NOT destroy the fleet to allow me the
rebuild....and thus play a cat-and-mouse game with it (his
words)...Hmmm, let's see, a Russian fleet working to whose advantage
down there, if kept around???? Gee, let me consult the crystal
ball....
Or you can build F SMY and go rape Italy quickly, before anyone comes to
his aid. Always an option,. but I counsel against it, for what it's
worth.
England seems to think you'll be "ready to come around" now that you see
the tactical positioning down south. After I stopped laughing
hysterically and asking him if he was eating some of those muscle
relaxants they gave me for my back, I agreed that there was always a
chance for anything here.
I'm always willing to deal--of course, it wouldn't hurt if you timed
your second stab for 1915 or so in that event...-grin-. But this
time I'd like a few conditions of my own, assuming there's any Turkish
interest. As The Who song goes, "We won't get fooled again." You can
bet I'll throw my centers to Germany rather than see AT eat them.
(I'll forego the underlining and caps here.) But I don't want that any
more than some others do. I think the game has a lot of twists and
turns left, and wanted to see if those twists didn't somehow put us
together...for once... But that's for the Sultan to decide in his own
time.
Good luck with your future clients. I'll look for you on old reruns of
LA Law.
Tsar Faz
Sultan Funneiman,
>Last I checked, Edi wasn't holding any guns to your head, forcing you
>to type in sev-bla, mos-sev.
>
>It's that personal responsibility thing, don'tcha know.
I'm afraid I will have to join the Sultan's urging that Tsar Fazzio join
Stabbers Anonymous. A twelve-step program. Accepting responsibility for
one's stabs is the first step. Reparations come next.
There's a very respectable chapter in Oslo, by the way.
>We all plan and scheme. What's important is what we actually *do*,
>though, as far as I'm concerned.
The William James of Ankara!
Let's hope some of his philosophy rubs off.
>(Man, was I this bitter when Mark stabbed me? I certainly hope not.)
I couldn't say, I've never tasted either of you. I suspect you are both
pretty salty, myself.
Whereas I remain, as always, my saccharine self,
Gentlissimo King Jamie
Private message from England to Austria:
>Well it would have been nice to see you in the Barents but I think you did the
>cool thing in covering London.
I suppose you mean, in covering Edinburgh.
Yes, it was necessary.
>I Think the French can be turned on the German after all I put a very heavy
>pressure to get him to go to Piedmont and he elected to go to Burgundy which
>is very inflamatory for the German.
Yes, I do have hopes on that count, of course.
Only France didn't move to Burgundy. What do you mean?
(Do you know how to get a listing, by the way? Very useful.)
I think the fact that Italy is now so obviously tied up eastward will be
indirectly helpful to me, oddly enough. It frees France. I want him to feel
like a significant player again, to be looking ahead. I am hopeful that he
will see little percentage in helping Germany grow huge, or in standing
idly by.
> Do you plan to continue to stand him out
>of the Mid?
No.
>Do you have any idea of what is up with the Italian.
Haven't heard anything from him, no.
There doesn't seem to be much question about his basic approach, though.
Hohn and I are on very good terms, by the way. I will put in a good word
for you, though you don't appear to need it. If you have anything in
particular you'd like me to point out to Hohn, feel free to tell me, I'll
pass it along. I hope to emulate his rising from the ashes. :)
Gentle King Jamie
Private message from Turkey to Russia:
> I hope you and Edi enjoy your moves.
I know *I* certainly did.
> And _thanks_ for the
> opportunity to let me to show you my change of heart, and for showing me
> yours. It warms my cockles!
Hey, any time. After your earlier stabs of me, though, you won't be
seeing a very receptive audience in me with respect to any sort of
moralizing. Yes, I stabbed you. Just like you stabbed me twice.
It's Diplomacy, big deal.
> Being that this IS a demo game, I shall be "demonstrating" how to throw
> as many centers as possible to Pitt and Jamie as is possible, before I
> vaporize in this game with a small "poof!" If I have my way, SEV is
> the (last) bone you'll get -- may it stick in your throat.
A little early for throw-game leverage, but hey, if that's the way you
want to play it, by all means, do what you want.
Hohn
Mark wrote:
> The Winter Palace reports another setback on the Balkan Front. The
> Turkish sultan, who earlier spent countless reams of paper reaming the
> Tsar for his perfidious earlier stabs
Yup. Guess it worked. ;)
> (done at the evil genius bequest
> of CoalBin Birsan),
That's funny...
Last I checked, Edi wasn't holding any guns to your head, forcing you
to type in sev-bla, mos-sev.
It's that personal responsibility thing, don'tcha know.
> decided that he too was capable of "getting even."
Aren't we all, Mark, aren't we all.
> Rather than punish the Archduke for his malevolent war planning against
> peaceful Turks, the Sultan succumbed to the Master's siren song, hoping
> for quick gain at the expense of friendship and mutual cooperation.
We all plan and scheme. What's important is what we actually *do*,
though, as far as I'm concerned. If I tried to "punish" everyone who
merely *proposed* action against me, I'd have an awful lot of axes to
grind. I'm honestly surprised you're trying to argue this position.
As for "friendship and mutual cooperation," the stab meter's now at
2-1. I figure I've got one more freebie coming. ;)
> 2) We are pleased to see the Turk, who has been so recently overburdened
> at work so as to be "communications-challenged," can now write a novella
> about the thrashing of the Russians. I'm sure the hardbound version
> will be a big hit in Moscow.
My, you're gracious this morning, Mark.
One of my trials ended earlier this week and a verdict, quite
favorable to my client, came in yesterday. Thanks for asking. As for
the actual merits of my little story, well, I suppose that *is* a
matter of personal opinion and taste. So think what you will.
(Man, was I this bitter when Mark stabbed me? I certainly hope not.)
Hohn
Private message from Russia to England:
GKJ, very rushed note, as I'm heading out the door for a colloquium and
then lunch, but...
>Don't sweat that. There's this big German fleet in the way, see that black
>wooden thing with all those guns sticking out like bristles on a
>toothbrush? I can't afford to send anything two steps from home. I have
>only three units, have you noticed?
>I knew I would not be able to take Norway this year. I need a different
>long shot to come in now.
** My guess is that energize France and see what you guys can do. Just
as I'm no threat to Hohn, neither is England a threat to France...but
those big black blocks in PIC may convince John of your offering....
>>Any (sugary-sweet) Ebglish
>>advice and commentary is sought, as always.
>
>I almost hate to tell you this. But, in my humble opinion, Hohn ought to be
>ready to switch sides.
** Ha-hahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.....
>Ok, he didn't go for it this turn. But now it's all different. Now Edi is
>the threat, clearly; you are no threat to Hohn, and there is practically
>nothing left of you for him to take, whereas those fat Balkans are looking
>mighty juicy, I bet.
** You're right. I'll be on him like a big dog to leave. Only this
time, I'm botting his ass out of my centers as part of the deal. Fair
is fair, i.e., screw the guy who screwed you..once. Then kiss and make
up. He deals a la my wishes for mutual gain, or I delaythem until the
board is 2/3 Germanic...
>This is one of those games where everyone switches
>sides every move based on the balance of power.
** I agree. Still lots of life left in us all.
>(I hate games like that.
** Ditto.
>Like this. I mean, I'm no good at it.
** Double-ditto. give me a slow PBM game with one ally any time. here
I feel like I have to "run faster, go farther, etc" just because I'm
visible in front of all these ghods and the associated satraps in the
observer stands...
>Actually, I don't hate it, I'm
>enjoying it very much.)
** Actually, I like AND hate it at the same time. Just like dating,
whatever that was years ago...
>
>>How the H*** did this happen to you, or me, or even Cal, who's possibly
>>going to do some stagnating?
>
>Karma, obviously.
Is that Edi's middle name?
>
>> (Cynical English comments about "stabbing
>>the only honorable member of the QC" may be checked at the door, thank
>>you very much.)
>
>Oh, uh, whoops.
** -grin-
>
>>Birsan, the fiend!
>
>And his willing minions!
** Crashing on the waves as we listen to the voice of the Siren. Maybe
we should call him BirSiren....
Tsar Faz
Private message from England to Russia:
>I'm trying to think of a way to have me sail from Nwy and let you take
>it (without the rest of your world crumbling down, naturally).
Don't sweat that. There's this big German fleet in the way, see that black
wooden thing with all those guns sticking out like bristles on a
toothbrush? I can't afford to send anything two steps from home. I have
only three units, have you noticed?
I knew I would not be able to take Norway this year. I need a different
long shot to come in now.
>Any (sugary-sweet) Ebglish
>advice and commentary is sought, as always.
I almost hate to tell you this. But, in my humble opinion, Hohn ought to be
ready to switch sides.
Ok, he didn't go for it this turn. But now it's all different. Now Edi is
the threat, clearly; you are no threat to Hohn, and there is practically
nothing left of you for him to take, whereas those fat Balkans are looking
mighty juicy, I bet. This is one of those games where everyone switches
sides every move based on the balance of power. (I hate games like that.
Like this. I mean, I'm no good at it. Actually, I don't hate it, I'm
enjoying it very much.)
>How the H*** did this happen to you, or me, or even Cal, who's possibly
>going to do some stagnating?
Karma, obviously.
> (Cynical English comments about "stabbing
>the only honorable member of the QC" may be checked at the door, thank
>you very much.)
Oh, uh, whoops.
>Birsan, the fiend!
And his willing minions!
Gentle King Jamie
Private message from England to Germany:
SYMBOLISM ASSISTANCE SQUAD TO THE RESCUE
>Question is, how do I do that without feeling that I've loosed an angry
>English...um...what the heck is a suitable animal symbol for England,
>anyway? Unicorn just doesn't cut it. Anyway, you see what I'm getting at.
It's supposed to be a lion.
GKJ
Private message from England to Germany:
I don't know what to tell you.
Well, I'll tell you this.
I'm not angry, at all. I thought I made that clear. Sure, you stabbed me. I
attacked France in the opening. That's what happens. Frankly, I was never
counting on you, not really. I was counting on others to keep you in check
in case you turned on me. They failed me, rather miserably.
So, actually, I *am* kind of angry, only at other powers.
But that's not really what you meant. What you really meant was, if you
were to turn east, why wouldn't England take advantage?
There isn't a whole lot I can do to reassure you, I think. It's not as
though I could send my units off somewhere they couldn't bother you! I have
to do everything possible to defend my centers. I certainly did try to
reach a rapprochement with John-Jean. If I had, I would not have blocked
his Por-MAO. But I failed. Quite understandable, reasonable, I don't blame
him. I think I'd do the same.
Hm.
What I really want, honestly, is still to have a chance to grab a Russian
center. Norway would be ok, StP would be a lot better. In the best of
worlds, I'd grab an Italian one too. But I'd be satisfied to let French
fleets carry a message from me instead. And, since, as you know, I hold Edi
personally responsible for all of my woes, it would be nice to see him get
some come-uppance.
Until ten pm last night, I had the order Nwg-Bar. I wish I'd kept it, but I
decided I couldn't leave Edinburgh open.
If you or John or Hohn won the game, I would be pleased (relatively
speaking; I would be much pleaseder to win it myself, but that really goes
without saying).
Short of leaving my home centers open for you, I'll accept any terms of
peace you offer.
Cheers!
Gentle King Jamie
Private message from Russia to Germany:
Pitt,
My (even later) note is somewhat more middle-of-the-raod between early
pessimism and later optimism. Sort of a muted optimism, perhaps...Let
me address your note, at the ***...
>
>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.
>
>>Germany: Build A Mun, Mun-Tyo(!)
>
>Hmmm...I have to think about that. I'm concerned about the potential for
>letting England off the hook, not to mention the fact that a southern push
>by Germany coupled with Italy's move east leaves France all alone.
** Please think hard(see above). For one thing, a friendless England
with three fleets can't do much to slow you down--especially if i go
traipsing off to Nwg. You'll get a convoy and take another center this
turn, perhaps. I mean, where's Jamie going to go?
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)? Seems to me if he builds one, he either goes vs Italy, or builds
another fleet to come back vs England. if he builds an army vs you, and
doesn't already have Eng support, he's a pretty brave guy. And even if
you moved to TYO in spring and France somehow hit you, you can always
cover Tyo-Mun in fall...heck, go Pic-Bur now if there;'s a threat from
him.
>>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'm not saying you're a vulture, or that you harbor evil intent.
I'm just saying that you surely realize you must monitor the east
carefully...If you can't/won't send southern help, then RI can't do much
vs TRI or anything else in a concerted manner. Which means sooner or
later, I'll be going down. Timing is everything here.
Take care, and thanks for the note, as always.
Tsar Faz
Private message from Germany to England:
>Do you really think you'll get my island centers soon?
I'm beginning to wonder...
>Or maybe it would be
>better to get some Russian ones while they're hot? (Hm, I guess Sweden,
>Norway, StP, and Warsaw are never exactly *hot*.)
I suppose not. But they might be "cool" to own...
Question is, how do I do that without feeling that I've loosed an angry
English...um...what the heck is a suitable animal symbol for England,
anyway? Unicorn just doesn't cut it. Anyway, you see what I'm getting at.
In all honesty, I am now very open to an EG rapprochement since Italy's
move east leaves France all but completely unfettered. I don't want to be
on the receiving end of an EF, though, so how do we go about getting back
to square one?
-Pitt
Private message from Russia to England:
Thanks, King. Your "sympathies" have touched a sympathetic chord here
in the House of Pain. Could you pass your crying towel to me? Mine
seems to be awfully wet right now....
OK, here's the deal. I'm glad I took Nwy. The "May the Hohn Be With
You, Faz Jaywalker" approach that you helped "plug" for me failed
miserably. (Not your fault, and thanks for any good words you offered
there, seriously.) So now I'm even, at least. But no extra build
potential vs G in 1903. No great offensives to help Cal crush Edi.
Even my planned attack on SEV is probably a Light Brigade charge.
I'm trying to think of a way to have me sail from Nwy and let you take
it (without the rest of your world crumbling down, naturally). On
thing for sure--don't expect me to come sailing into nwg and help take
Edi. (Mighty magnanimous of me, wot?) Any (sugary-sweet) Ebglish
advice and commentary is sought, as always.
How the H*** did this happen to you, or me, or even Cal, who's possibly
going to do some stagnating? (Cynical English comments about "stabbing
the only honorable member of the QC" may be checked at the door, thank
you very much.)
Birsan, the fiend!
Tsar Faz
Private message from Germany to Russia:
>Last note I heavily intimated that I was willing to cave in and see you
>move to SIL, PRU, wherever, and take WAR, while perhaps devoting 100%
>attention to the Balkans. perhaps I was a bit...ah...premature in
>ascertaining my own death.
Heh...I rather thought you might reconsider your first, somewhat emotional,
response.
Not to worry. My focus is northwestward. I'm counting on you to contain
the southern hordes.
>Germany: Build A Mun, Mun-Tyo(!)
Hmmm...I have to think about that. I'm concerned about the potential for
letting England off the hook, not to mention the fact that a southern push
by Germany coupled with Italy's move east leaves France all alone.
>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
Private message from England to France:
I'm all ears, and I'll still be all ears after the builds.
Listen, I'll try to convince Pitt that with his build he ought to prepare
to help himself to some of the crumbling Romanoff empire.
Cheers!
Gentle King Jamie
Private message from England to Austria:
I guess I should have followed my instincts and ordered Nwg-Bar. I wouldn't
mind seeing Russia eliminated before me.
Well, good luck. I will just have to try to get France on my side. Last
turn he seemed amicable enough, but naturally he wasn't going to promise
anything. I'll jockey for his help, and then I'll pray that you can finish
off your current troubles in time to influence Germany with your large army.
Cheers!
Gentle King Jamie
Private message from England to Germany:
Looks like one of the reasons I really wanted to make the endgame (revenge
against Russia) is rapidly disappearing.
Do you really think you'll get my island centers soon? Or maybe it would be
better to get some Russian ones while they're hot? (Hm, I guess Sweden,
Norway, StP, and Warsaw are never exactly *hot*.)
Cheers!
Gentle King Jamie
Private message from France to England:
Jamie, after builds, I think we should talk.
John, France
Private message from England to Russia:
Geez, that's too bad. Really. There's hardly a dry handkerchief in my
house, I'll tell you.
In tears,
Gentle King Jamie
Private message from England to Turkey:
Dear Witch,
Can't say as I blame you. You have quite an array of completely
untrustworthy neighbors, I must say. I guess the trick is to use that to
your advantage somehow. You seem to be managing to do it.
Best of luck,
Other Witch
Private message from England to France:
Good move, freeing Mar for the build.
Unfortunately, my two units were both destroyed, so I have no options this
winter. Otherwise I would certainly disband the F Iri.
I won't order Iri-MAO again, in any case. Do what you will with that fleet.
Bonne chance,
King Jamie
Private message from Russia to Italy:
Guys:
As my title says, I must be on drugs (actually, I am--those muscle
relaxants for my back...ahhhh...). Anyway, color me stupid. Here I am,
ranting and raving about 'building one" and valiantly thrashing the
upstarts in the Balkans, yet I now realize I'm 'even' with 0 builds.
Thank you, Judge printout, for bringing me back to reality.
Therefore, the earlier allusions stand. I will press on vs AT. My rear
is open. If you're all 'with' me in this Crusade, then let me work my
rapidly-shrinking wiles. But if you sense that I'm going to lose Ukr
and/or GAL soon (Pitt), then you better make a run on War, ASAP. I
won't mind the grab. Heck, I'm lucky to find time to even play this
game.
I apologize for the hasty (and incorrect) earlier letters; am trying to
finish a stack of papers on the ol' desk, and wanted to send off all my
key messages this a.m. I rushed myself into error.
Blame it on the drugs.
Tsar Faz
Adjustments
Private message from Russia to Germany:
Hi Pitt
Last note I heavily intimated that I was willing to cave in and see you
move to SIL, PRU, wherever, and take WAR, while perhaps devoting 100%
attention to the Balkans. perhaps I was a bit...ah...premature in
ascertaining my own death.
I forgot about Swe; I can rebuild a unit from down south.
I see something like this:
Germany: Build A Mun, Mun-Tyo(!)
Russia: Build A War, War-Ukr, Ukr-Sev (Mos S), Bla-Arm, Gal-Rum (R to
BOH when dislodged)
This puts us on a linear front against Edi, and, teamed with Cal
(hopefully in VEN and ALB?), we can put the hurt on Edi. (You'll
still have enough armies to prosecute either an anti-E or anti-F
campaign).
A unit in Tyo can also help Fra (if he moves to Pie, altho' hitting
Italy now only benefits AT); can help you vs France (if you moive to Pie
later in conjunction with other anti-F moves); or, as desired, helps
level Vie in the near term.
For me, this is nothing but a punishment move. I can annihilate SEV
while being annihilated in BLA (I envision a build of F Ank), and who
knows if I can even hold SEV next turn. But to try and merely defend
GAL is crazy (it's 4-on-3 potentially, anyway), and this move at least
keeps the pot boiling down south. Your move to Tyrolia would REALLY be
a shocker, and helpful to our cause.
In the north, I would urge a convoy to England; I can use Nwy to support
Nth Sea. OR, you can support me to Nwg, and then, if hit, retreat to
LON, or YOR.....I don't see much Russian gain coming from all this, but
hopefully you'll see fit to throw me a scrap or two in the near-term, to
feed down south...
What do you make of this all?
Tsar Faz
Private message from Russia to Italy:
Fellow ex-QC'ers
Is it me, or have we all been snookered within three turns? I have to
say it again -- I'm clearly outclassed by the "Pros from Dover" this
game.
Cal, you made the right moves last turn. Edi is at 6 but can't build
(yuk yuk). I look for AT fleet action (perhaps) if Hohn builds F Smy.
(If they're really together, you'll see that, I'll wager). Although
Hohn does seem to carry a desire for revenge, and he HAS mentioned how
much he hates that F BLA...so maybe he'll first build in ANK, annihilate
BLA, make the Balkans his own little lake, and THEN build (1903) another
westward-bound fleet.
I would urge either a hit on TRI or a supported convoy to ALB (Apu-Alb,
Adr S, ven-Tri). I mean, Edi will now spew forth reams as to why it's
suicidal for you to hit him, how it'll be to both your detriments, etc.
You know the outcome of THAT kind of talk....
I can possibly help you next season, using Gal-somewhere (Vie? Bud?) to
cut a support, although truthfully, he can defend TRI with both, even if
I cut one (or if he only uses one and I guess wrong).
Jamie: Have fun in Norway. You spent a god day yesterday trying to
sway me, saying you thought Hohn was with me. see too the fruits of
YOUR clairvoyance regarding the Balkans. I do feel sadness at seeing
such a fine 1901 attack come down to both of us going "-2" from the
original year. I can only say in hindsight that I'm glad I took Nwy for
1902, to stay even for armies down south.
** Note my e-mail to AT, at the end of this all; pretty tight-jawed, eh?
:>)
MY ITNENT is to abandon Nwy and ask Germany to invade SIL and grab WAR.
I will then use
Gal-Rum, Bla-Arm (before it's annihilated), Ukr-Sev (Mos S), and kill
Hohn in Turkey. then I can play "The Alamo" while red-and-yellow beasts
engulf me.
By F'03 I'll be down to 2, maybe 1, and can willingly puppet as a rogue
for any of you.
hey, WAIT A MINUTE (genuine surprise here). I forgot I owned SWEDEN; I
can BUILD ONE! Oh, joy of joys...
What do you guys think of this:
- Same as above
- Build War, War-Ukr (to cover in case Turkey tries Rum-Ukr).
If GAL is hit, I go to BOH, and we *all* try to get a german army build
in Mun to Tyo...hmmm?
Just preliminary thoughts, mind you? This +1 thing is a bit
disconcerting...to mutate Mark Twain, "Notices of my death have been a
bit premature." Whatever.
I welcome thoughts and comments.
Tsar Faz
Private message from Russia to Turkey:
Gentlemen:
1) I congratulate Edi for (as usual) masterful wheeling-and-dealing.
Having sent your RIE minions off to fight your crafted battles, you now
sit back and watch us all lose and/or flounder, while you and friend
Turkey gain at my expense, and you are free to work your wiles. My
appreciation and admiration of an Austrian job "well done;" I should be
as good as you.
2) Well done on your part, too! I understand Turkish desires for gain,
as well as any possible blood lust to "get even" for earlier indignities
I put upon you. Congrats on suckering me in SEV like I suckered you in
BLA. I hope you and Edi enjoy your moves. And _thanks_ for the
opportunity to let me to show you my change of heart, and for showing me
yours. It warms my cockles!
Being that this IS a demo game, I shall be "demonstrating" how to throw
as many centers as possible to Pitt and Jamie as is possible, before I
vaporize in this game with a small "poof!" If I have my way, SEV is
the (last) bone you'll get -- may it stick in your throat.
Tsar Faz
Private message from Russia to Italy:
Gentlemen: Well, my Turkish diplomacy (consisting of "masterly" ways of
angering Hohn by being Edi's puppet in 1901 vs Turkey) and my English
diplomacy (consisting of angering Jamie by taking Nwy) have yielded
their usual spectacular results.
To put it mildly, I'm in a "hurt box" ceated of my own making. I will
be (obviously) facing sotuh to repair what little frontage I have left.
I'm a little bit miffed at this turn of events, but also realize I
suckered myself into believing Turkey, when he can be just as petty and
revenge-minded as the rest of us. So here's the deal:
- I would ask continued peace among us, so I may not be YOUR "buffer"
against the Balkan BadGuys.
- If that's not in the cards--if G wants to get me before AT do, or if E
wants Nwy no matter what, then do me a favor, and make mine a quick
death. As the German populace said in the closing years of WW2, "Better
and end in horror, than a horror without end." I'd much rather die
with my "friends" picking me apart, than my foes.
Tsar Faz
(St Pete's)
The Winter Palace reports another setback on the Balkan Front. The
Turkish sultan, who earlier spent countless reams of paper reaming the
Tsar for his perfidious earlier stabs (done at the evil genius bequest
of CoalBin Birsan), decided that he too was capable of "getting even."
Rather than punish the Archduke for his malevolent war planning against
peaceful Turks, the Sultan succumbed to the Master's siren song, hoping
for quick gain at the expense of friendship and mutual cooperation.
The road to the west was open; we coulda been contendahs together.
Turkey and Austria, making common cause, now pose a threat to Italy,
watching (no doubt disconcertedly) from the Alps, as well as a growing
threat to Germany and points west. We shall do what we can do, but we
ain't holdin' our breath.
Two final points of note:
1) As the old 60s song says, "Mama said there'd be days like this,
there'd be days like this, my momma said..."
2) We are pleased to see the Turk, who has been so recently overburdened
at work so as to be "communications-challenged," can now write a novella
about the thrashing of the Russians. I'm sure the hardbound version
will be a big hit in Moscow.
The Older, Wiser, and Sadder Tsar Faz
General Akbar lowered his field goggles. The situation was
dire. He thought ::Sultan Cho must have lost his mind, to
have reduced us to this parlous state. Trusting the
Russians! How could he forget the history of treachery and
unrest on the part of Czars past?::
But he set his gloomy thoughts aside. The grizzled military
commander knew that such ponderings were pointless, indeed,
counter-productive, and so he decided to concentrate on the
matter at hand.
"Mohammed."
"Yes sir?"
"Tell the men to dig in. We entrench and defend. But be
ready to move, we have our orders, and we will carry them
out to the best of our ability."
"Aye sir. It shall be done."
General Akbar nodded to his second, and he once again
examined the field. The Black Sea fleet floated menacingly
off the coast, while Russian armies were to the northwest,
north, and northeast.
It was at that moment that the good general knew he could
not hold. Try as he might, the enemy was too numerous. At
the end of the day, his loyal troops would be spilling their
lifeblood onto the earth of the Balkans, as countless men
had done before them.
They could not hold. All would die, at the hands of the
faithless Russians. They would be resolute and merciless,
and General Akbar knew that the good citizens of Rumania
would share the fate of the brave, but hopelessly
outnumbered Turkish Janissaries. A solitary tear tracked
down his cheek. He knew they could not stop the Russians.
But that was not what mattered. He _knew_ what truly
mattered. "We are _trying_ to stop you," he whispered. And
_that_ was what truly mattered. Not who ultimately won or
lost. For millenia from now, who would remember the
temporal passages of empires? Succeed or fail, they would
do their best. They would try, and they would die, yet they
would not surrender.
For were they not men?
* * *
General Akbar braced himself. "Steady...steady...I said
steady, you stinking whoresons!" The pair of Turkish
Janissaries who had leaned forward only moments ago
sheepishly relaxed and resighted their weapons. The
Russians were coming into view.
Yet shockingly, only a fraction of the Russian ground forces
advanced on General Akbar's position, even as the Black Sea
fleet continued to rest peacefully on the horizon. He had
no idea why this had occurred, but he vowed to punish them
for their insolence, for daring to underestimate the resolve
and morale of the elite First Turkish Janissaries. "You
will not find us to be easy meat," he whispered.
Suddenly, things began to occur faster than General Akbar
could follow. The Austrian army, encamped behind them in
Bulgaria, unexpectedly appeared on the southern plain.
"Shit," he cursed. If the Austrians had thrown in with the
foul Russians, then it was no surprise that they had only
allocated a fraction of their troops. Flanked as they were,
only a fraction would be necessary, with Austrian
assistance. His leader had failed him again, for he had
assured Akbar that the Austrians were friendly, or at least
neutral. ::Whenever kings and tyrants play their games, it
is always the soldier who suffers.:: "Third and fourth
cohorts, prepare to repulse the southern advance!"
But the order never reached fruition. The Third Austrian
Guards diverted course at the last moment, and speared into
the advancing Russian columns from the Ukraine. General
Akbar recovered from his momentary shock, and then bellowed,
"Charge! Charge! Allahu Akhbar! Charge!"
His well-disciplined men sortied from their defensive
positions, and met the invaders from Sevastopol tooth to
nail. Many a Turkish Janissary remained on that bloody
battlefield after the day was over, even as Russian Cossacks
joined them. The fighting continued, however, and General
Akbar began to wonder if it would ever end. ::Come on,
Sultan. Don't let it end like this.::
And just like clockwork, confusion struck the ranks of the
Cossacks. The canny General Akbar exploited every bit of
that confusion, and although he managed some small success,
chaos still reigned in the court of Rumania.
As Akbar pressed forward, a runner sprinted to his side.
"Yes, what is it, boy?"
"General...latest...reports from...HQ say that...
reinforcements are on their way! On their way!"
An impossible surge of hope erupted in General Akbar's
heart. A heart which only moments ago had been black and
decayed from lack of joy and love. He thought ::Come on,
this could be the break we need!::
And as he saw the smoke on the northeastern horizon, he knew
that he and his men would live to fight another day. ::As
it should be:: he thought. ::As it should be.::
And so it was that Turkey was well-pleased with its general.
Hohn
Private message from Observer to Germany:
He lives! I look forward to your getting through the rest of your mail....
Quisling, BackStab!, and personal mail. My best, big guy; always my best.
See you in less than two weeks now, in the land of the smorgasborg.
Manus
Retreats
Private message from England to Turkey:
Hi witch.
Well, here's hoping for the best. I am supposed to believe that if you make
a certain choice, I might regain a friend in the north (as earlier noted).
I don't know whether I do believe it or not, though. I'll let you know how
things develop.
Other witch
Private message from England to Master:
Jim,
I'll be interested to hear your further thoughts on rules, house rules,
rulings, etc.
By the way, no, I'm afraid I do not recall your pre-game remarks on
unenforceable rules.
Another thing. About Faz...
Do you think I've already made him suffer quite enough?
:-) :-) :-)
Diplomacy can be fun even when you're getting creamed.
-Jamie
Private message from England to Russia:
>>There is one way to demonstrate that my assessment was correct, and that is
>>to make it correct.
>
>** So as you're going down the tubes, your one thought in life is "I'll
>show YOU I was right?"
For the record:
No. My thought would be, "I'll show ME I was right."
>>They might often look nothing at all like revenge.
>** Yup...
Well, call 'em as you see 'em.
>You scare me sometimes.
God, I hope so!
>We scream at each other for two full days, and
>now "you kind of get it?" Get what? I've been trying to say the same
>thing for the last five(hundred) messages.
Well, yeah, but this time you succeeded. Probably a change in me as much as
in anything you said.
By the way, I never felt like I was screaming. I do believe I am always
civil. I may insult you in your parlour, but always politely. That's why
they call me "Gentle", you know.
GKJ
Private message from England to Russia:
This is what got me:
>** This is where the trust obviously breaks down (along with everywhere
>else). You don't know me from squat.
True.
You don't know me, either. I have found this frustrating.
Also, looking through my records, I found that what you promised regarding
my convincing Turkey, was somewhat ambiguous. I took it to mean you would
let me have Norway this turn. But that wasn't explicit. So I have to admit
that I have been reasoning with an incorrect assumption.
I still have a problem, though. I would like to believe (probably in that
sense in which experts at self-deception would always like to believe one
thing or another) that in other, future, possible circumstances, your
promises and alliances would actually mean something to you. I admit that
one cannot draw any drastic conclusion from one turn. But I don't
understand what those future, possible circumstances would have to be like.
And I'm not getting englightenment from what I'm reading. Follow along,
please.
>I routinely turn over centers to
>allies when the gain is mutual and we're on a common cause. I mean, I'm
>not Donald Trump, throwing centers willy-nilly for free. But I also
>don't hoard centers. If we were allies and I had no reason to believe
>there would be a threat to me, I'd give up the center.
This is what you still have to explain to me.
We *were* allies. You have no reason to believe that honoring the alliance
will threaten you. But you won't honor it. This is what I don't understand.
Can you explain to me more clearly under what circumstances you *would*
honor it?
>>Maybe I'm confused. Explain it to me. What reason would you ever have to
>>give me Norway? I can think of only one: that if you don't, I'll make you
>>pay.
>
>** There you go again, with that "negative incentive is the only thing
>you understand" thing. Sigh..
Be fair. I did give you a huge benefit of the doubt. It's only after you
stabbed me and you explained why that I concluded that this was the only
sort of incentive that meant anything to you. It was only after you quite
explicitly came out and said that the past has no weight for you, that I
concluded the only reasons you'd recognize are dangling threats and
benefits (and participles).
>I do tend to operate on more than threats and cajoling...just because
>it's not working with you, AT THIS MOMENT, somehow is seemingly
>branding me a dull sluggard that won't listen to reason.
That's also not fair. I certainly never even for a moment implied that you
are a dull sluggard.
As for threats and carrots, it's just that you haven't ever given me any
reason to believe that you are interested in anything else. I did assume
that you valued other things, right from the start. I paid for it. You did
severe damage to that assumption. You can't suppose that I would blithely
continue to assume it in the face of all evidence against it.
>>How would there ever, under any circumstance, be any gain to you to give me
>>a center?
>** if we were allies. if were were making a tactically sound decision
>against a common foe. if you needed help vs a common enemy. Lots of
>reasons.
:(
This is not at all encouraging.
I need help, desperately, against a common enemy.
We were allies.
The decision is tactically sound, but only if my interests count for
anything in the alliance. And if they don't, I can't see how it would ever
be tactically sound, from your point of view, to let me have a center
rather than you.
>>We can talk it over until I turn blue. You will never have any reason to do
>>it, except the ones I've already offered. Honor. Alliance. The threat of
>>attack by me, vs. the promise of help. Or what am I missing?
>
>You're right. It seems we'll never agree on this one.
That's what I'm afraid of.
>>I'm not fixated on anything. I'm just playing the only cards I have left.
>
>** not fixated? Not fixated? Count how many messages we've bantied
>about over ONE STINKING CENTER and your attitude towards future
>cooperation! You've made it *ABUNDANTLY* clear that you're going to
>play your hand vs me if we don't agree. "I am receipt of message."
(Does that mean you are fixated, too? Doesn't it take two to banty? I am
willing to concede that I am exactly as fixated as you are. Shall we say,
"intense", rather than "fixated"? Put a nicer spin on it.)
>>So much is understood, then. Your agreements will never, ever count for
>>anything at all.
>**Bull. If RT work down south, you watch how close I stick. If were
>were to ally vs G, you watch how much I'd proffer. You are taking ONE
>TURN of bad vibes and projecting my entire personality on that point.
>It's not just fixation, it's unfair...and untrue.
Yeah, maybe that's right.
Sigh.
Only, can you explain under what circumstances you really would honor
agreements? Everything you've said so far, all the circumstances you've
hypothesized, it sure looks to me like those conditions actually do obtain,
and yet....
GKJ
Private message from Russia to Master:
Guys: Am signing off here; will try once again to tell the Judge I'm at
[email protected] at nights. If it fails, don't be surprised if you don't
hear from me until tomorrow. I'm also 10 papers behind, having ... ahem
.. discussed an issue with one player for the greater part of today.
Enjoyable (in a perverse sense), but time-consuming when papers are
due. Ah, the game, the game!
Cheers, and sound sleeping.
Faz
Private message from Russia to England:
You scare me sometimes. We scream at each other for two full days, and
now "you kind of get it?" Get what? I've been trying to say the same
thing for the last five(hundred) messages.
Anyway, please do mull it over. if I said something that actually
causes ER reassessment, WONDERFUL. My diplomatic correspondence may
indeed be worth more than birdcage lining, then.
I told you I wasn't anti-E. if you don't want to be The All-Day
Sucker and choose to come after me, that's your choice. if you want to
believe me and see where 1903 takes us, that's your decision.
Thanks for the nice reply, though.
Tsar Faz
Private message from Russia to England:
>There is one way to demonstrate that my assessment was correct, and that is
>to make it correct.
** So as you're going down the tubes, your one thought in life is "I'll
show YOU I was right?"
>They might often look nothing at all like revenge.
** Yup...
>But in this circumstance
>that is the only way. I know that it looks like revenge, or 'spleen', or
>whatever you want to call it, but that's not what it is.
** Ok, whatever you say.
>
>So that is what I will do.
** The Nike commercial: "Just do it." And, in a perverted way, 'good
luck.'
>You have called this policy of mine by many, many unpleasant names, but
>that is in fact my policy, and the motivations underlying it I have now
>stated plainly, twice, and most sincerely.
>
>Believe it, or not.
** I do believe it. I do.
I just can't help but visualize it as "I'm taking you down with me for
hosing me; I'll show you, by Gum." I'll prove to you that I know your
cost-benefit analysis better than you do."
That may be a logical policy, or it may be (yet again) a misspeak of
your policy. But that's the view it seems like from here.
I wish you luck if that's indeed what you're bound and determined to do.
I personally feel you're mortgaging any potential future discussions
(however much you don't see them occuring) by throwing the baby (that's
me) out with the bathwater (the dirty water, over Nwy). You're using
this turn as justification for not trusting me in the future. Yet
there's a chance Hohn could link up with me, and I stabbed him not once,
but twice, as part of an alliance, the ol' QC. Why can't you exhibit
the same flexibility with me as Hohn did/might do?
I'm just sorry it's come to this.
Tsar Faz
Private message from England to Russia:
You know, I'm kind of starting to get it.
Strange, isn't it?
Let me think about it. I have this sinking feeling that I'm about to become
the world's biggest sucker.
GKJ
(Thanks for warning me about those participles, so embarassing.)
Private message from Russia to England:
>
>>>Now you say, just play along and you might let me have Norway next year.
>But that is not what you are asking me to believe. You are asking me to
>believe that somehow you will actually turn over Norway to me, if Hohn
>proves to be an ally next year. Whereas every indication is that you will
>say something like, "Of course he's helpful now, but I am deathly afraid
>that he will suddenly turn on me... we can never know anything about the
>future, Jamie, are you really asking me to just give up my security out of
>pure largesse and the goodness of my heart?" And when that happened, THIS
>TIME I would certainly have to admit that I in fact had no reason
>whatsoever to expect you to carry out your promise, none at all. For I had
>been warned.
** This is where the trust obviously breaks down (along with everywhere
else). You don't know me from squat. I routinely turn over centers to
allies when the gain is mutual and we're on a common cause. I mean, I'm
not Donald Trump, throwing centers willy-nilly for free. But I also
don't hoard centers. If we were allies and I had no reason to believe
there would be a threat to me, I'd give up the center.
>Maybe I'm confused. Explain it to me. What reason would you ever have to
>give me Norway? I can think of only one: that if you don't, I'll make you
>pay.
** There you go again, with that "negative incentive is the only thing
you understand" thing. Sigh..
I do tend to operate on more than threats and cajoling...just because
it's not working with you, AT THIS MOMENT, somehow is seemingly
branding me a dull sluggard that won't listen to reason.
>Since that is the only reason I can think of that you'd ever do it,
>that's the one I'm offering you now.
>
>> Why
>>shouldn't I help you, if there's MUTUAL gain?
>
>How would there ever, under any circumstance, be any gain to you to give me
>a center?
** if we were allies. if were were making a tactically sound decision
against a common foe. if you needed help vs a common enemy. Lots of
reasons.
>
>Insofar as there is ever any gain, it's present now. By giving it to me,
>you secure my friendship. By denying it, you secure my enmity. Is there
>ever any other reason for you? I just can't see it. There will never be one.
>
>>I want to deal. But I
>>want Nwy for 1902. I need Nwy for 1902. If you want it in 1903, then
>>we need to talk it over AFTER I SEE THE SOUTHERN MOVES, or else you and
>>Germany need to boot me out.
>
>We can talk it over until I turn blue. You will never have any reason to do
>it, except the ones I've already offered. Honor. Alliance. The threat of
>attack by me, vs. the promise of help. Or what am I missing?
You're right. It seems we'll never agree on this one.
>
>>>We both know, you have
>>>actually come right out and said it, you will *always* do whatever you
>>>think contributes to your short-term gains! Utterly irrespective of past
>>>agreements, promises, declarations of alliance, etc.
>>** No. I said I always have a fault of seeing the short-term situation
>>over the long-term. But the short-term involves ALL players, with ALL
>>options open--you included. But you refuse to believe that, because
>>you're target fixated.
>
>I don't get it.
>I'm not fixated on anything. I'm just playing the only cards I have left.
** not fixated? Not fixated? Count how many messages we've bantied
about over ONE STINKING CENTER and your attitude towards future
cooperation! You've made it *ABUNDANTLY* clear that you're going to
play your hand vs me if we don't agree. "I am receipt of message."
>So much is understood, then. Your agreements will never, ever count for
>anything at all.
**Bull. If RT work down south, you watch how close I stick. If were
were to ally vs G, you watch how much I'd proffer. You are taking ONE
TURN of bad vibes and projecting my entire personality on that point.
It's not just fixation, it's unfair...and untrue.
>For when the time comes to honor them, they are always in
>the past. And you never let the past impinge on your decisions.
** Oh yes. The past turn's stab of me by A/T impinged on my decision to
grab northern centers to counterbalance. One point I will cede: I
won't let these past notes impinge on my desire to look at every turn as
a potentially beneficial one for ER. In that regard, I *won't* "let the
past impinge on my future decisions.
>>Frankly, methinks thou doth protesteth too much. I almost (key word)
>>smell a rat here.
>
>("doth" is not a second person verb. It's third person. And it's never used
>with "protesteth", but "protest", the infinitive.)
** I'll remember that next time I talk to Talleyrand and Maria Theresa.
In the meantime, don't let your participles dangle so much.
>
>
Tsar Faz
Private message from England to Russia:
Did you ever get that Iamalso to work? I may have missed something.
-J
Private message from England to Russia:
>** Please do. Seeing how I don't generally consider myself a brainless
>dolt, and seeing how I've apparently misunderstood your views on life,
>please reiterate.
Ok.
I have been stabbed, to my surprise. I didn't expect it. I would not have
been so vulnerable if I had expected such a thing. I would have taken
Norway in 1901, etc.
When I am stabbed unexpectedly, there has to be some reason. Usually, and
this time, the reason I didn't expect the stab is that I worked it through
and decided that it would not be to my potential stabber's advantage to
stab me. (That's you.) But, since I was in fact stabbed, my stabber
disagrees with me. He thinks that screwing me out of the supply center is
worth whatever costs he will pay.
It then becomes important to me to prove that my judgment was correct, and
my stabber's was incorrect. If I still had a decent position, a good game
plan, I would have other important things to worry about. But given that I
will not, the importance of demonstrating that I was correct looms large.
There is one way to demonstrate that my assessment was correct, and that is
to make it correct. That is, I have to *act* in such a way as to make it
the case that the stab was not a good move, that its costs to the stabber
outweigh its benefits. In other circumstances, there might be other ways.
They might often look nothing at all like revenge. But in this circumstance
that is the only way. I know that it looks like revenge, or 'spleen', or
whatever you want to call it, but that's not what it is.
So that is what I will do.
You have called this policy of mine by many, many unpleasant names, but
that is in fact my policy, and the motivations underlying it I have now
stated plainly, twice, and most sincerely.
Believe it, or not.
Gentle King Jamie
Private message from England to Russia:
>>You made an agreement with me. You broke it.
>** So did Italy. So did Austria. Have you reamed them, too? or does
>chagrin over lost alliances stop at the sea coasts' edge when centers
>are concerned?
Sigh.
I've explained this already.
If I could impose costs on you and Italy and Austria, I would. Since I
can't, I'll just impose those costs I can impose. Since of the three of
you, only you have actually deprived me of any center directly, I'm not
disappointed that you will be the one of the three against whom I can
assess costs.
Come on, I really did explain that before.
>>Then you said that if I would help convince Hohn to help you, you would let
>>me have Norway. I did. You refuse to let me have Norway.
>
>** You did what? Help convince Hohn? As I've said, IF and WHEN this
>turn showed that to be true (i.e., no more AT), I'd reciprocate.
That is not what you said.
>I also
>said (in the last two notes) that 1903 is a different year than 1902.
???
Yes, I'm pretty good at arithmetic, I am able to distinguish those two
numerals.
>>Now you say, just play along and you might let me have Norway next year.
>>
>>And I'm supposed to believe that????
>** Yes. But you won't. You've already locked in to the "Russia is an
>enemy forever and ever" paradigm. Heck, I could say I'm leaving Nwy
>now, and you wouldn't believe it. You're reliving 1901, angry in 1902,
>and have refused to consider 1903 and beyond, other than "playing your
>hand."
:(
This is really disappointing.
I think you will freely admit, at least I hope so, that you haven't given
me *ANY* reason to expect you to do what you say. None at all! And every
reason to expect you to just stab me again, if I were gullible enough to
rely on your promise.
And yet, you really do expect me to believe it. Why??? I keep being led to
the conclusion that you think I'm some sort of fool. An 'angry', 'locked
in' fool, apparently.
>>What could I possibly think? What possible grounds do I have to believe
>>that you would ever do what you say you will do?
>
>** Let me try and be monosyllabic here:
>if-it-helps-me-and-can-also-help-you,-then-I-can-and-may-do-it.
I am trying that. I am trying it now. It will help me, of course. And it
will help you, because you may then rely on your northern borders being
secure. Whereas otherwise you cannot, and in fact you must count on your
northern borders coming under attack.
But that is not what you are asking me to believe. You are asking me to
believe that somehow you will actually turn over Norway to me, if Hohn
proves to be an ally next year. Whereas every indication is that you will
say something like, "Of course he's helpful now, but I am deathly afraid
that he will suddenly turn on me... we can never know anything about the
future, Jamie, are you really asking me to just give up my security out of
pure largesse and the goodness of my heart?" And when that happened, THIS
TIME I would certainly have to admit that I in fact had no reason
whatsoever to expect you to carry out your promise, none at all. For I had
been warned.
Maybe I'm confused. Explain it to me. What reason would you ever have to
give me Norway? I can think of only one: that if you don't, I'll make you
pay. Since that is the only reason I can think of that you'd ever do it,
that's the one I'm offering you now.
> Why
>shouldn't I help you, if there's MUTUAL gain?
How would there ever, under any circumstance, be any gain to you to give me
a center?
Insofar as there is ever any gain, it's present now. By giving it to me,
you secure my friendship. By denying it, you secure my enmity. Is there
ever any other reason for you? I just can't see it. There will never be one.
>I want to deal. But I
>want Nwy for 1902. I need Nwy for 1902. If you want it in 1903, then
>we need to talk it over AFTER I SEE THE SOUTHERN MOVES, or else you and
>Germany need to boot me out.
We can talk it over until I turn blue. You will never have any reason to do
it, except the ones I've already offered. Honor. Alliance. The threat of
attack by me, vs. the promise of help. Or what am I missing?
>Let me ask this, while I'm on the subject: Are you THAT bereft of
>diplomatic skill or options that your sole goal in life is writing me
>multiple times a day to get me to leave Nwy?
No. ("Have you stopped beating your wife?")
> The answer (I shall
>answer it) is "no you are NOT" bereft of either skill or options. But I
>am hard put to make anything else coherent out of this fixation over
>Nwy. Are you talking to France? To Germany?
Of course.
>>We both know, you have
>>actually come right out and said it, you will *always* do whatever you
>>think contributes to your short-term gains! Utterly irrespective of past
>>agreements, promises, declarations of alliance, etc.
>** No. I said I always have a fault of seeing the short-term situation
>over the long-term. But the short-term involves ALL players, with ALL
>options open--you included. But you refuse to believe that, because
>you're target fixated.
I don't get it.
I'm not fixated on anything. I'm just playing the only cards I have left.
The short-term will never, ever lead you to honor your agreements. What
short-term incentive would there ever be? You always have more centers with
Norway than you have without Norway.
>>Those have no effect
>>at all on your decisions. You have said as much. "What's past is past.
>>Russia must do what Russia must do."
>** Yes, so? You then say...
>>And so must England.
>** Viola! As I've also always said.
So much is understood, then. Your agreements will never, ever count for
anything at all. For when the time comes to honor them, they are always in
the past. And you never let the past impinge on your decisions. And yet,
somehow, I am supposed to believe that you would honor a future agreement.
Why? Am I supposed to believe it on no grounds at all? Am I to take it as
my credo, an article of faith?
>** Just because I am poor in planning long-term stuff doesn't mean I
>think about it. Don't you think I worry that this won't turn into a GA
>lovefest (or some other non-Russia-inclusive arrangement) somewhere down
>the line?
I don't know. I imagine you worry about it, sure.
> How effective is a 3-4 center English friend going to be
>when the south is aflame, or when you're defending vs a GF and need all
>available forces to deflect convoys or multiple fleet attacks?
I can promise you that a 3-4 center England will be much better to have as
a friend than as an enemy. That's all I can do. It seems like a very
significant consideration. If to you it's negligible, then we will just
have to see who is correct.
> And if
>you're a 3-center Englishman committed to my doom because of one center,
>then find a way to cram those guys up there and nail me. Or send
>misinformation to Hohn and Edi and try to wreck me everywhere. or
>whatever your master plan is.
Well, I guess I'll try those things, if that's how you choose to play it.
>Frankly, methinks thou doth protesteth too much. I almost (key word)
>smell a rat here.
("doth" is not a second person verb. It's third person. And it's never used
with "protesteth", but "protest", the infinitive.)
I don't understand your insinuation. Once again, it certainly sounds as
though you don't believe me, though you have averred that you do believe me.
>>As it happens, it fits perfectly with my general approach, which I have
>>explained at length, but which you consistently mischaracterize. I will be
>>more than happy to explain it again, if you'd like.
>
>** Please do. Seeing how I don't generally consider myself a brainless
>dolt, and seeing how I've apparently misunderstood your views on life,
>please reiterate.
All right, I shall, separately.
Gentle King J
Private message from Master to England:
>
> Message from [email protected] as England to Master in 'ghodstoo':
>
> Jim,
>
> I'll be interested to hear your further thoughts on rules, house rules,
> rulings, etc.
>
As I'm still sorting through mail, not yet...
> By the way, no, I'm afraid I do not recall your pre-game remarks on
> unenforceable rules.
>
I am speaking of my comments on Judge House Rules in General going back
over 3-5 years. I am interested in your thoughts on whether I need to
write some specific house rules designed for this game, or not. I am
leaning toward making public rather than private comments, but am
still thinking about it.
>
> Another thing. About Faz...
> Do you think I've already made him suffer quite enough?
>
> :-) :-) :-)
>
Why, I cannot say......
> Diplomacy can be fun even when you're getting creamed.
>
> -Jamie
>
I've always had myt most fun in such situations....
Jim
Private message from Russia to England:
>Just look at what you're asking.
>
>You made an agreement with me. You broke it.
** So did Italy. So did Austria. Have you reamed them, too? or does
chagrin over lost alliances stop at the sea coasts' edge when centers
are concerned?
>
>Then you said that if I would help convince Hohn to help you, you would let
>me have Norway. I did. You refuse to let me have Norway.
** You did what? Help convince Hohn? As I've said, IF and WHEN this
turn showed that to be true (i.e., no more AT), I'd reciprocate. I also
said (in the last two notes) that 1903 is a different year than 1902.
>
>Now you say, just play along and you might let me have Norway next year.
>
>And I'm supposed to believe that????
** Yes. But you won't. You've already locked in to the "Russia is an
enemy forever and ever" paradigm. Heck, I could say I'm leaving Nwy
now, and you wouldn't believe it. You're reliving 1901, angry in 1902,
and have refused to consider 1903 and beyond, other than "playing your
hand."
>
>What could I possibly think? What possible grounds do I have to believe
>that you would ever do what you say you will do?
** Let me try and be monosyllabic here:
if-it-helps-me-and-can-also-help-you,-then-I-can-and-may-do-it. Why
shouldn't I help you, if there's MUTUAL gain? Do you doubt that? You
seem to think I have some anti-England voodoo doll that I take great
delight in jabbing at every opportunity. (I certainly think you have
one of me.) But I don't. Fact of the matter is, I enjoy(ed) our
discussions, and rue the day this all started. I want to deal. But I
want Nwy for 1902. I need Nwy for 1902. If you want it in 1903, then
we need to talk it over AFTER I SEE THE SOUTHERN MOVES, or else you and
Germany need to boot me out.
Let me ask this, while I'm on the subject: Are you THAT bereft of
diplomatic skill or options that your sole goal in life is writing me
multiple times a day to get me to leave Nwy? The answer (I shall
answer it) is "no you are NOT" bereft of either skill or options. But I
am hard put to make anything else coherent out of this fixation over
Nwy. Are you talking to France? To Germany?
>We both know, you have
>actually come right out and said it, you will *always* do whatever you
>think contributes to your short-term gains! Utterly irrespective of past
>agreements, promises, declarations of alliance, etc.
** No. I said I always have a fault of seeing the short-term situation
over the long-term. But the short-term involves ALL players, with ALL
options open--you included. But you refuse to believe that, because
you're target fixated.
>Those have no effect
>at all on your decisions. You have said as much. "What's past is past.
>Russia must do what Russia must do."
** Yes, so? You then say...
>And so must England.
** Viola! As I've also always said.
> I must play the cards I have, and I shall.
** I hope you're playing with a full deck. Sorry, couldn't pass up
the pun!
>
>You have made it completely clear that the only thing that could possibly
>move you is a consideration of your own short-term security.
** Then let me make it abundantly un-clear. For 1902, this fall, my
concern is an "even" center count in the event that Turkey doesn't go
with me down south. My long-term goals involve getting out from under
the shadow of the Germanic types. I can't do that at -1. Neither can
you--hence one reason for the tension over Nwy.
>Thus, the only
>way I could possibly influence you is to impose a cost on your security, or
>promise some benefit to your short-term security.
>I am doing both. I guarantee you that *if* you let me take Norway, *if* you
>honor your agreements and promises, then I will work 100% toward your
>short-term security, I will protect you against Germany. And *if* you
>don't, then I will be a significant hazard to your short-term security. I
>guarantee it. If you really work on the basis of short-term security, and
>if you believe me, then your choice should be obvious.
** Just because I am poor in planning long-term stuff doesn't mean I
think about it. Don't you think I worry that this won't turn into a GA
lovefest (or some other non-Russia-inclusive arrangement) somewhere down
the line? How effective is a 3-4 center English friend going to be
when the south is aflame, or when you're defending vs a GF and need all
available forces to deflect convoys or multiple fleet attacks? And if
you're a 3-center Englishman committed to my doom because of one center,
then find a way to cram those guys up there and nail me. Or send
misinformation to Hohn and Edi and try to wreck me everywhere. or
whatever your master plan is.
Frankly, methinks thou doth protesteth too much. I almost (key word)
smell a rat here.
>
>I have no other cards to play, so I play these.
** I'll stand; dealer takes one.
>
>As it happens, it fits perfectly with my general approach, which I have
>explained at length, but which you consistently mischaracterize. I will be
>more than happy to explain it again, if you'd like.
** Please do. Seeing how I don't generally consider myself a brainless
dolt, and seeing how I've apparently misunderstood your views on life,
please reiterate.
Tsar Faz
Private message from England to Russia:
Just look at what you're asking.
You made an agreement with me. You broke it.
Then you said that if I would help convince Hohn to help you, you would let
me have Norway. I did. You refuse to let me have Norway.
Now you say, just play along and you might let me have Norway next year.
And I'm supposed to believe that????
What could I possibly think? What possible grounds do I have to believe
that you would ever do what you say you will do? We both know, you have
actually come right out and said it, you will *always* do whatever you
think contributes to your short-term gains! Utterly irrespective of past
agreements, promises, declarations of alliance, etc. Those have no effect
at all on your decisions. You have said as much. "What's past is past.
Russia must do what Russia must do."
And so must England. I must play the cards I have, and I shall.
You have made it completely clear that the only thing that could possibly
move you is a consideration of your own short-term security. Thus, the only
way I could possibly influence you is to impose a cost on your security, or
promise some benefit to your short-term security.
I am doing both. I guarantee you that *if* you let me take Norway, *if* you
honor your agreements and promises, then I will work 100% toward your
short-term security, I will protect you against Germany. And *if* you
don't, then I will be a significant hazard to your short-term security. I
guarantee it. If you really work on the basis of short-term security, and
if you believe me, then your choice should be obvious.
I have no other cards to play, so I play these.
As it happens, it fits perfectly with my general approach, which I have
explained at length, but which you consistently mischaracterize. I will be
more than happy to explain it again, if you'd like.
GK Jamie
Broadcast message from [email protected] as Observer in 'ghodstoo':
It also messes up summaries sometimes, so if you sense the game is winding
down, you might want to reduce to 1 address for the endgame or so, simply
to make Nick Fitzpatrick's life a hof keeper easier
Gee, thanks!
Nick
>Truthfully, all I want to do is tell the Judge that I am at two
>addresses, so if someone sends me stuff to my Juno line after work, it
>will go there for me to read.
This is not possible, sadly.
ideally you could say
set address (between 9am-5pm: [email protected]) ELSE ([email protected])
But you cannot.
>
> I don't necessarily want duplicate messages at each place...just want
>the ability of the Judge to read both addresses as "legit" when people
>use one (or both).
Well, IAMALSO has told the judge to treat mail from home (sent By you) as
legit. However, there is no way to automatically switch the address it
send stuff from others TO you.
You have this choice:
set address [email protected],[email protected]
(NO SPACE before or after the comma!!!)
And get a copy of everything at both places
or, every day when you leave for work, say
set address [email protected]
and as you leave the office, say
set address [email protected]
I find the latter too cognitively taxing, so I accept duplicates and just
do a lot of deleting.
'zat help?
Andy
Andy S (or others):
NOW you tell me about the side effects; I'm getting double "return mail"
here....I am awash in paperwork. help me turn it off!
Faz
Private message from Russia to Italy:
Cal,
I'm at a loss to explain his rabid fixation with one center, as if that
spells "game end" for him. I suppose I shouldn't have gotten as testy
as I did, but it kind of frosted me.
I'm staying in NWY. Short of EG rapproachment, he'll wither long before
he busts my lines. I'll try not to have it detract from the anti-A
(anti-T) war(s).
Please indeed press home your attacks vs Edi, however you want them
done. I'm going to try for BUD this turn, in case you're looking for
someone to support to TRI.
Tsar faz
I should also point out there are weird side effects of the
set address [email protected],[email protected]
which I use at times for vital games to ensure I get press.
If you have this address, the account from which you send will get 2
confirmations rather than 1. The other accoutn will also get 1, meaning
you get 3 in total.
It also messes up summaries sometimes, so if you sense the game is winding
down, you might want to reduce to 1 address for the endgame or so, simply
to make Nick Fitzpatrick's life a hof keeper easier
Andy
Andy S or anyone else:
Eeeek! What's happening to this address update?
Truthfully, all I want to do is tell the Judge that I am at two
addresses, so if someone sends me stuff to my Juno line after work, it
will go there for me to read.
I don't necessarily want duplicate messages at each place...just want
the ability of the Judge to read both addresses as "legit" when people
use one (or both).
Can this be done?
Thanks for the earlier advice; I guess I don't follow paperwork
instructions too well....blush.
Faz
Private message from Italy to Russia:
Just got this after I sent my last missive.
If I had an exchange of letters like this in a regular game, I'd pull
everything north and attack for all I'm worth and the hell with the
south.
This IS, however, a demo game and I shouldn't think such thoughts...
My non-advice from the last letter probably goes double now.
Regards
Cal
> Message from [email protected] as Russia to Italy in 'ghodstoo':
>
> Cal,
> Bad vibes all along the front. Doesn't look good for E-R relations.
> see below. (My stuff is at the ** throughout his words.)
>
> Faz
>
> >Message from [email protected] as Russia to England in 'ghodstoo':
> >
> >GKJ
> >A most bellicose letter...not bordering on desperation, but I can feel
> >the veins in your neck pulse as you write it.
> >>
> >>>1) From the cost-benefit side: I reasoned, is English friendship AT
> >>>THIS TIME worth one center? In other words, do I need this center given
> >>>the board set-up, or should I possibly sacrifice Russian defense to stay
> >>>chummy with England...an England who should know a survival instinct
> >>>when he sees one?
> >>
> >>I know a survival instinct, yes I do. You are screwing me for your fifth
> >>center
> >Fifth center as in "staying even" bevause one of "our" allies just
> >screwed me?
> >>or your sixth. You are reducing me to three centers
> >*I* am not reducing you, my friend. You're displacing on me, using
> >Germany's hose job in BEL and maybe BRE and now blaming me that I won't
> >get you even or just -1. Foul!
> >>. I've got a keen survival instinct.
> >** So do I. The name of the game is building and surviving. You now
> >crucify me for wanting to do the same as you. So I supose I have to
> >give "what is rightfully yours" and take my chances with the south. And
> >you'll be there to help me vs any AT shenanigans, _won't_ you?
> >>
> >>But to me this means, I have to put something on the table that counts for
> >>something. And I really don't have much. So what I put on the table is
> >>this: give me what is due to me, what was promised, and I am your friend to
> >>the end; otherwise, I'm your enemy to the end. I have to put up high
> >>stakes, because my survival is on the line.
> >
> >** So your WHOLE game is shot to blazes over this, is what you're
> >saying? If you don't have Nwy, you've got no other recourses, nothing
> >to look forward to except "dying years?' And if I don't give you Nwy,
> >then we're game-long enemies?! Are you game-long enemies with Pitt
> >because of this stab? Are you sending him equaly-laden letters? Am
> >I reading you right, and is this a bit overstated?
> >>
> >>You don't believe I am serious about that, that's the problem. My problem,
> >>and it will be yours, too. But, you'll see.
> >
> >** You're hung up on this point, Jamie. Don't misunderstand me. I DO
> >believe you're serious. But if I remain in Nwy, then I've made the call
> >that I'll try to ride out your storm.
> >>
> >>>2) I then said, is one center worth hacking off Pitt, who clearly holds
> >>>the leverage over me AT THIS TIME?
> >>
> >>I think this is pure pretense. The idea that Pitt would drop this all-out
> >>attack against me and spend seasons re-arranging his units to attack you is
> >>totally ridiculous.
> >
> >** Of course he wouldn't! But he can hit you and I equally (especially
> >if he has a F ally), can he not? When he builds, does he have to send
> >two new fleets vs you, or two armies vs me? Can't he split stuff up?
> >Of course it's totally ridiculous if he'd just drop everything and shift
> >completely east, but I don't envision that happening. I'm with you on
> >that one...
> >>> Again, is the honor of keeping
> >>>England even (and facing Germany) worth the reality of me keeping Pitt
> >>>quiet (hopefully) and staying solvent, to boot?
> >>
> >>If it were only honor? Maybe not. That's why I have upped the stakes.
> >
> >** You have your view of survival, I have mine. Stakes aren't just in
> >your interests, Jamie.
> >>
> >>For some players, honor is enough. I had hoped you were one of those. Since
> >>you aren't, I have to put more chips on the table. So I have.
> >
> >** Pretty insulting. I have more honor than is readily apparent.
> >Because I don't help you right now, you are 'legitimately' allowed to
> >think that -- have at it. I've endured 10 years of PBM "ribbing" that
> >I'm too honorable and allied to worry about charges that I'm
> >dishonorable.
> >And of course, you and I would've ended this game in a draw, wouldn't
> >we? We certainly wouldn't have stabbed each other, because we're
> >game-long buddies, right?
> >>
> >>>3) Lastly, I reasoned, is England a grudge player who will carry this
> >>>slight over Nwy to his grave in some sort of snit, or will he calculate
> >>>and deal as expected?
> >>
> >>Again, you are quite deliberately misdescribing my motivations. I'll let
> >>that slide. I suppose you are just trying to get me mad.
> >
> >** Read the rest of that para, Jamie! I then followed it by saying that
> >I assume you will do the calculating, rational move, vice going off
> >angry and revengeful. If hitting me is your idea of rational, then have
> >at it.
> >
> >>I'll calculate my deal all right. But what will I be aiming to maximize?
> >>You assume I will always aim to maximize my survival duration. Not true. I
> >>will maximize my effect on the game in my dying years. I know how to do
> >>that now.
> >
> >** Once again, what are you saying? First you chide me for saying
> >things like "kamikaze style", because you think I'm trying to impugn
> >your character or style. So I reword and try to say that I consider you
> >a shrewd calculator who will do what it takes to survive. Now I read
> >this as: I don't care if I die, I'll leave a legacy from my actions.
> >Again, what are you trying to say? Is this not a revenge-minded and/or
> >kamikaze action, i.e., you're goin' down with me?
> >>
> >>>>Stabbing me, and continuing to twist the dagger, you think, is cost-free.
> >>>** How so, "continuing to twist the dagger?" You mean, sailing Nwy to
> >>>Nwg and then continuing to hit you with German help? Hadn't been my
> >>>intent....
> >>
> >>No.
> >>Stabbing me last move. Then, promising me that if I help convince Hohn to
> >>join you instead of Edi, you will give me Norway. Then, after I have done
> >>that, saying, "Hah, sucker, you mean you actually BELIEVED that?"
> >
> >** That's crap. If Hohn is really with me, I'll know this turn. If I
> >gain, then I can help you next turn. (You will, of course, see this as
> >endless delaying and trying to string you along.) But it's all about my
> >security. IF Hohn's with me and I stay even or gain one, I can build
> >War. I can leave Nwy. I can DO a lot with you. Why do you persist in
> >thinking this is a coffin-closing, no-more-flexibility move?! YOU are
> >making it such, me Lord.
> >>
> >>That's twisting. And if that's the way it is, then you are someone with
> >whom there is no point in dealing at all.
> >
> >To quote Jesus, "It is you who say it as such."
> >
> >>There is zero expectation that you will carry through.
> >
> >** Maybe not this turn...but we regress...
> >>
> >>>** No, untrue. I'm HOPING you don't get into this "jihad" vs the
> >>>available guy" mode, but if you do, then I expect a timed assault (while
> >>>you shift to BAR, Nwg, etc, and make my life a nuisance. And I'll
> >>>build F STP(nc) in such an event).
> >>
> >>You will build F Stp if I move to Bar now. Interesting.
> >** Oh, man; here's the self-justification coming...
> >
> >>In that case, you will have gained absolutely nothing by stabbing me! You
> >>won't have that unit to play in the south. So, you are stabbing me for no
> >>gain at all.
> >>
> >>And what if I don't move to Bar now? Will you then figure that I won't move
> >>there next Spring? Or will you build in StP anyway?
> >>
> >>I'll tell you what. I warn you: you had better build in StP this winter, no
> >>matter where my fleets are.
> >
> >** Oh, c'mon! Are you now rationalizing a move to BAR, angered that I'd
> >even CONSIDER building F StP(nc) in the event you sailed there?
> >
> >I don't WANT to build in StP!!!! I WANT flexibility to build in central
> >Europe or the balkans. I want to see what happens this fall if indeed
> >there is no AR. Geez, why slam me for wanting to wait a turn? Am I now
> >FORCED to build there because you're mad that I MIGHT build there in the
> >event you MIGHT go to BAR, and therefore you MUST go there to 'fix" me?
> > _This_ _is_ _lunacy!_
> >
> >If you are so doggone worried about Germany, yet considering a move to
> >BAR this turn, then you are (a) not worried about Ger (and this is all
> >so much hype), (b) so anti-R that you are fixated on taking me down OVER
> >ONE CENTER (drone of kamikaze engines in the background???), or (c)
> >don't care about throwing the game to Germany ("rational act" akin to
> >(b) above).
> >>
> >>
> >>>I just feel this way:
> >>>Edi hosed me, and I hosed Hohn, yet we're all communicating and ready to
> >>>bargain with whomever, whenever, to make our countries secure. I fully
> >>>expect you to try and nail me, even possibly with German help(!)
> >>>Nothing would surprise me this game. But I would also HOPE that you
> >>>realize there is "ER life beyond 1902" and I sincerely hope our comm
> >>>lines haven't been irretrievanly shattered just because of this.
> >>
> >>
> >>Not at all. I will continue to communicate with you. I'll set up a
> >>telegraph office in St Petersburg.
> >
> >** Very rational. Very calculating. Very flexible for options past
> >1902.
> >
> >>But it still does seem to me that you simply don't believe I'll carry out
> >>my threats. Because if you did, your own cool cost-benefit analysis would
> >>tell you that continuing to stab me isn't worth it, it will be costlier to
> >>you than pulling out your dagger.
> >
> >** I refuse to beat a dead horse, but I'll lift it one more time before
> >it drops back to earth with a resounding "thud;"
> >1) I want security. For THIS TURN ONLY, security means a center-count
> >and analysis of whether there is an AT or an RT. Nothing will show that
> >until AFTER the turn is over.
> >The QC is dead. The agreements with it, if do-able, will be done. But
> >we all look out after our states (and survival) as we deem necessary.
> >Do we need to refight the last war (i.e., adhere to the QC's guidelines)
> >because it's now the next war (when it may not apply)?
> >2) I don't want to challenge you.
> >3) I want flexibility. I want to be able to weigh options and other
> >neighbors with equal chance of dealing, rather than forever close the
> >door over one center in one turn. YOU don't believe that I'll have the
> >flexibility to change up north after the results come out this turn.
> >Like I'm forcing myself to lock into a pro-G policy until the Second
> >Coming. That is NOT the case. But you want it proven NOW, this turn,
> >or it's not deal. That is inflexibility in my books. And that's what
> >bothers me...you're making it sound like I'm not willing to deal, and
> >that it must be "your way, or no way at all." You know, sort of like
> >"I'm taking my ball and going home if we don't play this way."
> >>So, you don't believe me.
> >4) I do believe you. I just don't want it to be this way in Fall 1902,
> >when there is a lot of potential in 1903 and beyond.
> >> I take that as a challenge.
> >You take it how you want, Jamie. I'm rather frustrated that game-long
> >ER relations are to be determined over this one turn and this one
> >center, if I 'don't get out of town by sundown.'
> >
> >Gee, maybe I should just deal with Edi this way, or with Hohn: "You
> >stabbed me in RUM; leave now and let's not even think about future
> >options because, by Gum, you're in RUM _now_." That would certainly
> >make for an open, flexible game. Jamie, this is a DEMO game. There are
> >going to be stabs and counter-stabs all game. I'm in for a few of my
> >own, and so is Pitt, and Cal, and Edi, and France again. Why are you
> >so hidebound on this? Give me credit for trying to think beyond 1902 in
> >larger terms than satisfying England's call for one center in 1902.
> >
> >I'm trying to keep all lines open. But if your idea of "open lines" is
> >to have a telegraph office in St Petersburg (certainly no challenege
> >THERE!), then do what you must. Stop threatening, and act.
> >
> >Short of G helping you, you'll have two provinces to stick three anti-R
> >pieces in...with me having a defense up there. Mmmm boy, what great
> >mid-game flexibility for us both; thanks!
Don't put any space b/w the 2 addresses
Private message from Italy to Russia:
> Message from [email protected] as Russia to Italy in 'ghodstoo':
>
> Hi Cal
> Got your reply to Jamie's ominous thunderings about Nwy. I'm in a bind,
> true, but I'm willing to ride it out. I mean, look at it from my (our)
> view:
>
> 1) Who knows what's going on with AT? If I give up NWY and Hohn stays
> with Edi, I'm at least -1 (Rum), and maybe -2 (Sev), with me also out of
> Gal.
> 2) If I abandon Nwy, Germany then senses lack of will on my part. If he
> goes +2 and has peace with France, then waht's to stop him from sailing
> to BAL and heading for WAR via Sil or Pru? Do I voluntarily reduce
> myself of forces -- forces needed for OUR front vs Edi -- to honor a
> deal with England so HE can stay even or possibly even gain (who knows
> what he and F & G are discussing, too)?
>
> Jamie is calculating, and I know he's not a kamikaze player--at least I
> hope not. But if he comes after me, it'll either be with Germany (in
> which case I'll lose Nwy anyway), or solo, with G on his heels. If he
> sails to Bar and (eventually) to Nwg, I'll build F StP(nc) and hunker
> down, or boot him before the rest of his units come on-scene. If he
> really pisses me off, I'll hit Nwg next turn with German support, but I
> don't really want that to happen. I don't want him dead -- just
> occupying EF's attention, is all, so they stay off of US...
>
> If he "screws me" by throwing centers to Germany, well...so be it. But
> I don't think he'll do that in a demo game.
>
> Frankly, I get a little dismayed by his actions. They remind me of the
> 5 year-old's threats of "If we don't play my way, I'm taking my ball and
> going home" response. THAT's why I think he's "above that" and may be
> making some of this as theatrics. But if it's not theatrics, then it's
> silly: he's penalizing ME for a security breach, when you and Edi are
> equally un-QCish (though you and I not be desire, admittedly)...so he'll
> wildly flail against the only guy he can hurt for his loss of anti-F
> help??? Hopefully not...
>
> I mean, what do YOU think? Are you willing to risk me facing an enraged
> Germany with an even (or loss) build count, just to satisfy Eng honor
> and have him be "my buddy" against G? Does this detract from the
> anti-Edi crusdae? You tell me; I want honest ally feedback here...
Well, my standard response to situations like this seem to be pretty
much
as yours: if he wants to act like a baby then I'm even more likely to
tell
him to go to hell. I do agree with you that I doubt if GK Jamie will do
something like that. I suspect it's a ploy to get you to turn around
and
give him Norway back. It may be his only available tactic if you think
about it. Personally, I've used this sort of thing myself, but I hate
having to follow through. I HAVE followed through, but only to prove
that
there WAS some bite to my whining in the future. I wouldn't do it in a
demo
game unless ABSOLUTELY desperate.
I'm not going to advise you on what to do (the Elves say giving advice
is
a fool's game...JRR Tolkien), but I will tell you that *I* would stay in
Norway.
G'luck
Cal
Private message from Russia to Italy:
Cal,
Bad vibes all along the front. Doesn't look good for E-R relations.
see below. (My stuff is at the ** throughout his words.)
Faz
>Message from [email protected] as Russia to England in 'ghodstoo':
>
>GKJ
>A most bellicose letter...not bordering on desperation, but I can feel
>the veins in your neck pulse as you write it.
>>
>>>1) From the cost-benefit side: I reasoned, is English friendship AT
>>>THIS TIME worth one center? In other words, do I need this center given
>>>the board set-up, or should I possibly sacrifice Russian defense to stay
>>>chummy with England...an England who should know a survival instinct
>>>when he sees one?
>>
>>I know a survival instinct, yes I do. You are screwing me for your fifth
>>center
>Fifth center as in "staying even" bevause one of "our" allies just
>screwed me?
>>or your sixth. You are reducing me to three centers
>*I* am not reducing you, my friend. You're displacing on me, using
>Germany's hose job in BEL and maybe BRE and now blaming me that I won't
>get you even or just -1. Foul!
>>. I've got a keen survival instinct.
>** So do I. The name of the game is building and surviving. You now
>crucify me for wanting to do the same as you. So I supose I have to
>give "what is rightfully yours" and take my chances with the south. And
>you'll be there to help me vs any AT shenanigans, _won't_ you?
>>
>>But to me this means, I have to put something on the table that counts for
>>something. And I really don't have much. So what I put on the table is
>>this: give me what is due to me, what was promised, and I am your friend to
>>the end; otherwise, I'm your enemy to the end. I have to put up high
>>stakes, because my survival is on the line.
>
>** So your WHOLE game is shot to blazes over this, is what you're
>saying? If you don't have Nwy, you've got no other recourses, nothing
>to look forward to except "dying years?' And if I don't give you Nwy,
>then we're game-long enemies?! Are you game-long enemies with Pitt
>because of this stab? Are you sending him equaly-laden letters? Am
>I reading you right, and is this a bit overstated?
>>
>>You don't believe I am serious about that, that's the problem. My problem,
>>and it will be yours, too. But, you'll see.
>
>** You're hung up on this point, Jamie. Don't misunderstand me. I DO
>believe you're serious. But if I remain in Nwy, then I've made the call
>that I'll try to ride out your storm.
>>
>>>2) I then said, is one center worth hacking off Pitt, who clearly holds
>>>the leverage over me AT THIS TIME?
>>
>>I think this is pure pretense. The idea that Pitt would drop this all-out
>>attack against me and spend seasons re-arranging his units to attack you is
>>totally ridiculous.
>
>** Of course he wouldn't! But he can hit you and I equally (especially
>if he has a F ally), can he not? When he builds, does he have to send
>two new fleets vs you, or two armies vs me? Can't he split stuff up?
>Of course it's totally ridiculous if he'd just drop everything and shift
>completely east, but I don't envision that happening. I'm with you on
>that one...
>>> Again, is the honor of keeping
>>>England even (and facing Germany) worth the reality of me keeping Pitt
>>>quiet (hopefully) and staying solvent, to boot?
>>
>>If it were only honor? Maybe not. That's why I have upped the stakes.
>
>** You have your view of survival, I have mine. Stakes aren't just in
>your interests, Jamie.
>>
>>For some players, honor is enough. I had hoped you were one of those. Since
>>you aren't, I have to put more chips on the table. So I have.
>
>** Pretty insulting. I have more honor than is readily apparent.
>Because I don't help you right now, you are 'legitimately' allowed to
>think that -- have at it. I've endured 10 years of PBM "ribbing" that
>I'm too honorable and allied to worry about charges that I'm
>dishonorable.
>And of course, you and I would've ended this game in a draw, wouldn't
>we? We certainly wouldn't have stabbed each other, because we're
>game-long buddies, right?
>>
>>>3) Lastly, I reasoned, is England a grudge player who will carry this
>>>slight over Nwy to his grave in some sort of snit, or will he calculate
>>>and deal as expected?
>>
>>Again, you are quite deliberately misdescribing my motivations. I'll let
>>that slide. I suppose you are just trying to get me mad.
>
>** Read the rest of that para, Jamie! I then followed it by saying that
>I assume you will do the calculating, rational move, vice going off
>angry and revengeful. If hitting me is your idea of rational, then have
>at it.
>
>>I'll calculate my deal all right. But what will I be aiming to maximize?
>>You assume I will always aim to maximize my survival duration. Not true. I
>>will maximize my effect on the game in my dying years. I know how to do
>>that now.
>
>** Once again, what are you saying? First you chide me for saying
>things like "kamikaze style", because you think I'm trying to impugn
>your character or style. So I reword and try to say that I consider you
>a shrewd calculator who will do what it takes to survive. Now I read
>this as: I don't care if I die, I'll leave a legacy from my actions.
>Again, what are you trying to say? Is this not a revenge-minded and/or
>kamikaze action, i.e., you're goin' down with me?
>>
>>>>Stabbing me, and continuing to twist the dagger, you think, is cost-free.
>>>** How so, "continuing to twist the dagger?" You mean, sailing Nwy to
>>>Nwg and then continuing to hit you with German help? Hadn't been my
>>>intent....
>>
>>No.
>>Stabbing me last move. Then, promising me that if I help convince Hohn to
>>join you instead of Edi, you will give me Norway. Then, after I have done
>>that, saying, "Hah, sucker, you mean you actually BELIEVED that?"
>
>** That's crap. If Hohn is really with me, I'll know this turn. If I
>gain, then I can help you next turn. (You will, of course, see this as
>endless delaying and trying to string you along.) But it's all about my
>security. IF Hohn's with me and I stay even or gain one, I can build
>War. I can leave Nwy. I can DO a lot with you. Why do you persist in
>thinking this is a coffin-closing, no-more-flexibility move?! YOU are
>making it such, me Lord.
>>
>>That's twisting. And if that's the way it is, then you are someone with
>whom there is no point in dealing at all.
>
>To quote Jesus, "It is you who say it as such."
>
>>There is zero expectation that you will carry through.
>
>** Maybe not this turn...but we regress...
>>
>>>** No, untrue. I'm HOPING you don't get into this "jihad" vs the
>>>available guy" mode, but if you do, then I expect a timed assault (while
>>>you shift to BAR, Nwg, etc, and make my life a nuisance. And I'll
>>>build F STP(nc) in such an event).
>>
>>You will build F Stp if I move to Bar now. Interesting.
>** Oh, man; here's the self-justification coming...
>
>>In that case, you will have gained absolutely nothing by stabbing me! You
>>won't have that unit to play in the south. So, you are stabbing me for no
>>gain at all.
>>
>>And what if I don't move to Bar now? Will you then figure that I won't move
>>there next Spring? Or will you build in StP anyway?
>>
>>I'll tell you what. I warn you: you had better build in StP this winter, no
>>matter where my fleets are.
>
>** Oh, c'mon! Are you now rationalizing a move to BAR, angered that I'd
>even CONSIDER building F StP(nc) in the event you sailed there?
>
>I don't WANT to build in StP!!!! I WANT flexibility to build in central
>Europe or the balkans. I want to see what happens this fall if indeed
>there is no AR. Geez, why slam me for wanting to wait a turn? Am I now
>FORCED to build there because you're mad that I MIGHT build there in the
>event you MIGHT go to BAR, and therefore you MUST go there to 'fix" me?
> _This_ _is_ _lunacy!_
>
>If you are so doggone worried about Germany, yet considering a move to
>BAR this turn, then you are (a) not worried about Ger (and this is all
>so much hype), (b) so anti-R that you are fixated on taking me down OVER
>ONE CENTER (drone of kamikaze engines in the background???), or (c)
>don't care about throwing the game to Germany ("rational act" akin to
>(b) above).
>>
>>
>>>I just feel this way:
>>>Edi hosed me, and I hosed Hohn, yet we're all communicating and ready to
>>>bargain with whomever, whenever, to make our countries secure. I fully
>>>expect you to try and nail me, even possibly with German help(!)
>>>Nothing would surprise me this game. But I would also HOPE that you
>>>realize there is "ER life beyond 1902" and I sincerely hope our comm
>>>lines haven't been irretrievanly shattered just because of this.
>>
>>
>>Not at all. I will continue to communicate with you. I'll set up a
>>telegraph office in St Petersburg.
>
>** Very rational. Very calculating. Very flexible for options past
>1902.
>
>>But it still does seem to me that you simply don't believe I'll carry out
>>my threats. Because if you did, your own cool cost-benefit analysis would
>>tell you that continuing to stab me isn't worth it, it will be costlier to
>>you than pulling out your dagger.
>
>** I refuse to beat a dead horse, but I'll lift it one more time before
>it drops back to earth with a resounding "thud;"
>1) I want security. For THIS TURN ONLY, security means a center-count
>and analysis of whether there is an AT or an RT. Nothing will show that
>until AFTER the turn is over.
>The QC is dead. The agreements with it, if do-able, will be done. But
>we all look out after our states (and survival) as we deem necessary.
>Do we need to refight the last war (i.e., adhere to the QC's guidelines)
>because it's now the next war (when it may not apply)?
>2) I don't want to challenge you.
>3) I want flexibility. I want to be able to weigh options and other
>neighbors with equal chance of dealing, rather than forever close the
>door over one center in one turn. YOU don't believe that I'll have the
>flexibility to change up north after the results come out this turn.
>Like I'm forcing myself to lock into a pro-G policy until the Second
>Coming. That is NOT the case. But you want it proven NOW, this turn,
>or it's not deal. That is inflexibility in my books. And that's what
>bothers me...you're making it sound like I'm not willing to deal, and
>that it must be "your way, or no way at all." You know, sort of like
>"I'm taking my ball and going home if we don't play this way."
>>So, you don't believe me.
>4) I do believe you. I just don't want it to be this way in Fall 1902,
>when there is a lot of potential in 1903 and beyond.
>> I take that as a challenge.
>You take it how you want, Jamie. I'm rather frustrated that game-long
>ER relations are to be determined over this one turn and this one
>center, if I 'don't get out of town by sundown.'
>
>Gee, maybe I should just deal with Edi this way, or with Hohn: "You
>stabbed me in RUM; leave now and let's not even think about future
>options because, by Gum, you're in RUM _now_." That would certainly
>make for an open, flexible game. Jamie, this is a DEMO game. There are
>going to be stabs and counter-stabs all game. I'm in for a few of my
>own, and so is Pitt, and Cal, and Edi, and France again. Why are you
>so hidebound on this? Give me credit for trying to think beyond 1902 in
>larger terms than satisfying England's call for one center in 1902.
>
>I'm trying to keep all lines open. But if your idea of "open lines" is
>to have a telegraph office in St Petersburg (certainly no challenege
>THERE!), then do what you must. Stop threatening, and act.
>
>Short of G helping you, you'll have two provinces to stick three anti-R
>pieces in...with me having a defense up there. Mmmm boy, what great
>mid-game flexibility for us both; thanks!
Private message from Russia to England:
GKJ,
An addendum to my last...
Regardless of how this turns out, regardless of how you play this, I am
going to keep open my comm lines. I am going to offer deals, and even
talk about leaving Nwy in 1903 if the south worked out. You may feel
free to close your eyes to reading the words; you can close your brain
to accepting anything from Russia at face value anymore if you desire.
But that will not change my attitude about keeping an open game, and
trying to work with everyone.
tsar Faz
Private message from Russia to England:
GKJ
A most bellicose letter...not bordering on desperation, but I can feel
the veins in your neck pulse as you write it.
>
>>1) From the cost-benefit side: I reasoned, is English friendship AT
>>THIS TIME worth one center? In other words, do I need this center given
>>the board set-up, or should I possibly sacrifice Russian defense to stay
>>chummy with England...an England who should know a survival instinct
>>when he sees one?
>
>I know a survival instinct, yes I do. You are screwing me for your fifth
>center
Fifth center as in "staying even" bevause one of "our" allies just
screwed me?
>or your sixth. You are reducing me to three centers
*I* am not reducing you, my friend. You're displacing on me, using
Germany's hose job in BEL and maybe BRE and now blaming me that I won't
get you even or just -1. Foul!
>. I've got a keen survival instinct.
** So do I. The name of the game is building and surviving. You now
crucify me for wanting to do the same as you. So I supose I have to
give "what is rightfully yours" and take my chances with the south. And
you'll be there to help me vs any AT shenanigans, _won't_ you?
>
>But to me this means, I have to put something on the table that counts for
>something. And I really don't have much. So what I put on the table is
>this: give me what is due to me, what was promised, and I am your friend to
>the end; otherwise, I'm your enemy to the end. I have to put up high
>stakes, because my survival is on the line.
** So your WHOLE game is shot to blazes over this, is what you're
saying? If you don't have Nwy, you've got no other recourses, nothing
to look forward to except "dying years?' And if I don't give you Nwy,
then we're game-long enemies?! Are you game-long enemies with Pitt
because of this stab? Are you sending him equaly-laden letters? Am
I reading you right, and is this a bit overstated?
>
>You don't believe I am serious about that, that's the problem. My problem,
>and it will be yours, too. But, you'll see.
** You're hung up on this point, Jamie. Don't misunderstand me. I DO
believe you're serious. But if I remain in Nwy, then I've made the call
that I'll try to ride out your storm.
>
>>2) I then said, is one center worth hacking off Pitt, who clearly holds
>>the leverage over me AT THIS TIME?
>
>I think this is pure pretense. The idea that Pitt would drop this all-out
>attack against me and spend seasons re-arranging his units to attack you is
>totally ridiculous.
** Of course he wouldn't! But he can hit you and I equally (especially
if he has a F ally), can he not? When he builds, does he have to send
two new fleets vs you, or two armies vs me? Can't he split stuff up?
Of course it's totally ridiculous if he'd just drop everything and shift
completely east, but I don't envision that happening. I'm with you on
that one...
>> Again, is the honor of keeping
>>England even (and facing Germany) worth the reality of me keeping Pitt
>>quiet (hopefully) and staying solvent, to boot?
>
>If it were only honor? Maybe not. That's why I have upped the stakes.
** You have your view of survival, I have mine. Stakes aren't just in
your interests, Jamie.
>
>For some players, honor is enough. I had hoped you were one of those. Since
>you aren't, I have to put more chips on the table. So I have.
** Pretty insulting. I have more honor than is readily apparent.
Because I don't help you right now, you are 'legitimately' allowed to
think that -- have at it. I've endured 10 years of PBM "ribbing" that
I'm too honorable and allied to worry about charges that I'm
dishonorable.
And of course, you and I would've ended this game in a draw, wouldn't
we? We certainly wouldn't have stabbed each other, because we're
game-long buddies, right?
>
>>3) Lastly, I reasoned, is England a grudge player who will carry this
>>slight over Nwy to his grave in some sort of snit, or will he calculate
>>and deal as expected?
>
>Again, you are quite deliberately misdescribing my motivations. I'll let
>that slide. I suppose you are just trying to get me mad.
** Read the rest of that para, Jamie! I then followed it by saying that
I assume you will do the calculating, rational move, vice going off
angry and revengeful. If hitting me is your idea of rational, then have
at it.
>I'll calculate my deal all right. But what will I be aiming to maximize?
>You assume I will always aim to maximize my survival duration. Not true. I
>will maximize my effect on the game in my dying years. I know how to do
>that now.
** Once again, what are you saying? First you chide me for saying
things like "kamikaze style", because you think I'm trying to impugn
your character or style. So I reword and try to say that I consider you
a shrewd calculator who will do what it takes to survive. Now I read
this as: I don't care if I die, I'll leave a legacy from my actions.
Again, what are you trying to say? Is this not a revenge-minded and/or
kamikaze action, i.e., you're goin' down with me?
>
>>>Stabbing me, and continuing to twist the dagger, you think, is cost-free.
>>** How so, "continuing to twist the dagger?" You mean, sailing Nwy to
>>Nwg and then continuing to hit you with German help? Hadn't been my
>>intent....
>
>No.
>Stabbing me last move. Then, promising me that if I help convince Hohn to
>join you instead of Edi, you will give me Norway. Then, after I have done
>that, saying, "Hah, sucker, you mean you actually BELIEVED that?"
** That's crap. If Hohn is really with me, I'll know this turn. If I
gain, then I can help you next turn. (You will, of course, see this as
endless delaying and trying to string you along.) But it's all about my
security. IF Hohn's with me and I stay even or gain one, I can build
War. I can leave Nwy. I can DO a lot with you. Why do you persist in
thinking this is a coffin-closing, no-more-flexibility move?! YOU are
making it such, me Lord.
>
>That's twisting. And if that's the way it is, then you are someone with
whom there is no point in dealing at all.
To quote Jesus, "It is you who say it as such."
>There is zero expectation that you will carry through.
** Maybe not this turn...but we regress...
>
>>** No, untrue. I'm HOPING you don't get into this "jihad" vs the
>>available guy" mode, but if you do, then I expect a timed assault (while
>>you shift to BAR, Nwg, etc, and make my life a nuisance. And I'll
>>build F STP(nc) in such an event).
>
>You will build F Stp if I move to Bar now. Interesting.
** Oh, man; here's the self-justification coming...
>In that case, you will have gained absolutely nothing by stabbing me! You
>won't have that unit to play in the south. So, you are stabbing me for no
>gain at all.
>
>And what if I don't move to Bar now? Will you then figure that I won't move
>there next Spring? Or will you build in StP anyway?
>
>I'll tell you what. I warn you: you had better build in StP this winter, no
>matter where my fleets are.
** Oh, c'mon! Are you now rationalizing a move to BAR, angered that I'd
even CONSIDER building F StP(nc) in the event you sailed there?
I don't WANT to build in StP!!!! I WANT flexibility to build in central
Europe or the balkans. I want to see what happens this fall if indeed
there is no AR. Geez, why slam me for wanting to wait a turn? Am I now
FORCED to build there because you're mad that I MIGHT build there in the
event you MIGHT go to BAR, and therefore you MUST go there to 'fix" me?
_This_ _is_ _lunacy!_
If you are so doggone worried about Germany, yet considering a move to
BAR this turn, then you are (a) not worried about Ger (and this is all
so much hype), (b) so anti-R that you are fixated on taking me down OVER
ONE CENTER (drone of kamikaze engines in the background???), or (c)
don't care about throwing the game to Germany ("rational act" akin to
(b) above).
>
>
>>I just feel this way:
>>Edi hosed me, and I hosed Hohn, yet we're all communicating and ready to
>>bargain with whomever, whenever, to make our countries secure. I fully
>>expect you to try and nail me, even possibly with German help(!)
>>Nothing would surprise me this game. But I would also HOPE that you
>>realize there is "ER life beyond 1902" and I sincerely hope our comm
>>lines haven't been irretrievanly shattered just because of this.
>
>
>Not at all. I will continue to communicate with you. I'll set up a
>telegraph office in St Petersburg.
** Very rational. Very calculating. Very flexible for options past
1902.
>But it still does seem to me that you simply don't believe I'll carry out
>my threats. Because if you did, your own cool cost-benefit analysis would
>tell you that continuing to stab me isn't worth it, it will be costlier to
>you than pulling out your dagger.
** I refuse to beat a dead horse, but I'll lift it one more time before
it drops back to earth with a resounding "thud;"
1) I want security. For THIS TURN ONLY, security means a center-count
and analysis of whether there is an AT or an RT. Nothing will show that
until AFTER the turn is over.
The QC is dead. The agreements with it, if do-able, will be done. But
we all look out after our states (and survival) as we deem necessary.
Do we need to refight the last war (i.e., adhere to the QC's guidelines)
because it's now the next war (when it may not apply)?
2) I don't want to challenge you.
3) I want flexibility. I want to be able to weigh options and other
neighbors with equal chance of dealing, rather than forever close the
door over one center in one turn. YOU don't believe that I'll have the
flexibility to change up north after the results come out this turn.
Like I'm forcing myself to lock into a pro-G policy until the Second
Coming. That is NOT the case. But you want it proven NOW, this turn,
or it's not deal. That is inflexibility in my books. And that's what
bothers me...you're making it sound like I'm not willing to deal, and
that it must be "your way, or no way at all." You know, sort of like
"I'm taking my ball and going home if we don't play this way."
>So, you don't believe me.
4) I do believe you. I just don't want it to be this way in Fall 1902,
when there is a lot of potential in 1903 and beyond.
> I take that as a challenge.
You take it how you want, Jamie. I'm rather frustrated that game-long
ER relations are to be determined over this one turn and this one
center, if I 'don't get out of town by sundown.'
Gee, maybe I should just deal with Edi this way, or with Hohn: "You
stabbed me in RUM; leave now and let's not even think about future
options because, by Gum, you're in RUM _now_." That would certainly
make for an open, flexible game. Jamie, this is a DEMO game. There are
going to be stabs and counter-stabs all game. I'm in for a few of my
own, and so is Pitt, and Cal, and Edi, and France again. Why are you
so hidebound on this? Give me credit for trying to think beyond 1902 in
larger terms than satisfying England's call for one center in 1902.
I'm trying to keep all lines open. But if your idea of "open lines" is
to have a telegraph office in St Petersburg (certainly no challenege
THERE!), then do what you must. Stop threatening, and act.
Short of G helping you, you'll have two provinces to stick three anti-R
pieces in...with me having a defense up there. Mmmm boy, what great
mid-game flexibility for us both; thanks!
The Frustrated Tsar
How to deal with a change of address from the last draft of the new FAQ I saw:
Q. How do you change your return address with the judges?
[Bjoern's Answer with slight edits by Andy]
A. First, notify the judge of your new address by sending, from
your new E-mail account, an IAmAlso command, i.e.
iamalso [email protected]
This notifies the judge that your new address and your old
address belong to the same person. If this is not done, you
lose all your dedication points when entering new games with
your new account.
After issuing the IAMALSO command, simply fill out a new
registration form, based on your old one, and send it in.
[tip: do WHOIS [email protected] and use what the judge sends back
as a template to create a new Regitration, erase user ID line, slap
REGISTER on TOP, END at the bottom, add/change your address, and zip it
back]
That
goes as an update to the registration form you sent in
for your old account.
The third, and final, step, is to notify the entries in all
your current games that your address has changed. SIGNON to
each game, and SET ADDRESS, i.e.
SIGNON Pgamename password
SET ADDRESS [email protected]
or if you want both addresses to be used for a given game, try
SET ADDRESS [email protected], [email protected]
------
So IAMALSO does not pass the info on to anyone and it doesn;t even
explicitly update for registration. It does, however, allow the new
account to serve a proxy for the old account at will. Updating you
registration does the same thing, except it may make it easier for the
SUMMARY command to work and for people who want to reach you to find you
new email account.
Only when you
SET ADDRESS [email protected]
will everyone in a given game see the new address. Remember, this is one
Set address for EACH game you are in. it is not a judge-wide change.
Private message from England to Russia:
>1) From the cost-benefit side: I reasoned, is English friendship AT
>THIS TIME worth one center? In other words, do I need this center given
>the board set-up, or should I possibly sacrifice Russian defense to stay
>chummy with England...an England who should know a survival instinct
>when he sees one?
I know a survival instinct, yes I do. You are screwing me for your fifth
center or your sixth. You are reducing me to three centers. I've got a keen
survival instinct.
But to me this means, I have to put something on the table that counts for
something. And I really don't have much. So what I put on the table is
this: give me what is due to me, what was promised, and I am your friend to
the end; otherwise, I'm your enemy to the end. I have to put up high
stakes, because my survival is on the line.
You don't believe I am serious about that, that's the problem. My problem,
and it will be yours, too. But, you'll see.
>2) I then said, is one center worth hacking off Pitt, who clearly holds
>the leverage over me AT THIS TIME?
I think this is pure pretense. The idea that Pitt would drop this all-out
attack against me and spend seasons re-arranging his units to attack you is
totally ridiculous.
> Again, is the honor of keeping
>England even (and facing Germany) worth the reality of me keeping Pitt
>quiet (hopefully) and staying solvent, to boot?
If it were only honor? Maybe not. That's why I have upped the stakes.
For some players, honor is enough. I had hoped you were one of those. Since
you aren't, I have to put more chips on the table. So I have.
>3) Lastly, I reasoned, is England a grudge player who will carry this
>slight over Nwy to his grave in some sort of snit, or will he calculate
>and deal as expected?
Again, you are quite deliberately misdescribing my motivations. I'll let
that slide. I suppose you are just trying to get me mad.
I'll calculate my deal all right. But what will I be aiming to maximize?
You assume I will always aim to maximize my survival duration. Not true. I
will maximize my effect on the game in my dying years. I know how to do
that now.
>>Stabbing me, and continuing to twist the dagger, you think, is cost-free.
>** How so, "continuing to twist the dagger?" You mean, sailing Nwy to
>Nwg and then continuing to hit you with German help? Hadn't been my
>intent....
No.
Stabbing me last move. Then, promising me that if I help convince Hohn to
join you instead of Edi, you will give me Norway. Then, after I have done
that, saying, "Hah, sucker, you mean you actually BELIEVED that?"
That's twisting. And if that's the way it is, then you are someone with
whom there is no point in dealing at all. There is zero expectation that
you will carry through.
>** No, untrue. I'm HOPING you don't get into this "jihad" vs the
>available guy" mode, but if you do, then I expect a timed assault (while
>you shift to BAR, Nwg, etc, and make my life a nuisance. And I'll
>build F STP(nc) in such an event).
You will build F Stp if I move to Bar now. Interesting.
In that case, you will have gained absolutely nothing by stabbing me! You
won't have that unit to play in the south. So, you are stabbing me for no
gain at all.
And what if I don't move to Bar now? Will you then figure that I won't move
there next Spring? Or will you build in StP anyway?
I'll tell you what. I warn you: you had better build in StP this winter, no
matter where my fleets are.
>My thrust is this, GKJ: I don't want one center to be the bone of
>contention betwene us.
Then give me the bone. That's the only way out.
What you really mean is, you want the center and you don't want me to try
to do anything about it. You want your stab to be cost-free. It will not
be. You can mark that down in your book of certainties. Other things are
merely probable, unlikely, possible... this is certain: stab me as you are
stabbing me and I will do something about it.
>I know for you this is symptomatic of a larger
>trust (and security) issue, rather than just Nwy.
True.
>I just feel this way:
>Edi hosed me, and I hosed Hohn, yet we're all communicating and ready to
>bargain with whomever, whenever, to make our countries secure. I fully
>expect you to try and nail me, even possibly with German help(!)
>Nothing would surprise me this game. But I would also HOPE that you
>realize there is "ER life beyond 1902" and I sincerely hope our comm
>lines haven't been irretrievanly shattered just because of this.
Not at all. I will continue to communicate with you. I'll set up a
telegraph office in St Petersburg.
But it still does seem to me that you simply don't believe I'll carry out
my threats. Because if you did, your own cool cost-benefit analysis would
tell you that continuing to stab me isn't worth it, it will be costlier to
you than pulling out your dagger. So, you don't believe me. I take that as
a challenge.
Gentle King Jamie
Hohn had mentioned earlier that he might want to have a "pre-game"
discussion about copying text in press messages. For the moment,
you may want to let me know if such a discussion would offend you.
I'm not sure how long it will take for Edi Birsan to join and I
would want him to hear the discussion. Otherwise, are we missing only
John Barkdull? I think so.
Jim
Hohn had mentioned earlier that he might want to have a "pre-game"
discussion about copying text in press messages. For the moment,
you may want to let me know if such a discussion would offend you.
I'm not sure how long it will take for Edi Birsan to join and I
would want him to hear the discussion. Otherwise, are we missing only
John Barkdull? I think so.
Jim
Hi, all. Pitt's here. Should I concede now?
;-)
Hi guys, we're getting there slowly! Yes, I hope Jamie will remember
that this is my first go-round as master for a Judge game. I don't
believe that it will be any kind of conflict of interest for me to
ask players for master syntax advice... would the two of you that are
Judge master experienced let me know if anything looks unusual or
strange in the game parameters that I need to fix? I was not sure
how to add Monday as a potential deadline day (I don't have a problem
with meeting Jamie's request to do so, but I didn't know how). I set
the game up mucho fast since I had to run to a meeting. Sorry the
message was so short (and deficient in not mentioning the Judge, observer
signons etc.).
Jim
PS I got a strange message from the Judge granting that I was signed
on as master, but also saying that I'm lacking a preference list.
Is that a regular occurrence since I could start the game, and then
switch it to unmoderated and play in it?
Hi guys, we're getting there slowly! Yes, I hope Jamie will remember
that this is my first go-round as master for a Judge game. I don't
believe that it will be any kind of conflict of interest for me to
ask players for master syntax advice... would the two of you that are
Judge master experienced let me know if anything looks unusual or
strange in the game parameters that I need to fix? I was not sure
how to add Monday as a potential deadline day (I don't have a problem
with meeting Jamie's request to do so, but I didn't know how). I set
the game up mucho fast since I had to run to a meeting. Sorry the
message was so short (and deficient in not mentioning the Judge, observer
signons etc.).
Jim
PS I got a strange message from the Judge granting that I was signed
on as master, but also saying that I'm lacking a preference list.
Is that a regular occurrence since I could start the game, and then
switch it to unmoderated and play in it?
Hm, you know what else? You didn't say in that last mail, Jim, which Judge
the game is on. I know you mentioned it earlier, but it might be a good idea
to say it again. The address too.
-Jamie
Hi Hohn. Hi Jim.
Jim, why don't you suggest that people signon as observers, too, at first.
So we can use this channel to address each other en masse before the powers
are assigned.
-Jamie
>
> Broadcast message from [email protected] as England in 'ghodstoo':
>
> Jim,
>
> That was personal correspondence between you and Conrad.
Whoops, as I look at it again, you're precisely correct. I probably
shouldn't have forwarded it. In any case, there was some discussion
of this at the time. I don't save everything and don't have any of
the correspondence with you except where we were talking about people to
invite into the game.
>
> Was the matter discussed publically at all? I don't remember any such
> discussion.
Hmmm, perhaps it took place before you entered the discussion. If so,
I apologize for not bringing it up earlier.
>
> Look, there's nothing about telephony in House Rules, so I guess I have no
> particular grounds to object; it's just that this is a rather unusual game.
> I have no experience at all conducting Diplomacy by telephone, and I imagine
> I am thereby at a disadvantage.
>
> -Jamie
>
I will leave it here, but the way I see it, Jamie and Mark are at
a disadvantage communicating by the Judge/E-Mail, as some evidence
has shown here at the beginning.
The unusualness of the game is its particular charm. The question
is, what will happen as a result. That, none of us knows.
Jim
Private message from England to France:
Dear M. Cyberdog,
We are always ready to engage in any defensive manouever whatever. Our
fleets are so practiced in defensive manouevers that they are constantly
sailing around each other in circles.
I think I will give Minister Churchill charge of the initial melee. Assuming
our paranoia is well-founded (as paranoia always is, after all), the point
of the dagger can be turned immediately toward the Huns.
Do you think this is wise? Or would it be better to begin Mediterranean
operations sooner?
Cheers!
Gentle King Jamie
In that last message, I meant Edi Birsan and Mark Fassio, of course,
not Mark and Jamie....
Never mind....
Jim
This just appeared on the newsgroup rec.gmaes.diplomacy and Edi and
Mark have been expressing worry about getting move syntax correct.
I will be watching this and trying to spontaneously give syntax
advice, but just so you see an example. Here's what happens when
things don't go right.
Jim
FROM rec.games.diplomacy:
USWI jipped me recently. In the game Doug i took over the abondened
Russia.
I contacted all the players and submitted my moves
a pru s a liv
a mos s a liv
a liv s a pru
a ber s a mun
f bul h
simple, but wait a minute the judge bounces back,
:: Judge: USWI Game: Doug Variant: Standard
:: Deadline: F1910M Sun Jan 19 1997 08:09:17 PST Boardman: 1996PU
R: a pru s a liv
Unrecognized source province for support/convoy -> liv
Discarding junk: [liv]
R: a mos s a liv
Unrecognized source province for support/convoy -> liv
Discarding junk: [liv]
R: a liv s a pru
Unrecognized source province -> liv s a pru
Discarding junk: [liv s a pru]
Movement orders for Fall of 1910. (doug.039)
Russia: Army Prussia, No Order Processed.
Russia: Army Berlin SUPPORT Austrian Army Munich.
Russia: Fleet Bulgaria (east coast) HOLD.
Russia: Army Moscow, No Order Processed.
Russia: Army Livonia, No Order Processed.
6 errors encountered.
Well after six tries I finally gave up. Also after several cries for help
to ther game master with no response I gave up.
I say again, What the (&%#^) is up with USWI !!!!!!!!!!
Private message from France to England:
Good King Jamie: France seeks only peaceful relations with England. You
are quite correct that the Central Powers cannot be trusted. Their
ambitions are a matter of historical record. Shall we coordinate a
defensive maneuver to ensure that they remain in check?
France
---------------------------------------------------
This message was created and sent using the Cyberdog Mail System
---------------------------------------------------
I don't have my original solicitation letter. I have this exchange
with Conrad Minshall where I get into the subject of the possibility
of phone calls in depth. I'll try to find one of the letters that went
to you.
I consider this issue at this point as within the game (meaning it
is up to you to deal with it as you wish), although I will consider
some sort of specific appeal. It is possible that Jamie entered
this discussion at a point where it was not discussed in his hearing.
Please feel free to keep inquiring. I still haven't gone through all
of the mail and I apologize if you've asked me a question that I haven't
answered yet. I will clean everything up this evening.
Jim
Forwarded message:
> From burgess Wed Apr 24 18:27:22 1996
> X-UIDL: 843522490.003
> From: burgess (Jim Burgess)
> Message-Id: <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: Demo Game featuring Edi Birsan
> To: [email protected] (Conrad Minshall)
> Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 14:27:22 -0400 (EDT)
> Cc: burgess (Jim Burgess)
> In-Reply-To: <[email protected]> from "Conrad Minshall" at Mar 15, 96 06:01:32 pm
> X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Content-Length: 2791
>
> >
> > At 5:09 PM 3/7/96 -0500, Jim Burgess wrote:
> >
> > >but what I was thinking was to make it a US only game for this
> > >reason. Edi (in his postal days) was really more of a "telephone"
> > >player. I believe, in order for Edi to agree to the game, he would
> > >want phone numbers of the players and have the option of calling them,
> > >as a back-up/addition to E-Mail.
> > >
> > >I was thinking of having Mark GM and to try to work out a deal with
> > >people agreeing to "record" their phone calls by sending "reports of
> > >contact" to Mark in addition to the usual demo game idea where
> > >press all is sent through the Judge. Mark would also agree to
> > >"gently prod" players to write updates and records of their
> > >phone calls. In addition to a great demo game, we could see
> > >how some degree of phone interaction contributed/hindered/changed
> > >the nature of the game.
> > >
> > >What do you think??
> >
> > Several things...
> >
> > I'd be interested in playing with Edi again.
>
> Edi has given us a go to set up the demo game, instruct him on using
> the Judge and give him the various parameters. I'd like to work with
> you on this. I am leaning toward NOT playing, but I will if that
> becomes desirable. You would be playing, I'm assuming. Edi generally
> loves demo games and I was roughly correct in what I cited above.
> Edi does NOT like games where no one talks to anyone and he would like
> the freedom to use the phone if he likes (going with the US/Canada focus).
> I am also thinking Cal White would be another good player for the game
> from the postal crossover side for you, Cal and Edi from the "old school"
> and four purely Judge dippers.
> >
> > I like and respect Mark but personally I would never play if he were GM.
> > Since my Furr experience I've gotten much more selective about GMs - I now
> > try to stick with GMs of the players-own-the-game philosophy.
> >
> I **COULD** try to be GM, perhaps with David Kovar or some other Judge
> keeper's assistance?? Do you have a good GM in mind who I could work
> with?? I thought of Mark because he GMed the ghods game so he knows
> how to GM. perhaps that is a minor point. Mark does not have to be
> involved except as an observer.
>
> > I used to enjoy using the phone to get an edge in PBM. It would be fun to
> > see if it made as much a difference with PBeM. Personally I wouldn't
> > _agree_ to always recording the calls, accurately or otherwise ;-) In
> > practice I bet I'd record every-phone-thing that turned out to really make
> > a difference.
> >
> That sounds fair.... I would like to at least propose that people be urged
> to address this issue in their season by season ongoing commentaries.
>
> > Gee, am I always this ornery?
>
> Yes.
> >
> >
> > signoff
> > --
> > Conrad Minshall [email protected] (408)974-2749
> >
>
> I'll bet you almost forgot about this!
>
> Jim
>
Jim, et al.,
I don't remember any discussion of telephone calls during the set-up of the
game. Is there a record of that discussion anywhere? I'd like to see it.
Jamie
Private message from England to Russia:
Faz,
Try using lower case letters for power specifications, thus, instead of
>>signon Rghodstoo xxxxxxxx
>>press to E
do
signon rghodstoo xxxxxxxx
press to e
I'm not sure it makes a difference, but it's the only irregularity I see.
>By the way, did you ever get any of these copies, either through the
>Brown.edu address or via the Judge?
No, through neither channel, it's the first I've seen of it.
To content:
first, no, I haven't sent out any other gloom-and-doom messages. I
genuinely worry primarily about an FG alliance, as England, mostly because
it's just such a strong alliance, so tempting. I will rely on sweettalk to
try to break it up, but also on your good will. The FG will tempt them less
if they expect to have to face a healthy Russia who would fight against
such a consolidation of the Northwest, and make any clean-up of England
slow and painful.
As to 'directional foci' (sheesh!).
I am ambivalent. As long as I feel I have things moderately well in hand in
my neighborhood, I'd prefer to see you go south, and make your
re-appearance in the north at an opportune moment. That is, if I'm on the
Two side of a Two-on-one amongs us northwesterners, I'd be happiest to see
your A Mos-Ukr, or the like.
If, on the other hand, I feel about to be the victim in the north, I would
prefer to see your strong presence up here.
So perhaps we could leave things open for now. As I am plotting things,
your interests ought to coincide roughly with mine, so that it would be
mostly a matter of seeing how things are falling and which of the major
options is in *OUR* interest.
As to Norway, I will not expect you to contest it, and I though obviously I
am going to take it, I am willing to do it in the Unthreatening Way (viz.,
with a fleet), especially if we can build that into part of a larger,
mutually agreeable plan. (Ideally I'd like my army in Belgium, but the real
world so rarely approximates my ideals, the wretched thing!)
Does it bother you, by the way, that Herr Edi signed on as Turkey? I'm
dying to discover what was up with that!
If you're happy with my remarks above, say so, and then let's feel out the
others for a while.
Cheers!
Gentle King Jamie
Private message from England to Italy:
Buon Giorno, Sgnr. Bianco.
INSULAR AND PENINSULAR POWERS UNITE--YOU HAVE NOTHING TO LOSE BUT YOUR CENTERS!
Cheers,
Gentle King Jamie
Private message from England to Austria:
Good day, Duke. Or Sultan??
How did you manage to signon as Turkey? Did you just guess his password by
some wild coincidence? Intriguing.
Anyway, this is by way of introducing myself, Gentle King Jamie. Look
forward to doing business some time soon.
Cheers!
G. K. Jamie
Private message from England to Turkey:
Good morning, fellow witch.
If you don't mind, I'd like to exchange impressions of neighbors at some point.
I have received no press at all yet, though -- I know Tsar Faz is trying to
send me some, but he has not yet mastered, uh, telegraphy.
Cheers!
Gentle King Jamie
SECURITY COMPROMISED!!!!
How is it that both [email protected] and [email protected] have just sent
broadcasts as Turkey???? Geez, the game is hard enough with just one player
handling Turkey's units.
(Fortunately Hohn is an old Judge hand and knows how to take care of
trivial little things like this.)
Cheers!
Gentle King Jamie
p.s. I also resigned as *observer*. As Hohn says, everyone should do this
or you'll get two copies of each broadcast and Judge bookkeeping
announcement.
Do it like this:
signon oghodstoo password
resign
The Judge keeps track of observers by their address, so as long as you send
the resign message from the address you used to signon as an observer
originally, you will successfully remove yourself as an observer.
Edi wrote:
> Looks like the game was a little premature with Hohn Cho already resigning.
> Let's hold off on the game until we have a full 7 players please.
No, I'm still here...I only resigned as an Observer, since I was tired
of getting double mail. We can all do that, since once our powers
were assigned, we can all issue press.
BTW, Ye Olde Sultan extends his hand to all European leaders in
friendship. I'm looking forward to a great game, and I'm sure I'll be
corresponding with you privately very soon. I am swamped today,
though, so I may not be able to send/respond messages until the
weekend or Monday.
Take care, all. Happy weekend!
Hohn
Private message from England to France:
Cher Ambassadeur,
We are most pleased to make your acquaintance, Monsieur. We hear only the
highest praise of your conduct from our intelligence network.
This is by way of introduction of our royal self, and to offer our warmest
hopes that we might profit from cooperation, a purely defensive alliance,
of course, for fear of the central powers' ambition, and possibly also to
protect the good-hearted people of the Lowlands.
Looking forward to a fruitful relationship,
Gentle King Jamie
Private message from England to Germany:
Warning: vermicious knids in France! Must do something fast, require your help.
Cheers!
Gentle King Jamie
Private message from England to Russia:
Well well well.
I wouldn't mind splitting the board, east and west, with someone suitably
placed who likes board-splitting. Hypothetically speaking, I mean.
I can't remember what my preference list was, but I know I didn't have
England first. With good players, I am always afraid that the FG alliance
looks too tempting. So I'll be sweating that for a while and not attending
to much else, I think. But my first order of business as England *must* be
to come to good terms with Russia, I firmly believe that, and if Russia
happens to be played by someone I've already had a preliminary chat with,
so much the better!
Cheers!
Gentle King Jamie
As I suspected, Edi is having a little trouble with the registration.
I've tried to help him and I'm trying to get him to send me what the
judge is sending him back... we'll see.
If Dave has access to the mail stream of the Judge and can easily
find Edi's failure, perhaps he could see precisely what Edi is doing
wrong. I will remind Dave Kleiman at this point, that his "Judge-keeper"
job on this game could become more involved than usual.
Edi, as an expert Dip player, is being a bit shy about asking me as
many questions as he should be. Our other total Judge rookie (Mark
Fassio) has been at the other extreme and he's asked me lots of great
questions.
Jim
I just asked Nick Fitzpatrick (the Internet BNC plus the winner of
the first demo game in this series... ghods) if he wouldn't want
to remain signed on as an observer. I guess my question is answered.
He's staying.
Jim
I just asked Nick Fitzpatrick (the Internet BNC plus the winner of
the first demo game in this series... ghods) if he wouldn't want
to remain signed on as an observer. I guess my question is answered.
He's staying.
Jim
Hello, Edi should be joining us shortly. On Sundays (I think I have this
right) he does consulting for the mgames postal role playing company
where people call him for advice on how to form and run factions, gain
influence and the like in that particular set of PBM games. Anyway,
he has to keep his phone line free until that is done. I have not heard from
John Barkdull, but he may be a 9-5 weekday user, so with the holiday
he might not sign on until Tuesday. We'll see.
Based on Jamie's advice and some thinking of my own, I have "mucked"
around with the deadline parameters. I now have the movement at
seven full days (minus Jamie's suggested half hour), winter builds and
adjustments at two days and retreats at one day (otherwise when you
have both retreats and builds things can get pretty slow). If anyone
wants me to move a deadline parameter in any direction, please let
me know. For you new guys, you may want to "get deadline" for a
description of how to read these deadlines and you can do "list"
after a signon to see the whole set of parameters. I also added
"Monday after noon" as a possible deadline as Jamie suggested.
We'll start soon...
Jim
Hi all,
My query regarding copying/forwarding messages really wasn't intended
to be a big deal. It was prompted by some RGD discussion that Jim was
involved in. Basically, from what I could tell, Jim's position was
similar to mine in that we both despise the tactic. I was thinking
that if we had a unanimously strong consensus against it, we could
institute a house rule.
But it's really no big deal. If even one person wants to have that
option, I have no objections to declining the implementation of any
such rule.
Essentially, my main objection comes from FTF play, in that we don't
have players walking around with tape recorders and fake dubbing
machines to try to get/doctor incriminating evidence against other
players. To me, it kinda takes away from an element of the game in
one sense (in that the credible, substantive "proof" that can be
possible with copied messages (and even more so in the case of
Xeroxing letters in PBM play, I imagine) removes a level of judgment
that may otherwise be necessary in predicting stabs and independently
evaluating credibility), and makes things needlessly complicated in
another sense (taking the time to doctor up fake messages, or decipher
them, etc...if I'd wanted to break or set up a code system or do
detective work, I'd play Clue).
My $0.02.
Hohn
A few items:
If you want to have a pre-game discussion, you can send press as a
non-assigned power by using a long signon command. I'd suggest you join
the game as an observer to do this discussion. Once the game starts, you
can resign the observer position. You will get two copies of all game
messages until you resign as the observer. I often signon to broadcast my
message as an observer and then resign in the same message:
signon oghodstoo password
broadcast
This is my message......
[email protected] has resigned [email protected]
as Observer in game 'ghodstoo'.
Hi all,
Whoops, sorry about the password mixup. I've changed mine so that
these sorts of things hopefully won't happen again.
Regarding phone dip, I'm ambivalent. I probably won't be making too
many calls, but in just in case, here's my info:
Hohn Cho
(213) 955-4689 (WK)
(310) 320-0331 (HM)
I'm on Pacific time, and you can call me at work literally at any
time, but at home I'd prefer 10 AM - 10 PM.
Regarding actual negotiations, I apologize, I'm still swamped at work.
I'll try to get down to business soon.
Jim, since it's the first turn, and in keeping with the FTF tradition
of having more time to negotiate on the first turn, do you think it
would be possible to extend the deadline until, say, Monday? If no
one else has any objections, that is.
Hohn
Private message from Russia to Austria:
Hello Edi!
After years of play, it's a great honor to finally be in a game with
you...I hope life's treating you well, and that this e-mail crap is
treating you better than it is me! I have yet to correctly format a
message (according to the Judge) and have it get to its recipient.
I tried to send the same note 15 times to England; no luck.
Give me a stamp and an envelope any old day...
Anyway, IF this should reach you via the Judge, I'm hoping that you
could see fit to agree to the usual DMZs and peace arrangements
between our two noble powers. I have no desire to challenge either
you and Turkey in a shooting war, and am trying to sound out my
neighbors as to their 'druthers and whatnot.
If you've got any ideas, suggestions, proposals, etc, I'd love to hear
them. I'm hoping for mutual growth for us, and that means a great
jump-off out of the gate...hence my desire for peace and cooperation.
What say you?
Faz
To even things up for those who know how to do these things and those
who do not, here are everyone's register statements (considered to be
public documents, many people don't like to call themselves experts
for that reason). I note that Edi is one level of shy and Mark is
another, but I think it's fair to say everyone here is highly
experienced.
Jim
>
> :: Judge: USIN
>
> Whois edi
>
> User: 1470 51000 0
> Name: Edi Birsan
> Phone: 510-680-0110
> Site: Midnight Games
> Address: 950 Alla Ave, Concord, CA 94518
> Country: USA
> Email: [email protected]
> Sex: Male
>
> Whois uejon
>
> User: 383 80600 0
> Name: John Barkdull
> Phone: (806) 765-7662
> Site: Texas Tech
> Address: 1902 27th Street, Lubbock, Texas
> Country: USA
> email: [email protected]
> Level: expert
> Birthdate: Aug 22, 1954
> Sex: Male
>
> Whois pittc
>
> User: 118 61700 501
> Name: Pitt Crandlemire
> Phone: (617) 739-1500
>
Private message from England to Germany:
Oh yeah, that was the message. See, I told you. Utterly convincing. Why, I
found myself nodding in agreement just now as I read it over.
Yep.
Yep.
Sounds right.
Sher.
Ok!
Gentle King Jamie
Private message from Master to Germany:
Pitt, that seems to be all of the private mail that was lost.
Can't you retrieve broadcast press with the history command?
There was lots more of that....
Jim
Private message from Master to Germany:
This is the most recent letter I have in the files from Russia to Germany.
Your friendly GM, Jim
>
> News about USIN can be found at
> http://kleiman.indianapolis.in.us/usin.htm
>
> All unmoderated games will be removed.
> Judge keeper is [email protected].
> Judge address is [email protected]
>
> Message from [email protected] as Russia to Germany in 'ghodstoo':
>
> Pitt,
> My (even later) note is somewhat more middle-of-the-raod between early
> pessimism and later optimism. Sort of a muted optimism, perhaps...Let
> me address your note, at the ***...
>
> >
> >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.
> >
> >>Germany: Build A Mun, Mun-Tyo(!)
> >
> >Hmmm...I have to think about that. I'm concerned about the potential for
> >letting England off the hook, not to mention the fact that a southern push
> >by Germany coupled with Italy's move east leaves France all alone.
>
> ** Please think hard(see above). For one thing, a friendless England
> with three fleets can't do much to slow you down--especially if i go
> traipsing off to Nwg. You'll get a convoy and take another center this
> turn, perhaps. I mean, where's Jamie going to go?
>
> 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)? Seems to me if he builds one, he either goes vs Italy, or builds
> another fleet to come back vs England. if he builds an army vs you, and
> doesn't already have Eng support, he's a pretty brave guy. And even if
> you moved to TYO in spring and France somehow hit you, you can always
> cover Tyo-Mun in fall...heck, go Pic-Bur now if there;'s a threat from
> him.
>
> >>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'm not saying you're a vulture, or that you harbor evil intent.
> I'm just saying that you surely realize you must monitor the east
> carefully...If you can't/won't send southern help, then RI can't do much
> vs TRI or anything else in a concerted manner. Which means sooner or
> later, I'll be going down. Timing is everything here.
>
> Take care, and thanks for the note, as always.
>
> Tsar Faz
>
Private message from Master to Germany:
And this one was right next to it.
Jim
>
> News about USIN can be found at
> http://kleiman.indianapolis.in.us/usin.htm
>
> All unmoderated games will be removed.
> Judge keeper is [email protected].
> Judge address is [email protected]
>
> Message from [email protected] as England to Germany in 'ghodstoo':
>
> I don't know what to tell you.
>
> Well, I'll tell you this.
>
> I'm not angry, at all. I thought I made that clear. Sure, you stabbed me. I
> attacked France in the opening. That's what happens. Frankly, I was never
> counting on you, not really. I was counting on others to keep you in check
> in case you turned on me. They failed me, rather miserably.
>
> So, actually, I *am* kind of angry, only at other powers.
>
>
> But that's not really what you meant. What you really meant was, if you
> were to turn east, why wouldn't England take advantage?
>
> There isn't a whole lot I can do to reassure you, I think. It's not as
> though I could send my units off somewhere they couldn't bother you! I have
> to do everything possible to defend my centers. I certainly did try to
> reach a rapprochement with John-Jean. If I had, I would not have blocked
> his Por-MAO. But I failed. Quite understandable, reasonable, I don't blame
> him. I think I'd do the same.
>
>
>
> Hm.
>
>
> What I really want, honestly, is still to have a chance to grab a Russian
> center. Norway would be ok, StP would be a lot better. In the best of
> worlds, I'd grab an Italian one too. But I'd be satisfied to let French
> fleets carry a message from me instead. And, since, as you know, I hold Edi
> personally responsible for all of my woes, it would be nice to see him get
> some come-uppance.
>
> Until ten pm last night, I had the order Nwg-Bar. I wish I'd kept it, but I
> decided I couldn't leave Edinburgh open.
>
> If you or John or Hohn won the game, I would be pleased (relatively
> speaking; I would be much pleaseder to win it myself, but that really goes
> without saying).
>
>
> Short of leaving my home centers open for you, I'll accept any terms of
> peace you offer.
>
>
> Cheers!
> Gentle King Jamie
>
>
Private message from Master to Germany:
This is the most recent England to Germany message that I have in the files.
Your friendly GM, Jim
> News about USIN can be found at
> http://kleiman.indianapolis.in.us/usin.htm
>
> All unmoderated games will be removed.
> Judge keeper is [email protected].
> Judge address is [email protected]
>
> Message from [email protected] as England to Germany in 'ghodstoo':
>
> SYMBOLISM ASSISTANCE SQUAD TO THE RESCUE
>
>
> >Question is, how do I do that without feeling that I've loosed an angry
> >English...um...what the heck is a suitable animal symbol for England,
> >anyway? Unicorn just doesn't cut it. Anyway, you see what I'm getting at.
>
> It's supposed to be a lion.
>
>
>
> GKJ
>
>
Private message from Master to Turkey:
Given Pitt's message, I will grab some private messages that Pitt needs
to see (but only THIS broadcast) and send them to Pitt and to you (so
you will know I sent them). Ummm, you know what I mean....
I am not changing the deadline for the builds at this point.
Jim
>
> News about USIN can be found at
> http://kleiman.indianapolis.in.us/usin.htm
>
> All unmoderated games will be removed.
> Judge keeper is [email protected].
> Judge address is [email protected]
>
> Message from [email protected] as Russia to Austria, England,
> France, Germany, Turkey, Italy and Master in 'ghodstoo':
>
>
> Gents:
> If you don't mind me repeating my admin note one last time:
> Remember, I'll be leaving for my folks' place (read: NO connectivity)
> tomorrow (Sat/15 Mar) and returning to my "wired" house again Thursday
> (20 Mar) in the p.m. Three points of note:
>
> 1) Jim: Could you please make sure the deadline for S'03 submissions is
> NO EARLIER than Friday night (21 Mar)? This will give me a day to come
> home and 'unwind,' read the mail, and submit my moves. (As no one's
> writing anyway with proposals, a day's turnaround for a dying nations
> shouldn't be that stressing...) Thanks, old buddy.
>
> 2) Those of you who mail me stuff while I'm gone: please send it all to
> my [email protected] address via the Judge. I'm going to "shut off" this
> address at work and "turn on" (SET ADDRESS) my home one for this period.
>
> I WON'T READ ANY MAIL SENT TO THE USMA.EXMAIL ADDRESS (this one) UNTIL
> MON, 24 MARCH.
>
> (Oh, Edi: yes, per your question, the juno.com address is permanent,
> altho' I only read it after 5 p.m. on weeknights (all day on weekends).
>
> 3) IF you _really_ want to deal, you can try and reach me at (412)
> 842-7366 from Sun-Wed. If I'm not out building pinewood derby cars or
> model rockets, eating cookies, shooting the .22 in the woods, or a
> combination of the above, I'd love to talk!
>
> 4) Finally, one football-related note: Edi wonders what kind of teams
> are associated w/the players here. I think that's a neat "initiative."
>
> I've already figured I AM a Steeler, a "meat-and-potatoes" offesne with
> no great insightful 'trick moves' (even the ones I TRY and run!), no
> special teams support, and occasional flashes of great gaming, followed
> by games-long lack of offensive drive. VERY mch the persona of my team.
>
> I find it interesting that Edi picks the Niners, the
> plastic/astroturf/TEFLON, pull-it-out-your-booty
> while-doing-it-with-great-skill-team. Much as I "hate" SF for winning
> more Bowls than Pgh, I have to admit that they WERE the team of the 80s
> (and Edi IS a team in his own right)! Of course, 'Frisco did it with a
> QB from western PA....go figure!!
>
> Take care, guys. I'm here all day until 4 p.m., then off the net 'till
> the 21st at HOME.
>
>
> MARK A. FASSIO, Maj, USAF
> Instructor, Dept of Social Sciences
> Room B117, Lincoln Hall
> ph (914) 938-3198 e-mail: [email protected]
> CREDERE! UBIDDERE! COMBATTERE!
>
>
Private message from England to Germany:
I don't have the text of my last message to you. I do have it at my office.
What I did was to provide extremely compelling reasons that you ought to
trust me not to bother (oops, uh, 'pester'?) you if you decide to attack
Russia instead of me. It will save us both (uh, 'each') a lot of trouble if
you just take my word for it that the reasons were extremely compelling.
Hey, how come you lost all the important partial press, but obviously
managed to get and reply to all the inane broadcasts?
Gentle King Jamie
This game is beginning to seem like a bad episode of the Twilight Zone to me.
I just sat down to respond the several private messages I received from
players (you know who you are, I hope) over the past couple of days. I
discovered that my mail reader had replaced then text of about 50 Inbox
messages with the text of one single message (and that was a misdirected
message intended for a syncon.net address, not syncon.com...)
Given the spate of illnesses, injuries, technical difficulties, and whatnot
this game has experienced so far, I've taken to carrying a shamrock,
wearing white, genuflecting three times, drinking holy water, and grounding
myself before I do anything associated with it.
In any event, assuming that this message will actually make it to the
intended recipienst, I would very much appreciate it you wouldf resend
those messages. I promise I'll reply quickly if they get here (what choice
do I have? if I wait, they may mutate and infect my microwave...)
-Pitt
Private message from Master to Germany:
>
> Message from [email protected] as England to Germany in 'ghodstoo':
>
>
> I don't have the text of my last message to you. I do have it at my office.
>
Yeah, aren't you glad you have me around to cart your messages?
And Pitt, after I did this for you, you owe me big time! You had better
not disappear now. Give Jamie your answer!!!
> What I did was to provide extremely compelling reasons that you ought to
> trust me not to bother (oops, uh, 'pester'?) you if you decide to attack
> Russia instead of me. It will save us both (uh, 'each') a lot of trouble if
> you just take my word for it that the reasons were extremely compelling.
>
And your follow up was truly compelling.
Lots of "yeah, that was it's"
> Hey, how come you lost all the important partial press, but obviously
> managed to get and reply to all the inane broadcasts?
>
> Gentle King Jamie
>
Yeah, I was wondering that too as I went back and reviewed everything...
and I nearly lost the file, but luckily it was retrieved!! Pitt, you
will never know what a heart attack you almost caused me..... ah, the
terror of being a GM to two experienced judge GM's.....
Jim-Bob
Private message from England to France:
Aha.
Well, not a surprise, really, that's what you'd build pretty much no matter
what you were up to.
So, I'm listening, talk. I imagine your first order of business will be to
eject those German armies... but then what?
Cheers!
Gentle King Jamie
Private message from France to Germany:
Pitt, I am becoming a bit concerned about the collapse of Russia and the
probable fall of Italy. Unless something disrupts the AT alliance, they
will have Russia down to a couple of units in two years and they will be
able to win the fleet war in the Med at the same time. Can we do
something? Should we, in your view?
France
Private message from England to Russia:
Tsar Faz,
Please consider supporting my F Edi to North Sea.
If I dislodge the German fleet, I can defend myself for a while longer. If
Germany can convoy an army across North Sea, I'm in really bad trouble.
I feel reasonably confident that France will at least not be against me,
and have high hopes that I can get him to exert enough pressure on Germany
to ease any pressure against you, and to help me survive until the
character of the board changes.
In the mean time, I have spoken to Hohn on your behalf. He agreed that what
I said was reasonable, and his main reservation seems to be that he doesn't
know whether he can trust you. Try to act trustworthy, would you?
By the way, you may expect to keep Norway for the foreseeable future,
whether I gain North Sea or not. And, *if* you want to cooperate with me, I
will do everything in my power to help you hold on to those Scandinavian
possessions, without which you are clearly doomed (the only question being
which of us would be eliminated first).
Cheers!
Gentle King Jamie
Private message from France to Italy:
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.
France