| Press for Spring of 1903 in ghodstoo |
Movement
Private message from England to Germany:
I shall prepare my faith for some leaping.
I have been known to take a little jump now and then. But don't stretch my
poor powers. I am not able to leap tall buildings in a single bound.
Now I know that every signon delays the processing of the moves, and
probably some of our cohorts are holding their breaths, so I'll shut up and
wait for the results.
Cheers!
Gentle King Jamie
Private message from England to Turkey:
Now, witch.
If I'm not mistaken, you have to face the question of whether you actually
*want* to be the leading power in your area, or not. A delicate question in
a game like this one! To be the leading power, you'd need only to switch
sides and grab for the remaining Balkan centers. Or so it seems to me. To
play it slower and lower key, you'd just manouever to destroy that Russian
fleet and wait and see what develops between Italy and Austria. I'll be
watching with a fascinated eye.
Here is one little bit of information of which I am pretty certain (I don't
like to overstate my certainty, but I'd be really shocked if this were
wrong). When push comes to shove, either Russia or Italy would take
practically any opportunity to reduce the chance that Austria will be a big
power in the endgame. Not to say that they wouldn't join forces with him to
avoid elimination, but short of that I think you could count on Italy not
to make any common cause with Austria, and likewise on Russia.
I don't know how that fact might affect your plans. I guess it could
influence in various ways. I still have this feeling, though, that *IF* (a
big if) I can manage to be around for a few more years, anything that's
heathy for you will be to my advantage. So I give you what information I
have, to do with as you will.
Cheers!
Gentle King Jamie,
the Other Witch
Private message from Germany to England:
>Hey, how come you lost all the important partial press, but obviously
>managed to get and reply to all the inane broadcasts?
Because I replied to those as I read them, without thinking (wasn't it
obvious?). Though I'm not sure it does me much good, I like to give the
real game related stuff some thought before replying. Often, I don't have
sufficient time to do that upon first glance.
FYI, I've been giving your ideas a good deal of thought and I'm inclined to
go with them. Look for a detailed plan for a surprise EG turnabout in my
next message. Fair warning, though, it's going to require a serious leap
of faith on your part.
-Pitt
Private message from Observer to Germany:
> My apologies, folks. I was so certain I had already sent in my build and
> that we were waiting on somone else that I didn't even bother to check.
> It's in now.
>
Good man. Now get to some of that other stuff! :-) :-)
Nagging you (per request), and looking very much forward to seeing you
next week!!
Manus
>Diplomacy game 'ghodstoo' is waiting for Germany's orders.
My apologies, folks. I was so certain I had already sent in my build and
that we were waiting on somone else that I didn't even bother to check.
It's in now.
-KaiserPitt
In a phone discussion with a player, it was brought up that the player felt
that the rules prohibit diplomacy during the build/adjustment phase and was a
little awkward about discussing the coming adjustments. As this is from a
long time E-mailer I was very curious about this attitude.
The no diplomacy during builds has as its origin the face to face game, but
was never even an issue in postal play. some postal games had a combined
season of Fall and winter or of winter and Spring more for the issue of
speeding up the game than from any rules approach to the issue.
I am very curious, as this is my first e-mail game of regular Diplomacy, what
the social edicate is on the issue.
Comments please from the observors/masters etc on the issue.
Edi
Private message from Italy to Turkey:
> Message from [email protected] as Turkey to Italy in 'ghodstoo':
>
> Cal,
> Regarding Edi, I fully understand both the strategic desirability of
> getting him out of the way and also the tactical feasibility of action
> against him. Before now, I needed him against Mark, who had shown no
> indication of easing up on me. I'm in a much better position now,
> however. I'm willing to consider a stab, although I'd like to hear
> substantive ideas with respect to coordinated moves, though. I have
> some ideas of my own, but I'd like to hear where you're coming from.
The way I see MY moves this Spring, I'll probably convoy into Albania.
Whether I support it or try to attack Trieste is something I'll decide
AFTER I talk to Mark (and even Edi).
Assuming you are in Con & Bla with fleets and Rum with an army, as well
as the (hopeful) success of my moves, we can conceivably put supported
pressure on Tri, Bul, Gre and maybe even Serbia. What's your take
on these tactics?
For the long run, I can see myself having to turn back to face the
French. I can see you having/wanting to proceed further north to
(continue to) attack Russia. I have no problem with this as I've
concluded that you make a better long term ally than Mark (we may
want to see if he'll puppet to us as the ability to build in Stp
may be vital later).
I'm anxious to hear what the ideas were you mentioned. I'm sure we
can come to an agreement on this.
Regards
Cal
Private message from Italy to France:
> Message from [email protected] as France to Italy in 'ghodstoo':
>
> Say, I was wondering if you might want some assistance against TA. You can
> hold them off for a while, but in the end the three fleets against two
> might prove too much. They might also pick up another one by next fall.
> If you are interested in some help, let me know.
Please don't take this wrong as I do expect us to be able to work closer
later in the game, but I REALLY don't feel secure enough in my position
to want a French fleet in the Med. Let's just abide by our agreement
that
your fleet will go to Spain and then to the Mid. Any other moves will
mean that I will be forced to defend myself.
Cheers!
Cal
Private message from Germany to Russia:
>Not to worry. My focus is northwestward. I'm counting on you to contain
>the southern hordes.
** Part of this is directly related to who's helping down south. If I'm
Custer, I could use you there with support before I reach the Little Big
Horn. Even taking SEV buys me 1-2 turns, max. they can surround and
retake it in fall, no doubt. Extra pressure is needed.
I understand this but, frankly, I'm not comfortable letting England off the
hook that easy. If I turn now and head towards Austria, one of two things
is likley to happen. A) France gobbles up England with me seeing little or
no gain and leaving me with a looming western neighbor or B) England
convinces France to join with him against me. Either option is bad for me.
The only way I can prevent either is to keep up the offensive against
England, grab my share of his SC's, and make sure that I'm an unattractive
target for France.
>As for France being all alone, I'm not completely following. Are you
>worried about threats TO him (from whom?) or threats FROM him (i.e., to
>you)?
Yes, the latter. He's shown no signs of that, as yet, but I don't want to
invite trouble, either. Also, I'm sur ehe hasn't forgottne that myu
opening move was anti-French.
>>>In the north, I would urge a convoy to England; I can use Nwy to support
>>>Nth Sea.
>>
>>Yes, that sounds good. Except, I'm not sure if the support is needed given
>>the possibilities for an NTH retreat. You're probably better off getting
>>to NWG, where your fleet will be more useful in the fall.
>
> ** Pitt: Don't take this in the wrong way, BUT...I trust you 100%. But
> if you envision helping kill me off (or beating AT to the punch), then
> don't pussyfoot around. I'd rather just see you move and take the stuff
> now, as opposed to taking Nwy when I'm in CLY, or taking WAR later, etc
> etc.
I understand your concern. However, my purpose is not to set you up for a
German stab. I stand to gain very little from doing that, for starters.
If I were to stab you, who stands to gain the most? Not me but, rather,
Austria. Now, if it were Turkey that stood to see the gain, I suppose that
I might have some incentive to consider that option but I'd be crazy to
give Edi any more advantage than he already has. I'm already exposed to
him. I need your presence in the east and south to hold him in check.
If I could, I'd do more to come directly to your aid right now but I just
don't see how I can until I resolve the situation in the west. *That's*
why I suggested the moves in the north that I did. I don't think England
can afford to dislodge my NTH fleet given my options to retreat to LON or
EDI if he does but, _if_ he does, your fleet in NWG would give us much
greater options for response in the fall. Ideally, of course, my convoy
succeeds in the spring and your NOR-NWG move does, too.
I don't really know what else to say. I *need* your support, both in the
north and as a bulwark in the east and south. If you continue to give a
good accounting in the south and we are successful together in the north, I
will be in position to relieve the pressure on you by going after Austria
next year. I know you'd like to see something sooner but I don't see any
way to do that. I am committed to doing what I can, however.
I look forward to hearing back from you.
-Pitt
Private message from England to Master:
>.... I think Edi
>has it about right in his message yesterday. To my mind, if E-Mailers
>are going to be better players (by my definition with more levels of
>the game engaged) they also have to be willing to break down the
>"feud factor" by meeting on other levels as Edi suggested. It is
>something to ponder.
It is, but I don't agree with you.
But never mind, that will no doubt be an everlasting, ongoing issue on r.g.d.
>Then again, as I know, many E-Mailers do not
>want to play games on that level.... thus anonymous games. As you
>must realize, this game could NOT proceed in this manner (lawyer
>jokes and mascot jokes at the minimum, but much more than that)
>without the identities of the players known.
Yes.
For this game I was quite amenable to having identities known. I'm afraid I
didn't make good use of the knowledge. But I'm learning...
-Jamie
>
>Jim
>
> Broadcast message from [email protected] as Austria in 'ghodstoo':
>
>
> In a phone discussion with a player, it was brought up that the player felt
> that the rules prohibit diplomacy during the build/adjustment phase and was a
> little awkward about discussing the coming adjustments. As this is from a
> long time E-mailer I was very curious about this attitude.
>
Actually, so am I.....
> The no diplomacy during builds has as its origin the face to face game, but
> was never even an issue in postal play. some postal games had a combined
> season of Fall and winter or of winter and Spring more for the issue of
> speeding up the game than from any rules approach to the issue.
>
The deadline is relevant here as people should not be holding up the
build or retreat deadlines in order to conduct diplomacy; however,
not conducting it at all doesn't make sense to me. I have the
same view on this that Edi does.
> I am very curious, as this is my first e-mail game of regular Diplomacy, what
> the social edicate is on the issue.
>
Perhaps (since my judge playing experience is not extensive) I share
Edi's postal view but that is out of step with the majority of you
Judge players. I also stand to be educated on this issue.
> Comments please from the observors/masters etc on the issue.
>
> Edi
>
On a related issue that I have been thinking about.....
my view in general is that rules that are impossible to enforce as
a GM should be avoided. During the great "house rules" debates on
the Judge world a few years ago, at times I realize that I stood
outside the majority on these kinds of issues. Edi making the
phone call he refers to above represents an example of what I would
call an "unenforceable rule". If the two players on the phone
wanted to communicate, there would be no reason for them to reveal
their contact (if there were a rule against negotiation during
build phases) and no way for me to find out. E-Mail outside the
Judge is similar in effect.
This issue in general colored my approach to the question of negotiating
during the grace period after the deadline recently. I also don't
believe in prohibiting that for similar reasons; HOWEVER, if the player
or players who are late want to negotiate during the grace period,
I have asked them to make reasonable requests to me to extend the
deadline. I am aware of the possibility of trying to "manipulate"
me and that sort of situation and will make a judgment based on
my view of reasonableness. Again, in my view, there is no restriction
at all on people who have orders in already to negotiate during the
grace period.
In my view, these sorts of discussions are good so that they can sort
out where I am coming from as well as what your views are. As always,
I also caution the players that to some extent all things are within
the game, whatever you wish to see that as meaning.
Jim
Private message from Master to England:
>
> Message from [email protected] as England to Master in 'ghodstoo':
>
>
> >.... I think Edi
> >has it about right in his message yesterday. To my mind, if E-Mailers
> >are going to be better players (by my definition with more levels of
> >the game engaged) they also have to be willing to break down the
> >"feud factor" by meeting on other levels as Edi suggested. It is
> >something to ponder.
>
> It is, but I don't agree with you.
> But never mind, that will no doubt be an everlasting, ongoing issue on r.g.d.
>
Hey, this game wouldn't have anywhere near the interest for me or many
others if those differences in views weren't there. I am not shy about
saying that allowing those differences to intersect over the game
board is fascinating to me.
> >Then again, as I know, many E-Mailers do not
> >want to play games on that level.... thus anonymous games. As you
> >must realize, this game could NOT proceed in this manner (lawyer
> >jokes and mascot jokes at the minimum, but much more than that)
> >without the identities of the players known.
>
> Yes.
> For this game I was quite amenable to having identities known. I'm afraid I
> didn't make good use of the knowledge. But I'm learning...
>
> -Jamie
> >
> >Jim
;-)
Jim
Private message from Italy to Turkey:
> Message from [email protected] as Turkey to Italy in 'ghodstoo':
>
> Cal,
>
> Thanks for your letter. I also thank you for not moving to AEG or
> EAS. In any event, I do feel compelled to let you know that I have to
> dislodge BLA this turn. I'm not ruling out cooperation with Mark, but
> in light of his past actions towards me, having him in BLA is simply
> more of a risk than I want to take.
>
> Regarding Edi, I fully understand both the strategic desirability of
> getting him out of the way and also the tactical feasibility of action
> against him. Before now, I needed him against Mark, who had shown no
> indication of easing up on me. I'm in a much better position now,
> however. I'm willing to consider a stab, although I'd like to hear
> substantive ideas with respect to coordinated moves, though. I have
> some ideas of my own, but I'd like to hear where you're coming from.
>
> My only restriction is, as mentioned above, that I need to dislodge
> BLA. Other than that, I'm flexible. Please let me know.
Just a quick note before I dash off to work:
I have no problem with your dislodging the Black Sea fleet; in fact,
I rather figured you'd want to remove that threat to your shores.
I'll write a more detailed note this evening about how we can coordinate
an attack on Edi. I'm quite glad you're reasonably amenable to this
offer as I feel we can take him down quite quickly. I also feel Mark
will at least help me with his Galician (or Bohemian army) even if you
press an attack on him (he wants some measure of revenge on Edi...)
Take to you later.
Cal
Private message from Turkey to Master:
Jim,
My thoughts after the Fall 1902 moves.
Hooray!
Edi came through, as I suspected he would, and my rather elaborate
stratagem with Mark also worked. I'm as pleased as punch right now.
BLA will now be mine, and although I might lose SEV, I suspect I
should be able to take it back in Fall 1903. I will likely continue
to work with Edi, simply because I find him to be one of the only
reliable people in my area. Mark is simply untrustworthy, and his
recent letter to me suggesting a cooperative set of moves that would
require trust on both of our parts is another example. Cal seems a
bit erratic, and although it's true that IT is generally pretty good
for the Turkish player, AT is even better for the Turk. So in light
of all that, I think I'll stay with Edi.
Strategically, I think there's only a low chance of a stab by Edi
against me, which is further reason to go with him. If he turns on me
now, he risks alienating his only ally while his other neighbors are
hostile, and it also exposes his back to a rapidly growing Pitt.
I'm going to return to the moral high ground position of honesty with
Mark, in the hopes that I can salvage my relationship with him. It's
true, being in the driver's seat helps with respect to that position
with him, but I'm still hoping he appreciates the honesty.
In other notes, I just sent out a spate of messages. You'll note I
also sent out a public broadcast. This is for a definite tactical
reason. Whenever I send several private messages at about the same
time, I almost always also send out a public broadcast. This is
because any note passers will not be able to cross-reference my time
stamps of passed messages with messages that they themselves received,
because my public note gives notice to all that I was online at that
time, and thus any note passers could have simply copied the time
stamp of that particular broadcast. Without the public broadcast,
note passers would have increased credibility due to the coincidence
in timing of private messages.
Hohn
Private message from Turkey to Russia:
Mark,
Although I appreciate your cooperative suggestions, I'm afraid that
they are not truly feasible in light of our mutual lack of trust. I
can't trust you to do what you've suggested, and you can't trust me to
do as you suggest either, I believe. Indeed, although the
coordination you propose would be great if it all went through, it
could again screw one or both of us in the event of a stab. Thus, I'm
afraid I'm going to have to dislodge you from BLA and then we can work
from there accordingly.
I'm sorry if I seem inflexible. It's just that I can't trust you in
BLA. I hope you realize that I could have lied to you again, agreed
to everything you said (perhaps a bit reluctantly to prevent you from
thinking I gave in too easily), and then stabbed you to try to get
further gain at your expense. But I don't want to further poison our
relationship with lies, and I do truly believe we can work
together...but only _after_ our mutual security is seen to.
Please let me know your thoughts.
Hohn
Sorry for the delayed press, everyone. It's been a hectic
last few days (unexpected post-trial motions).
Hohn
Private message from Turkey to Austria:
Edi,
Boy, Cal and Mark sure seem to want to axe you. Badly.
I'm playing along to an extent, although I've told Mark that
I simply have to dislodge him from Black Sea. There's no
other feasible alternative in my mind. Hopefully, I'll have
some idea what they're going to try, so that we can adjust
accordingly. You might want to play dumb with them about
our continuing cooperation, so that they're more amenable to
feeding me reliable info.
But rest assured, I'm still with you 100%. You're the only
one of them that's reliable, and I think and hope you feel
the same about me.
Regarding tactics, I'm blowing him out of Black, that's the
truth. With armies, I'm thinking of a tactical withdrawal
from Sevastopol to prevent a demolished army, then retaking
in fall. What do you think?
Hohn
Private message from Turkey to Italy:
Cal,
Thanks for your letter. I also thank you for not moving to AEG or
EAS. In any event, I do feel compelled to let you know that I have to
dislodge BLA this turn. I'm not ruling out cooperation with Mark, but
in light of his past actions towards me, having him in BLA is simply
more of a risk than I want to take.
Regarding Edi, I fully understand both the strategic desirability of
getting him out of the way and also the tactical feasibility of action
against him. Before now, I needed him against Mark, who had shown no
indication of easing up on me. I'm in a much better position now,
however. I'm willing to consider a stab, although I'd like to hear
substantive ideas with respect to coordinated moves, though. I have
some ideas of my own, but I'd like to hear where you're coming from.
My only restriction is, as mentioned above, that I need to dislodge
BLA. Other than that, I'm flexible. Please let me know.
Hohn
Private message from Turkey to England:
Jamie,
> Much as I am enjoying seeing Mark suffer....
> You know, right, that he just tends to get a little overheated about the
> game. He just says whatever comes into his head. (I speak from personal
> experience--he's insulted me repeatedly then apologized profusely and
> apparently sincerely. It's kind of charming once you get used to it.)
I'm just beginning to gather this.
> And I
> think he feels a little out of his league, like everyone else is an expert
> and he's just an ordinary player. I say this knowing that you will use the
> facts to your best advantage.
I don't think he's out of his league, judging from what I've heard
about him. If he's genuinely feeling insecure, though, I suppose I'm
not surprised it might affect his play.
> (Just don't let Edi win, that's all.)
I'll try my best not to. ;)
> He's right now got some fairly silly ideas about what has to happen before
> he'd flop over and help you against Austria, but I think those ideas are
> changeable.
He seems relatively reasonable now, although I'm not sure whether to
buy it or not.
> This thumbnail psychological profile brought to you by British Overseas
> Cognitive and Behavioural Research, Ltd., free of charge for our fellows in
> witchcraft.
Thanks. I'll try to walk the tightrope such that things work out
reasonably well.
Hohn
Private message from England to Russia:
Gentlemen,
>Yeah, he wrote me with the same offer, but I had to tell him that I
>didn't
>feel secure enough in my position to have a rogue French fleet wandering
>around. I can imagine you aren't too happy with that, GKJ, but since I
>am
>France's next obvious target after England, you can understand (I hope)
>my extreme reluctance.
Actually, it's fine with me.
The thing is, having France just be neutral with respect to me, as he more
or less said he'd decided to be, isn't good enough. It's a slow death
warrant. So, I'm just as happy if he has to make a different choice. Yes,
he could choose to send troops into England. But he might choose to
pressure Germany. That last is my only real chance in the game, so I prefer
a situation where France at least *might* choose that one.
The only thing is, he *might* decide to go to the Mediterranean anyway. I
think that would be a bad move, but I guess it depends on his relations
with Germany. (My best guess is that he has no real relations with Germany
at all.)
> He seemed a bit hurt that I refused, so his
>offer
>was probably genuine, but that doesn't change my feelings or strategic
>situation one iota.
No. I'd feel the same.
Even if he's perfectly sincere, the question would still be how he will
feel once he decides AT is no longer a huge threat.
>I will see what I can do, but I doubt if I have much leverage with him.
>I'll
>just try and at least keep the idea in his head. Not to obviously
>though, as
>I don't need Pitt thinking I'm conspiring against him.
Holy cow. You're worried about Pitt?
Ok. My idea was just, if France is genuinely wondering what he can do to
help IR against AT, you could tell him (truly, I hope) that keeping Germany
from overrunning those largely unprotected Russian centers is the most
helpful thing France could do.
Cheers!
Gentle King Jamie
Private message from Italy to Russia:
> Message from [email protected] as England to Italy and Russia in
> 'ghodstoo':
> Just had an interesting talk with M. Le President Jean-Bark.
>
> His current concern, at least as he presents it to me, is none other than
> your poor selves. John says he mainly worried that AT will become too strong.
>
> The apparent immediate consequence is that he wants to send Italy some help
> in the form of a ship. I noted that not everyone is perfectly trusting in
> Diplomacy (I hastened to add that this is because not everyone is as
> trustworthy as M. Jean himself), and that such a help might not be too
> welcome. He admitted the possibility. I don't know what to tell you. He
> certainly *seemed* sincere. :)
Yeah, he wrote me with the same offer, but I had to tell him that I
didn't
feel secure enough in my position to have a rogue French fleet wandering
around. I can imagine you aren't too happy with that, GKJ, but since I
am
France's next obvious target after England, you can understand (I hope)
my extreme reluctance. He seemed a bit hurt that I refused, so his
offer
was probably genuine, but that doesn't change my feelings or strategic
situation one iota.
> If either or both of you get the chance, and are willing, you might mention
> to M. Jean that an excellent way to help the ItaloRussian cause would be for
> France to give Germany something to think about other than those juicy
> Scandinavian (or English!) centers. Suggest that he fatten himself up,
> taking advantage of England's lack of opportunities and desperation, etc.,
> while ensuring that Russia can devote all his resources to the Southern Cause.
I will see what I can do, but I doubt if I have much leverage with him.
I'll
just try and at least keep the idea in his head. Not to obviously
though, as
I don't need Pitt thinking I'm conspiring against him.
Good luck
Cal
Private message from France to Master:
I was hoping that I would be able to wrap up this evening, but Pitt has not
answered my last message. My orders are in, but I would still appreciate a
delay until Tuesday night on the official deadline. I will remove the wait
as soon as possible.
Thanks,
John
Private message from England to Russia:
Gentlemen,
(I know Faz is generally incommunicado for a while; let us know when you're
back in contact.)
Just had an interesting talk with M. Le President Jean-Bark.
His current concern, at least as he presents it to me, is none other than
your poor selves. John says he mainly worried that AT will become too strong.
The apparent immediate consequence is that he wants to send Italy some help
in the form of a ship. I noted that not everyone is perfectly trusting in
Diplomacy (I hastened to add that this is because not everyone is as
trustworthy as M. Jean himself), and that such a help might not be too
welcome. He admitted the possibility. I don't know what to tell you. He
certainly *seemed* sincere. :)
If either or both of you get the chance, and are willing, you might mention
to M. Jean that an excellent way to help the ItaloRussian cause would be for
France to give Germany something to think about other than those juicy
Scandinavian (or English!) centers. Suggest that he fatten himself up,
taking advantage of England's lack of opportunities and desperation, etc.,
while ensuring that Russia can devote all his resources to the Southern Cause.
I'd appreciate it.
Cheers!
Gentle King Jamie
Private message from Turkey to Master:
Jim,
I'd like a one-day deadline extension, if possible. I'm going to be
out of town all weekend and Monday. Please let me know.
Thanks,
Hohn
Private message from England to France:
John,
Well, good luck with that fleet, I guess.
I hope that with your other units you will be... flexible.
I do not want to attack Russia with German help (hah! I mean, help Germany
attack Russia). I may not have much of a choice about it, though. It will
be my last resort. I would much rather hold off Germany while someone else
attacked him, while I gave as much assistance, admittedly limited, as I
possibly could.
Cheers!
Gentle King Jamie
Private message from France to England:
Jamie,
I don't think it's too mysterious how I might help RI. With Italy's
permission, a fleet in the Med would help him to hold out against AT
incursions, maybe even make some headway, given T's build in Ankara. Of
course, it won't work unless Italy wants the help, and you are correct that
he would be very wary of such assistance. But if he were to accept it,
then the mere fact that AT faced a real challenge in the Med would relieve
the pressure on Russia (assuming you and G left the Tsar alone for a
while).
I do not have a clear idea of Germany's intentions. I think that my
position is strong enough that he won't find attacking me again attractive
for a while, but whether finishing off England or grabbing part of Russia
is in the cards, I don't know. Presumably, he'd have to discuss the former
with me quite soon.
I'll check in again this evening. Best of luck.
John
I will be leaving town tomorrow morning, back Sunday night. I doubt that I
will have internet access for that time. I will check mail again today and
tonight.
France
Private message from England to France:
John,
I'm somewhat surprised that others aren't worried about the AT alliance.
Maybe you meant Germany. I wouldn't expect him to be worried about it. I
would be, except that I am too tied up with worrying about my survival to
be able to spend much worry on the long term.
I am, naturally, glad to hear that you won't be invading England. To be
honest, I have just been *assuming* that you won't, not because I was so
sure that you wouldn't, but that I figure my only chance is if you don't.
If you were hellbent on Liverpool, there would be nothing much I could do
about it. So I've been making what scanty plans I can make on the
assumption that you weren't.
Now.
You will understand, I'm sure, that it is rather mysterious to an outsider
like me how you might manage to help Russia and Italy. A speculator might
wonder whether you intend to send two fleets into the Mediterranean. A
speculator would hypothesize that Italy would not be too enthusiastic about
that sort of help. A speculator might then wonder whether Italy would be in
any position to refuse help like that. Well, who knows.
I can think of a way you might help Russia. I'm not sure what you're
thinking, of course. I will tell you that although I know it's quite
possible that Germany will decide his best move is to try to finish me off,
I think there is a pretty good chance that he's concluded that the biggest
payoff for him right this moment is to try to reap a large share of spoils
from the pending devastation of Russia. In fact, this is my best guess
(though it may well be wishful thinking). I believe that the chance of
Germany's deciding that your centers are the most promising source of
growth, at least given the current configuration, is a rather small chance.
(If you suddenly committed units to the Mediterranean, that might well
change.) In sum, my personal view of *your* best bet is that you'd probably
best be worrying about what Germany is about to do. If he's going East and
into Scandinavia, you ought to think this is bad news (because it makes the
AT alliance very strong indeed). If he's going west (small chance, as I
said), that's worse news. If he's going to try to use his smallish navy to
attack my island, that's probably best for you, though it might be pretty
ugly for you in the long run if he succeeds.
Hm, so, I don't know what to say. IF you are planning to put some pressure
on Germany, it would be very helpful for me to know this. It would affect
my plans. It would be helpful for me to know whether I have to gamble and
try to do something that might fend Germany off for a longish time, or
whether I just have to hold out for another move until he gets a new
distraction. But, you may not feel you want to reveal your plans, I would
naturally understand that. It depends on to what extent you feel that we're
'in this together' now.
Germany is oddly ready to negotiate with me, it seems. Maybe it's a hoax.
And I don't exactly know what he's offering, either. Whatever it is, I'll
be doing what I can to improve my defensive posture against him.
Unfortunately, I am rather in the dark about your plans and Russia's (it's
too bad that Russia is incommunicado, but that's life).
A last thought about revenge.
I find that at this level, players go for revenge only when other prospects
look pretty grim. Yours are certainly good enough that you can have higher
aspirations! I think that if you play your cards just right, you'll be a
major endgame factor. Frankly, I hope you do play them just right.
Cheers!
Gentle King Jamie
Private message from France to England:
Jamie, the long and short of it is that I am concerned about the growing
strength of the AT alliance. If I were to think in the short term, their
success provides me with some opportunities. But they will gain much more
and much faster than I would from grabbing the immediate profits. I would
like to help Russia and Italy hold them off. I've contacted a couple of
players about this, but so far I am the only one who feels this way. The
import for you is, of course, that I would not make an attempt on your
homeland. FYI, revenge rarely motivates me, and I try to play the board as
it develops. My reading now is that AT is the problem.
John
Edi,
I have always played that the game is setup with deadlines and what you do
prior to the deadlines is your business within the limits of the press
settings. In other words, diplomacy is acceptable so long as the adjustments
get in on time.
Just my too sense.
Ken
----------------------[Reply - Original Message]----------------------
In a phone discussion with a player, it was brought up that the player felt
that the rules prohibit diplomacy during the build/adjustment phase and was a
little awkward about discussing the coming adjustments. As this is from a
long time E-mailer I was very curious about this attitude.
The no diplomacy during builds has as its origin the face to face game, but
was never even an issue in postal play. some postal games had a combined
season of Fall and winter or of winter and Spring more for the issue of
speeding up the game than from any rules approach to the issue.
I am very curious, as this is my first e-mail game of regular Diplomacy, what
the social edicate is on the issue.
Comments please from the observors/masters etc on the issue.
Edi
=====================================================================
Private message from France to Italy:
As you wish.
> Speaking of negotiating after deadline, Manus, you got abandoned in
> Class2 last night. Please rectify.
>
Sigh. Okay, right after my ten to noon meeting.
Smelling of dirty laundry,
Manus :-(
Speaking of negotiating after deadline, Manus, you got abandoned in
Class2 last night. Please rectify.
Charlie, your friendly GM
My own philospophy on negotiations buring retreats and builds: 100% in favor.
I too feel that the ban on such negotiations is something that should be left
to apply to FTF only. That's the way I run my games and that's the way I play
PBEM.
Stab you soon (using a negotiated build),
Manus
Private message from England to Master:
Jim,
I haven't decided yet whether I'll broadcast anything in response to yours
and Edi's recent broadcast notes.
If I do, you must keep in mind that 'everything is in the context of the
game'! Everything I broadcast is. Private notes to you are extra-game
communications, of course, with no ulterior motives.
You already have my candid comments about unenforceable rules and about
your decisions about negotiating past the deadline. I'll be more than happy
to expand if you have any questions about my views, of course.
Rick Desper gave what should be counted as the Official Judge-players's
Position. The large majority of Judge denizens think it's perfectly ok to
negotiate during minor phases. Rick himself is inclined to think not, but
always goes along with the majority when he's GM-ing.
-Jamie
On negotiations during minor phases:
(Jim)
>Perhaps (since my judge playing experience is not extensive) I share
>Edi's postal view but that is out of step with the majority of you
>Judge players. I also stand to be educated on this issue.
Not at all. The large majority of Judge players, I think it's fair to say,
also find no problem in negotiating during adjustment and retreat phases.
(Rick's account of this is perfectly accurate, in other words.)
Whoever told Edi that he was worried about it was probably lying. Maybe it
was me. Maybe I was talking to Edi on the phone about this. Maybe Edi made
the whole thing up. Seems most likely. Just who does he think he's fooling?
>On a related issue that I have been thinking about.....
>
>my view in general is that rules that are impossible to enforce as
>a GM should be avoided.
I disagree. I would like to know just why you think so, Jim.
My view is this. In a game like Ghodstoo, you can expect players to follow
the rules laid down. So the rules will be largely self-enforcing.
>This issue in general colored my approach to the question of negotiating
>during the grace period after the deadline recently. I also don't
>believe in prohibiting that for similar reasons; HOWEVER, if the player
>or players who are late want to negotiate during the grace period,
>I have asked them to make reasonable requests to me to extend the
>deadline. I am aware of the possibility of trying to "manipulate"
>me and that sort of situation and will make a judgment based on
>my view of reasonableness.
This seems entirely fair.
I myself implore all of the players to be reasonable at all times. I mean,
I hereby do so.
I will always follow the rules as I understand them, always. And I have no
doubt that other players are the same.
Except for Cal.
-Jamie
My feeling has always been that the rule against negotiation was designed
to speed things up, as the rules only allow 5 minutes for builds &
retreats.
So in general, I think this rule fall under the category of "rules which
are not applicable outside of FTF," since, after all, we don;'t enforce the
5 minutes part, so why the no-talking part.
So unless the GM prohibits it, I engage in it w/o qualm.
When I GM I allow it, but I try to enforce the spirit by preventing the use
of SET WAIT during retreat/build phases. Since I see the intent of the
rule to keep the game moving quickly, I think stretching out these phases
to negotiate is poor form.
Andy
p.s. On the other hand, strictly prohibiting communication in these phases
has some interesting unintended game-theoretic side effects. I once saw 2
players left with only one retreat each, to the same spot. They were
trying to stop me from winning by getting a defensible line. If both
retreated to the spot it was just as bad as if neither did. With
communication (which they used) it was an easy matter to resolve (heck, I
won anyway), but w/o communication it would have been a very interestng
Battle of the Sexes type game.
p.p.s. I think having the option to claim: "Regardless of the GMs ruling,
*I* don;t negotiate during retreats and builds" gives a player some stab
room if he wants it.
>
> Broadcast message from [email protected] as Observer in
> 'ghodstoo':
>
> Charlie Eldred, Government Lawyer
>
> P.S. We government lawyers are actually monitoring all e-mail Diplomacy
> games, constantly on the lookout for new blood for the State Department.
> The Dayton Accords were negtiated by 7 people, and 5 of them were
> snacthed from the ranks of e-mail Diplomacy players. If *you* would like
> to be assigned to the Zaire embassy or other exciting locale, winning this
> game is a step in the right direction.
>
I just want to know if this is a promise of a new and exciting career, or
a thinly veiled threat. That last sentence might give me second thoughts
if I were thinking about winning...
James, Naive student
Press during builds/retreats: Of course the AH rules prohibit this.
However, I have only played in one e-mail game (a Chaos game) where
press was actually prohibited during these phases. The master wrote a
program which set the NoPress flag whenever it detected a build or
retreat phase. Of course, there was a small window of opportunity to
send press immediately after a phase would process, and I think the GM
may have actually sanctioned someone for doing it once.
As for press during grace periods, as I've become more experienced in
e-mail play, I've pretty much stopped negotiating during grace periods
unless there is a good reason, or unless it's REALLY important (in which
case I am being a hypocrite, but oh well.) "Good reasons" could be that I
had publicly asked for a reasonable extensoin and the GM never
responded, in which case I have no qualms about negotiating up to the
point where the deadline should have been set, or if another player lost
access for a time or had himself publicly asked for an extension without
receiving a response. Otherwise I am agaisnt it because there needs to
be some point at which negotiation is over with and the game proceeds.
As GM, I tell players that I "don't make a big deal out of negotiating after
the deadline, as long as it isn't abused." I leave this phrase deliberately
vague and I think players get the idea that they shouldn't negotiate after
the deadline. I've never had a problem with players negotiating after the
deadline as GM.
My two cents.
Charlie Eldred, Government Lawyer
P.S. We government lawyers are actually monitoring all e-mail Diplomacy
games, constantly on the lookout for new blood for the State Department.
The Dayton Accords were negtiated by 7 people, and 5 of them were
snacthed from the ranks of e-mail Diplomacy players. If *you* would like
to be assigned to the Zaire embassy or other exciting locale, winning this
game is a step in the right direction.
Re: Press during retreats/builds
This subject came up during one of the Hall9* games, where I
discovered that most emailers have been sending press during
builds/retreats for a very long time. This goes against my feel of
the game, but it is the email tradition.
Rick
Private message from England to Master:
Jim,
I will be out of town, disconnected from the internet altogether, between
Wed. April 23rd and Monday April 28th.
I doubt that I will need any postponement at all. If I do, it would be a
couple of days at most.
I will tell you again in a few weeks (remembering how hard it is to keep
track of these things as a gm).
-Jamie
Private message from Italy to France:
Hi John: England wants me to write you and try to talk you into
attacking Germany. The rationale is that, if Germany decides to
waltz into the (mostly) vacant Russian centres, he may get too
big to be stopped.
Well, I've done what England asked , so my obligation is
fulfilled. I should mention that he has a valid point. Have
you given any thought to a possible attack on Pitt (before or)
after England is toast.
If you have, we should talk about it as it's something we could
conceivably work together on.
Regards
Cal
Private message from Turkey to Italy:
Cal,
> I have no problem with your dislodging the Black Sea fleet; in fact,
> I rather figured you'd want to remove that threat to your shores.
Oh, that's cool. I wasn't sure based on your previous message. I
know Mark's proposed a unified course of action that involved me not
dislodging him in BLA, but I've told him straight up that although I
don't foreclose the possibility of working with him, I'm going to have
to dislodge/destroy him in BLA.
> I'll write a more detailed note this evening about how we can
> coordinate an attack on Edi. I'm quite glad you're reasonably
> amenable to this offer as I feel we can take him down quite quickly.
I think so too.
> I also feel Mark will at least help me with his Galician (or
> Bohemian army) even if you press an attack on him (he wants some
> measure of revenge on Edi...)
I can imagine. ;)
> The way I see MY moves this Spring, I'll probably convoy into Albania.
> Whether I support it or try to attack Trieste is something I'll decide
> AFTER I talk to Mark (and even Edi).
Sounds reasonable. Aren't you concerned about French F MAR, though?
> Assuming you are in Con & Bla with fleets and Rum with an army, as well
> as the (hopeful) success of my moves, we can conceivably put supported
> pressure on Tri, Bul, Gre and maybe even Serbia. What's your take
> on these tactics?
My take on the tactics of the situation are...well, they're completely
muddled. It's a big, huge mess. I do anticipate being in CON, BLA
and RUM, but beyond that, it's a big crapshoot.
I'm glad we have the weekend so I can stew on it some more. ;)
> For the long run, I can see myself having to turn back to face the
> French.
Are you comfortable with the long run, and that he won't press the
attack immediately?
> I can see you having/wanting to proceed further north to
> (continue to) attack Russia. I have no problem with this as I've
> concluded that you make a better long term ally than Mark (we may
> want to see if he'll puppet to us as the ability to build in Stp
> may be vital later).
Thanks. Mark has been rather...quixotic this game.
But in any case, I'll be happy to work with him...so long as he's not
the one in the driver's seat.
> I'm anxious to hear what the ideas were you mentioned. I'm sure we
> can come to an agreement on this.
My thoughts were pretty much along the same lines as yours, I'd take
Mark out of BLA this turn and work with Edi to an extent, hopefully
setting up an ideal stab situation in Fall. I'd be willing to work
with Mark so long as he wasn't directly threatening my security.
I think the convoy to ALB is a good idea, although again, I'm
concerned about your exposure to French perfidy.
If worst comes to worst, and France stabs you, I think that we might
need to work with Edi. Then you, me and him can all try to stave off
the FG. I think in that situation, Edi and I will need to try to off
Mark ASAP, since I suspect he won't be willing (or couldn't be relied
on, anyway) to work in such a situation.
Thoughts?
Hohn
Private message from Turkey to Russia:
Mark,
I've made the unilateral decision that further discussion along these
lines will not be productive at this time. I've told you what I'm
doing. You can do what you choose. I have to go defend "Charlie
Mason Jr.," after all.
Hohn
P.S. IMO, it's not generally a good idea to accuse that your fellow
players, especially in a game where all are experts such as this one,
are gullibly eating someone else's lines without thought.
Private message from Russia to Turkey:
* Hohn: had a transmission error last night; trying again...
From: [email protected] (Mark A Fassio)
Hi again Hohn,
One more quick reply before I unplug myself and then unpack (and put the
kids to bed); will be available all day tomorrow on this juno.com line...
Mark,
You're more than welcome. I'm not sure you fully appreciate why I did
it, though, judging from the tone of the below. I did it because I
want to work with you in the future.
** No, I realize there are two sides to every coin, and this shows a
measure of goodwill for future cooperation. Of course, both of us can
prove (with cynical examples) how being "up front" in 1901 and 1902,
respectively, came to pass regarding "building goodwill forthe
future"....
Nonetheless, the words *are* there; whether they will ever be matched
with actions remain to be seen.
> 2) As of this space in time, I do indeed find you (a) inflexible, (b)
> lacking in ultimate sincerity, or (c) both. I'm sorry if that sounds
> like a double-barrel between the eyes, but I know you're fond of
> straightforward talk, and this is about as straightforward as I get.
Inflexible? As to this upcoming turn? Absolutely.
As for lacking in ultimate sincerity, what possible gain could I
achieve by lying to you about me wanting to blast you out of BLA?
** Oh, I agree. The "ultimate sincerity" allusion was a projection on
my part, for
post-spring moves, Hohn.
> Now I'm trying to make the effort to show -- yet again -- *more*
> sincerity, with a no-kidding "hurt Edi" gameplan (the only thing he
tells
> me he fears, btw).
A gameplan that is too risky on both our parts, IMO. You need to take
me out of SEV. I need to take you out of BLA. That's Spring. Fall
is another ball of wax entirely.
**iYo. IMO, the suggested moves _would_ "take you out" of SEV and "take
me out" of BLA--by putting us at Edi's throat. You just have this
trust hang-up thing flying in a holding pattern, is all.
Understandable, but frustrating. (This is where you throw in another
-shrug-, btw.)
> And you yet again obfuscate and hedge.
???
What is obfuscating or hedging about "I'm taking you out of BLA this
turn." Sounds pretty crystal clear to me.
** NOT this turn. It's the unrealized, "Well, golly gee, after we both
have secure borders ((and I really value a Turk fleet in Bla for MY
security, btw)), maybe then I'll deign to discuss serious options" theme
that
seems to stick with me for some reason...But, as you say, this is spring,
and you are trying to be Mr Flexible for fall....
I'm willing to work with you in the future. Believe it or not, as you
choose.
** I'm trying VERY hard to believe it, despite the tonality my reply
here.
And, as you have (one of your favortie phrases) the 'gun to my head'
tactically, I have no choice BUT to believe it.
> You cite
> 'lack of trust.' Sure, there's a grain of that, on both sides. I for
> one am willing to let it die; I was last turn, and I'll do it again for
> this turn. Why not you?
Because. It's. Too. Risky.
** For. You. Because your trust meter is at zero. I've already
'waived' my risk fear...
I'm in a position to secure my border. You are too. We can hit Edi
in Fall depending on how things turn out. Why take a wildly risky
move instead that could screw _either_ of us if the other stabs?
I'm not willing to take that risk right now. I'm sorry if that's
being too inflexible to you. Personally, I just think it's being
prudent.
** OK; understood. Violent disagreement on my part, but have it your
way. I think we're blowing the perfect turn to establish dominance over
Aus and the board, but if you want Spring Prudence, then I'm merely
shouting into the hurricane.
> I mean, no offense, but I have a lot better things to do than write
move
> options and proposals, just to be cute and never really intend for them
> to be implemented. I wouldn't make this effort if I wasn't sincere,
> Hohn.
Oh come on, Mark. You can't mean this. Because it's demonstrably
false. We spent five times as much time and kilobytes of text hashing
out the Spring 1901 moves and the BLA situation. Despite all that
effort, you weren't sincere. You're not going to convince me that
just because you offer up a detailed proposal, you're going to be
sincere about it.
**No, that part is true. And your kilobytes of correspondence (well,
single binary code, anyway) in 1902 also show that words don't always
equal deeds, I reckon...
But there's that little move of F'02 that I tried to use as a
demonstrative effort. I guessif that didn't convince you, then the
follow-up goodwill message won't, either.
> And what do you think Italy's intent is?! If he's with us, then
> all the better to hurt Edi and break out westward ASAP. And if he's
> been seduced by Edi into an AI, then what better time to break through
> their coalescing front than now? I offer chocoloate fudge chunk, and
> you dish out vanilla in reply.
** Better watch your shoulder, Hohn; Edi and I both had back problems
recently...I wouldn't want you to throw your shoulder out with excessive
shrugging.
Vanilla can be very satisfying, especially when coupled with the
knowledge that you won't get heartburn from the exotic.
** Where's my heave bucket? I'm listening to Fonzie, hanging out at
Edi's House of Whipped Cream.
Or to paraphrase another old adage, "Slow and steady wins the race."
** Well, Monty DID beat Rommel by being plodding and methodical. And
then there's that tortoise and hare thing....You do have history on your
side, Hohn.
> 3) I'm having a hard time convincing myself that you'll ever find it in
> yourself to consider a serious proposal from me, either by design or by
> nature. And that's a shame. A shame for me, because it's my one
> remaining good option to hurt the Grand Master, and a shame for you
> because I think that it offers you more gain than an AT designed to
take
> me out. (But that's just my opinion, naturally.) Oh, you'll take me
out,
> but you'll get nothing for it.
I'm completely willing to consider serious proposals by you. I simply
find this one to be too risky. And I'm telling you up front that is
the case. Again, would you have preferred that I _lie_ to you? What
_possible_ benefit could I gain by telling you the truth, except to
try to pave the way for better relations between us in the future?
** You're absolutely right. The problem is one that was referenced
above,
though. It all comes down to trust, and the fact the each turn, one of
us doesn't completely trust the other. This turn I'm ready to deal, but
you fear bad karma if one of us (I'm assuming it must be me) wouldn't
follow through vs Edi. But after you thrash the crap out of BLA, I'm
supposed to just assume you're then ready to deal. YES, it's completely
logical. I just have to hope that you're sincere in fall....ah, the fall
turn(s)...
> 4) Tell you what: Edi's already said he's staying with the AT unless I
> leave GAL. You go ahead and do what you have to do regarding BLA; I
> can't stop you anyway.
Indeed. And that's what I'm going to do.
** Then do it, and let's see if it dies or goes to RUM.
> IF and when you ever see that RT opening vs A,
> let me know. Give me a real no-kidding sign of commitment, as opposed
> to the "over the next horizon" 'maybes.'
It could happen as early as Fall of this year. But I don't have a
crystal ball, Mark, and I don't know how people are going to move this
season. That's the only reason I can't give you a firmer commitment:
because I don't know how we're all going to be positioned.
** Ok, I buy that.
> But the ball's in your court. Until then, I'll just assume you're
> locked and cocked with Edi for the duration.
As you choose.
** I don't "choose;" that's what you've already dealt me on the table
for spring. YOU need to reshuffle the deck come fall. I'll be waiting
at the table to see if you have an extra ace up your sleeve.
See you tomorrow. Good luck on the motion for retrial, or whatever
Charlie Mason Jr recently filed.
Mark
Actually I will be travelling on Tuesday to go to Sweden and will not be able
to get the results Tuesday night. I will be returning from Sweden March 31.
Please advise details of deadlines.
> Broadcast message from [email protected] as Turkey in 'ghodstoo':
[Rational argument about how rattling someone's cage with hate mail
may be appropriate in some situations (something I don't totally
disagree with, btw) snipped]
> I can see how such rules might be appropriate in a FTF setting, when
> the potential for physical intimidation (real or perceived) might
> otherwise potentially affect the game in an improper fashion, but in a
> text-only medium, I feel such rules are not preferable.
I guess I forgot to mention that I think physical violence is a GREAT
FTF diplomatic tool.
But, then again, I'm 6'4" and 296 pounds... heh heh
Private message from Turkey to Russia:
Mark,
> Am going through my mail queue, and stumbled upon a message from
> you, i.e., your reply to my proposed ITR hit of Edi. You asked for
> my thoughts, so here they are.
> 1) I appreciate your not lying "up front" to me and perpetuating
> this buffoonish game of "gotcha." You could have indeed lied to me
> for your own expense, although quite honestly it would've availed
> you naught, and then I would've just said to you what you earlier
> said to me: "One more lie or attempted stab and we're through this
> game." Nonetheless, you were truthful enough to reject my proposal,
> so I give you that. Thank you.
You're more than welcome. I'm not sure you fully appreciate why I did
it, though, judging from the tone of the below. I did it because I
want to work with you in the future.
> 2) As of this space in time, I do indeed find you (a) inflexible, (b)
> lacking in ultimate sincerity, or (c) both. I'm sorry if that sounds
> like a double-barrel between the eyes, but I know you're fond of
> straightforward talk, and this is about as straightforward as I get.
Inflexible? As to this upcoming turn? Absolutely.
As for lacking in ultimate sincerity, what possible gain could I
achieve by lying to you about me wanting to blast you out of BLA?
> Here you are, warning that one more fib would make things probably
> irreconciliable for the game's duration. So I don't even cover SEV last
> turn, fully intending to show my goodwill. Ok, you got me, and kudos to
> you.
Thanks.
> Now I'm trying to make the effort to show -- yet again -- *more*
> sincerity, with a no-kidding "hurt Edi" gameplan (the only thing he tells
> me he fears, btw).
A gameplan that is too risky on both our parts, IMO. You need to take
me out of SEV. I need to take you out of BLA. That's Spring. Fall
is another ball of wax entirely.
> And you yet again obfuscate and hedge.
???
What is obfuscating or hedging about "I'm taking you out of BLA this
turn." Sounds pretty crystal clear to me.
I'm willing to work with you in the future. Believe it or not, as you
choose.
> You cite
> 'lack of trust.' Sure, there's a grain of that, on both sides. I for
> one am willing to let it die; I was last turn, and I'll do it again for
> this turn. Why not you?
Because. It's. Too. Risky.
I'm in a position to secure my border. You are too. We can hit Edi
in Fall depending on how things turn out. Why take a wildly risky
move instead that could screw _either_ of us if the other stabs?
I'm not willing to take that risk right now. I'm sorry if that's
being too inflexible to you. Personally, I just think it's being
prudent.
> I mean, no offense, but I have a lot better things to do than write move
> options and proposals, just to be cute and never really intend for them
> to be implemented. I wouldn't make this effort if I wasn't sincere,
> Hohn.
Oh come on, Mark. You can't mean this. Because it's demonstrably
false. We spent five times as much time and kilobytes of text hashing
out the Spring 1901 moves and the BLA situation. Despite all that
effort, you weren't sincere. You're not going to convince me that
just because you offer up a detailed proposal, you're going to be
sincere about it.
> And what do you think Italy's intent is?! If he's with us, then
> all the better to hurt Edi and break out westward ASAP. And if he's
> been seduced by Edi into an AI, then what better time to break through
> their coalescing front than now? I offer chocoloate fudge chunk, and
> you dish out vanilla in reply.
Vanilla can be very satisfying, especially when coupled with the
knowledge that you won't get heartburn from the exotic.
Or to paraphrase another old adage, "Slow and steady wins the race."
> 3) I'm having a hard time convincing myself that you'll ever find it in
> yourself to consider a serious proposal from me, either by design or by
> nature. And that's a shame. A shame for me, because it's my one
> remaining good option to hurt the Grand Master, and a shame for you
> because I think that it offers you more gain than an AT designed to take
> me out. (But that's just my opinion, naturally.) Oh, you'll take me out,
> but you'll get nothing for it.
I'm completely willing to consider serious proposals by you. I simply
find this one to be too risky. And I'm telling you up front that is
the case. Again, would you have preferred that I _lie_ to you? What
_possible_ benefit could I gain by telling you the truth, except to
try to pave the way for better relations between us in the future?
> 4) Tell you what: Edi's already said he's staying with the AT unless I
> leave GAL. You go ahead and do what you have to do regarding BLA; I
> can't stop you anyway.
Indeed. And that's what I'm going to do.
> IF and when you ever see that RT opening vs A,
> let me know. Give me a real no-kidding sign of commitment, as opposed
> to the "over the next horizon" 'maybes.'
It could happen as early as Fall of this year. But I don't have a
crystal ball, Mark, and I don't know how people are going to move this
season. That's the only reason I can't give you a firmer commitment:
because I don't know how we're all going to be positioned.
> I'd LOVE to make it happen, to
> remove the big Balkan threat and then to turn attention to the forming
> FG.
I agree.
> But the ball's in your court. Until then, I'll just assume you're
> locked and cocked with Edi for the duration.
As you choose.
Hohn
Private message from Italy to Turkey:
> Message from [email protected] as Turkey to Italy in 'ghodstoo':
> > The way I see MY moves this Spring, I'll probably convoy into Albania.
> > Whether I support it or try to attack Trieste is something I'll decide
> > AFTER I talk to Mark (and even Edi).
>
> Sounds reasonable. Aren't you concerned about French F MAR, though?
Oh yeah, big time, but I have to either go whole hog against Edi or
forget
it. I don't feel I can afford to be wishy washy at this time.
I have slight reason to believe that France won't use that fleet against
me THIS turn and (probably) not the next. Call it a hunch from
something
he (and England) wrote. Okay, it's a slim hope, but my reasons in the
last paragraph still stand.
> My take on the tactics of the situation are...well, they're completely
> muddled. It's a big, huge mess. I do anticipate being in CON, BLA
> and RUM, but beyond that, it's a big crapshoot.
Oh, I agree. (So why'd you ask me to give my take on things? grin)
> I'm glad we have the weekend so I can stew on it some more. ;)
I think our general rule of thumb for this turn is:
1) I attack Austria and get as much position as I can
2) You attack Russia while trying to get your own position to attack
Edi.
Once Fall comes, we make our move. Presumably Edi will be paying so
much attention to Russia and I, you can waltz in and deliver a real
coupe de grace.
> > For the long run, I can see myself having to turn back to face the
> > French.
>
> Are you comfortable with the long run, and that he won't press the
> attack immediately?
Nope, but I have to concentrate on one thing at a time now. Hopefully,
if he DOES, I'll be able to get a build or two to repulse him with.
Actually, I'll appreciate it if you keep that scenario in mind should
he move that fleet anywhere BUT Spain(sc)
> > I can see you having/wanting to proceed further north to
> > (continue to) attack Russia. I have no problem with this as I've
> > concluded that you make a better long term ally than Mark (we may
> > want to see if he'll puppet to us as the ability to build in Stp
> > may be vital later).
>
> Thanks. Mark has been rather...quixotic this game.
>
> But in any case, I'll be happy to work with him...so long as he's not
> the one in the driver's seat.
>
> > I'm anxious to hear what the ideas were you mentioned. I'm sure we
> > can come to an agreement on this.
>
> My thoughts were pretty much along the same lines as yours, I'd take
> Mark out of BLA this turn and work with Edi to an extent, hopefully
> setting up an ideal stab situation in Fall. I'd be willing to work
> with Mark so long as he wasn't directly threatening my security.
>
> I think the convoy to ALB is a good idea, although again, I'm
> concerned about your exposure to French perfidy.
>
> If worst comes to worst, and France stabs you, I think that we might
> need to work with Edi. Then you, me and him can all try to stave off
> the FG. I think in that situation, Edi and I will need to try to off
> Mark ASAP, since I suspect he won't be willing (or couldn't be relied
> on, anyway) to work in such a situation.
>
> Thoughts?
As to the above paragraph, it will depend on how strongly he stabs me.
If it's just the single fleet, I'd prefer to keep up the attack on
Austria. To be honest, I'd rather NOT work with Edi if at all possible.
Simply put if you, Edi and I have to ally against F/G, I'd very
definitely end up as the junior partner. Not to my liking... :)
Anyway, let's see how this turn shapes up. Damn, these deadlines
are starting to seem WAY too far apart. If you have any ideas
after the weekend, please pass them on.
Regards
Cal
Private message from Russia to Turkey:
Hohn
Am going through my mail queue, and stumbled upon a message from you,
i.e., your reply to my proposed ITR hit of Edi. You asked for my
thoughts, so here they are.
1) I appreciate your not lying "up front" to me and perpetuating this
buffoonish game of "gotcha." You could have indeed lied to me for your
own expense, although quite honestly it would've availed you naught, and
then I would've just said to you what you earlier said to me: "One more
lie or attempted stab and we're through this game." Nonetheless, you
were truthful enough to reject my proposal, so I give you that. Thank
you.
2) As of this space in time, I do indeed find you (a) inflexible, (b)
lacking in ultimate sincerity, or (c) both. I'm sorry if that sounds
like a double-barrel between the eyes, but I know you're fond of
straightforward talk, and this is about as straightforward as I get.
Here you are, warning that one more fib would make things probably
irreconciliable for the game's duration. So I don't even cover SEV last
turn, fully intending to show my goodwill. Ok, you got me, and kudos to
you. Now I'm trying to make the effort to show -- yet again -- *more*
sincerity, with a no-kidding "hurt Edi" gameplan (the only thing he tells
me he fears, btw). And you yet again obfuscate and hedge. You cite
'lack of trust.' Sure, there's a grain of that, on both sides. I for
one am willing to let it die; I was last turn, and I'll do it again for
this turn. Why not you?
I mean, no offense, but I have a lot better things to do than write move
options and proposals, just to be cute and never really intend for them
to be implemented. I wouldn't make this effort if I wasn't sincere,
Hohn. And what do you think Italy's intent is?! If he's with us, then
all the better to hurt Edi and break out westward ASAP. And if he's
been seduced by Edi into an AI, then what better time to break through
their coalescing front than now? I offer chocoloate fudge chunk, and
you dish out vanilla in reply.
3) I'm having a hard time convincing myself that you'll ever find it in
yourself to consider a serious proposal from me, either by design or by
nature. And that's a shame. A shame for me, because it's my one
remaining good option to hurt the Grand Master, and a shame for you
because I think that it offers you more gain than an AT designed to take
me out. (But that's just my opinion, naturally.) Oh, you'll take me out,
but you'll get nothing for it.
4) Tell you what: Edi's already said he's staying with the AT unless I
leave GAL. You go ahead and do what you have to do regarding BLA; I
can't stop you anyway. IF and when you ever see that RT opening vs A,
let me know. Give me a real no-kidding sign of commitment, as opposed
to the "over the next horizon" 'maybes.' I'd LOVE to make it happen, to
remove the big Balkan threat and then to turn attention to the forming
FG. But the ball's in your court. Until then, I'll just assume you're
locked and cocked with Edi for the duration.
Mark
With respect to the "profanity and civility" issue, I for one would
never play in a PBEM game where any purported regulation of such
conduct was in place. I'm a dedicated free speech advocate, and
moreover, I feel that there are times when both profanity and
allegedly "uncivil" press can be tactically useful. Very few words
can capture the strength and elegance of a simple "bullshit," when
appropriately used. And when some player (usually of questionable
competence) tries to justify clearly incorrect or silly moves or
decisions (especially if that player tries to persuade others as to
the correctness of the position), there's often nothing like a little
satire and ridicule to deflate that position.
Is it "nice?" No, not always. But I'm willing to accept the
consequences of my actions, even if that means I have to deal with a
suicidal game-thrower in the long-run. It's about advantages weighing
against the disadvantages, in my opinion.
I can see how such rules might be appropriate in a FTF setting, when
the potential for physical intimidation (real or perceived) might
otherwise potentially affect the game in an improper fashion, but in a
text-only medium, I feel such rules are not preferable.
Hohn
Private message from Turkey to England:
Jamie,
I think I'm going to dislodge BLA and watch and see what happens in
Spring, before I decide what to do in Fall and long-term.
Good luck on your defense. I hope you can stymie Pitt. :)
Hohn
Private message from Russia to Turkey:
Hohn,
Ref below...
I've made the unilateral decision that further discussion along these
lines will not be productive at this time. I've told you what I'm
doing. You can do what you choose.
** Indeed you have (thanks again) and indeed I will. I'm just tring to
'diplome' with some correspondence and to discuss(in the initial
messages) why you ddn't like the proposal. Then I tried to give you my
spin to your views in a reply. If you don't see value in it (for just
spring, I hope?), then fine, I'll stop bothering you.
P.S. IMO, it's not generally a good idea to accuse that your fellow
players, especially in a game where all are experts such as this one,
are gullibly eating someone else's lines without thought.
** Come on, Hohn, really! First off, word are just another weapon,
something you -- Mr Free Speech Advocate--should certainly understand.
((Ref your earlier broadcast message about profanity and use of words as
weapons in a game)) Don't be so testy over a game tool. I'm not
impugning your intelligence; you ARE a lawyer, after all, something whch
requires independent thought and "smarts."
** Secondly, _I do NOT_ see anyone here as "gullibly eating someone
else's lines without thought." Hey, I know no one put a gun to your head
(or mine) to make the moves you (or I) did. We make the beds we lie in.
And your very offer of 'something' after S'02 keeps the door open for
future cooperative efforts (if we can get past these notes)! I would
just like to see some of the "old (S'01) Hohn" and some moves
recommendations, instead of "I'm afraid I can't comment on that" and
"your moves are too risky." But I digress...After the moves, if you want
to deal, I'm here. Always will be.
Mark
>
> Broadcast message from [email protected] as Austria in 'ghodstoo':
>
>
> Actually I will be travelling on Tuesday to go to Sweden and will not be able
> to get the results Tuesday night. I will be returning from Sweden March 31.
>
> Please advise details of deadlines.
>
The deadline for the next season will remain on Tuesday evening, the 25th.
Following that, if retreats are due, that deadline will be pushed back
to the following Tuesday evening April 1st (April Fool's Day????).
If retreats are not due, I will tentatively set the movement deadline
for Friday night April 4th and await further input if that is not
satisfactory.
Your friendly GM who wishes he wee running away to World Dip Con...
Jim
Private message from Russia to Austria:
Edi, before you head out...
Any chance of an 11th hour reconciliation between us? By this, I mean:
1) I call off Cal (maybe even send him to TYO this turn and go after
MUN?)
2) You "perhaps" use Bul-Rum (Bud S) to annihilate RUM (knowing that
Hohn's using both fleets to kill BLA)
a) This is in conjunction with Gal-Ukr, Ukr-Sev (Mos S), Bla-Arm
b) Not only do you breathe easier in the west, but you also
achieve your goal of having me vacate GAL...AND you get RUM, to boot!
c) Hohn gets BLA, and has all of three centers to do nothing.
d) Come fall, you use Gre S Rum-Bul to bounce any two-fleet
turkish threat to BUL.
ANOTHER OPTION:
You support me (GAL- RUM!) with BUL. This lets you keep vie-Tyo, Bud S
Tri (or however you envision Cal's coming assault). This (again) gets
me out of Gal; allows me to reconquer Rum and SEv, and then--THEN--I will
rebuild for an anti-German war, and you can run amok down south after
that...take it all, for all I care.
I'll tell you the reason I'm saying this:
You and Hohn have both displayed an amazing recalcitrance to talk
options. i'm boxed-in, and we all know it. germany's move of Mun-Tyo is
problematic at best. if I'm hit in GAL, I *will* retreat to BOH and make
my last gasps be anti-Austrian, to Hohn's and Pitt's gain.
I'm not saying the above in any sort of hissy-fit. You're a damn fine
player, and this threat is one of the few (pitiful) weapons of persuasion
left in my arsenal. I have to try and use whatever's left to get my
point across.
I can and will work with you down south, but you haven't offered any
CONSTRUCTIVE options since S'01, and I have a hunch those were to ensure
you became top-dog down there.
I mean, you and Hohn can stay allied, and I'll just divert centers to T
and G for as long as possible. Or you and I can deal (even in a 70-30
split) and you'll forever be freed of an eastern flank threat.
Can you say the same for Hohn after F'02, with that fleet of his in BLA
and all those units next to you, and "no moreMark to kick around
anymore?"
I'd be curious to hear your views, Edi. I'll go halfway with you on
this, to the point of even working with Italy over your perceived
threats.
Mark
Private message from Russia to Italy:
Hi Cal
One quick note before I return to grading papers...
1) If you're after Edi this turn, do you want me to hit Bud or Vie (or
concentrate on Gal-Rum to retake SEV)? Can we convince Edi to cover Tyo
(i.e., have him think you're moving Ven-Tyo, Apu-ven (Adr S)? if so,
then I can hit Bud, you can take TRI, and then who knows?
2) If the Edi thing won't work for a turn, how about this? You go to
Ven-Tyo, Adr-Ven (temporarily, in case Edi gets frisky), and do the
convoy to ALB. I hang around in GAL (Edi 'says" he might let me linger
there, for obvious anti-T overtones...yeah, right). if he does, then you
and I hit VIE in Fall. if he does hit me, then I retreat to SIL, and
support you to MUN (or you take it and I shoot for BER).
Wacky? Nutty? Sure. But so's waiting around for thec unbreakable AT
axe to fall on my neck. The letters between Hohn and I are once again
approaching critical meltdown, and I'm stumped by it. I'm sure he's a
swel human, but I can't get past the tone of his letters, and i'm sure my
responses (in kind) are perceived equally dimly. I'm not sure our
personalities will allow us to deal in a game (ironic, ain't it)?
He (Tur) wants to destroy me F BLA and then see what's available come
fall. If he's being on the up-and-up, great, perhaps we can wait a turn.
If not, then I'll collapse quickly. And if Germany orders Kie-Den and
slides into nwy behind me in spring, then I'm hosed anyway (hence my
Germany option above, however ludicrous).
Any ideas, suggestions, or recommendations for joint policy? Quite
honestly, everyone's expecting me to go Gal-Rum, Ukr S Mos-Sev, Bla-Arm,
and then retake SEV. I can thus support you in your needs, if you want.
I don't care at this stage, frankly.
Allies to the End
Tsar Faz
Private message from Turkey to Russia:
Mark,
> P.S. IMO, it's not generally a good idea to accuse that your fellow
> players, especially in a game where all are experts such as this one,
> are gullibly eating someone else's lines without thought.
>
> ** Come on, Hohn, really! First off, word are just another weapon,
> something you -- Mr Free Speech Advocate--should certainly understand.
Certainly. That's not the point, though.
> ((Ref your earlier broadcast message about profanity and use of words as
> weapons in a game)) Don't be so testy over a game tool.
I'm of the opinion that certain game tools are more effective than
others depending on the situation. In an expert's game, it's not
generally a good idea to imply mindless puppetdom, IMO.
That's my opinion. Take it for what it's worth. And you again
mistake bluntness for some sort of anger/annoyance/testiness, which is
not the case.
> I'm not
> impugning your intelligence; you ARE a lawyer, after all, something whch
> requires independent thought and "smarts."
Actually, considering some of the lawyers I've dealt with, that's
hardly a general rule. ;)
> I would
> just like to see some of the "old (S'01) Hohn"
The one that got stabbed by you...
> and some moves
> recommendations, instead of "I'm afraid I can't comment on that" and
> "your moves are too risky."
I've made move recommendations. Take SEV. I'll take BLA. Anything
beyond that is neither necessary nor prudent. We don't need to know
the particulars, since the tactical situation dictates variability.
As for why I couldn't comment before, and why I've been wary in my
dealings with you, there's a reason for that, Mark.
Hohn
> Your friendly GM who wishes he were running away to World Dip Con...
>
Don't despair, Jim. Pitt, Edi, and I will drink a toast to you on
the shores of the Skagerrak. :-)
Just rubbing it in,
Manus
Private message from Russia to Italy:
Duce,
Fazfam? Isn't this a new address? Or is my memory going? (Yeah, I
know,
but I mean even more than usual).
** It's a new address for my home system, now that I reconfigured my
modem and destroyed my remote address for my work system in the
process...sigh. This one works anytime, although I have to contunually
log on to access new messages...so I'll have a bazillion 20-second phone
accesses to get/send mail....
Glad your vacation was good. Sounds like a lot of fun. I think I'll go
away somewhere to... grin
** I hear Albania and/or Trieste are pretty nice this time of year -grin-
>I'm getting much the same from them. I do not believe they are
cross-gaming
(and I'm a little surprised you would even imply that), but I simply
think
it's a case of two good players being convinced that allying (at least
for
now) is in their own best interests. I'll keep trying though and let
you
know if I'm making progress.
** I agree. Still, it's frustrating when you and I KNOW that, by
following the RI suggestions, Edi would be in a severe state of
hurt...and that the only thing preventing our tactical salvation is a
recalcitrant Turk who has the stubbornness to want to be driving the
train, all the time, every time.
> Pitt wants me to move to NWG and take his chances with the convoy
and/or
> retreat to open center. He's giving me the morale pep-talks about
> 'continuing to hold on' (Berlin 1945 springs to mind for some
reason...);
> also tells me he 'can't let E off the hook' by building/moving to TYO.
> Of course, he also wants me to fight on because his flank is open to AT
> (but not open enough to worry about it himself)! He's also concerned
> about France (wonder why) and doesn't want to divert his attention from
> the western front.
I am worried about Pitt too, insofar as he would have much to gain by
taking
your (virtually) undefended centres, but I think he's telling the truth
when
he sayd he wants to finish England off first. It's a case of wanting to
establish a corner position on the board (vital for any central power as
y'all know) and NOT leave a hostile, or potentially so, neighbour behind
him.
** Again, agreed. France is the big question mark. I'm going to be
quiet towards Pitt (I'll shelve the wacky/zany/bizarre plans for the
SIL/TYO on Mun grabs for now...) and worry about the south.
> He SAYS he wants to annhiliate BLA (while 'letting' me regain either
SEV
> or RUM), and after that, we can "begin to discuss possible options."
> I told him to do what he felt needed done, and that if he ever woke up
> and saw the benefits in hitting Edi, that I'd be around. I'm not
> holding my breath (I'm already brain-damaged enough as it is).
>Hohn has told me that he hasn't ruled out working with you in the
future,
but that it will be on his terms with him in the driver's seat. Given
the way you guys talk to each other and the fact that you have stabbed
him 2wice, I can understand his attitude. In light of the fact that
Germany WILL hit you eventually, you may have to put up with this for
a while until we can maneuver Hohn into position to be attacked
(assuming
this EVER happens; he's a pretty wary player).
** I understand fully his nervousness. The aggravating thing, in my
humble opinion, is:
Yeah, I stabbed him twice under the siren song of Edi. You moved vs
France in 1901; should he mistrust and begrduge you for the rest of the
game, on his terms?
I've, as they say, reformed, and last turn was the signal that I
((anyway)) was willing to accept the New Order..
So what does this all imply? He can carry the grudge of my 1901 stabs to
the grave while *I* just suck up his 1902 stab and accept everything on
his terms, when he's good and ready? "Not." The (real) Germans may
have to live with decades of guilt trips for the Holocaust, but I'm not
letting him smear me for the duration of this game. Hohn carries his own
moral smudges after last turn, as far as I'm concerned. Fact is, though,
I've put it past me, but he hasn't seemed to purge his ghosts yet....oh
well, maybe after he spanks BLA, the world will be so much brighter
(yeah, right).
In all honesty, I think Hohn and I have similar "off-board"
personalities, and that we're clashing on non-game issues. He's a clear
Type A, blunt, "on my terms" kind of guy, and I've got that old military
thing about planning strategy and giving orders...anal-retentive in my
own right. Mix two north poles on the same magnet, throw in a couple
stabs (three, to be exact), and you have the current situation. Still,
we are talking, and if we ever do work together, Edi's days are clearly
numbered. And then you and I have to figure out a way to stretch his
neck on the block and throttle the s*** out of him.
Oh well, one crisis at a time!
** based on your earlier note (and my crazy GER option here), I think
I'll just use Gal to hit RUM and regain SEV. My big fear is: Rum-Ukr
while I use Ukr-Sev, Mos S (the only sure way I can get Sev, btw). Then
I have Turkey completely surrounding Sev, on the border of WAR, and Edi
possibly in GAL.... that's one reason I could use some hitting of TYO
this turn, as it forces Vie or BUD to support TRI (thus keeping his
centers occupied and also keeping GAL in my hands for the fall season...)
** Oh, tactics question: I know I said I'd not bother Pitt, but let me
ask you: Jamie wants me to support Edi-Nth, to bust up the convoy and
commit vs Pitt. Says that Pitt's moving to Den anyway with F Kie (I was
hoping for Hel), and that I may as well help him. Your thoughts? I
mean, if I help Pitt by Nwy-Nwg, Pitt can take Swe and Nwy in fall,
regardless....decisions, decisions.
** Last point: the cross-gaming reference last note. It wasn't meant to
be an accusation. I just figure it this way ((bear with me here)): this
is the first time I've ever crossed swords with anyone in this game. Edi
and Pitt go back a long way, and will be en route to WorldCon very soon
together. Edi and Hohn are/have played in a previous game recently,
allying I believe. I just speak from frustration, because I view myself
as the "blue-collar schmuck who became nouveaux riche by winning the
lottery," and I'm now in the fancy mansion at a party with all the REAL
"pros from Dover" (that's you guys) who greet each other as old
associates and buds, while I feel out of place. It's silly, I realize,
because no one in this game has ever 'talked down" or made me feel like I
didn't belong...but I feel like I'm on the outside looking in at guys
with ties going years back...makes it easy to feel like there's big
conspiracies and "old boy" dealings.
I know, I know, "Faz, you're a knucklehead, and therapy's
cheap"...actually, beers are cheaper, and I'm gonna go have one now.
Enjoy your day, mon ami.
hang in there, noble Eyetie; prosperity is "just ariound the corner."
Tsar Faz
Private message from Italy to Germany:
Hi Pitt: Just thought we should stay in touch even though there's
not a lot we can do this season.
France initially warned me that he would have to build a fleet
in Marseilles. I told him I didn't like it much but it was
very obvious that it was really build option. No problem.
THEN he sends me an offer to move his fleet my way in order to
"help" me against Edi. I told him that I was NOT at all
sanguine enough about my strategic position to want anything
to do with THAT.
What I'd like to ask you is your take on this. Do you think
he'll send the fleet my way anyway? He sent me a very curt
note saying he wouldn't (and seemed "hurt" that I didn't want
his help), but I don't know if I can believe him. Admittedly,
I don't suppose I can trust his ally (you! heh heh) for a straight
answer either, but I'm gonna try anyway. What's up?
On this front, things are still quite muddled so I won't pass
on any (probably) incorrect rumours. You probably know as much
as I do anyway.
Regards
Cal
btw, have a nice time in Sweden. If you see Per Westling, tell
him I said hello. Thanx CW
Private message from Italy to Russia:
> Message from [email protected] as Russia to England and Italy in 'ghodstoo':
Fazfam? Isn't this a new address? Or is my memory going? (Yeah, I
know,
but I mean even more than usual).
Glad your vacation was good. Sounds like a lot of fun. I think I'll go
away somewhere to... grin
> Got a most disappointing reply from Hohn (and from Pitt) on my "squash
> Edi" plan. Not that Hohn and Edi and Pitt would ever cross-game, or NOT
> consider hitting each other, mind you -- but they're going to
> extraordinary lengths to find reasons why they "just can't' consider my
> recommendations....
I'm getting much the same from them. I do not believe they are
cross-gaming
(and I'm a little surprised you would even imply that), but I simply
think
it's a case of two good players being convinced that allying (at least
for
now) is in their own best interests. I'll keep trying though and let
you
know if I'm making progress.
> Pitt wants me to move to NWG and take his chances with the convoy and/or
> retreat to open center. He's giving me the morale pep-talks about
> 'continuing to hold on' (Berlin 1945 springs to mind for some reason...);
> also tells me he 'can't let E off the hook' by building/moving to TYO.
> Of course, he also wants me to fight on because his flank is open to AT
> (but not open enough to worry about it himself)! He's also concerned
> about France (wonder why) and doesn't want to divert his attention from
> the western front.
I am worried about Pitt too, insofar as he would have much to gain by
taking
your (virtually) undefended centres, but I think he's telling the truth
when
he sayd he wants to finish England off first. It's a case of wanting to
establish a corner position on the board (vital for any central power as
y'all know) and NOT leave a hostile, or potentially so, neighbour behind
him.
> Turkey continues to drone on about how we 'can't trust each other enough'
> to do the moves I recommended in conjunction with Cal vs. Edi. I took
> him to task on that one - told him I had better things to do than write
> reams of proposed, SUCCESSFUL moves just to be cute and never intend to
> follow through. I told him he was inflexible and recalcitrant, and that
> he probably never intends to break the AT paradigm....how's that foe
> encouraging words?
You certainly have a way with the diplomatic "sweet talk"...
> He SAYS he wants to annhiliate BLA (while 'letting' me regain either SEV
> or RUM), and after that, we can "begin to discuss possible options."
> I told him to do what he felt needed done, and that if he ever woke up
> and saw the benefits in hitting Edi, that I'd be around. I'm not
> holding my breath (I'm already brain-damaged enough as it is).
Hohn has told me that he hasn't ruled out working with you in the
future,
but that it will be on his terms with him in the driver's seat. Given
the way you guys talk to each other and the fact that you have stabbed
him 2wice, I can understand his attitude. In light of the fact that
Germany WILL hit you eventually, you may have to put up with this for
a while until we can maneuver Hohn into position to be attacked
(assuming
this EVER happens; he's a pretty wary player).
> FOR CAL: Whatever option you'd like in the east is ok by me.
> Unfortunately, when I lose GAL and BLA, cooperative efforts will be
> severely constrained (until ((unless)) the 7th Kaiser's Kavarly rides to
> Little Big Horn AFTER the massacre).
>
> Hey, we could go Ven-Tyo, Gal r SIL, and then put the F'03 whammy on MUN
> in conjunction with anything France might do. It might be crazy enough
> to consider????
Yes, you are... heh heh
> Speaking of France, has anyone heard what he's up to? I have 35 messages
> in the queue, so perhaps I'll withhold further talk until I scope the
> stuff out. But if he built F MAR, well...let's HOPE there's not an FG!
>
> I welcome any and all discussion, as always, mes amis. Take care of
> yourselves.
>
> Tsar Faz
> Wested and Wewaxed (to cite Bawbwa Wawa and Elmer Fudd)
ttyl
Cal
Private message from Italy to Russia:
Damn! Computer had a premature e-mail ejaculation again. Here's the
rest
of what I was saying:
> Message from [email protected] as Russia to Italy in 'ghodstoo':
> Any ideas, suggestions, or recommendations for joint policy? Quite
> honestly, everyone's expecting me to go Gal-Rum, Ukr S Mos-Sev, Bla-Arm,
> and then retake SEV. I can thus support you in your needs, if you want.
> I don't care at this stage, frankly.
I'm too lazy to re-arrange the blox myself, but if that's the better
centre-saving option for you go ahead with that. The slower you
lose centres, the longer you'll be around to take advantage of
shifting board dynamics.
ttyl
Cal
Private message from Italy to Russia:
> Message from [email protected] as Russia to Italy in 'ghodstoo':
>
> 1) If you're after Edi this turn, do you want me to hit Bud or Vie (or
> concentrate on Gal-Rum to retake SEV)? Can we convince Edi to cover Tyo
> (i.e., have him think you're moving Ven-Tyo, Apu-ven (Adr S)? if so,
> then I can hit Bud, you can take TRI, and then who knows?
I don't want to see Edi in Tyrolia, so if you would hit Vienna, I would
appreciate it. That way, if he DOES get to tyo, then he would have to
use that army to try and get back (or cover) Vienna. Cool with you?
> 2) If the Edi thing won't work for a turn, how about this? You go to
> Ven-Tyo, Adr-Ven (temporarily, in case Edi gets frisky), and do the
> convoy to ALB. I hang around in GAL (Edi 'says" he might let me linger
> there, for obvious anti-T overtones...yeah, right). if he does, then you
> and I hit VIE in Fall. if he does hit me, then I retreat to SIL, and
> support you to MUN (or you take it and I shoot for BER).
> Wacky? Nutty? Sure. But so's waiting around for thec unbreakable AT
> axe to fall on my neck. The letters between Hohn and I are once again
> approaching critical meltdown, and I'm stumped by it. I'm sure he's a
> swel human, but I can't get past the tone of his letters, and i'm sure my
> responses (in kind) are perceived equally dimly. I'm not sure our
> personalities will allow us to deal in a game (ironic, ain't it)?
That plan is a bit too wacky for me, although if I was in your position,
I'd probably suggest the same. While I'm hardly a major power in this
game, I still have some position in the game. No one is attacking (yet)
and I have some potential expansion avenues in Austria. Therefore, I'd
just as soon not get to that "what the hell, let's try this and see how
much fun it is" stage. I don't think that you are either, but that's
your own perception. The way this game has changed yearly (hell,
SEASONALLY!), nobody is totally out of it yet. Hang in there, buddy! :)
> He (Tur) wants to destroy me F BLA and then see what's available come
> fall. If he's being on the up-and-up, great, perhaps we can wait a turn.
> If not, then I'll collapse quickly. And if Germany orders Kie-Den and
> slides into nwy behind me in spring, then I'm hosed anyway (hence my
> Germany option above, however ludicrous).
I think that once Hohn has taken out your offending fleet, he'll be a
whole lot more reasonable. My guess is that, once he feels more secure
in his borders, he'll at least start to think about anti-Austrianess on
his part. I hope...
> Any ideas, suggestions, or recommendations for joint policy? Quite
> honestly, everyone's expecting me to go Gal-Rum, Ukr S Mos-Sev, Bla-Arm,
> and then retake SEV. I can thus support you in your needs, if you want.
> I don't care at this stage, frankly.
If you want to do this instead of hitting Vienna, by all means go ahead.
I don't have the board set up as Shitbutt McKitten has been up on the
table playing with the wooden blox again and I'm too lazy to re-arrange
them myself
> Allies to the End
> Tsar Faz
Private message from Russia to France:
Hi John
Just wanted to report that I'm back from a most relaxing vacation, and
now back in the 'acedemic grind' of grading papers and such; lovely.
Hope this finds you doing well.
Have you been giving much thought to the "E vs G" position of your nation
(a rhetorical question, I'm sure)!? You must realize from a Russian
standpoint, that I'd love to see an FIE vs G, to balance the board, keep
Pitt quiescent in terms of greed, and to secure both your country (all
those guys in your nation....) and mine (so many open centers to strive
for...). If you're more inclined to go "pro-Germany," then that means
i'll need to adjust my policies as well, to try and pick up some scraps
and whatot before you guys subsume me, and probably Italy.
Regardless of France's stance, I wish you well. I thought I was pullin
a fast one, subverting Edi's grand plan for rapid FT dismemberment, but
lo and behold, the only "fast" activity is my rapid dismemberment at the
hands of Edi the Ethereal and Hohn the Merciless (lawyers; gag).
Anything France can do to help its autocratic empire to the East would be
gratefully appreciated, it goes without saying.
Good hunting, monsieur!
Tsar Faz
Private message from Russia to England:
GKJ,
Ref your reply to my note:
Yes, there indeed *are* chances that I would support you in fall. More
than likely, my support will indeed be forthcoming in fall.
In fact, I was reconsidering stuff after I sent you the first note. I'm
not sure whether to just "end the misery" quickly, and thus GOAD Pitt
into attacking me (i.e., a spring support of you), or to wait until fall
and then offer support.
I mean, my position is far from crushed, but in all honesty, real-life is
making it hard for me to keep up correspondence...or interest... in this
one. I had second thoughts about joining this, but decided to stick it
out as a favor to Jim-Bob, and I did, after all, volunteer in the first
place. While I don't yet rue the day I signed up, let's just say it's
not going to ruin my life if I get (or incite) a blow-out of my positio,
so I can wind down some games and concentrate on trying to do my real job
and balance some family time.
I say all this because right now I'm having an internal debate whether to
"play it to the hilt" and gut out the turns, trying to wean away the A/T,
balance in favor of E and I, gain some centers (natch), etc, OR to say
"strategy? what strategy?" and just have some wild-a** fun...don't want
to ruin it for the other "Serious Sams" if I do the latter, however...not
being a regular in PBEM, I don't want to violate any "ghods-type" norms
or mores... -grin-
But yes, Jamie, I'm not going over to 'the dark side' and ignoring you.
I want to see what G and T do in spring (especially G). I mean, it's
problematic if Hohn screws me in fall -- I won't know 'till it happens.
But if Pitt goes to Den in spring, then it's not so hard to read the tea
leaves...Things could be a -rumblin' come autumn... Hang in there, mon
ami.
Tsar Faz
Private message from England to Russia:
Are there any circumstances at all under which you'd support a move of mine
in the Fall?
GKJ
Private message from Russia to England:
GKJ,
Have been looking over all the moves possibilities and whatnot. I wanted
to send this early, and let you know I don't think I can provide support
for your Edi-Nth. I don't know what I'm going to do with Nwy yet,
but--given Hohn's foot-dragging and uncertainty, Edi's outright
acknowledgment of war, and my desire to stay solvent to continue to help
Italy-I think it's prudent not to pick another fight (Pitt) at this
stage. Not until I see Den-Swe (as opposed to perhaps Hel?) and any
other signs of overt aggression from him. I mean, why anger yet another
neighbor? He merely then retreats to Ska (or Nwg) and unleashes his dogs
of war. At least that's the view from StP, however muddled.
My plan is to see what France does this turn, as well as the results of
down south. If Hohn is "with" me in fall, I can go +1 from the
annihilated F Bla, and life will be hunky-dory (I may also yet retreat
to SIL from GAL, if Edi boots me, depending on what Pitt does).
Can you not go Edi-Yor, Ech-Lon, and forestall the convoy? I mean, I
doubt that Germany will try for Edi on an 'end-around." or am I being
naive?
While not wanting to enrage you on this, a sunny Sunday morning in NY, I
thought it best to at least give you a heads-up two days prior to the
moves, me hearty.
The Increasingly-Late-for-Church Tsar Faz
Private message from England to Russia:
On the board:
Here's what I think.
First of all, if I were mad at you and decided I would really like to see
you crash and burn before I did, I would strongly suggest that you move to
Nwg. Because I really think this would be the best way to get Germany to
shift targets. If he thinks he can grab Scandinavia and StP from you,
letting Turkey and Austria clean out the rest of you, I am almost sure
he'll do it. It gives him a relatively secure position (Germany always
hankers after security), very quick builds, and from there he would have no
trouble at all finishing *me* off. So that would not be very good for me at
all, but it would be worse for you. Well, naturally, I may have misjudged
Pitt. Maybe he really wants you to hang around. Sure. :)
Suppose we consider what the board looks like if you just hold in Norway.
Pitt attempts a convoy over Nth; maybe it works, maybe it fails (he and I
have to guess). His new fleet goes to Denmark. So it's Ger F Nth, Ger F
Den, Rus F Nwy. You have to guess whether he will order Den-Swe. If you
move Nwy-Swe, he could convoy an army into Norway through Nth! Disaster.
You would *have* to guess right. (Would Pitt instead use the F Nth against
me? I don't think so. If he's managed to convoy, then I cannot possibly
prevent him from taking one of my centers. If he hasn't managed it, then he
cannot possibly take one of my centers. The F Nth is irrelevant for taking
my centers in the Fall.)
Suppose instead that you support my F Edi into Nth. Now Pitt has to choose
a retreat. Maybe he retreats to Ska (seems as plausible as any retreat).
And now, again, you have to outguess him. He could support an attack on
Sweden. But, I can cut any support he gives (but only by guessing right).
You could order Nwy-Swe, and I would order Nth-Ska or Nth-Den (I'd even let
you choose! It's just a guess). Of course, he could order Ska-Nwy, instead.
I am pretty sure this is still a 50-50 guess. I can work it out if you're
skeptical.
So, it seems to me that it is no worse for you if you support me into North
Sea. (Except that you'd have to believe me when I say I'll have that fleet
give whatever order you want in the Spring. I think that's pretty
believable, don't you? I have nothing else to do with the fleet, after all,
and I am almost freakishly trustworthy.) And in the long run, assuming that
we both *have* a long run, it's a lot better. For one thing, with a fleet
in Nth I tie up quite a lot of German units protecting those Nth-bordering
centers of his. For another, it makes Germany a more tempting target for
France (I think France is still undecided about what to do next). And, if
you *do* manage to get Hohn on your side, it sets up a position with some
real offensive potential if you can manage ever to build another unit up
north.
Off the board:
I've experienced some burn-out myself. Over the last year, or more even,
I've cut down to playing a single game at a time. I hear Dip players
complain about this all the time (not *complain*, exactly, maybe
'bemoan'?). No doubt the day-to-day deception, scheming, suspension of
ordinary morality takes a psychological toll. I speculate that Dip burn-out
is a sign of a healthy moral psychology!
That said, I must say add that I am enjoying this game, despite the
on-the-board problems.
Maybe Pitt and Edi will get into an ugly dispute over something trivial at
the convention, and come back each devoted to tearing out each others'
guts. :)
-Jamie
Private message from Russia to Austria:
Guys: As most of you know, I'm back off leave. However, today's a busy
day, and I haven't yet "SET ADDRESS" back to this address. I imagine
that I can only 'send' from here, but anything you reply with goes back
to the juno.com address.
Will re-set addresses either later today, or tonight, after i read
what's on the web. Much to do after 9 days away from work (ugh...)
Tsar Faz
Private message from Italy to Russia:
> Message from [email protected] as England to Italy and Russia in
> 'ghodstoo':
> Actually, it's fine with me.
> The thing is, having France just be neutral with respect to me, as he more
> or less said he'd decided to be, isn't good enough. It's a slow death
> warrant. So, I'm just as happy if he has to make a different choice. Yes,
> he could choose to send troops into England. But he might choose to
> pressure Germany. That last is my only real chance in the game, so I prefer
> a situation where France at least *might* choose that one.
As I said, I will try to talk him into it. I'd sooner see him involved
with
Germany than you.
> The only thing is, he *might* decide to go to the Mediterranean anyway. I
> think that would be a bad move, but I guess it depends on his relations
> with Germany. (My best guess is that he has no real relations with Germany
> at all.)
If he moves there, I can't really stop him. sigh What makes you think
he
and Pitt have no "real relations"?
> Even if he's perfectly sincere, the question would still be how he will
> feel once he decides AT is no longer a huge threat.
Definitely.
> Holy cow. You're worried about Pitt?
Not as in "Oh geez, I hope he doesn't attack me this turn!", but more
that,
since he's likely to be a power in mid/end game I don't want to piss him
off (well, not yet anyway).
> Ok. My idea was just, if France is genuinely wondering what he can do to
> help IR against AT, you could tell him (truly, I hope) that keeping Germany
> from overrunning those largely unprotected Russian centers is the most
> helpful thing France could do.
I'll probably have better luck talking him into hitting Pitt AFTER Pitt
attacks Germany. Unfortunately, this timing may not be the best thing
for enhancing your survival...
Regards
Cal
Private message from Italy to France:
> Message from [email protected] as France to Italy in 'ghodstoo':
>
> I received your message re England and Germany. I am curious. How do you
> defend yourself against AT while also giving Germany trouble?
If A/T stay a threat, then obviously I won't be up for any attack on
Germany.
Actually, ANY talk about me moving north is strictly speculative. As I
said, that letter was written simply at England's request; I had hoped
the
slight sarcasm was readily apparent. I guess not, eh? :)
Anyway, all I wanted you to do was think about the future and the
possibility of Germany getting too big. I think this will be one of the
ultimate games of "stop the leader"...
Take care
Cal
Private message from France to Italy:
I received your message re England and Germany. I am curious. How do you
defend yourself against AT while also giving Germany trouble?
Private message from France to Germany:
Pitt, I was hoping to hear from you regarding my last message. To remind
you, I asked about your opinion of the AT alliance. I had suggested that
perhaps allowing them to take out Russia and attack Italy unimpeded might
be a bad idea. However, I am not adamant about this. Just wanted to talk
through the implications.
What's up?
John
France
Private message from England to Russia:
I'll think about it a little.
Ok, actually, I think you'd be absolutely crazy to move to Nwg. There's no
doubt in my mind, Pitt would take both Sweden and Norway. I'll be very
surprised indeed if he doesn't move Kie-Den in the Spring.
So I think you should stay in Norway. I know, you think the issue is whether
you *anger* Pitt, but I am pretty sure you have to be careful not to *tempt*
him.
GKJ
Private message from Russia to England:
GKJ,
Actually, I hadn't given the matter much thought (ref conditions for
supporting you in fall). I _know_ that sounds crazy, but I haven't
really thought that far up in the north, other than to say I can help
you. The south has occupied nearly all of my nail-biting worries....
I mean, if I move to Nwg this turn, then the fleet can support you in
Edi, or (God forbid) you or I actually get Nth next turn! If the fleet
holds in Nwy, then I probably still piss Pitt off by not being aggressive
vs you, and then I'm not sure what else it can do, short of supporting
Edi-Nth in fall. And, if I move to Nwg this turn and we hit Nth next
season, he just retreats to Nwy (and if he did Kie-Den, then I lose both
Scandy centers in fall).
To cite Mark, "The spirit is willing, but nature is weak." I'm certainly
willing, but my (mental) nature hasn't really thought this through, other
than to say I "owe" you (in a good way, obviously).
I'd be willing to entertain any and all English thoughts, to include
Spring moves up there for me...hold? nwg? etc.
Thanks for the moral support on game continuance. I used to think I was
a Diplomacy version of "Ironman" Cal Ripken, refusing to burn out from or
quit the hobby, no matter how many years I played. And while I can't
picture myself without an active Dip game or two, I have to admit there
have been an increasing amount of days lately where I'm tempted to just
"mass-resign" and see wat life is like "beyond the hobby." Given that
I'm the guy who dosn't like the first 'dip' into a cold pool, I have a
hunch I'll never "take the plunge" and quit, but I still have my days...
Appreciate the notes, Jamie. Despite the goofy start this game, for some
reason you're the closest 'soul-mate' I can identify with this game, for
what it's worth. Take care, and let me hear your ideas.
Best
Faz
Private message from England to Russia:
I can understand your equivocal feelings. I hope you'll stick it out after
all, even though I might get a little boost if you decided to 'go out with a
bang'!
Now. Could you explain just *what* the circumstances would have to be for
you to offer me a support in the Fall?
GKJ
Private message from England to Turkey:
Witch,
>I think I'm going to dislodge BLA and watch and see what happens in
>Spring, before I decide what to do in Fall and long-term.
Seems sensible.
Mark told me that's what you said you were going to do. (Actually, he told
me after you did.)
>Good luck on your defense. I hope you can stymie Pitt. :)
I believe I can stymie him for a while. Obviously, unless something else
happens to shake things up, I am severely outgunned and my days are
numbered. But I am cheerfully optimistic that something else *might*
happen, though I don't quite see what it could be.
France has implied to me a mysterious plan. Maybe it's just a little
smokescreen (I'm assuming not, since if attacked by Germany and France
simultaneously I have no hope at all). But in any case, I am not counting
on any French help with Germany in the immediate future. So the most
obvious source of aid would be Russia. Thus my interest in Russo-Turkish
relations.
But more of that, if relevant, next season.
Cheers!
Gentle King Jamie
Private message from England to Russia:
Tsar Faz,
> Shot and subsequently 'sacrificed' two model rockets to theTree
>Branch Gods, raced slot cars, built a borderline 'hot' Pinewood Derby
>car, and played hide-and-seek with the kids...
Say, just how old are you, anyway? :)
About Hohn:
I got a note from him last night, very short, but to the same effect. He
said he'd dislodge the Black Sea fleet, then see how things looked.
I don't think that's such bad news. To be reasonable, we have to see that
he can't be happy leaving that fleet of yours in Black Sea. Let him feel
secure, then he'll be most likely to make the moves that will be to his own
long term advantage. And I think you and I are pretty confident that the
moves that are to Turkey's long term advantage are moves into the Balkans.
At least I feel very sure of this.
If it means you get to take back Sev, that's icing. So to you, Half a
league! Half a league! Half a league on!
>Pitt wants me to move to NWG and take his chances with the convoy and/or
>retreat to open center.
Hah!
So he can take Sweden *and* control Baltic, or take Sweden and even Norway.
The face he's presented to me says that he's decided that I'm no real
threat to him, that it would take him a long time to do me in, so he'd go
get all those available Russian centers instead while the gettin' was good.
>FOR GKJ: Understood about the Nwy support thing. Of course, this merely
>makes a SKA retreat inevitable, and then a guessing game of Swe or Nwy.
>But hey, I did say I wanted to go out in supernova, right? -grin-.
Hm.
Well, you know, he's going to move to Den, so you have to guess for Swe and
Nwy anyway.
(Does 'understood' mean that you'll do it?)
>Hey, we could go Ven-Tyo, Gal r SIL, and then put the F'03 whammy on MUN
>in conjunction with anything France might do. It might be crazy enough
>to consider????
Sounds GREAT to me, of course!
>Speaking of France, has anyone heard what he's up to?
Yes.
I explained in another message, one to you and Cal. Cal later confirmed.
Cal rejects the kind offer of French help. (Of course. He's not crazy!)
Now the ball is in France's court. I suggested that you tell France that
the way to help you is to pressure Germany. Maybe that will work now.
Gentle King Jamie
Private message from Russia to Italy:
Gentlemen: I'm back! Leave was "beauteous," to coin a word. Enjoyed
the heck out of the backwoodsy, no-computer lifestyle at my folks' place.
Shot and subsequently 'sacrificed' two model rockets to theTree
Branch Gods, raced slot cars, built a borderline 'hot' Pinewood Derby
car, and played hide-and-seek with the kids...and now I'm back in reality
(sigh)...and of course, this includes the 'reality' of PBEM Dip and this
*&^%$ game.
Got a most disappointing reply from Hohn (and from Pitt) on my "squash
Edi" plan. Not that Hohn and Edi and Pitt would ever cross-game, or NOT
consider hitting each other, mind you -- but they're going to
extraordinary lengths to find reasons why they "just can't' consider my
recommendations....
Pitt wants me to move to NWG and take his chances with the convoy and/or
retreat to open center. He's giving me the morale pep-talks about
'continuing to hold on' (Berlin 1945 springs to mind for some reason...);
also tells me he 'can't let E off the hook' by building/moving to TYO.
Of course, he also wants me to fight on because his flank is open to AT
(but not open enough to worry about it himself)! He's also concerned
about France (wonder why) and doesn't want to divert his attention from
the western front.
Turkey continues to drone on about how we 'can't trust each other enough'
to do the moves I recommended in conjunction with Cal vs. Edi. I took
him to task on that one - told him I had better things to do than write
reams of proposed, SUCCESSFUL moves just to be cute and never intend to
follow through. I told him he was inflexible and recalcitrant, and that
he probably never intends to break the AT paradigm....how's that foe
encouraging words?
He SAYS he wants to annhiliate BLA (while 'letting' me regain either SEV
or RUM), and after that, we can "begin to discuss possible options."
God, I hate lawyers.
I told him to do what he felt needed done, and that if he ever woke up
and saw the benefits in hitting Edi, that I'd be around. I'm not
holding my breath (I'm already brain-damaged enough as it is).
FOR GKJ: Understood about the Nwy support thing. Of course, this merely
makes a SKA retreat inevitable, and then a guessing game of Swe or Nwy.
But hey, I did say I wanted to go out in supernova, right? -grin-.
FOR CAL: Whatever option you'd like in the east is ok by me.
Unfortunately, when I lose GAL and BLA, cooperative efforts will be
severely constrained (until ((unless)) the 7th Kaiser's Kavarly rides to
Little Big Horn AFTER the massacre).
Hey, we could go Ven-Tyo, Gal r SIL, and then put the F'03 whammy on MUN
in conjunction with anything France might do. It might be crazy enough
to consider????
Speaking of France, has anyone heard what he's up to? I have 35 messages
in the queue, so perhaps I'll withhold further talk until I scope the
stuff out. But if he built F MAR, well...let's HOPE there's not an FG!
I welcome any and all discussion, as always, mes amis. Take care of
yourselves.
Tsar Faz
Wested and Wewaxed (to cite Bawbwa Wawa and Elmer Fudd)
Private message from Russia to England:
GKJ
Am in rceipt of both your notes; thanks, as always. Without trying to be
deceptive (which I'm not), or occasionally dense (which I am), let me
ask:
You essentially want me to thus support you, in spring, with Nwy S
Edi-nth; correct? (I *am* a first learner, am I not??)
Ah, what the h.....why not. If I _am_ courting a "burn-out/ brown-out
death wish," this will certainly accentuate it. Pitt will criticize my
stupidity in angering the only 'true" ally I have left on the board, and
he and Edi may have "more" to now discuss en route to WorldCon. But your
points are valid, and I do indeed trust you regarding help from
Enhlishmen in nth Sea...who knows, this may even tip France into our
camp...stranger things have happened. If not, then COUNT ON me leaving
Nwy in fall, with YOU moving there (if we can arrange it). Think about
it. Of course, much will depend on what the south does, but let's at
least mull it over after the moves come out.
Off-board, it's good to see others sufffering thru the occasional "Dip
dementia" stages I currently feel. And, in a painful, perverse way, I am
enjoying this game.
Does this plan sound like a "weiner" to you?
Tsar Faz
Private message from Russia to Italy:
Guys:
Another admin note. I'll reconnect to the army e-mail address tomorrow
(for daytime messaging), but starting Wednesday afternoon (around 1400
EST) and lasting until friday a.m. (sometime), my system may act a little
buggy. They're ripping our room up to reinstall carpet, and the
computers have to be disconnected and "maybe" reconnected elsewhere--I
shudder to imagine the miles of cable and what's behind/under my
system....
Anyway, this juno.com route is always up and running, and I'll try and
keep you abreast of where I'm sending from.
Good luck to you all with this set of moves. I wish you well. Really.
Faz
Private message from England to Russia:
Yes, as a matter of fact, I WOULD like you to order F Nwy S F Edi-Nth. How
ever did you manage to guess? You must be a mind reader.
It's a weiner bei mir, bitte!
Good man.
Gently,
King Jamie
Private message from France to Russia:
I think it's a combination of two. He has not responded to any messages at
all since the last move, and he is on his way to DipCon. I guess.
In any event, I will take your words under close advisement.
Jean De France
Private message from Russia to France:
Thanks for this note, John! See my ** insertions, below...
>FYI, I have been asking Pitt about lending a hand against AT, but he won't
>respond to my messages.
** is it:
1) He writes you, but won't specifically respond to AT issues, or
2) He's not responding about anything?
As we both know, if it's the former, that's one thing. if he's being
quiet on the diplomatic front with you, then one of three possible
reasons exist:
1) He feels you and he have a modus vivendi, and no need to discuss
alliance issues;
2) He's en route to WorldCon, and talking to no one at the moment; or
3) You are just as legitimate a target as any other one of us.
Truth is, King John, I sure would like you to consider some, shall we
say, colelctive action against our large Germanic neighbor??? I'm not
asking you to do anything in isolation (hint, hint), _believe me_.
Tomorrow's move results will show this. Any pro-Russian moves you can
make would be of great help, your Liege.
Tsar Faz
Private message from France to Russia:
FYI, I have been asking Pitt about lending a hand against AT, but he won't
respond to my messages.
Best,
John of France
Private message from France to Germany:
Pitt, I have been reminded that you may be on your way to World DipCon,
which I take to explain your silence. In any event, the rumors are
circulating that your prosperity is threatening to others. I have been
asked a number of times to participate in an anti-German coalition. None
of this struck me as going anywhere until today. Now, I am afraid you may
be facing threats from several fronts. I would not be surprised by R-A
cooperation and perhaps an Austrian unit on your border.
In light of this, I think I should move an army to Marseilles.
Best,
John, France
Private message from Russia to Turkey:
Hi Hohn
Hope you're having a good day. Wanted to thank you for keeping the
comm lines open, and I hope we can indeed deal in mutually-secure,
mutually-beneficial ways come F'03 and beyond.
take care.
Mark
Private message from Russia to Germany:
Hi Pitt
Yes, I've been a busy beaver as of late, trying to grade scads of papers
and whtnot; when do you head off to WorldCon? Are you & Edi traveling
over together? I envy you guys.
As for working together, I will give you the "qualified yes," i.e., much
depends on what F kie's doing. If it goes to Bal or Den, Russians would
be saddened. To helgoland, weeellllll....that's another story! :>)
Tsar Faz
Private message from France to Germany:
I am happy to have heard from you. No, I did not receive your earlier
reply. FYI, apart from feeling a bit uncomfortable about the silence, my
moves remain the same. I will move to Mid and to Spa. I can go either way
from there, so I was not worried about the tactics. In my last message I
said I would move an army to Mar. This may look anti-Italy, but I think
it's a wise precaution against a possible A-I attack on you. The reversals
in this game come pretty fast and frequent, so caution is always in order.
Good to hear from you again.
John
Private message from Russia to England:
GKJ
Yeah, the iri-Cly thing is tricky, honest. I always get the western
coastline mixed up, too (guess it shows my bias at wanting only Eastern
countries to play, huh)?
Not that it matters, but does this change anything about the support
plan? I mean, is it any great vlaue to be in nth if you have to go back
to Edi anyway as a possible cover (given that iri can't get there for
awhile? Would it not be better to have Eng-Nth, with Edi S? Then you
go Iri-Eng (or Wal) and come around the flank that way....If Pitt
retreats to LON, so what? You then have two fleets to crunch him
((this idea assumes I go Nwy-Ska...yoiks...to force his Den/Hel/wherever
to cover Den, vice give himself support and defend Lon)).
I guess i could then go to Nwg and "show" Pitt I'm still "in" on this
(oops, wait; then he could retreat to nwy)....hmmmm.....
Well, let's leave it at this: I'm supporting you. If your analysis
shows that it's better to abort the plan, tell me and I'll figure
something else out. If not, we're on. The goal is to entice France in
with us, and to keep Pitt away from Nwy and Edi come fall. Our minds
are one (to cite the Vulcan Mind meld episode of Star Trek).
tsar Faz
Private message from England to Russia:
>He might very well retreat to Yor or Nwy.
I meant, to Yor or Nwg. Sorry.
GKJ
Private message from England to Russia:
>Persistence (and logic) pays dividends, old chap!
If only!
I'd be rich.
> Moves are submitted.
Oh, that kind of dividend.
Well, I guess it's better than nothing. :)
Once we see the results of these moves, I'll go to work on both France and
Turkey. My impressionistic sense is that there's no point in bugging either
of them now, it would only annoy them. (Can you imagine? Some people are
*annoyed* by getting too much Diplomacy mail! What alien minds.) Maybe we
can get somewhere diplomatically while Edi and Pitt are out of the country.
Hm.
Just heard from you, saying you'd just heard from Pitt.
I just heard from Pitt, too. He says he is disappointed that I never
replied to his 'admittedly extreme' suggestion, and wants to know whether
he ought to take that as a rejection.
The thing is, he never sent me any suggestion. Doesn't seem like a ruse.
Probably he thought he'd sent me something.
I'm eager to hear what he proposes. I'm sure it will be something I'd have
to be a complete idiot to accept, from the way he's set me up. But I'm
eager to hear it, just for the entertainment value.
He might very well retreat to Yor or Nwy. I'll have Edi uncovered, and
coverable only by the F Nth. (I have to admit something really dumb. I
thought Irish Sea bordered Clyde! I planned to move to Clyde. You can tell
I haven't played England as much as I ought to have!)
Gentle King Jamie
Private message from England to Germany:
>Hi.
Hi.
>Should I assume that your studied silence to my (admittedly extreme)
>suggestions is a rejection of them? I had hoped to hear from you one way
>or the other.
I regret to inform you that I received no suggestions.
Could you check to see whether you really did send them? I suppose it's
*possible* that I somehow missed it, but I severely doubt it.
I've been sitting here, patiently, waiting to hear your 'leap of faith'
plan. When I didn't get one, I naturally assumed that you had made a
different choice.
Anyway, let's have it. I'm feeling faithful.
Pious King Jamie
Private message from Russia to England:
GKJ
Just received a note from Pitt, who hadn't heard from me since last
week...wanted to know if we were 'still working together.'
Being unable to (completely) lie thru my teeth anymore, I told him that
much depended on him. if he moved to Bal or Den, then I would be 'sad.'
If he moved to hel, weeeellll, that's another story! (And that's
exactly how I worded my note.) Will be interesting to receive his
reply. Let me know if you (or anyone else you hear from) hears anything
recent from the ol' Kaiser.
You realize I am now baiting the proverbial hungry gorilla with the
even-more proverbial empty banana, and that we'll have to make
conditionals based on where Pitt retreats his fleet (i e, to YOR or
SKA...dare I say it will be the latter)?
Oh well, these kamikaze planes don't have good ejection seats anyway...
Tsar Faz
Private message from Germany to Austria:
Edi,
I planned on calling you last night to return your messages but I've
mislaid your phone number. Please drop me a line or give me a call so I
can touch base with you before sending in my orders.
-Pitt
Private message from Germany to England:
Hi. Should I assume that your studied silence to my (admittedly extreme)
suggestions is a rejection of them? I had hoped to hear from you one way
or the other.
-Pitt
Private message from Germany to Russia:
Faz,
What's up? I haven't heard back from you since I replied to your last
message, last week.
Are we still working together? I'm assuming that you're silence is only
due to your time off and trying to get caught up on your return but I would
very much like to hear from you before tonight.
-Pitt
Private message from Germany to France:
>Pitt, I was hoping to hear from you regarding my last message. To remind
>you, I asked about your opinion of the AT alliance.
I *did* reply to this. However, I have heard from several other players
that message I sent out late last week never made it to them, so I assume
you didn't get my reply.
>I had suggested that
>perhaps allowing them to take out Russia and attack Italy unimpeded might
>be a bad idea. However, I am not adamant about this. Just wanted to talk
>through the implications.
I agree. However, I said in my reply that I thought you and I needed to
take out England before we could make any agressive moves in that area. I
do think that we might try to keep lines of communication open with Turkey,
however, so that we can be well situated to join with him to rein in
Austria when the need arises.
Please let me know what you think.
-Pitt
Private message from Master to England:
>
> Message from [email protected] as England to Germany in 'ghodstoo':
>
> Hi.
>
Hi...
>
> I regret to inform you that I received no suggestions.
>
> Could you check to see whether you really did send them? I suppose it's
> *possible* that I somehow missed it, but I severely doubt it.
You could ask me.... but I couldn't tell you unless Pitt asked me to find
them.
Boy, you guys are wearing me out.
>
> Anyway, let's have it. I'm feeling faithful.
>
> Pious King Jamie
>
>
So am I, let's see what happens now.
Jim
Private message from Master to Germany:
>
> Message from [email protected] as Germany to Austria in 'ghodstoo':
>
>
> Edi,
>
> I planned on calling you last night to return your messages but I've
> mislaid your phone number. Please drop me a line or give me a call so I
> can touch base with you before sending in my orders.
>
> -Pitt
>
Since Edi has already announced this in broadcast press, I feel I can tell
you that he has already left for World Dip Con. You can (of course)
tell anyone anything you want; however, I never saw copies of those
messages you are talking about with R/E/F. He was very clear about
announcing that time issue. Sorry.... as I already explained in the
broadcast press, I wasn't changing the deadline. You must be mail
swamped....
Jim
Private message from Russia to France:
As fellow academics, i thought you might like this; forwarded to me from
ghods know where..
Tsar Faz
>----------
>From: Roland Paris[SMTP:[email protected]]
>Sent: Thursday, March 13, 1997 1:03 PM
>To: Irwin, L. CPT SOC; [email protected]; Deborah Brooks;
>Steve Brooks; Rick Cappe; Robert Cooper; Daniel Dowd; Mike Ebeid; Andrew
>Epstein; adam g frolic; Katie Genshlea; Lorianne HECKBERT; Ian Hurd; jack
>nagler; Nancy Palardy; Michelle Paris; Robert Paris; Jonathan Rodden; Eric
>Schickler; Beth Weinberger
>Subject: FW: Harmony (fwd)
>
>I can't vouch for the authenticity of this story, but it's hilarious
>anyway.
>
>--Roland
>
> ----------------
>
>> Received from an English Professor:
>>
>> This assignment was actually turned in by two of my English students:
>> Rebecca and Gary
>>
>> English 44A
>>
>> SMU
>>
>> Creative Writing
>>
>> Professor Miller
>>
>> In-class assignment for Wednesday: >>>
>> Today we will experiment with a new form called the tandem story. The
>> process is simple. Each person will pair off with the person sitting to
>> his or her immediate right. One of you will then write the first
>> paragraph of a short story. The partner will read the first paragraph
>> and then add another paragraph to the story. The first person will then
>> add a third paragraph, and so on back and forth. Remember to reread what
>> has been written each time in order to keep the story coherent. The
>> story is over when both agree a conclusion has been reached.
>>
>> -----------------------------------------
>>
>> At first, Laurie couldnt' decide which kind of tea she wanted. The
>> camomile, which used to be her favorite for lazy evenings at home, now
>> reminded her too much of Carl, who once said, in happier times, that he
>> liked camomile. But she felt she must now, at all costs, keep her mind
>> off Carl. His possessiveness was suffocating, and if she thought about
>> him too much her asthma started acting up again. So camomile was out of
>> the question.
>>
>> Meanwhile, Advance Sergeant Carl Harris, leader of the attack squadron
>> now in orbit over Skylon 4, had more important things to think about
>> than the neuroses of an air-headed asthmatic bimbo named Laurie with
>> whom he had spent one sweaty night over a year ago. "A. S. Harris to
>> Geostation 17", he said into his transgalactic communicator. "Polar
>> orbit established. No sign of resistance so far..." But before he could
>> sign off a blueish particle beam flashed out of nowhere and blasted a
>> hole through his ships cargo bay. The jolt from the direct hit sent him
>> flying out of his seat and across the cockpit.
>>
>> He bumped his head and died almost immediately, but not before he felt
>> one last pang of regret for psychically brutalizing the one woman who
>> had ever had feelings for him. Soon afterwards, Earth stopped its
>> pointless hostilities towards the peaceful farmers of Sklylon 4.
>> "Congress Passes Law Permanently Abolishing War and Space Travel."
>> Laurie read in her newspaper one morning. The news simultaneously
>> excited her and bored her. She stared out the window, dreaming of her
>> youth - when the days had passed unhurriedly and carefree, with no
>> newspapers to read, no television to distract her from her sense of
>> innocent wonder at all the beutiful things around her. "Why must one
>> lose one's innocence to become a woman?" she pondered wistfully.
>>
>> Little did she know, but she has less than 10 seconds to live. Thousands
>> of miles above the city, the Anu'udrian mothership launched the first of
>> its lithlum fusion missiles. The dim-witted wimpy peaceniks who pushed
>> the Unilateral Aerospace Disarmament Treaty through Congress had left
>> Earth a defenseless target for the hostile alien empires who were
>> determined to destroy the human race. Within two hours after the passage
>> of the treaty the Anu'udrian ships were on course for Earth, carrying
>> enough firepower to pulverize the entire planet. With no one to stop
>> them, they swiftly initiated their diabolical plan. The lithlum fusion
>> missile entered the atmosphere unimpeded. The President, in his top-
>> secret mobile submarine headquarters on the ocean floor off the coast of
>> Guam, felt the inconceivably massive explosion which vaporized Laurie
>> and 85 million other Americans. The President slammed his fist on the
>> conference table. "We can't allow this! I'm going to veto that treaty!
>> Let's blow'em out of the sky!"
>>
>> This is absurd. I refuse to continue this mockery of literature. My
>> writing partner is a violent, chauvinistic, semi-literate adolescent.
>>
>> Yeah? Well, you're a self-centered tedious neurotic whose attempts at
>> writing are the literary equivalent of Valium.
>>
>> Asshole.
>>
>> Bitch.
>>
Private message from Russia to England:
GKJ
Persistence (and logic) pays dividends, old chap! Moves are submitted.
Our planned moves remind me of some ancient Gary Cooper film I saw,
taking place during WW1. He pursues some girl who also loves a British
torpedo boat guy...in the end, the torpedo boat guy (who's wounded in an
attack on a German ship) and his lifelong pal (who's blinded by shrapnel
during same) hug each other, steer their boat into the German ship, and
blow themselves and the perfidious Hun up.
1) Gary Cooper gets the girl.
2) You and I will hopefully blow some Hun stuff up without having to hug
each other (or die in the process).
Man, I should be teaching Modern Film Interpretation!
Tsar Faz
Private message from England to Russia:
I don't exactly understand your alternative suggestion. You can't leave
Norway if I'm dislodging Germany from Nth, of course. If he did retreat to
London, though, I would have to guess to get it back, even if I were in Wal
and Nth, since his new fleet could either support Lon-Nth or cut Nth's
support of Wal-Lon.
The Nwy S Edi-Nth plan looks a whole lot better to me. (Remember, I don't
*have* to go Nth-Edi, even if he does retreat to York. He has to guess
whether I'll (i) cover Edi, or (ii) support myself to hold in Nth.)
Let's stick with that one. That was your conclusion anyway.
I really think this will work out pretty well (considering). I've been
looking at possible continuations. It's going to look *awfully* tempting to
France to stick an army in Burgundy, tie a German army to Munich, eject
Germany from Picardy. And if he does that, he has a good shot at Belgium
next year (I can offer to cut Dutch support). If we can tempt France at
all, Germany must devote several units to that problem, and our hands get a
lot freer. But if Germany continues to occupy Nth, France has no real
opening and would most likely set sail either for Liverpool or Tunis.
In the mean time, down south: it's not clear to me that you'll lose control
of Galicia. Austria has to use a lot of units to defend against an Italian
attack. I really hope Cal makes a good (lucky) move. There's an obvious
one, which if successful puts him in a really good position against Edi.
If he manages it, Hohn is more likely (don't you think?) to have a try at
those three Balkans. I'll point out that he really is entitled to them, and
ask him when Edi is going to turn over Bulgaria....
Well, let's see how it all shakes out.
GKJ
Private message from England to Germany:
Pitt,
If you really did send me moves, you can ask Jim to retrieve your press to
me from the archives. He'll do it, but of course he won't do it if you
don't ask him.
Jamie
Private message from England to Master:
>You could ask me....
I thought of that.
> but I couldn't tell you unless Pitt asked me to find them.
But then I thought of that.
Actually, it doesn't really seem like a ruse. But ya never know.
I'll mention to Pitt that he could ask you to retrieve his suggestions from
the archive. (If it *is* a ruse, that'll make him squirm a little :))
-Jamie
Private message from Russia to Master:
Jim,
Some Russian Spring 1903 thoughts...
Despite my chagrin at being bested byEdi and stabbed by Hohn, and despite
having to 'grit my teeth' and be dictated to by Hohn the Inflexible,
Russia remains guardedly optimistic for spring.
Turkey has announced up-front that he wishes to destroy F Bla for
'security purposes' (no doubt to 'enhance MY security' by putting a
Turkish one there instead). He also mentioned that this would be a good
opportunity for me to kill his A Sev, and thus go +1 in fall. Now, while
I certainly can't picture Hohn voluntarily giving up a center, my hope is
that he intends to cooperate in fall, and make a joint RTI kill on
Edi...it would warm my cokcles to see such a thing occur. I proposed a
butt-busting plan (so did Cal) to Hohn for spring, but Hohn deems it too
risky for the current level of RT trust, and wants to wait...sigh. IF
Turkey's fibbing (and thereby moves Rum-Ukr, Sev r--> Rum), then I could
be in a big hurt box. It's all a spring gamble, I reckon.
In the north, I've decided to anger my last unassaulted neighbor, and
will support England vs Germany's F Nth in spring. It's sheer lunacy, of
course, because even if it succeeds, Pitt can retreat to SKA (maybe even
order Kie-Bal), and make my hold in Scandinavia extremely tenuous. So
why do it? two reasons:
1) Try and entice France to make a balance-of-power arrangement vs
Germany while denying Pit any gains from England;
2) It's a demo game, and half of the moves should be for enjoyment and
surprise of the board. Should they also be logical and "worthy of
ghods?" probably. But I'm not ghod.
So, Russia faces S'03 hoping for Turkish benevolence, English
cooperation, Italian gains vs A, French turncoating on G, and a gain or
two, to boot. The result? Let's see.
Private message from Russia to England:
GKJ,
Am home, and preparing to go to a cadet sport meeting soon. before I go,
however,
just wanted to confirm the support for your Edi-Nth. My earlier note was
actually a cut-and-paste attempt run amok, which was one (of many)
reasons it was hard to decipher. I was merely saying that if your
Cklyde escapade was non-workable, then a move of Ech-Nth (Edi S) and
iri-Wal gets you around the southern coast, and gives you two to retake
LON in fall (Nth-Lon, Wal S). Pitt's second fleet would be neutralized
and unable to help you, because I'd have ordered Nwy-Ska in spring, and
moving on den in fall. It's no biggie, though--as we both noted, we're
"on' for the attack vs nth, and I'm primed. So let's see where this
takes us, ok?
Later and greater,
Tsar Faz
Private message from Turkey to Italy:
Cal,
I've been mulling it over, and while Edi's message won't change any of
my particular moves (which are pretty straightforward; I'm covering
against Mark and blasting him out of BLA), I'm thinking Edi has a
point. I know you'll do whatever you think best, but I believe we
might need Edi to work with us against the FG. I don't think we'll be
able to chew him up quickly enough before France is all over you and
Germany is all over central Europe.
I urge you to consider Edi's suggestions. If you decide to continue,
I'll support your decision, albeit a little reluctantly, to be honest.
I really do think our chances are better with Edi than without him.
Then, after we've trimmed FG down a bit, you and I can crunch Edi
between us like a nutcracker.
Please let me know what you think.
Thanks,
Hohn
Private message from Germany to Master:
>Since Edi has already announced this in broadcast press, I feel I can tell
>you that he has already left for World Dip Con.
Ah...I thought he wasn't leaving until tomorrow.
>You can (of course)
>tell anyone anything you want; however, I never saw copies of those
>messages you are talking about with R/E/F.
Apparently no one did. I didn't get confirmations from the judge, either,
so it looks like they never made it that far. Unfortunately for me, I've
been using the judge confirm as my archive copy and I didn't keep a copy of
them when they were sent.
>Sorry.... as I already explained in the
>broadcast press, I wasn't changing the deadline.
No problem. I'm not looking for an extension.
>You must be mail swamped....
That, too. I've been scrambling to get things caught up here before I
leave. I've been so busy that I didn't have time to check mail from Friday
to today.
It will be interesting to see how my apparent silence will affect the moves
of the others.
-Pitt
Private message from Italy to Turkey:
> Message from [email protected] as Turkey to Italy in 'ghodstoo':
> I've been mulling it over, and while Edi's message won't change any of
> my particular moves (which are pretty straightforward; I'm covering
> against Mark and blasting him out of BLA), I'm thinking Edi has a
> point. I know you'll do whatever you think best, but I believe we
> might need Edi to work with us against the FG. I don't think we'll be
> able to chew him up quickly enough before France is all over you and
> Germany is all over central Europe.
>
> I urge you to consider Edi's suggestions. If you decide to continue,
> I'll support your decision, albeit a little reluctantly, to be honest.
> I really do think our chances are better with Edi than without him.
> Then, after we've trimmed FG down a bit, you and I can crunch Edi
> between us like a nutcracker.
>
> Please let me know what you think.
Wellllll, I think that your proposal makes sense from your point of view
(behind Edi that is...) and I even agree that having Edi's centres
available to build in would be a help against F/G, BUT (and it's a
biggie),
I know for sure that I would end up as merely a puppet in a A/I/T
alliance. I'd be waiting for Edi to pick me off as soon as he felt
comfortable doing so. I really, really, really don't want to put myself
in that situation.
What this all boils down to is this: I cannot afford to leave a
potential
threat behind me, especially one who has reason not to trust me. I
STILL
think that you and I can take Edi down quickly enough to be ready to
take
on F/G. I still have enough influence with Mark to have him work with
us
even after you take him down enough to feel comfortable (revenged?
grin).
That gives us some leverage, especially when you realize that England
will
also help us as much as he can (what other choice does he have?).
I hope that what you said above:
"If you decide to continue, I'll support your decision, albeit a little
reluctantly, to be honest."
means that you'll still go along with the attack turn after this one.
If
not, please let me know what you did mean (yeah, we're still playing
Diplomacy, but I can ask, no? grin).
Regards,
Cal
Private message from Russia to Germany:
Hi Pitt
Ref my earlier message; any thoughts? I mean, I certainly don't
envisage open warfare vs you, having pi**ed off A, T and E in a matter of
three game turns. I'm just asking the obvious direct question of "What
are you doing with Kiel?" reassurance working both ways, and all
that....
Wann wir fahren, gegen England
Tsar Faz
Private message from France to England:
You will observe that my fleets can go either way, and the move to
Marseilles.
Jean De France
Private message from England to France:
Your move looks bad for me. You aren't trying to get Germany out of
Picardy, you aren't moving in to Burgundy, and you have positioned your
fleets in a decidedly anti-English posture.
Did you change your mind about your plans? Or maybe you never really did
plan to sail to the Mediterranean.
I managed to convince Russia to join my cause with his only northern unit.
I'm pleased that Germany moved to Hel rather than to Den, of course. But it
certainly seems to me that Russia is not long for this world, unless you
can do something about his problems. Italy is not doing at all well either,
a bad guess this last move.
In case it's not obvious, let me say that I would be *more* than happy to
make moves that would help you get Belgium, and/or help Russia get Denmark,
in the next year. Too late this year.
As things stand, I have a moderately good chance of holding out for a
while. Of course, if you do sail into Irish Sea in the Fall, I'll just have
to choose whom to defend against, or hope that Germany makes me an offer. I
don't relish that, but naturally I'll do whatever I can to survive.
Cheers!
Gentle King Jamie
I have set the retreat deadline for next Tuesday. I think that will meet
the needs of those at World Dip Con. There may need to be an adjustment
in that deadline based upon Pitt's travel schedule, which I do not know.
There are no restricitions on negotiation while they are away, since
they presumably are negotiating in person. Those of you who are away,
please provide your private press thoughts for those discussions
when you read this message upon your return. I am very interested
to record this impact. Comments by the rest of you are encouraged
as well.
Jim
Private message from England to Turkey:
Witch,
You still aren't committing, exactly. As far as I can tell, you'll finish
the year with the same centers as you started, but you'll own Black Sea and
get to re-think your fleet/army distribution. Interesting. On the other
hand, with the possible exception of France, nothing much on the board or
in the alliance structure is changing enough to help you off the fence.
I'll enter my plea next year, since it's clear you aren't going to shift
and go for those red Balkan dots this season.
Up in my corner I'm anxiously waiting to see which way Germany retreats.
And anxiously waiting to see where those French fleets are going. I have
this hunch that the A Mar might go to Piedmont (or what's the point of that
move otherwise?). But I bet dollars to doughnuts that he won't attack
Italy....
Cheers!
Other Witch
Private message from England to Russia:
>You guys may continue to
>hold out with the "once Hohn gets his last territorial demands in
>Europe..." motif, but I consider this the Fassio version of Munich 1938.
> Why would Hohn (or Edi) even consider helping a weak Russia when they
>have me by the throat?
For an obvious reason. If the destroy you together, Hohn gets little more
than he already has out of the deal, and he ends up with a huge Austrian as
his neighbor. If Hohn can instead grab the Balkans, he gains more than he
would from invading Russia by land, and he finishes with a weak Russian as
his neighbor.
I don't know what he'll do, and I don't know what I can say to him, but
I'll give it a try.
> The 'bounce' of Bul-Rum, while possibly being
>of significance, is (to me) merely a smokescreen to keep luring us to
>believe there's a chance they'll "break up."
Nah. The reason for that move was that otherwise, in case Rum-Ukr
succeeded, your dislodged F Bla would have retreated to Rumania.
>On the Italian front, Edi expected the move all along; rats, I should've
>seen his GAL move this turn after he told me he might consider leaving
>me in there (ha!)...should've asked you to hit TRI, Cal. Now he can
>build in BUD for his sixth.
True. It doesn't look very good for Cal now. Maybe he'd better accept that
Italian help. :(
Actually, I think maybe the army in Mar is intended for Piedmont, and maybe
Tyrolia, to help Italy whether he wants it or not.
>In the north, Germany stayed true to his word, and, while I certainly am
>not upset for supporting you, Jamie, France has taken a 'fence-sitting'
>plan, to see which way the board went/is going.
Looks a little worse than that. But you're right, he could go either way.
(If he moves the F MAO to EngCh, I wouldn't mind that at all. Eyes on
Belgium.)
> Will he now jump on our
>bandwagon and help vs germany? or will he jump on you now that we're in
>the thick of the fray?
I don't know.
I think the smart thing for him is to help us, that's why I have some hope
that he'll do it.
You might mention to him that you are quite sure that if he sails Iri, I'll
try my best to defend Lvp if I'm faced with a choice between that or saving
one of my other centers from a German attack. (Happens to be true, in case
you have compunctions about lying to John.) You might suggest MAO-EngCh.
That at least keeps his options open.
>I retreat Gal-Boh, and hit Vienna in fall. This gets you Trieste for
>sure. (Of course, if they write conditionals, then AT use Ukr/Gal to
>take War). Another option is to do the one-hook version of my earlier
>proposed crazy plan and go to Sil, then try for Berlin. (Still crazy,
>though).
You can get Tri for Cal by giving up Warsaw, right. Yeesh, what a set of
options. I'll think about it. It's a complicated position.
>In the north, we can consider Nth-nwy, Nwy-Swe, in the event he
>retreated to Ska--perhaps achieve mega-bounces all along the line.
That seems like the best plan, yes. Hm.
Well, no rush, let's think about it. We'll have some guesswork, it might be
worth taking a little risk. I think my risk-taking inclinations will depend
on how France 'feels' to me.
> OR,
>Jamie, talk to Pitt, convince him that I'm on the outs, make an
>alliance, and you guys boot me from Nwy; have him give you Nwy, and then
>you support him to Swe in fall.
Yeah, good idea, I'll 'have him give me Norway'. "Ok, Pitt, enough
nonsense, give me freakin' Norway." Why didn't I think of that? :-)
Let's not pack it in yet. Let's try at least one more season to swing the
two Deutsch-less big boys against the Deutschephones. Let's take advantage
of the fact that we'll be here talking their ears off while Pitt and Edi
are out of touch overseas.
Gentle King Jamie
Private message from England to France:
Well, ok, maybe it wasn't *that* anti-English. (I don't exactly see your
point about the move to Marseilles. Oh. Mar-Pie-Tyo, maybe.) I guess I feel
that I need more than neutrality from you to survive. But that's not your
problem. (Maybe it is, I hope you'll decide it is.)
I know that Cal turned down your offer of naval help. I'll point out to him
that he's just blown his offensive opportunity and that he might want to
reconsider your offer.
Whatever you decide, if you really intend to save Russia, you'd better act
pretty fast. Mark is sounding depressed and resigned.
Cheers!
Gentle King Jamie
Private message from Russia to Italy:
Guys: I haven't had time to review the moves in depth, and won't before
at least 1100, but what I see confirms what i expected all along.
Hohn took the deliberately aggressive move to UKR while Edi played on
Cal's expected move(s), and now they stand to fight for WAR while
simultaneously booting me from SEV again. You guys may continue to
hold out with the "once Hohn gets his last territorial demands in
Europe..." motif, but I consider this the Fassio version of Munich 1938.
Why would Hohn (or Edi) even consider helping a weak Russia when they
have me by the throat? The 'bounce' of Bul-Rum, while possibly being
of significance, is (to me) merely a smokescreen to keep luring us to
believe there's a chance they'll "break up."
On the Italian front, Edi expected the move all along; rats, I should've
seen his GAL move this turn after he told me he might consider leaving
me in there (ha!)...should've asked you to hit TRI, Cal. Now he can
build in BUD for his sixth.
In the north, Germany stayed true to his word, and, while I certainly am
not upset for supporting you, Jamie, France has taken a 'fence-sitting'
plan, to see which way the board went/is going. Will he now jump on our
bandwagon and help vs germany? or will he jump on you now that we're in
the thick of the fray? (I can hardly wait for Pitt's "happy telegrams"
to start arriving...)
As none of us have anything to gain by "ratting out" the other(s) to
mutual enemies, I'm going to offer, for the Italian front, at least THIS
consideration, Cal (i mean, AT can see these options as well as we):
The logical Russian move is retreat to War, then: War S Sev-Ukr, Mos S
War. An option:
I retreat Gal-Boh, and hit Vienna in fall. This gets you Trieste for
sure. (Of course, if they write conditionals, then AT use Ukr/Gal to
take War). Another option is to do the one-hook version of my earlier
proposed crazy plan and go to Sil, then try for Berlin. (Still crazy,
though).
In the north, we can consider Nth-nwy, Nwy-Swe, in the event he
retreated to Ska--perhaps achieve mega-bounces all along the line. OR,
Jamie, talk to Pitt, convince him that I'm on the outs, make an
alliance, and you guys boot me from Nwy; have him give you Nwy, and then
you support him to Swe in fall. It's really no big deal to me. No one
seems to be listening about the AT, so perhaps now, if nothing else, the
giants will turn east.
Anyway, that's my rambling discourse for now. BE ADVISED: new carpet
is coming in today or tomorrow; if you don't hear from me from this
address, route thru the juno.com one...I may be "off the net" here for
awhile.
Tsar Faz
Retreats
Private message from Germany to Italy:
>THEN he sends me an offer to move his fleet my way in order to
>"help" me against Edi. I told him that I was NOT at all
>sanguine enough about my strategic position to want anything
>to do with THAT.
Heh...he's from the government. He's only there to help you...
>What I'd like to ask you is your take on this. Do you think
>he'll send the fleet my way anyway? He sent me a very curt
>note saying he wouldn't (and seemed "hurt" that I didn't want
>his help), but I don't know if I can believe him. Admittedly,
>I don't suppose I can trust his ally (you! heh heh) for a straight
>answer either, but I'm gonna try anyway. What's up?
I have no idea. He never mentioned this particular gambit to me. I did
advise him to discuss the F MAR build with you as a courtesy but I never
suggetsed an offer to send it east.
>On this front, things are still quite muddled so I won't pass
>on any (probably) incorrect rumours. You probably know as much
>as I do anyway.
uhoh...that bad, huh?
>btw, have a nice time in Sweden. If you see Per Westling, tell
>him I said hello. Thanx CW
Will do.
-Pitt
Private message from Russia to France:
King Jean
Congrats on consolidating your position, and best wishes for future
movement. I had asked kaiser Pitt for reassurances that he was indeed
moving to Helgoland. He never replied to two notes, so I assumed
hostility. In retrospect, I've probably erred, but I'm committed now.
besides, I can take extra heat off you and Eng by this act, and maybe
get him to see the danger looming in the East. There, despite my
protestations and alarms, the AT continues to run rampant. I now face
the obvious prospect of not only losing SEV again, but having to guard
WAR from capture! And Hohn maoned about my 'stabs' of him...pah.
Anyway, PLEASE consider throwing your substantial power toward the
suppression of the Kaiser. To me (anyway), having a weak and repentant
England on one side of you--and a preoccupied and stagnant Italy on the
other--allows you the chance to use E and R as loyal subalterns, as the
three of us find a way to keep the German giant from looming large. I
mean, you can have a good FG, move to Iri (which England will probably
bounce), and fight the good fight vs Jamie. But I'd ask you to please
consider moving to Ech instead. With Mao-Channel, you have a Lon
option, a Bel option, and a return to Wal/iri option, no matter what
side of the fence you later come down on.
I shall continue to wish good things for the French people, and hope you
can pass along some good words about the logic of an RT vs A, should
Hohn be on your mailing list.. take care.
Tsar Faz
Thanks, observer, that was encouraging.
You're heart's in the right place, but you have the wrong enemy!
Well, maybe them too. We'll see.
Winnie/Harry/Gentle King Jamie
You ask, What is our policy? I will say; "It is to wage war, by sea, land
and air, with all our might and with all the strength that God can give us:
to wage war against a monstrous tyranny, never surpassed in the dark
lamentable catalogue of human crime. That is our policy." You ask, What is
our aim? I can answer with one word: Victory - victory at all costs,
victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may
be; for without victory there is no survival.
#10 Downing St.
London
Private message from England to Russia:
Tsar Faz,
I don't have much to say until I see the retreats, that's the main reason
I'm quiet. There doesn't seem to be any hurry at all to plot tactics.
About Turkey:
I agree, there is no way he will switch sides on this next move, it wouldn't
make sense. I figure he'll do the obvious, safe move: Ukr-Mos, Con-Bul, and
Bla S Arm-Sev.
The time for him to make a move on the Balkans would be next year. Once he's
got Sev nice and secured, the possible gains to him of continuing against
you dwindle. He could only hope for one more center of yours, Moscow. Surely
he'd rather have the three remaining Balkans instead.
I am home taking care of the kids this Good Friday...
Gentle King Jamie
Private message from Master to Russia:
>
> Message from [email protected] as England to Russia in 'ghodstoo':
>
> Tsar Faz,
>
> I don't have much to say until I see the retreats, that's the main reason
> I'm quiet. There doesn't seem to be any hurry at all to plot tactics.
>
This is not a big deal, so I feel comfortable mentioning it.... long
time postal players, such as myself, are used to planning conditionals
based upon retreats. I found that "wait and see" attitude tough to get
used to at first, though it makes perfect sense.
>
> I am home taking care of the kids this Good Friday...
>
> Gentle King Jamie
>
Ah, I stayed home from work today too, and am just now getting around
to checking E-Mail. I still find it amusing that Jamie and I live in
the same city and haven't met in person. Someday, you know, we're
just going to run into each other somehow. Mark and I have known
each other much longer and haven't met either.
Have a great weekend,
Jim
Private message from Russia to England:
GKJ,
You've been a quiet one lately, as have I, it seems -- at least in
contrast to earlier correspondence levels. While I'm working lesson
plans, I get the image of the AT crushing me like a bug, and was just
wondering if you have any ideas for the Northern front? I still lean
toward the Nwy-Swe, Nth-nwy option, although I admit to laziness in
working through any other more concrete plans. As always, I value your
opinions.
I have a hunch you will ling outlive me here. I see the German behemoth
using at least two pieces (Mun + Hel or retreated Nth) to come after me
(especially if there's an FG), and AT show NO signs of breaking up.
>From a cost-benefit side, Hohn would be a fool to join me. If he does,
he goes at least -1 (I get SEV) and only a 50-50 chance regarding
keeping RUM and a 75-25 getting BUL (would require Italian Ion-Gre).
If he stays with Edi, there's a chance RI will reduce Edi; Hohn stays
even (Arm-Sev, Bla S), and one of them builds off of WAR, perhaps. I
dunno, I'm having a hard time thinking of anything than continued RT
emnity...the little weasel hasn't even written me yet this turn! Have
you heard from him yet?
Anyway, have a good Easter weekend, Jamie. I'll be on the juno.com
line, and will be lying low. Take care.
Tsar Faz
Private message from Russia to Italy:
Cal,
I'm not averse to helping you vs Edi and getting your 5th center. My
only concern is that you may end up pushing AT even closer together,
because now they have to push through a stronger Italy, as opposed to a
weaker one. Of course, we both assume (and hope for) the converse--that
Austria perhaps sees you as unassailable, and worries over being
crunched (thus making a deal), or perhaps Turkey sees you as a viable
option to killing Edi. Who knows? The idea, though, is that ONE of us
needs to get some centers. As I've enraged Germany (and can't get any
of his stuff) and won't hit England, then my only hope is a Turkish aid
program -- which we both seem to doubt will ever occur. So the logical
alternative is to help you get strong.
There are only two minor concerns with that (and they're both truly
minor). One is that AT see this coming (I wish we could combine
retreats and moves, like in PBM, and make them guess, rather than having
a week to act on the retreats); if that happens, they they get Edi into
WAR to keep him solvent and "defuse" your gain. I can, however, take
moves to minimize/negate that possibility.
The other disadvantage is perhaps being seen by the rest of the players
(of the observers) as an erratic nutcase who's wrecking this by playing
a "throw the game" strategy. I mean, it's "minor" because I frankly
don't give a s**t what people say or think, but some may not see this as
a "logical" or "ghod-like" approach for the game. Oh well, no biggie.
It'll make for an interesting couple turns, and may actually hurt some
people that have hurt me -- what better Dip plans could one ask for?
:>)
Happy Easter to you too, buddy.
Tsar faz
Private message from Italy to Russia:
> Message from [email protected] as Russia to Italy in 'ghodstoo':
>
> Wanted to sound you out on our joint possibilities again, as well as to
> seek your opinion on my retreat.
> Having no doubt enraged Germany by my support of England, I imagine I'll
> have opened up yet another front against me. Can't say the thought
> didn't cross my mind when I did it, heh heh... this game is an
> incredible sink on my schedule, and I won't lose sleep if I'm mugged and
> eliminated quickly. Having said that, though, my intent is to play it
> with a combination of abandon, pseudo-creativity, and loyalty to allies.
Hell, if you're gonna go out, go out in style, no? Can't say I've never
done it (hell, MY turn may come in a couple of game years...)
> As for allies, Hohn, in my opinion, is not, nor will ever seek to be, an
> ally. He's practicing pure Hitelrian tactics a la 1935-1939, slicing
> territory off in increments, each time promising to negotiate "once his
> security concerns are addressed." Heck, if he's still insecure, maybe
> I'd better abandon Mos and War, too.
Can't say I am sure what he's doing either. I've been burning up
cyberspace trying to get him to pull a surprise attack on Edi and,
while he makes some positive noises, I'm not sure he's sincere (gee,
what a surprise!). His attitude towards you, when he mentions it, is
pretty much what he's saying to you - he wants security and intends
to keep crunching you til he gets (whatever he conceives to be) it.
> I mean, doing a cost-benefit analysis, what are Hohn's choices?
> 1) Ally with me, letting me keep SEV (so he goes -1 already), and then
> seeing if he can keep RUM and turn south to hit Edi -- giving him a
> 50-50 chance of keeping RUM (Ukr-Rum), and a 75-25 chance of taking BUL
> (assumes you'd go Ion-Gre). Or...
> 2) Joint AT attacks on WAR and SEV. (Bla S Arm-Sev, and Ukr S Gal-War
> [of vice versa])
> Hohn gets to keep Rum and Sev, and may or may not get War (either he or
> Edi would). he loses nothing, and perhaps gains one....opening up the
> route to Mos and beyond next year!
>
> I dunno....anyway, I'm heading off to class, but wanted to say that I'm
> fully prepared to consider retreating to BOH, then hitting Vie while you
> go Ven-Tri (Adr S). You'll go +1. If they do conditionals and get me,
> fine. Pitt will probably take SWE, so I'll get reduced--but still be
> viable.
I would be ecstatic if you would retreat to Boh and help me get Trieste.
At four centres, I'm just so much cannon fodder should A/T decide to
attack me. I'd survive two years at most if I'm lucky. With that fifth
center, not to mention the strategic position I'd gain by the incursion
into the Austrian, I'd have a better chance at A) surviving; B) gaining
leverage in convincing that Edi CAN be taken down.
Happy Easter!
Cal
Private message from Russia to Italy:
Hi Cal
Wanted to sound you out on our joint possibilities again, as well as to
seek your opinion on my retreat.
Having no doubt enraged Germany by my support of England, I imagine I'll
have opened up yet another front against me. Can't say the thought
didn't cross my mind when I did it, heh heh... this game is an
incredible sink on my schedule, and I won't lose sleep if I'm mugged and
eliminated quickly. Having said that, though, my intent is to play it
with a combination of abandon, pseudo-creativity, and loyalty to allies.
As for allies, Hohn, in my opinion, is not, nor will ever seek to be, an
ally. He's practicing pure Hitelrian tactics a la 1935-1939, slicing
territory off in increments, each time promising to negotiate "once his
security concerns are addressed." Heck, if he's still insecure, maybe
I'd better abandon Mos and War, too.
I mean, doing a cost-benefit analysis, what are Hohn's choices?
1) Ally with me, letting me keep SEV (so he goes -1 already), and then
seeing if he can keep RUM and turn south to hit Edi -- giving him a
50-50 chance of keeping RUM (Ukr-Rum), and a 75-25 chance of taking BUL
(assumes you'd go Ion-Gre). Or...
2) Joint AT attacks on WAR and SEV. (Bla S Arm-Sev, and Ukr S Gal-War
[of vice versa])
Hohn gets to keep Rum and Sev, and may or may not get War (either he or
Edi would). he loses nothing, and perhaps gains one....opening up the
route to Mos and beyond next year!
I dunno....anyway, I'm heading off to class, but wanted to say that I'm
fully prepared to consider retreating to BOH, then hitting Vie while you
go Ven-Tri (Adr S). You'll go +1. If they do conditionals and get me,
fine. Pitt will probably take SWE, so I'll get reduced--but still be
viable.
Your thoughts?
Mark
"Yes, I am drunk. You however, Madam, are ugly, and in the morning
I shall be sober."
-Winston Spencer Churchill
Private message from Russia to Turkey:
Hello Hohn
Am "most" curious as to your thoughts on the spring results. While I'm
obviously looking forward to RT cooperation, I sense unease, given that
you're in UKR, Edi's in GAL, etc. I have a couple move ideas, but will
withhold comment and/or proposals until next note.
Are you 'secure' yet down south, or do i need to vacate Mos and War?
-grin-
PS) Didn't 'reset' address to this one, so any reply will hit my work
system (i.e., tomorrow a.m.)
Mark
Private message from Italy to Russia:
> Message from [email protected] as Russia to Italy in 'ghodstoo':
>
> Cal,
> I'm not averse to helping you vs Edi and getting your 5th center. My
> only concern is that you may end up pushing AT even closer together,
> because now they have to push through a stronger Italy, as opposed to a
> weaker one. Of course, we both assume (and hope for) the converse--that
> Austria perhaps sees you as unassailable, and worries over being
> crunched (thus making a deal), or perhaps Turkey sees you as a viable
> option to killing Edi. Who knows? The idea, though, is that ONE of us
> needs to get some centers. As I've enraged Germany (and can't get any
> of his stuff) and won't hit England, then my only hope is a Turkish aid
> program -- which we both seem to doubt will ever occur. So the logical
> alternative is to help you get strong.
I think we have to risk pushing A/T closer together. It isn't like they
could GET much closer, so we have to depend on making a sneak attack on
Edi by Hohn appear that much more attractive. Slim hope, but probably
the one with the best "potential" right now.
> There are only two minor concerns with that (and they're both truly
> minor). One is that AT see this coming (I wish we could combine
> retreats and moves, like in PBM, and make them guess, rather than having
> a week to act on the retreats); if that happens, they they get Edi into
> WAR to keep him solvent and "defuse" your gain. I can, however, take
> moves to minimize/negate that possibility.
Well, it's certainly not my place to ask you to put your own centres at
risk, but my above paragraph still applies. Hopefully you CAN
"minimize/negate" the threat to warsaw.
> The other disadvantage is perhaps being seen by the rest of the players
> (of the observers) as an erratic nutcase who's wrecking this by playing
> a "throw the game" strategy. I mean, it's "minor" because I frankly
> don't give a s**t what people say or think, but some may not see this as
> a "logical" or "ghod-like" approach for the game. Oh well, no biggie.
> It'll make for an interesting couple turns, and may actually hurt some
> people that have hurt me -- what better Dip plans could one ask for?
> :>)
You mean you AREN'T "an erratic nutcase who's wrecking this by playing a
throw the game" strategy? grin Oh well then. Actually, this is a good
case of a player trying to play a "loose cannon" to hurt his enemies
when
all else has failed. I've been in this position and had all my enemies
back away from me cuz they figured I was toast (or crazy, I never
figured
that out.)
Cal
Jim wrote:
> I don't really want to get too involved in these sorts of discussions,
> but I will say that there definitely will not be a "rule" against it.
> What I really wanted to do was to sensitize the Judge rookies to the
> concept so that they can consider what they want to say or do about it.
> What I did do was decide not to permit grey/anonymous press of the sort
> that I actually encourage in my szine. I want to be open about these
> sorts of things, so please feel free to have public or private discussions
> with me about them.
That's all fine. As I said, it's no biggie. I just wanted to float a
trial balloon.
Hohn
>Whoops, ah, showing my rookie moderator status I thought the grace was in
>addition to the deadline, not parallel to it. So, I want to set it to
>something like a week and a half or so, right?
Uh. Hm. Come to think of it, you were right. :) The grace period is tacked
on to the end, *after* the deadline expires.
Never mind.
-Jamie
>
> Broadcast message from [email protected] as Observer in 'ghodstoo':
>
> Hi.
>
> Jim, having increased the deadline calculation to a week, you might also
> want to increase the GRACE parameter(s). Especially in a demo game, you
> don't want the players defaulting. And as it's set at the moment, a player
> would default minutes after he was officially late.
Whoops, ah, showing my rookie moderator status I thought the grace was in
addition to the deadline, not parallel to it. So, I want to set it to
something like a week and a half or so, right?
>
> Hohn,
> Like Pitt, I'd favor permitting any old sort of forged press, even though I
> don't like it myself.
>
> -Jamie
>
>
I don't really want to get too involved in these sorts of discussions,
but I will say that there definitely will not be a "rule" against it.
What I really wanted to do was to sensitize the Judge rookies to the
concept so that they can consider what they want to say or do about it.
What I did do was decide not to permit grey/anonymous press of the sort
that I actually encourage in my szine. I want to be open about these
sorts of things, so please feel free to have public or private discussions
with me about them.
Jim
>
> Broadcast message from [email protected] as Observer in 'ghodstoo':
>
> Hi.
>
> Jim, having increased the deadline calculation to a week, you might also
> want to increase the GRACE parameter(s). Especially in a demo game, you
> don't want the players defaulting. And as it's set at the moment, a player
> would default minutes after he was officially late.
Whoops, ah, showing my rookie moderator status I thought the grace was in
addition to the deadline, not parallel to it. So, I want to set it to
something like a week and a half or so, right?
>
> Hohn,
> Like Pitt, I'd favor permitting any old sort of forged press, even though I
> don't like it myself.
>
> -Jamie
>
>
I don't really want to get too involved in these sorts of discussions,
but I will say that there definitely will not be a "rule" against it.
What I really wanted to do was to sensitize the Judge rookies to the
concept so that they can consider what they want to say or do about it.
What I did do was decide not to permit grey/anonymous press of the sort
that I actually encourage in my szine. I want to be open about these
sorts of things, so please feel free to have public or private discussions
with me about them.
Jim
Hi.
Jim, having increased the deadline calculation to a week, you might also
want to increase the GRACE parameter(s). Especially in a demo game, you
don't want the players defaulting. And as it's set at the moment, a player
would default minutes after he was officially late.
Hohn,
Like Pitt, I'd favor permitting any old sort of forged press, even though I
don't like it myself.
-Jamie
>Yes, except that Pitt has not actually signed on to play a power. He's only
>an observer. Maybe he hasn't decided on his preference list yet?
More weirdness. I sent in my signon as a player a day prior to my signon
as an observer. I don't recall getting a confirmation from the judge, now
that I think about it. I'll send it again.
-Pitt
>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.
No problem here. I'm not clear on what we're discussing, though. Is there
a suggestion that press should not be copied? If so, let me start the
discussion by saying that, while I don't much care one way or the other
since I rarely, if ever, copy press from one player to another, I don't see
any problem with players who wish to do so. After all, it's just as easy
to creatively edit the press as it is to send it whole. Any player who
accepts copied press at face value deserves what he gets...no?
-Pitt
My last note was quite confused. I'll try again....
A few items:
If you want to have a pre-game discussion, I'd suggest you join the game as
an observer to do this discussion and resign in the same message:
>signon oghodstoo password
>broadcast
>This is my message......
>endbroadcast
>resign
Do you mind press/comments from non-players? heh, heh, heh...
When you first create a game, you are a player, not the "master". When you
do the "become master" command, then you are no longer a player, but
sometimes the judge treats you as a player for a bit longer (the warning
about the preference list). This is a non-critical judge bug...
I've got another e-mail address JUST IN CASE the
"kleiman.indianapolis.in.us" domain goes down. It is associated with my
job, so use in in emergencies only. "[email protected]". I do monitor
this e-mail account during the day (when I'm at the office).
Dave
>Broadcast message from [email protected] as Master in 'ghodstoo':
>
>... 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).
Ok.
Well, to make Mondays available, you just set the DAYS.
set movement days -mTWTF-
The lowercase 'm' allows deadlines to fall only after noon Mondays;
otherwise they can fall, say, at 1:48 am Monday morning, which people
generally feel is still the weekend.
And you'd send a similar set for the other two phases, adjustment and retreat.
But see how everyone feels about it first, of course.
You have four day movement phase deadlines, one day for retreats, and two
days for adjustments. Is that what you meant to have? I thought you wanted a
week just for movement. This way suits me much better.
However, I suggest that you cut a half hour off each NEXT parameter. I'll
explain why if you like (it's a bit hard to explain), or you could just
trust me. :)
The other parameters look fine.
>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?
No, that is not normal. It's very odd. I can't explain why that happened.
Maybe Dave K. can.
>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.
No offense here. What do you want to say about it, Hohn?
>I'm not sure how long it will take for Edi Birsan to join and I
>would want him to hear the discussion.
That's ok, he can just do a HISTORY command when he arrives.
> Otherwise, are we missing only
>John Barkdull? I think so.
Yes, except that Pitt has not actually signed on to play a power. He's only
an observer. Maybe he hasn't decided on his preference list yet?
-Jamie
Private message from Turkey to Austria:
OK what now
I thought I would comment on the USWI/judge syntax issue.
>Broadcast message from [email protected] as Master in 'ghodstoo':
>
>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]
Simple enough. liv is not a valid abbreviation for Livonia. lvn is the
correct abbreviation. In order to provide for flexibility, the judge is
also programmed to accept: livo,lvo,lva and of course, the long-form Livonia.
Liverpool can be abbreviated by lvp, livp lpl and Liverpool
(personally I can never remember the syntax, and judge write out
Liverpool and Livonia each time ... )
So Russia could have written
a pru s a lvn
a mos s a lvn
a lvn s a pru
Of course, the judge is quite flexible, and will accept
pru s lvn
mos s lvn
lvn s pru
Nick
Private message from Observer to Master:
Jim, I assume this is the game you mentioned to me in one of your
recent AP's? Did you need assistance?
BTW, you didn't set the Boardman number. You should send the command
set bn 1997KT to the judge after a signon command
I'd boast about how much more efficient I am than the Postal BNC, but
I am about 3 months behind on the Miller numbers :-(
Nick
Umm, Edi is sending some good messages, but I will remind him that he
doesn't want to compromise his password to Hohn (as he has just done).
Edi, you need to do things with Austria as your country...
that means:
signon aghodstoo
...
Hohn will also show you how to access the Register files to get people's
phone numbers, if he doesn't I will.
This is a good time to remind people that phone calls ARE
allowed in this game. We discussed that during the setup period.
People are not required to make or accept phone calls though.
This is an intentional part of the cultural experiment on
my part.
Sending
press to m
I made a phone call to X and we discussed X or other thoughts to be
shared will be part of my write up on this game at the end and are
highly encouraged. Mark Nelson will soon remind me how insane I
am for doing this. He ran the first ghods game.
Everyone set on this? If you've asked me other questions, I'll
get to them this evening.
Overjoyed to see the game finally begin,
Jim
It seems that the Sultan has already risen from the Dead and Easter has not
even arrived yet. Then again as he is a simple pagan heathen savage as
opposed to a heretic traitor to Rome it may not be time for
crucifixions....then again maybe he can aspire to that mantle.
Speaking of mantle, I will be visiting Mickey's home state on Feb 6 to hold a
Legends gathering in Houston, anyone around there at that time?
Will also be going off to Sweden at the end of March for the World DipCon.
Edi Birsan
real phones:
510-680-0110
510-825-0297
How about some phone numbers folks?
Edi Birsan
Midnight Games
[email protected]
Web site: www.mgames.com
The game ghodstoo has been given Boardman Number 1997KT.
This number can be set on the judge using the set bn command. Could the
GM please signon and send the command:
set bn 1997KT (Not necessary in unmoderated games)
There are 2 parts to the Boardman Number. First is the year (1997) and
second is the 2 letter game code (KT).
If anyone wants a copy of BNs or MNs already given out, they are
available by FTP in the file bnc.log in the /usr/nick/ directory of
ftp.sentex.ca (199.212.134.1). This file is also referenced on the
BNC Homepage, http://www.sentex.ca/~nfitz/bnc.html
I will be resigning from this game in a couple of minutes, if you have
any questions, please contact me directly.
Nicholas Fitzpatrick ([email protected])
>Jest thou so easily with Yog?
Oh, no, not at all. It is very difficult to jest with creatures whose name
is only one syllable and whose brow slopes more than Pamela Anderson's
(where did thye find all that silicone?) breasts. How do you jest with a
creature who thinks a punch line is what you stand in at a Mike Tyson
sleep-over...?
KP
Private message from France to Turkey:
Sultan: It's good to hear from you. Turkey's prosperity is always of
utmost interest to France. FYI, I believe that major trouble is brewing
between Germany and Russia. This may take considerable pressure off you.
Perhaps this piece of information will fit with what you hear. If not,
please let me know, because I would like some clues as to who is honest
with me.
Jean Barquemondieu, Foreign Minister
Private message from France to Germany:
My friend, of course, if you and Austria were to become friends, I
would give you maximum freedom of action. I thought that was implicit
in my final words about easing the way for you, but I understand that
you would want matters put in more concrete terms. I am a bit
surprised that Austria has not contacted you, but perhaps he preferred
an indirect approach to open discussions.
--Cyberdog-AltBoundary-0001B014
Content-Type: text/enriched; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
10Geneva=
signon fghodstoo odie
set wait
f bre - pic
a par - bur
a mar s a par - bur
press to g
My friend, of course, if you and Austria were to become friends, I
would give you maximum freedom of action. I thought that was implicit
in my final words about easing the way for you, but I understand that
you would want matters put in more concrete terms. I am a bit
surprised that Austria has not contacted you, but perhaps he preferred
an indirect approach to open discussions.
IMPORTANT MESSAGE: PLEASE READ CAREFULLY!
Well, things are off to a smashing start... Hohn has made Edi into
a Judge technology wary beast through his mistakes in dealing
with forwarding mail, not once, but TWICE! Does everyone have that
straight now? Be careful from whence you copy and reply to things!!
I want to thank Hohn for providing our new Judge guys an example
of what NOT to do ;-)
What I really want to do here, though, is to be clear about what the
demo nature of this game will mean -- now and in the future.
1) I am seeing all press between players that is occuring through
the Judge. I am archiving ALL of that press for future use. I
also am saving all press and E-Mail related to the game that is occuring
outside of the Judge which is forwarded to me. The general preference
is that all communication occur through the Judge because then this
happens automatically; however, with the problems between Edi and
Hohn i don't want to be dictatorial about this. Edi has been good
about CCing me, and I think that nothing important has yet been lost.
Please, let's keep it that way.
2) I have been writing a series of articles for Diplomacy World over
the last couple of years on the role of Personality in Diplomacy.
I view this game as an experiment on some aspects of that issue.
I will be writing an article on the game with that focus AFTER it is
over. Some of the rest of you have inquired about writing your own
articles and having access to that complete press stream to do so.
I am indifferent on this request. There is no need to decide now,
but keep that question in mind. I certainly encourage the writing
of additional articles.
3) In a related point, some of the novice observers want to have access
to the complete press stream after the game is over, so they can learn
by the subtleties of how you all have done things over the course
of the game. I am inclined to the negative on this request, but can
easily be dissuaded to the positive. Certainly, your public endgame
statements would be archived through the Diplomatic Pouch web page
along with the game history so that people could look at that at
a minimum.
4) To add to that complete press stream, I have already been asking
that you relate to me (in private "press to m") the gist of phone
calls that take place. This already has been happening to my
satisfaction and I hope it will continue. In addition, I will
encourage seasonal and yearly reports to me on some of your background
thinking as you go along. There is no need to repeat to me what is
obvious from the press stream, but to add what is NOT obvious from it.
Again, here so far, I feel that I am being adequately informed but
when the tactical/strategic situations get more intricate, i may
begin prodding you to write more. You may want to save a copy of
these statements for your own public endgame statements as well.
5) After some discussion, we have decided that the observers are free
to write press discussing what they see going on. I'm reserving the
right to reign them in if they get out of control.
6) The public broadcast releases (at least most of them) will be
merged together and published in my postal/E-Mail Diplomacy
szine, The Abyssinian Prince, along with complete season by season
game reports and maps. The szine is a three week szine and should be
able to keep up with the game fairly well.... at least it did with the
previous demo game. I offer to the players in this game free
subscriptions as a perk for the life of the game. For E-Mail
subs, they are free to anyone by sending the message:
subscribe tap
to [email protected]
The disadvantage to this is that E-Mail subs come in the szine's
source code which bothers some people (e.g. Pitt) a lot and some
people not at all. Postscript versions also are available on
diplom.org's archive site. Ordinary postal subs are a dollar per issue,
but as I said, I want to give you players a perk for your willingness
to do this. Let me know your preference for being added to the postal
mailing list.
Thanks!
Jim Burgess
master of ghodstoo
Publisher of The Abyssinian Prince
>Vienna, (Free Press)
>The hearst was pulling up to the rusty gates of the Dark Tower when a
>diminutive reporter reached the side of a cloaked visitor.
Is it just me or does Vienna sound awfully spooky all of a sudden?
What have they been doing with those little boys...?
-A disinterested third party who can't hold his tongue
Jim,
>> >my view in general is that rules that are impossible to enforce as
>> >a GM should be avoided.
(Jamie)
>> I disagree. I would like to know just why you think so, Jim.
(Jim)
>One relevant discussion during the long house rules debate of a few
>years ago was on the matter of "abuse and profanity". The original
>idea was that "personal abuse" should be disallowed. I argued that
>the rule was both impossible to define and impossible to enforce
>(slightly different concepts).
Quite different, I think.
Let me distinguish between *vague* criteria, on the one hand, and
*unenforceable* criteria, on the other. A criterion could be unenforceable
because it is vague, of course. In that case, I agree it is a defective
criterion, but I say it is defective primarily because it is vague.
The 'abuse and profanity' rule may be defective on grounds of vagueness.
The 'no negotiations with late powers' rule is not defective on grounds of
vagueness, because it is not vague at all.
I don't think this kind of unenforceability is a defect, especially not in
our game.
You have given a good reason to avoid vague criteria, I agree with you
about that. Is there a good reason to avoid criteria that are not vague but
are for some other reason unenforceable? I don't know what it is.
>Impossible to Enforce: by attempting to enforce this rule, to me
>the GM is injecting himself or herself into the game and is chasing
>a moving target. I really should add "enforcing in a level, fair, and
>impartial way". Some people's level of "abuse" is very low and other
>people;'s level is very high. I think it then becomes part of the
>game. As you, Jamie, are aware, Dan Shoham and I went back and forth
>on this at length for months at that time.
I think this is due to the vagueness of that particular standard, though.
(Me, somewhat flippantly)
>> I myself implore all of the players to be reasonable at all times. I mean,
>> I hereby do so.
(Jim)
>And that is the rule which I believe I can apply in a fair, even,
>and impartial manner.
Actually, I think the opposite. I think that standard is awfully vague. Or
do you propose to define 'reasonable'??
My objections to vague criteria (or standards) outrun yours. To me, what is
important is that someone who *wants* to follow the rules know exactly what
he has to do to follow them. Obviously, vagueness prevents this.
Then a special difficulty arises, above and beyond enforceability and
fairness. It's that a player always has to worry that by taking the
standard in a stricter sense than others take it, he puts himself at a real
disadvantage in the game. So there is an incentive to push at the line. And
this is bound to lead to trouble.
A clear standard that cannot be fully enforced does *not* lead to this
difficulty, I think. We may reasonably assume that other players don't need
to be threatened with sticks by the gm to get them to follow a clear rule.
At least, I am willing to assume this, and I think there's good reason to
assume it.
-Jamie
(Pardon me if this sounds obsessive. I'm in the middle of reading a book
about vagueness!)
>
> Broadcast message from [email protected] as England in 'ghodstoo':
>
>
> On negotiations during minor phases:
>
> (Jim)
> >Perhaps (since my judge playing experience is not extensive) I share
> >Edi's postal view but that is out of step with the majority of you
> >Judge players. I also stand to be educated on this issue.
>
>
> Not at all. The large majority of Judge players, I think it's fair to say,
> also find no problem in negotiating during adjustment and retreat phases.
> (Rick's account of this is perfectly accurate, in other words.)
>
That sounds fine to me.
> Whoever told Edi that he was worried about it was probably lying. Maybe it
> was me. Maybe I was talking to Edi on the phone about this. Maybe Edi made
> the whole thing up. Seems most likely. Just who does he think he's fooling?
>
No comment.
>
> >On a related issue that I have been thinking about.....
> >
> >my view in general is that rules that are impossible to enforce as
> >a GM should be avoided.
>
> I disagree. I would like to know just why you think so, Jim.
>
One relevant discussion during the long house rules debate of a few
years ago was on the matter of "abuse and profanity". The original
idea was that "personal abuse" should be disallowed. I argued that
the rule was both impossible to define and impossible to enforce
(slightly different concepts).
Impossible to Define: the only sociological definition to this I've
ever seen is the difference between saying someone is "acting like
a horse's ass" as opposed to saying someone IS "a horse's ass".
If that were the definition of abuse, I would accept it, although
I like stepping on that definitional line at times.
Impossible to Enforce: by attempting to enforce this rule, to me
the GM is injecting himself or herself into the game and is chasing
a moving target. I really should add "enforcing in a level, fair, and
impartial way". Some people's level of "abuse" is very low and other
people;'s level is very high. I think it then becomes part of the
game. As you, Jamie, are aware, Dan Shoham and I went back and forth
on this at length for months at that time.
> My view is this. In a game like Ghodstoo, you can expect players to follow
> the rules laid down. So the rules will be largely self-enforcing.
>
Well, I do think that is true. You certainly will avoid the novice's
"hey, he lied to me, he can't do that!"
>
> >This issue in general colored my approach to the question of negotiating
> >during the grace period after the deadline recently. I also don't
> >believe in prohibiting that for similar reasons; HOWEVER, if the player
> >or players who are late want to negotiate during the grace period,
> >I have asked them to make reasonable requests to me to extend the
> >deadline. I am aware of the possibility of trying to "manipulate"
> >me and that sort of situation and will make a judgment based on
> >my view of reasonableness.
>
> This seems entirely fair.
> I myself implore all of the players to be reasonable at all times. I mean,
> I hereby do so.
>
And that is the rule which I believe I can apply in a fair, even,
and impartial manner.
>
> I will always follow the rules as I understand them, always. And I have no
> doubt that other players are the same.
>
>
> Except for Cal.
>
> -Jamie
>
>
No comment,
Jim
I have adjusted the deadline for the next set of moves to Tuesday
from Monday to account for travel plans for a number of players.
In addition, a couple of our number are off to Scandinavia for World
Dip Con just after that, so subsequent deadlines should also be
anticipated to have to be adjusted somewhat as well. Please keep
me informed and I will keep you informed. As always, I view your
comments to me on adjusting deadlines as private and you make your
own choices on public and partial broadcasts of this information.
In these types of messages, I will only refer to information already
made public by players.
jim
I have adjusted the deadline for the next set of moves to Tuesday
from Monday to account for travel plans for a number of players.
In addition, a couple of our number are off to Scandinavia for World
Dip Con just after that, so subsequent deadlines should also be
anticipated to have to be adjusted somewhat as well. Please keep
me informed and I will keep you informed. As always, I view your
comments to me on adjusting deadlines as private and you make your
own choices on public and partial broadcasts of this information.
In these types of messages, I will only refer to information already
made public by players.
jim
Private message from Russia to Italy:
Hi Jamie & Cal
Just a short note to reply to your last. Hope your easter weekend is
going well; I'll be doing easter egg hunts and the usual stuff today and
tomorrow.
Wanted to ask you what you thought of these two options. Some (most) of
this is rehash, but I'm still curious as to your opinions:
Option 1: Option 2:
r-->Boh r-->War
Boh-Vie War S Sev-Ukr
Mos-War Sev-Ukr
Sev-Ukr Mos S War
Nwy-Swe Nwy-Swe
Option 1 is risky, but gives me more "hurt potential" vs AT. If I do
option 1, Trieste is gone for sure--at least for a turn! Edi probably
retreats to Tyo, Hohn possibly gives him War or Rum as compensation, and
he still goes +1 and builds vs Cal. The froint then becomes filled with
one more army each while, chillingly, Turkey probably uses his destroyed
army to rebuild F Smy, thus giving them ION soon. But that's the 'down"
part. The positive side is that it's an innovative move that depends on
no one but me to fail (ha ha), gets Cal one, and may keep Edi even (thus
enticing Hohn to perhaos take advantage of his momentary weakness).
The only disadvantage for me is if they use Ukr-War (Gal S), which Edi
will want to have happen if he sees Tri gone...but which Hohn may not
desire, thus causing friction. If they do that, I can't stop them.
if I guess right, then Hohn tries Ukr-Mos (the standard cut of SEV), and
I bounce him there, bounce Edi in War (or get it myself) and rebuild the
destroyed Bla and current A Sev into two builds (probably playing one
short, because my centers are covered).
Option 2 is the conservative option. It doesn't help Cal, but protects
me. Warsaw is saved. I maintain a linear front, Sev dies (again, of
course), and I rebuild a unit in STP, thus forming a psuedo-wall...until
spring, when they put one on Mos to cut support, and then use Ukr-War
(Gal S) to break the line!
Short of "benevolent" German aid (ha!) in the form of Mun-Sil and then
defending me in War (figure the odds), the simple truth of the matter is
that AT will NOT pass up this "vulture" opportunity to kill me, and that
in spring, they will have the potential to seize WAR. Hence my
lassaize-faire attitude toward my lifespan on the board -- at this stage,
it might be better for me if I just throw you guys some centers, a la the
old QC. I *do* have honor toward allies as my baseline modus operandi,
even if I'm occasionally goofy in showing it....
You guys let me know how you see this, and speak your cases (Cal, I know
your reply -grin-).
Take care, and hope to hear from you soon.
Tsar Faz
Private message from Russia to France:
King Jean
Happy Easter weekend! This will be short, as egg hunts and basket-making
await...hope you're doing well.
As I mentioned in previous notes, I sure would appreciate some
anti-German action. If you were after him, you could go Mar-Bur, Bre-Pic
(Par S), Mao-Ech. England is defending himself, Germany is preoccupied
with E (and now, probably, me...sigh). You'd secure your borders and
have everyone by the , ahem, 'short-and-curlies,' able to dictate French
desires with a little more "oomph."
Having said that, I would understand if you thought English death was
better for you, and that you need Germany as an ally vs the
rapidly-growing AT alliance. Those guys will -- absolutely will -- take
War next spring (retake Sev now, then have sev-Mos, followed by Ukr-War,
Gal S). Once that happens,Germany's flank is caved in, and you may not
want to see that....I don't know. if you stick with Germany, you'll
probably need to go Mar-Pie, if only to buttress Italy and head off Edi's
westward advance. (You can always stab Italy later if you see the
opening.)
So, King Jean, be advised I will fight AT to the end, but the end is,
unfortunately, coming rather quickly. If I don't get help from some
western quarter, you'll be fighting Turkish galleys soon.
Happy Easter!
Tsar faz
>
> Broadcast message from [email protected] as England in 'ghodstoo':
>
And it's Saturday morning and time to open up these knotty philosophical
problems. Although I recognize that debating a philosopher is bound to
get me in trouble.
>
> Jim,
>
> >> >my view in general is that rules that are impossible to enforce as
> >> >a GM should be avoided.
>
> (Jamie)
> >> I disagree. I would like to know just why you think so, Jim.
>
> (Jim)
> >One relevant discussion during the long house rules debate of a few
> >years ago was on the matter of "abuse and profanity". The original
> >idea was that "personal abuse" should be disallowed. I argued that
> >the rule was both impossible to define and impossible to enforce
> >(slightly different concepts).
>
> Quite different, I think.
>
I agree that this is quite different; however, I was trying to establish
a point of comparison. In retrospect, I was trying to do this mostly
for myself and I probably should have refrained from "thinking out loud".
While there is no requirement for consistency.... hobgoblin of little
minds and all that.... as a GM, I like to try to sketch out my parameters
so people are not surprised by what I do. As you also must have gathered,
I like to be "present" without unduly "influencing" the game. This is
a recognized balancing act on my part. It's also why I don't like
GMing novice games, since they require a different style. Anyway, that's
a long way of saying, yes, I accept the criticism.
> Let me distinguish between *vague* criteria, on the one hand, and
> *unenforceable* criteria, on the other. A criterion could be unenforceable
> because it is vague, of course. In that case, I agree it is a defective
> criterion, but I say it is defective primarily because it is vague.
>
Distinction granted.
> The 'abuse and profanity' rule may be defective on grounds of vagueness.
>
I think it is defective on grounds of vagueness, but even if we agreed on
the definition of abuse and profanity (I suggested that a reasonable
distinction, though not without controversy, would be made between
inserting "like" or "as" into any description or insult vs. saying
someone IS whatever) it could not be enforced because it could be
undertaken surreptiously and it could be faked. Someone trying
to raise the level of the game could use a rule against abuse and
profanity as a weapon. I would prefer as GM to say: "You're on your
own, deal with it as you will".
> The 'no negotiations with late powers' rule is not defective on grounds of
> vagueness, because it is not vague at all.
>
That is correct. It still suffers from the same unenforceability problem.
You could make a phone call, or E-Mail privately. Then one could complain
to me that such activity happened, even providing tapes or E-Mail proofs,
that were faked. This sort of activity draws the GM into the game in a
way in which I am not inclined. But you are correct that such activity
would not suffer from a vagueness criteria.
The other aspect, other than drawing the GM in, is that mutually
consenting moves outside of the rule will likely not be reported at all.
Both of those aspects are relevant to me. I would rather avoid making
rules that people might be tempted to break and I would rather avoid
making rules that (in a sort of Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle sort
of way) could affect outcomes in the game by asking for my rulings.
> I don't think this kind of unenforceability is a defect, especially not in
> our game.
Defect is way too strong a word from my perspective for what I'm
describing.
>
> You have given a good reason to avoid vague criteria, I agree with you
> about that. Is there a good reason to avoid criteria that are not vague but
> are for some other reason unenforceable? I don't know what it is.
>
It is setting up a situation where the GM might then be asked to
rule on the criteria.
>
> >Impossible to Enforce: by attempting to enforce this rule, to me
> >the GM is injecting himself or herself into the game and is chasing
> >a moving target. I really should add "enforcing in a level, fair, and
> >impartial way". Some people's level of "abuse" is very low and other
> >people;'s level is very high. I think it then becomes part of the
> >game. As you, Jamie, are aware, Dan Shoham and I went back and forth
> >on this at length for months at that time.
>
> I think this is due to the vagueness of that particular standard, though.
>
This is certainly true in that case.
>
> (Me, somewhat flippantly)
> >> I myself implore all of the players to be reasonable at all times. I mean,
> >> I hereby do so.
>
> (Jim)
> >And that is the rule which I believe I can apply in a fair, even,
> >and impartial manner.
>
> Actually, I think the opposite. I think that standard is awfully vague. Or
> do you propose to define 'reasonable'??
>
Oh.... must I? Now (recall, for the overwhelmed) we are talking about
defining reasonable reasons for deadline extensions. Here we are talking
about something else entirely. This is a hobby and as such "real life"
has a call greater than a Diplomacy deadline. I don't want to get into
judging work and home constraints on people. Therefore, reasonable issues
are defined by players with my involvement only to the extent necessary.
These vaguenesses are essentially "out-of-game" realities to me. And
that's why their analysis differs fundamentally from the other things
we are discussing.
My important point here is that Diplomacy GMs have a disturbing
tendency at times to believe that only they have a real life
outside the hobby. I grant (in fact insist) that everyone does.
And then, the fact that the games are supposed to be "fun" is
relevant. To blindly hold to a rule, that "ruins" the fun
of the game, is not fun for anyone. That's my standard and it
is by definition vague.
> My objections to vague criteria (or standards) outrun yours. To me, what is
> important is that someone who *wants* to follow the rules know exactly what
> he has to do to follow them. Obviously, vagueness prevents this.
>
True, but I don't want to get into yours or anyone else's personal life
enough to resolve all possible vaguenesses on this issue.
> Then a special difficulty arises, above and beyond enforceability and
> fairness. It's that a player always has to worry that by taking the
> standard in a stricter sense than others take it, he puts himself at a real
> disadvantage in the game. So there is an incentive to push at the line. And
> this is bound to lead to trouble.
>
Yes, that is certainly true. I am cognizant of shifting the playing field
such that this comment does not look as relevant. It still is relevant.
It is possible under this sort of standard for people in the game to
use personal life "excuses" to manipulate the game. Here is where your
trust issue where you say that you don't want to be using tactics that
are not "permitted" is relevant. I will state this clearly:
"Don't use issues in your personal life, either real or fabricated,
to manipulate the GM into changing deadlines for reasons stemming from
WITHIN the game."
I still realize that is vague. This stems from my attempt to be
clear but not to paint myself into a corner.
> A clear standard that cannot be fully enforced does *not* lead to this
> difficulty, I think. We may reasonably assume that other players don't need
> to be threatened with sticks by the gm to get them to follow a clear rule.
> At least, I am willing to assume this, and I think there's good reason to
> assume it.
>
>
>
> -Jamie
>
> (Pardon me if this sounds obsessive. I'm in the middle of reading a book
> about vagueness!)
>
>
Well, it does sound a little obsessive, but I enjoyed thinking about it.
I'm sure I have not satisfied you yet either.
Jim
Private message from England to Master:
Jim,
>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.
Hm, that's not exactly what I was doing.
I was intending not to submit orders until I got some definite answer; I
was not intending just to hold up the game as a kind of leverage. (That
would be silly. It would never work. :-))
To be a bit more thorough:
I knew that Russia was going to try the "Well, sorry, we just didn't have
enough time before the deadline to work everything out trick". He'd already
stalled right up to the deadline. But I was confident because I knew I
could press him even afterward. Not my favorite move, but legal, so it's
another arrow in the quiver, as far as I'm concerned.
>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?
Oh, sure, you could.
But, that would be cheating. I don't expect cheating in my games, and I
don't think you should expect it in this game. Yes, it has occurred, one or
another kind of cheating. Myself, I think it's a shame to create a lot of
hassles for everyone just to prevent those few cheaters. And I'm sure you'd
have nothing to worry about here. (Virtual 'here'.)
> Players in my postal
>szine very commonly call other players after the deadline before
>calling or E-Mailing me their orders.
Well, I don't know what to say. Is that cheating? I would absolutely refuse
to talk to anyone under those circumstances. It's a game, after all!
To me (as I said), there's cheating, which is doing something against the
rules, and there's taking advantage of every little trick, which I do
especially when pressed to the wall, and the latter is absolutely nothing
like the former. Again, I think it's admirable to squeeze every last drop
out of the rules when you're in a bind.
>Absolutely.
Good.
>> 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.
I think I get it.
Do you think you could just make this a rule? An unenforceable one, but I
predict with extreme confidence that enforcement won't be a problem.
So, let's see. The rule would be:
if the deadline has passed and for some reason or other (restriction on
permissible reasons?) you want more time, submit a request to the gm for
more time, inform others (whomever you want) that you've submitted the
request, then continue at will. If the extension is granted, fine. If not,
then everyone has to shut up and submit moves.
Look, this might be simplest. Why don't you just ask the players to accept
the more standard house rule, by acclamation, as it were? Oh, right,
because you don't want everyone to have to wait around for you to check in
and move the deadline.
Well, do it how you think best, of course. You know now that if I think it
will help me out of a jam, I'll push right up to the line, but never tread
over it.
-Jamie
p.s. Note that my orders are in now, with a WAIT.
Private message from Russia to Turkey:
Hi Hohn
On the serious side, Happy Easter, and hope you're enjoying the weekend.
On the NOT-so-serious 'razzing' side: what's the matter; why so silent
this turn? Waiting for Edi to come home, to synchronize your stories?
Can't think up any more lies to sucker me with? (Oh wait, I forgot,
lawyers don't lie; they "selectively apply known truths," as one lawyer
mentioned in a recent article. The military calls that 'quibbling,' and
it's cause for dismissal from the Academies. I imagine legal eagles call
it 'part of the profession.' Ah, semantics. But I digress; I'm not
here for semantics, and you've heard enough lawyer-bashing in the past,
I'm sure.)
Anyway, here goes:
1) It seems to me obvious that you once again lied through your teeth to
cover your true intent, that of smashing me with Edi. Clearly, you'd be
a fool to let me keep SEV (reducing you by one), ally with me, and then
try to somehow stab Edi with your current positioning. But you knew that
before you even made your moves. The only thing you could possibly get
now would be BUL (and that assumes Ion-Gre) and a hopeful bounce in RUM.
By staying the course with Aus, you can have War and/or Mos in a couple
turns -- not to mention retaking Sev, rebuilding your army with a F Smy,
and starting the ol' westward fleet movements. One nice, long, linear
front, from Mos to the Ionian....smooth, baby, smooth.
But _please,_ if I'm wrong in that assessment, enlighten me. Dig deep.
:>)
Oh, btw, is "inflexible" spelled with one "b", or two?
2) In light of (1), I have to decide who to throw centers to, and how
quickly. I can retreat to WAR and hold the line for another 1-2 turns,
waiting for Pitt to get into SIL and SWE (that support of Eng should
finally goad him into coming east). Or I can retreat to BOH and make
life interesting for Edi....perhaps even go Sev-Rum to deny him RUM, and
then watch him go -1 this turn....darn the luck.
"Game face sarcasm" aside, I return to the serious side, Hohn. You're a
great player (as are the rest of these sharks). My biggest goal now is
to see the breakup of AT. I can't seem to persuade you to abandon Edi
voluntarily, because quite honestly it's not (yet) in your best interests
to do so. So I'll 'sweeten the pot.' If I can get centers for I and G,
that blocks Edi's westward routes and perhaps forces you to negotiate
with them (at least with Cal)...or perhaps 'go around Edi' to get to the
west, who knows.
And if Edi is beset upon by RI and loses one...and if you're gaining at
the same time, well....Maybe, just maybe, you'll give him some of the
same treatment you gave me. I won't be around to see it, but the mere
knowledge a stab might occur is enough to let me happily leave this game
en route to greener pastures. Me helping you--even if you don't
want/expect it--via either direct or indirect means--is one way I can
throw a punch this game (however weak and ineffectual). And actually
help you. Really.
Anyway, gotta go; I have to go pick up some cadets coming up for Easter
dinner, and then do some stuff with the kids today (i.e., 'screw all the
office work I brought home'). It's a sunny day, and life is short.
Hope your day is equally laid-back and/or enjoyable. Take care, my
friend.
Mark
Private message from Russia to Germany:
Hi Pitt
First off, Happy Easter, even though you may not read this until later.
I hope WorldCon was a blast, and that you did very well there.
Secondly, I understand your pobably confusion and anger this game, given
that I supported England and ruined your convoy. Part of it was simple
suasion: EF were writers this turn, and England (especially) offered
plans and ideas. Your note asked if I was still "on" for our dealings,
and when I wrote back and asked (twice) about your fleet intent (i.e.,
Kie-Hel or Kie-Den), you never answered. I got a little paranoid.
In retrospect, I shouldn't have supported England (obviously), but quite
honestly, I couldn't see any gain for me either way -- and thought that
if EF got the upper hand, I could at least pick a center up to keep me at
my shoestring level. Anyway, my error.
The future is now the key question. Quite honestly, one of the
'benefits' to angering you is that perhaps now you'll send something east
to address the AT threat -- heckuva way for me to get everyone's
attention regarding the unbreakable Edi & Hohn, but the alternative was
trying to go it alone. Anyone who still thinks Hohn will be lured from
The Dark Side and let me have SEV while he hits Edi is out of touch.
I envision Gal/Ukr working together vs War (or Mos) while Arm/Bla retake
Sev. Then, with alinear front (Gal/Sev/Ukr), they WILL take War in
spring, and possibly Mos in fall. Oh sure, I can rebuild one destroyed
unit in STP, but it's a downhill slide, Pitt.
How does this affect us? Simple.
1) I'm not after you anymore; I'm covering Sweden this turn, and
"collapsing inwardly." If you want to try for Nwy, have at it.
2) I have a decision concerning my retreat. if I play "fire sale" and
throw my remaining centers to you and Cal, then I forget War and retreat
to Boh, ensuring Cal gets TRI. If I play conservative, then I retreat to
WAR and hold the front for one more full season (big deal). Your ideas?
3) I think--after watching France sit on the sidelines this turn, and
judging the "gain" potential of the three Western powers--that you should
sail for Nwy and move Mun-Sil, ASAP. Oh, I know your immediate thought:
"you suckered me this turn, and now you expect me to uncover Mun? Yeah,
right." You'd be normal to think that, but I've decided that AT must be
delayed and/or punished as much as I can humanly do, before I fade from
this game. if that means you in WAR and NWY as I die, great. Quite
honestly, I'm overtaxed at work and at home, and I won't cry big tears
if I'm the first one eliminated in game. And if that's the case, then
YOU and Cal are most deserving of what I have to offer. Yours to
consider, and act upon, Pitt. No foolin' here.
Tsar Faz
I've been away for a few days. I see that in the interim, the English
leaders have become quite generous with others' lives.
"Soldiers are made to be killed."
Napolean
Private message from England to Russia:
Gentlemen,
I am very wary about inserting my preferences about what really should be
your decisions. I guess I kind of like the riskier option, if you want my
opinion. But I think the conservative option also has virtues.
To my mind, the point of the coming move ought to be to arrange things to
provide the most incentive to Hohn to switch sides. If robbing Edi of
Trieste will do that, then I think it's worth the risk. If playing
conservatively leaves enough incentive already for Hohn to head to the
Balkans, then I'd do that, I guess.
Though I am on reasonably good terms with Hohn, he hasn't given me much of
a hint about his future plans. The general impression I have is that he's
taking this year to re-arrange and secure his position, and will make his
big decision next year. But I just don't know what the important factors in
his decision will be.
Putting myself in Hohn's shoes, I think what would most tempt me to attack
Austria's centers next year would be a combination of (1) Austria beginning
to gain ascendancy in the south (the motivation of fear), and (2) the
prospect of a fairly quick, fruitful attack (the motivation of greed).
When I say 'quick, fruitful," I mean by comparison with continuing to
attack Russia, which doesn't promise very much additional gain; and if he
did go ahead with it, his units would not be in a very good position to do
much of anything but attack Austria next anyway.
If I learn anything relevant from Hohn, I'll be sure to pass it along. I'm
sure you won't tell me what you ultimately decide, and I neither need nor
want to know! (Ok, I want to know just out of curiosity, but I'm patient,
my curiosity has no problem waiting to see the actual moves.)
Gentle King Jamie
Jim,
(Me)
>> The 'no negotiations with late powers' rule is not defective on grounds of
>> vagueness, because it is not vague at all.
(Jim)
>That is correct. It still suffers from the same unenforceability problem.
>You could make a phone call, or E-Mail privately. Then one could complain
>to me that such activity happened, even providing tapes or E-Mail proofs,
>that were faked. This sort of activity draws the GM into the game in a
>way in which I am not inclined.
My point was that one should not expect that such a thing *would* happen.
In the vast majority of cases, if you just make clear what the rules are,
players will follow them.
>"Don't use issues in your personal life, either real or fabricated,
>to manipulate the GM into changing deadlines for reasons stemming from
>WITHIN the game."
I don't get this at all. It is obviously unenforceable. If you don't want
to have an unenforceable rule, this would be a perfect example of a rule
you should not have. On the other hand, if one doesn't mind unenforceable
rules as long as they are not vague, then it seems to me that my suggestion
is vastly preferable.
-Jamie
>
> Broadcast message from [email protected] as England in 'ghodstoo':
>
> Jim,
>
> (Me)
> >> The 'no negotiations with late powers' rule is not defective on grounds of
> >> vagueness, because it is not vague at all.
>
> (Jim)
> >That is correct. It still suffers from the same unenforceability problem.
> >You could make a phone call, or E-Mail privately. Then one could complain
> >to me that such activity happened, even providing tapes or E-Mail proofs,
> >that were faked. This sort of activity draws the GM into the game in a
> >way in which I am not inclined.
>
> My point was that one should not expect that such a thing *would* happen.
> In the vast majority of cases, if you just make clear what the rules are,
> players will follow them.
>
It is possible that the level of the game may rise in this way so that the
vast majority of cases becomes irrelevant. It takes only one relevant
case to make things happen that I will regret. Thus, I will not make
such a rule.
>
> >"Don't use issues in your personal life, either real or fabricated,
> >to manipulate the GM into changing deadlines for reasons stemming from
> >WITHIN the game."
>
> I don't get this at all. It is obviously unenforceable. If you don't want
> to have an unenforceable rule, this would be a perfect example of a rule
> you should not have. On the other hand, if one doesn't mind unenforceable
> rules as long as they are not vague, then it seems to me that my suggestion
> is vastly preferable.
>
>
> -Jamie
>
I didn't really word that very well, but here's another more complete
explanation. If you cite a personal/computer access reason for a
deadline extension in a request to me, I will accept it, no questions
asked. This is enforceable because you tell me you need it and I
accept your request. The "guideline" above is not a rule because it
is unenforceable. It is an example of a rule that you told me you
would try to follow if you could, even though it is vague. If you don't
want to follow it and make too many deadline extension requests....
well, then, hmmmm, what could be done about that?
I realize that you and I are not on the same page here. You also are not
nudging me toward your page. i also am not putting really careful
thought into exactly how I say these things and realize that unclarity
or vagueness is contributing to your confusion.
It comes down to this (which I hope is clear, yet vague): All things are
in play, and this is play -- not work -- not home -- not family -- all
three of which are more important than play in the instant, yet without
play neither work nor home nor family are possible. [all apparent
contradictions and vagueness intended]
Aren't we having fun???
Jim
>Broadcast message from [email protected] as Austria in 'ghodstoo':
>And what is so wrong with death or undead as the case may be?
>Life is only a transitory state to an eternity of other existences.
I've seen the light! But it would be rude of me to be the first through the
door. After you, sir.
Not Going Gently,
King Jamie
Private message from Turkey to Master:
Jim,
Thoughts on this past season.
Well, I knew I should have gone with my gut and moved SEV-RUM with
support from Edi's BUL (assuming he would have gone for it, which I
think he would have) as well as RUM-UKR. My gut has been right most
of the time so far. It predicted Italy's move, and I'm glad Edi took
my advice of TRI-ALB with support.
I'm going to indeed take SEV back, and I plan on building a fleet to
start moving west. As for Mark, I question the effectiveness of his
press to me this turn. To be honest, the first portion grated on me.
But he does seem a bit more realistic now, and thus I leave the door
open for possible cooperation with him in the future, assuming I'm not
so far into his country that that becomes impossible.
I'm still planning on sticking with Edi. I suspect I'll be in prime
position to stab him soon, though, assuming things shake down a
certain way (a way which has a reasonable possibility of happening, I
feel). At which time I'll probably take that opportunity.
Hohn
Private message from Turkey to Russia:
Mark,
Sorry for my silence. This is the first press message I've written to
anyone this season. Things have been hectic as I've been in the
process of switching jobs. My firm is going down the toilet due to
bad management. Happily, I'm heavily in demand, so I'm not having any
problems finding alternatives.
I'm not dead set on AT forever, Mark. I'm sure you know that as
experienced Diplomacy players, we'll all be looking for opportunities
for stabs that benefit us.
Sadly, I tend to agree with your evaluation of the situation for this
upcoming turn. Again, I don't want to BS you with incredible lies. I
need a center, and the only place it looks that I can get that center
is a retaking of SEV. I'm going to move from UKR, though, so that
should hopefully relieve tensions on our mutual border.
I hope you had a good Easter, and I really am open to the idea of
working with you. It's just that the tactical situation has not
easily presented itself yet.
As a side note (and this is not intended to lay blame or make you feel
bad in any way), at times I wonder how this game would have shaped up
if you and I had gone for the RT in Sprin 1901.
Binflexibly yours,
Hohn
> Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more,
> Or close the wall up with our English dead!
> In peace there's nothing so becomes a man
> As modest stillness and humility;
> But when the blast of war blows in our ears,
> Then imitate the action of the tiger:
> Stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood.
Vienna, (Free Press)
"Summon up the Blood??" "Did some one mention Blood?"
echoed a deep refrain from the lost soul's of the Dark Tower.
BirSauron and the Night Riders were conferring on recent events
near Transylvania's eastern province when this disturbing thought was brought
to mind.
"From what black Pitt does this murmur of blood speak?
Are we to dally in the shadow of efforts long a'gone
When glory was set upon Le'pantaloons lusty song
Or go fast against the winds of fate and course a new peak? "
"huh..." mentioned the Darkest of the Night Riders.
"It is enough that you know that the recent military orders were an
unfortunate vulgar display of power from the E.S.P. (*) mana pool that must be
drawn upon in times of treasonous stress. Now it time to send
the Riders to discomfort the routing hordes of Russian's from the
Northern provinces and to deal with the Pope. It would seem that it is Easter
again and crucifixtions are in."
xxxxxx
(*) ESP=Edi Special Projections
>for without victory there is no survival.
And what is so wrong with death or undead as the case may be?
Life is only a transitory state to an eternity of other existences.
Victory is but a transitory state to an eternity of other wars.
Jim,
Uh oh. Ko-ans.
I don't want to talk about this anymore.
-Jamie
:-)
As most of you probably know, the Northeast currently is being battered by
a winter/spring snowstorm. Logan Airport has been closed much of the past
two days and I'm not sure if Pitt is going to make it back in until later.
In anticipation, I am moving the deadline to tomorrow. Pitt should feel
free to get his orders in sooner and let the retreats process.
I hope everyone had a good time at World Dip Con!
As he digs out from a foot and a half of snow and an inconsiderate person
who parked halfway across his driveway!
Jim
As most of you probably know, the Northeast currently is being battered by
a winter/spring snowstorm. Logan Airport has been closed much of the past
two days and I'm not sure if Pitt is going to make it back in until later.
In anticipation, I am moving the deadline to tomorrow. Pitt should feel
free to get his orders in sooner and let the retreats process.
I hope everyone had a good time at World Dip Con!
As he digs out from a foot and a half of snow and an inconsiderate person
who parked halfway across his driveway!
Jim
Private message from Russia to Turkey:
Hello Hohn
Thanks for the note; I hope you find yourself a better firm to work at,
and that your hours calm down a little (as much as lawyers' hours _can_
ever slow down).
I appreciate the up-front tone of your letter. I hate the message,
naturally: last turn was wait-and-see (Or was it "string the fish along
a little longer") and this turn it's 'wait a little more...maybe',
because the tactical situation isn't what it could be...for you. (Which
is, of course, one reason I so desperately wanted a hit of Edi _last_
turn, when I at least stood a chance of being an equal/semi-equal partner
and the tactical situation of three-on-Edi would've been so much nicer!)
Ah well, Mama said there'd be days like this....
I have to chuckle, because your need for a center, IMO, is probably not
as desperate as MY need, given that (1) I'm beset upon by A, T, and now
probably G, and (2) if you and Edi stay allied, then I possibly can hit
him and "relieve him" of TRI, which actually makes you more powerful than
he -- and Edi with no chance of future gain, unless YOU help him (ie,
RUM as compensation, etc)??!
What's the overriding crisis with centers, when Edi has two (and *could
have* had) three foes against him? Well, anyway, it's an unanswerable
question...and moot.
I too wonder what would have happened, had we teamed up in 1901 and I not
gone in with Edi. I think, once you and I got past "game verbiage," that
we would've done extremely well here. (Not that _you_ won't this game,
mind you -- just that as an RT, we would've kicked some serious butt).
One point of note, though: you could ask that same question for 1902, or
1903, when I for one still asked for the same alliance idea. Part of the
later-game decision for non-alliance, I would think, lies in some small
part with you, wouldn't you agree?
Again, though, it's moot; water under the bridge. I don't ever expect
you to change or open up toward me, but I still wish you well. (I just
wish it wasn't so well against me.) I know the routine by now: you'll
be "leaving Ukr," no doubt as you've said. Of course, it'll either be
for WAR or MOS, I'll wager! (I mean, why retrace a perfectly good
advance line when you have ARM and BLA in the rear to "mop up?") Once
you retake SEV, you'll build F Smy, to give you and Edi the 3:2 fleet
superiority over Cal that you need to break out.
Well, I'll see what I can do vis a vis AT, and hope the Kaiser's cavalry
comes charging across Central Europe before I'm a memory... All I can
say is: when you see my moves, realize I can "help or hurt" one member
each of the AT. Please note which type of attention _you're_ receiving.
I may have been the "heavy" in 1901, but I still turn the other cheek in
hopes of cooperation. My face is awfully bruised, however.
Take care, Hohn. Have a good one, and we'll talk more when the
retreat(s) become known and options are available. You know, if you
really were sincere about Ukr moving out (to RUM!) I'd almost welcome
your A Arm in SEV...heck, I'd even move out in anticipation, just to see
if you'd use your fleets vs BUL. Am I dreaming here?
Best to you, my friend.
Mark
Private message from Master to Germany:
Pitt, Pitt, are you there or are you still stranded in Europe somewhere?
You owe a retreat in the ghodstoo game. Please check it out as soon
as you can.
Jim
Well, no sign of Pitt yet. Logan Airport was still on a heavily
restricted flight schedule today. On International flights, such
problems can be hell. I am extending the deadline another day
and hoping Pitt makes it back soon. I will continue to extend
the deadline day by day until Pitt returns to the US. I presume
that if someone hears from him through another forum they will let
me know. Edi, you didn't knife him so bad this time around that
he is still in a hospital over there, did you??? Pitt, of course,
was the Defending World Dip Con Champion.
Jim
PS Now out to see if they've cleared the roads a bit more!
[ The Zine | Online Resources | Showcase | Email | Postal | Face to Face ]
The Diplomatic Pouch is brought to you by the DP Council.
The Diplomacy Showcase section is maintained by Ry4an Brase ([email protected])
Last updated on Sun, Feb 15, 1998.