| Press for Spring of 1905 in ghodstoo |
Movement
Private message from Germany to Russia:
>As such, I'm either going to remove everything in the west and be your
>Alamo, giving you time to build your forces, or I'm going to stop playing
>the loyal martyr and turn westward with what puny resources I have left.
Well, you know where my preference lies...
I'm willing to discuss anything (though I want to be up front and let you
know that any plan which includes me giving back SWE will have to be one
*heck* of a plan). I don't want to see you get eliminated, however. This
is a demo game and I think it would be unpardonably rude to force any power
into early elimination. So, let me know what you'd like and I will
seriously evalute it.
-Pitt
Private message from Germany to Austria:
OK, you've convinced me (through email and your phone message...;-)
F BER it is.
-Pitt
Private message from Germany to England:
>I must just be missing something about this game. (I can even see what it
>is now, too late!)
Well, fer cryin' out loud, tell me what it is! The fact that I'm still
alive and, apparently, thriving, doesn't mean I have a clue as to why. I
would welcome your insight.
>Do you want a puppet? I'll disband the F Hel.
Yes, thank you. I have been serious all along when I said that I didn't
want to see you eliminated. If you disband HEL, I'll work to see that you
survive.
-Pitt
Private message from Germany to France:
>Things are proceeding quite well.
I agree. So long as we continue on our present course, we will have a lock
on the west and we can dictate the course of events in the east. I do have
a question about your moves last fall, though. Why did you order ENG-NTH?
I'm not overly concerned about it but it did surprise me.
>England is going down, and I am in Piedmont by invitation. What do we do
next?
In the north, we finish off England. In the south, it's largely up to you.
I'm a bit concerned about AT but I also want you to be able to feel free
to slip a shiv into Italy's back should you desire. I'll look for you to
make that call.
-Pitt
Private message from Russia to England:
Jamie,
I hope the tone of your note is more of disgust, rather than accusatory.
I can live with disgust, but, having been screwed myself by A, T and G,
I don't know if I could handle a similar intonation from you.
I haven't played my greatest game (a blindingly obvious understatement),
but the last moves were a technical snafu, pure and simple. I did try
to effect changes at the last minute. Feel free to disbelieve, but that
won't change things. I suppose I should've tried to reach you on the
juno.com net when I didn't hear from you during the day, when my system
got shut down.
I understand your sheer frustration, because no one has helped you other
than me, and my "help" has been near-useless. But I hope you're not
lumping me in the same category as F and G.
The unfortunate part of this all is that, even if you stayed even at 3
in Nwy and I stayed "even" at 3 in Mun, we'd STILL have no friends,
would still be isolated among centers, and FG would still be after us.
We'd just have a couple extra minutes to twist on the noose while Pitt
and John made their shifts and adjusted, and while AT ate the north up.
I'll take your note to heart and assume termination of correspondence
from you, for whatever reason(s) you care to express. Move as you see
fit, and I'll try and figure out what (if any) way I can hit Pitt and
die gracefully.
Race you to the grave....
Tsar Faz
Private message from Germany to Russia:
>Had an interesting discussion with Edi, and your name was prominently
>mentioned. *Now* it becomes clear why you hedged your moves east and
>preferred the stab of Sweden.
Really? Why?
>I can go either way here, Pitt: My desired intent is Nwy-Swe, StP-hold,
>swe-Bot (then support StP ad nauseam to fix the stalemate line in the
>north).
Who ends with SWE and NWY?
>if my 'early elimination' in a demo game would be rude, and if Edi and
>Hohn don't care about such niceties, then you're either going to be the
>moral conscience (hahahahaha)
You know...if I were a cynical type, I might think that you were being
*just* a bit sarcastic there...
>I mean, I could have taken MUN this turn.
I know and I appreciate the fact that you didn't.
>But I preferred to show
>goodwill and a desire to seriously discuss mutual benefits.
As do I. I've tried not to make any secret of the fact that I'm playing to
maximize German success but, at the same time, I have no desire to see you
(or Jamie, for that matter) eliminated. I don't pretend to suggest that
that means that I'm intent on seeing you restored to former glory, however.
My desire is to see you survive and continue to have some influence on the
outcome of the game. To that end, I'm willing to cooperate and provide
what support I can. I can't do so if your requests will harm Germany. I
mean, let's face it, I could just try to cut a deal with AT and write you
off right now. I'd prefer not to do that since I *don't* want to see you
eliminated.
-Pitt
Private message from England to Austria:
Well, Mark continues to insist that it was you who suggested building F
Stp(nc).
I'll be sure to examine the records when the game is over to see which of
you is lying! But I'm not going to worry about it now.
>One other last historic thing, Russia says that you did not advise him you
>were going to Kiel until the afternoon of the deadline and that prior to that
>you only talked about it as a possibility.
Yes, that's true. We had discussed two possibilities, though both of them
involved his taking Munich. (One was that I cut Kie S Mun; the other was
that I attack Den while he ordered Nwy-Swe, the point being that the A Kie
would then be overworked.). I sent him my choice on the aft. of the
deadline. He *certainly* had a chance to change his orders after that. He
says he tried to change a different order and the Judge wouldn't accept it.
>I am concerned with France and the possibilities of his moving to support the
>Italians rather than attack them. However, I think that either Germany or
>France will join me in an alliance and I only need one of them.
:-)
Well, I hope I'll still be watching when that time comes.
> The odds are
>that it will be Pitt since he is more of a strategic player than France as you
>can see by his build of Fleet Berlin when Army Berlin would have signalled his
>try for a 4 way draw with France.
I dunno, John is pretty strategic. He just doesn't talk much. Also, John
will have Mediterranean fleets, so he may be more inclined to join you than
to join Hohn.
Cheers!
Gentle King Jamie
Private message from England to Russia:
Tsar Faz,
I am not going to rely on your promises.
I don't know what moves I will make, and to be honest I probably won't tell
you when I do decide.
Best of luck against Pitt,
Gentle King Jamie
Private message from France to Italy:
Okay, I'm at your service. What should I do?
Private message from France to Germany:
Pitt, we must have had some kind of equipment failure (not necessarily the
judge). I sent you a message before moves processed telling you what I'd
be doing, including eng-nth. I said in that message that I would order
eng-nth to cut or generally make trouble for RE fleet moves. I did not
want to vacate the channel, and the fleet did not have any other job to do
at that time.
I also sent a long note regarding our relationship, in which I explained
why I am and will remain committed to long-term FG alliance. Did you
receive that?
John
Private message from Russia to Germany:
Hi Pitt
Thanks for the note. See my addendums to the addendums....again, I'm at
the asterisks.
>
>>Had an interesting discussion with Edi, and your name was prominently
>>mentioned. *Now* it becomes clear why you hedged your moves east and
>>preferred the stab of Sweden.
>
>Really? Why?
** You mention further down your note that you might just see me being
cynical after one of my comments. Allow me to offer that right now, I
can see you with a big sh**-eating grin on your face, knowing full well
what I mean.
>
>>I can go either way here, Pitt: My desired intent is Nwy-Swe, StP-hold,
>>swe-Bot (then support StP ad nauseam to fix the stalemate line in the
>>north).
>
>Who ends with SWE and NWY?
** Would be nice to hear YOUR views on this. if the answer Pitt would
give is, "I (Germany) end up with them both," then let's just fight now
and kill me. if you mean, "Would I throw Nwy to Eng and make a
threatening situation for you up north?", then the answer is no. I'll
do whatever it takes to survive up there, but quite honestly, I can't
see you getting everything except for STP. I'd like to stay at three.
I mean, I could theoretically be another, pre-positioned
"western-looking fleet" for you if and when you strike vs E or F (should
he get fidgety). Hence my desire for your fleet support in Bothnia.
>
>>if my 'early elimination' in a demo game would be rude, and if Edi and
>>Hohn don't care about such niceties, then you're either going to be the
>>moral conscience (hahahahaha)
>
>You know...if I were a cynical type, I might think that you were being
>*just* a bit sarcastic there...
** You, cynical? Me, sarcastic? Come on.....
>>I mean, I could have taken MUN this turn.
>
>I know and I appreciate the fact that you didn't.
** Well, how about translating 'appreciation' into help/support, vice
grabbing centers and giving me stroking words?
>>But I preferred to show
>>goodwill and a desire to seriously discuss mutual benefits.
>
>As do I. I've tried not to make any secret of the fact that I'm playing to
>maximize German success but, at the same time, I have no desire to see you
>(or Jamie, for that matter) eliminated.
** I'll accept that. But I can't see you feeling totally secure if both
E and R continue to live; you'll always worry a little. And if you're
inclined to take more from me, then by that very nature I _will_ be
eliminated.
>I don't pretend to suggest that
>that means that I'm intent on seeing you restored to former glory,
** Hey, Pitt, let's get real: my "former glory" was 6 centers, 3 of
which are irretrievably lost to AT, and one of which APPEARS to be
irretrievably lost to you. How would I ever expect to get 'restored" to
that level?
> however.
> My desire is to see you survive and continue to have some influence on the
>outcome of the game. To that end, I'm willing to cooperate and provide
>what support I can.
** Your last "support" was ignoring my pleas for eastern units, and
taking Sweden. That kind of "support" I can do without. If your
support entails letting me vegetate up north as a one-center Russia
(StP), I don't want it, frankly. I can no more influence the game there
in a perpetual hold mode any more than the man in the moon.
if I'm allowed to live with three centers, I can keep BOH to stop the
southern AT flow (as well as look for the GAL and SIL type moves), I'd
have a fleet ready to sail vs E or F, AND an army StP to defend the
stalemate line (with your no-kidding support this time). If, God
forbid, I'd actually GET an Ebglish center, I could only build in StP,
and, given the expected Lvn/Mos placements of AT, I couldn't build
anyway; I'd play short....either way, there's no more Russian danger to
you.
> I can't do so if your requests will harm Germany.
** I don't expect you to. But put the shoe on the other foot: I've
been hosed after goodwill demonstrations to you and Hohn. I can't roll
over and play lap dog if it further harms Russia. A one- or two-center
Russia locked in perpetual isolation as supporting stalemate pieces is
the equivalent of a patient in a vegetative state: I'm "alive" in one
sense, but already dead for practical purposes. No fun there.
Pitt, I'm not ASKING you to give me 16 centers and be an equal partner.
I'm just asking for a chance to continue to make life tough for
(hopefully) COMMON enemies. I can help you a lot better as an active
3-center than as a dudnik 1-center. In that regard, no more screw jobs
would be a nice way for you to agree. Not to mention returning Sweden.
Why is that such a big deal? Is one center more important at this stage
than a loyal and willing Russia? It sure seems like it.
>I mean, let's face it, I could just try to cut a deal with AT
** Could? Oh, there's that cynicism rolling in again....
>and write you
>off right now. I'd prefer not to do that since I *don't* want to see you
>eliminated.
** I'm losing at least one more center this turn. I would LIKE to be a
_viable_ entity to payback AT. You can either see to it -- because you
hold the cards -- or you can write me off. I can't control that.
Quite honestly, your FLEET build this turn gives me unease. I think you
need eastern armies, yet you build something more designed vs me or
Jamie. Of course, it could be going into winter laager forever in
Bal/Bot (the ol' stalemate line and/or convoy thing), I guess, so I'll
withhold judgment. But I sure would like to see real support, Pitt.
You either want it, or you don't. I've proposed my ideas (Nwy S StP,
Swe-Bot, then Nwy-Swe in fall). There's not much else to mull over for
my 'powerhouse' country.
Private message from England to Russia:
No hard feelings.
It's just that I have no reason at all to believe you, and the reasons to
disbelieve mounted a little too high.
If you really did have technical problems, there all sorts of things you
could have done. You could have written directly to Jim with your moves.
You could have written directly to me, or to me through the Judge, when you
found that you couldn't change your order. You could have phoned Jim. You
could have phoned me.
Instead, you just went ahead and let your orders process. This is not the
sort of 'help' that's a help.
So, I'll take my chances with my invaders now. With them, I know where I stand.
Cheers!
Gentle King Jamie
Private message from Russia to England:
GKJ
Please read on...
>No hard feelings.
** Good. I hate thei game, and I'm not much for PBEM, but I have
enjoyed the discussions with you. I feel like I really let you down,
and, game-related or no, that's a bitter pill for a
Mediterranean-American sensitivity kinda guy like me.
>
>It's just that I have no reason at all to believe you, and the reasons to
>disbelieve mounted a little too high.
>
>If you really did have technical problems, there all sorts of things you
>could have done. You could have written directly to Jim with your moves.
** Didn't know the second refusal screwed up until I saw concurrent
messages of failure...and results.
>You could have written directly to me,
** I sent a message late Friday night to everyone, and figured that, as
you hadn't written me since the last game thought (hit Swe and Den),
that everything was ok. I mean, if I could send a message to all from
home, i could've sent one to you if I thought there was a need/problem;
I didn't think so. I thought wrong, I guess.
>or to me through the Judge, when you
>found that you couldn't change your order. You could have phoned Jim. You
>could have phoned me.
>
>Instead, you just went ahead and let your orders process. This is not the
>sort of 'help' that's a help.
** Ok, I take the lumps.
>
>So, I'll take my chances with my invaders now. With them, I know where I
>stand.
** I understand, and don't blame you. My only thought would be, you
know where they stand -- 100% against you. With me, I'm with you, but I
just can't seem to gel the moves. But I'm not one of them.
I wish you well. Maybe France will yet see the light (ha)!
Tsar Faz
Private message from England to Germany:
Pitt,
What France will do: I have no idea. He hasn't written to me in about two
weeks. The word he wants out there is that his position in the Med. is
intended to *support* Italy.
It seems likely that he'll order Lvp-Cly. I can cover for, well, pretty
much indefinitely if France doesn't bring another unit in (and you don't
attack me too).
What Russia will do:
He *says* he intends to move Stp-fin and try to take back Swe. This doesn't
make any sense to me, but there you have it. Just to be clear: I am not
predicting that this is what he'll do! He's also suggested he could support
me into Norway while moving Nwy-Swe. I haven't responded. I don't know what
I'll say, but I do know I don't believe a word of it.
Cheers!
Gentle King Jamie
Private message from Russia to England:
GKJ,
I can understand your disgust, disappointment, or whatever. And while I
don't want to beat a dead horse, please understand it wasn't
intentional.
My removals -- coupled with Edi's note revealing the level of ATG
involvement -- means that I'm doomed, over and above the call of duty.
I won't be doing anything now but strapping myself in the cockpit and
diving on my tormentors. My fault, my fault, it's all my fault......
I would like to support your F Nwg-Nwy with StP, while moving Nwy-Ska,
and then hitting Sweden for some sort of "baltic enclave." If you're
not willing to believe this, or don't want to face disappointment again,
I understand. In that case, I'll still move to Ska and perhaps StP-Fin,
and then try for Swe myself in fall.
I want to keep BOH as a support piece for Cal, in the event that France
is actually a helper, not a stabber. Once he gets to Tyo, I can perhaps
use Boh to go somewhere damaging--who knows? I may not be batting .308
in the starting lineup, but I'll take my three strikes before I go down
swinging.
Tsar Faz
Private message from France to Master:
Things were so quiet on my end that I thought the judge was down. Pitt in
particular never replied to my analysis of the situation. I think that, in
light of his build, I should be wondering what he's up to. F Ber makes
sense if he's to take StP. Still, once that's taken care of, three fleets
would do very nicely in the West.
Edi wants help ousting Italy from Trieste. I'd get Venice, he says. Italy
also expects my help. My move into Piedmont was, as I am sure everyone
realizes, intended to be in just that position.
John
Private message from Master to France:
John,
There is way too much mail for me to sort through to find out..... don't
you keep copies of your own bounced back messages?
If not, all I can tell you is that I think the Judge is behaving
somewhat erratically. It won't surprise me if it goes down while
Dave is on vacation this week.
Jim
Private message from France to Master:
But a second look at the board shows why Pitt had to have a fleet in Berlin
- he has no other way to defend Sweden. In truth, he's beleaguered.
Russia has played anti-German. Germany can't afford to move the armies out
of Bel and Hol as long as England holds Nth. So, until something breaks
his way, he's immobilized. The last thing he needs is France for an enemy.
Private message from France to Germany:
Things are proceeding quite well. England is going down, and I am in
Piedmont by invitation. What do we do next?
John, France
Private message from Russia to Germany:
Pitt,
You saw my most recent note, I imagine, in which I ask for you to do
Swe-Bot, and I take Nwy-Swe? Given England's obvious removal (HEL), you
thus have no threats to Den or Germany proper from me or Jamie.
If returning Swe isn't in your lexicon (along with "alliance," "helping
vs AT," and other such verbiage), then how about YOu propose an idea to
me?
Had an interesting discussion with Edi, and your name was prominently
mentioned. *Now* it becomes clear why you hedged your moves east and
preferred the stab of Sweden.
I can go either way here, Pitt: My desired intent is Nwy-Swe, StP-hold,
swe-Bot (then support StP ad nauseam to fix the stalemate line in the
north).
if my 'early elimination' in a demo game would be rude, and if Edi and
Hohn don't care about such niceties, then you're either going to be the
moral conscience (hahahahaha) and keep me solvent, or else just take me
out and end this misery. I don't want to be the catspaw /
step-n-fetch-it for countries who are only in it to hose one nation and
only "receive," vice "give." Your call. I'll move either way. But I'd
like SWE, and can't understand why you'd be loathe to create the
unbreakable stalemate line (Eng can hit Nwy and foul up the defense.)
In closing, I'll leave it as this. Why am I so hard-over regarding SWE?
For the same reason I'd (of course) like War and/or Swe back. Had the
situation been reversed, and I was in HOL, or Edi in MUN, I think you'd
feel the same way. Come to think of it, Edi MAY be in Munich pretty
soon....
I mean, I could have taken MUN this turn. But I preferred to show
goodwill and a desire to seriously discuss mutual benefits.
Apparently "mutual" has also been excised out of your dictionary??
Faz
Private message from Russia to Italy:
Guys
Any thoughts on my previous notes or questions? Sulking at me? No time
for a dying Russian? I understand if that's the case.
Pitt wrote and said he thinks it would be "unconscionably rude" to
eliminate someone prematurely this game, given that it's a demo (hey,
Hitler has a conscience!). Said he'd like me to stick around, but any
plan I suggest that cedes SWE back to me better be one h*** of a plan, in
his words.
Typical. Another Edi and Hohn clone, as made so obvious by edi's little
note yesterday.
I don't know what else to do. He can protect SWE with this F Ber build,
and .with HEL and SIL gone, so too goes away any (belated) MUN hit.
Cal: what's up? Still need support for TRI one more turn, or can I be
released for GAL duty? Jamie, your thoughts? Hello? is this thing
on?
hello?
Tsar Faz
Soon to Die
Private message from Russia to France:
Guys: note my little diatribe with Edi. That part probably doesn't
interest you as much as one paragraph (toward the end) where he mentions
the THREE-WAY ATG. (Yes, Jamie, I was a fool. What else is new?)
I'm open for ideas and suggestions.
Faz
-------------------------------------
>press to a
>Hi Edi,
> See your note, below. My stuff at the asterisk (**).
>
>This by the way was the long detailed answer to you missive to Austria and I/
>
>>Guys:
>>Once again, AT shows themselves for the unyielding monolith.
>>
>Wait a minute right here. Sit down and look at all the moves from Fall of
>1901 and then tell me that there has not been an Italy -Russia monolith
>against Austria.
>
>** Edi: this is chicken-and-the-egg. Of course there's been one. We can
>make the same case that you planned this all along, ever since the steal of
>RUM and the alliance with Hohn. Who spoofed who here?
>
>Look at the correspondance from you to me and then then orders that you have
>done and tell me if you have not been monolithicly opposed to me and blaming
>me for everything.
>
>** Yes, I fought you after my two tries at Hohn (allied with you, by the way)
>failed. After you 'recommended' I build a F StP(nc) to screw "our" English
>ally in F/W '01 (all the easier to brush me aside in the Balkans, eh?); and
>after your hedge at invading Germany ... which, if you want to be truthful,
>you probably NEVER planned to do. Right? If I could attack Hohn, I would
>have (and did, in SEV); you're the closer of the two enemies, and there's an
>ally that can help me vs you -- so logically, you WOULD be the enemy to hit
>'monolithically.'
>
>Look at the correspondance between me and Cal and me and you and see if I
>have
>not repeatedly reviewed the strategic cause and effect of Russia and Italy's
>policy against me and what it forces me to do vs. Turkey.
>
>** Cry me a river. Your moves -- and Hohn's utterances in mail between
>ourselves -- point to crocodile tears on this one. Your "review" of the
>strategic cause included approximately three notes with any semblance of move
>recommendations -- and one of those mentioned how I wouldn't get RUM back.
>Nice way to offer alliance and/or cessation of hostilities.
>
>Look at the manner in which your play as Russia has systematically and with
>great determination attacked everyone of your neighbors repeatedly and
>without
>regard for consequences.
>
>** Oh ho! "Great determination" in hitting Hohn as part of your conceived
>plan? "Great determination" in moving to Nwy--which YOU sanctioned (the
>build idea, above, during your first phone call, remember)? The German move,
>which YOU had originally signed up to as part of the "Quadripartite?" The
>pot calls the kettle black. No, your only act in this is sitting back,
>washing your hands, Judas-like, while I get arrested for the "smoking gun."
>In criminal law, you'd be arrested as part of the 'felony-murder' rule. But
>of course, here you get off scot-free.
>
>As an exercise start with Spring 1901 and make a chart of your units
>actions...ignore all the correspondance just look at where the pieces moved
>and who they attacked.
>
>** You can't ignore the correspondence, Edi. if you did, you'd notice the
>pure vanilla PAP you sent, with no concrete offers other than "let's make
>peace." On your terms. With no regard for my southern security.
>The moves are BASED on your lackluster efforts at true peace.
>
> All I have asked for repeatedly is for you to stop attacking me and all you
>have done is attack and attack and attack.
>
>** See above.
>
>Even this last turn you sent me
>this last minute blast where you say you are going after Germany and that if
>I
>don't lay off of you, you are throwing every thing against me. That more
>than
>anything convinced me that you were going to attack me, which you did.
>
>** Hey, all it would have taken was a note saying, "honest injun, I'm leaving
>Warsaw, and no more war." YOU are in the driver's seat here. I shouldn't
>have to grovel to a true "peacenik" after he and his pal have taken two of my
>home centers. You were never serious, which is why you sent nothing in
>reply. You're self-rationalizing.
>
>You had Munich guarranteed because of the English attack on Kiel and instead
>you chose to support an attack on me in Vienna and a futile attack on Warsaw.
>
>** Yep, sure did. What does Munich get me? Emnity vs Pitt and further
>northern reduction. And it allows you to consolidate your gains of MY
>centers, thank you very much. I'm trying to see beyond the short-term, yes,
>even beyond Russia. You know, allies, stopping the leaders, etc. Helping
>Cal, who has been the only true ally this game, is not such a bad thing, Edi.
> Sure, for you it is, because you can;t gain even faster on the bones of
>those who hose, but sometimes life is tough.
>
>You could have had been in Munich and had for the first time since the end of
>Spring 01 vs. Austria done provided some strategic basis for rearranging
>things. But no, you had to go on and attack me again.
>
>** You never gave me any reason not to. Reread your letters, and see. Oh,
>that's right -- "forget the correspondence and just look at where the moves
>were made." Isn't that what you said up above?
>
>There is no Ole' boy network here, in fact I know Cal White probably for 20
>years. The only network that has worked here is that your actions have
>cemented an alliance against you.
>
>** This much I grant you. You should know; you weaved most of it.
>
>That Cal has consistently also attacked me
>and ignored all the strategic reasons to lay off of me has further
>strengthened Austria's reliance with Turkey.
>
>** Indeed; almost makes you dependent on him. That's the idea. Sooner or
>later he'll turn on you.
>
>I have had a very very consistent policy with Russia since Fall of 01 in that
>you have to do what you say once and get out of my country first. You have
>not liked that and you have never gotten out nor have you done what you have
>said.
>
>** Could I not say the same thing to you? My consistent policy is "give me
>back what you stole, and help me."
>Yet all I got was excuses on why RUM was "Lost, for now," and other such
>truisms....
>
>Furthermore in your fixation on Austria, you have ignored that there is a
>third party to the alliance and that is Germany who has also been quite
>consistent with Turkey and I as a triple alliance coordinating moves and most
>importantly diplomacy.
>
>** Don't think the little lightbulb didn't come on when Pitt did what he did.
> So what, at this stage? This merely, ONCE AGAIN, proves you weren't serious
>about allying with me. Why do it, when there's a three-way already working?
>
>Mark this game has got to be an abberation for you for I am sure that you can
>play much better than this.
>
>** Aberration is right. Better abilities in a game, also true. But is not
>an aberration also when three neighbors are relentless in pummeling me? I
>haven't been ghod-like at all this game, but without being overly maudlin, I
>haven't had much help in anything I've wanted to do, be it anti-T or anti-A.
>other than Cal, and England, who I SHOULD have listened to.
>
>You have the following choices before you:
>Remove in the north and die this year giving your centers to the alliance or
>remove in the south and work yourself into a survival stalemate line holding
>Norway and St.Pete. with the hope that France and England will push against
>Germany.
>
>You have to do what is best felt for you.
>
>** You see what I've done. Good luck, Edi.
>
>Faz
>endpress
>signoff
Private message from Russia to Austria:
Hi Edi,
See your note, below. My stuff at the asterisk (**).
>This by the way was the long detailed answer to you missive to Austria and I/
>
>>Guys:
>>Once again, AT shows themselves for the unyielding monolith.
>>
>Wait a minute right here. Sit down and look at all the moves from Fall of
>1901 and then tell me that there has not been an Italy -Russia monolith
>against Austria.
** Edi: this is chicken-and-the-egg. Of course there's been one. We
can make the same case that you planned this all along, ever since the
steal of RUM and the alliance with Hohn. Who spoofed who here?
>
>Look at the correspondance from you to me and then then orders that you have
>done and tell me if you have not been monolithicly opposed to me and blaming
>me for everything.
** Yes, I fought you after my two tries at Hohn (allied with you, by the
way) failed. After you 'recommended' I build a F StP(nc) to screw "our"
English ally in F/W '01 (all the easier to brush me aside in the
Balkans, eh?); and after your hedge at invading Germany ... which, if
you want to be truthful, you probably NEVER planned to do. Right? If
I could attack Hohn, I would have (and did, in SEV); you're the closer
of the two enemies, and there's an ally that can help me vs you -- so
logically, you WOULD be the enemy to hit 'monolithically.'
>
>Look at the correspondance between me and Cal and me and you and see if I
>have
>not repeatedly reviewed the strategic cause and effect of Russia and Italy's
>policy against me and what it forces me to do vs. Turkey.
** Cry me a river. Your moves -- and Hohn's utterances in mail between
ourselves -- point to crocodile tears on this one. Your "review" of the
strategic cause included approximately three notes with any semblance of
move recommendations -- and one of those mentioned how I wouldn't get
RUM back. Nice way to offer alliance and/or cessation of hostilities.
>
>Look at the manner in which your play as Russia has systematically and with
>great determination attacked everyone of your neighbors repeatedly and
>without
>regard for consequences.
** Oh ho! "Great determination" in hitting Hohn as part of your
conceived plan? "Great determination" in moving to Nwy--which YOU
sanctioned (the build idea, above, during your first phone call,
remember)? The German move, which YOU had originally signed up to as
part of the "Quadripartite?" The pot calls the kettle black. No, your
only act in this is sitting back, washing your hands, Judas-like, while
I get arrested for the "smoking gun." In criminal law, you'd be
arrested as part of the 'felony-murder' rule. But of course, here you
get off scot-free.
>As an exercise start with Spring 1901 and make a chart of your units
>actions...ignore all the correspondance just look at where the pieces moved
>and who they attacked.
** You can't ignore the correspondence, Edi. if you did, you'd notice
the pure vanilla PAP you sent, with no concrete offers other than "let's
make peace." On your terms. With no regard for my southern security.
The moves are BASED on your lackluster efforts at true peace.
>
> All I have asked for repeatedly is for you to stop attacking me and all you
>have done is attack and attack and attack.
** See above.
>Even this last turn you sent me
>this last minute blast where you say you are going after Germany and that if
>I
>don't lay off of you, you are throwing every thing against me. That more
>than
>anything convinced me that you were going to attack me, which you did.
** Hey, all it would have taken was a note saying, "honest injun, I'm
leaving Warsaw, and no more war." YOU are in the driver's seat here. I
shouldn't have to grovel to a true "peacenik" after he and his pal have
taken two of my home centers. You were never serious, which is why you
sent nothing in reply. You're self-rationalizing.
>You had Munich guarranteed because of the English attack on Kiel and instead
>you chose to support an attack on me in Vienna and a futile attack on Warsaw.
** Yep, sure did. What does Munich get me? Emnity vs Pitt and further
northern reduction. And it allows you to consolidate your gains of MY
centers, thank you very much. I'm trying to see beyond the short-term,
yes, even beyond Russia. You know, allies, stopping the leaders, etc.
Helping Cal, who has been the only true ally this game, is not such a
bad thing, Edi. Sure, for you it is, because you can;t gain even
faster on the bones of those who hose, but sometimes life is tough.
>You could have had been in Munich and had for the first time since the end of
>Spring 01 vs. Austria done provided some strategic basis for rearranging
>things. But no, you had to go on and attack me again.
** You never gave me any reason not to. Reread your letters, and see.
Oh, that's right -- "forget the correspondence and just look at where
the moves were made." Isn't that what you said up above?
>
>There is no Ole' boy network here, in fact I know Cal White probably for 20
>years. The only network that has worked here is that your actions have
>cemented an alliance against you.
** This much I grant you. You should know; you weaved most of it.
>That Cal has consistently also attacked me
>and ignored all the strategic reasons to lay off of me has further
>strengthened Austria's reliance with Turkey.
** Indeed; almost makes you dependent on him. That's the idea. Sooner
or later he'll turn on you.
>
>I have had a very very consistent policy with Russia since Fall of 01 in that
>you have to do what you say once and get out of my country first. You have
>not liked that and you have never gotten out nor have you done what you have
>said.
** Could I not say the same thing to you? My consistent policy is "give
me back what you stole, and help me."
Yet all I got was excuses on why RUM was "Lost, for now," and other such
truisms....
>
>Furthermore in your fixation on Austria, you have ignored that there is a
>third party to the alliance and that is Germany who has also been quite
>consistent with Turkey and I as a triple alliance coordinating moves and most
>importantly diplomacy.
** Don't think the little lightbulb didn't come on when Pitt did what he
did. So what, at this stage? This merely, ONCE AGAIN, proves you
weren't serious about allying with me. Why do it, when there's a
three-way already working?
>
>Mark this game has got to be an abberation for you for I am sure that you can
>play much better than this.
** Aberration is right. Better abilities in a game, also true. But is
not an aberration also when three neighbors are relentless in pummeling
me? I haven't been ghod-like at all this game, but without being
overly maudlin, I haven't had much help in anything I've wanted to do,
be it anti-T or anti-A. other than Cal, and England, who I SHOULD have
listened to.
>
>You have the following choices before you:
>Remove in the north and die this year giving your centers to the alliance or
>remove in the south and work yourself into a survival stalemate line holding
>Norway and St.Pete. with the hope that France and England will push against
>Germany.
>
>You have to do what is best felt for you.
** You see what I've done. Good luck, Edi.
Faz
Private message from England to Austria:
Edi,
>As a matter of fact Mark is an Emailer. I can assure you he is not a postal
>player, but most likly to go POSTAL judging from his style.
He's not an e-mailer, unless he found one of those non-Judge enclaves. I
guess his experience must be F-to-F. In fact, I think he told me as much.
>When I wrote to you about him being erratic it was not a casual dig. It is
>not my style. I generally try to be very straight up and open with my
>assessments of both the strategic, diplomatic and personal fronts.
Fair enough. I thought otherwise.
>I still recall the phone conversation I had with him in Fall of 01 in which he
>went on about you asking him to build Fleet St Pete NORTH COAST. I knew by
>the tone of his voice and his thinking behavior that either he was deluding
>himself of what you had said or he was a just not able to divide reality from
>probability.
Argh.
He told *me* that *you* had advised him to build F Stp(nc). So I assumed
that you were merely blowing smoke when you told me he said *I* asked him
to do it.
>I have found that when dealing with
>someone who is so erratic it is best to just to ignore what they say, watch
>what they move with the pieces and treat them as an enemy. By treating them
>as an enemy you can then impose a policy on them that is consistant and that
>you can plan around. Their erraticness can only screw themselves up then or
>anyone else around them.
Yeah. Too late. Too bad.
>For my side I would much rather see you in St. Pete than the Russians or the
>Germans.
Again: if I think I can do it, I'll try to hole up in that corner.
Otherwise, I'll just attempt to play the French and Germans off against
each other -- but I think they are both champing to finish their business
in the north and do something else.
(For your information: the line France is passing around is that he wants
to see the AT alliance bottled up. But he seems to be a
cards-close-to-the-vest kind of player.)
Gentle King Jamie
Private message from England to Germany:
>Well, fer cryin' out loud, tell me what it is! The fact that I'm still
>alive and, apparently, thriving, doesn't mean I have a clue as to why. I
>would welcome your insight.
Well, the main one is that Russia plays essentially randomly. Edi suggests
(now! big help) that when you discover someone plays like that, make him
your enemy so as to impose some coherent motivation on him. Seems like it's
worked for Edi. Too bad I didn't get the clue earlier.
When you didn't respond to my overtures last season, I *told* Mark that I
would cut your Kiel support. But he didn't take Munich. I just didn't get
it, much as I didn't get the picture in many earlier moves.
The minor insight is that most of the players are not taking the game very
seriously. I include myself, of course--my opening was chosen largely for
its 'off beat' quality. I'd except Edi from this generalization, I think he
is taking things quite seriously.
>>Do you want a puppet? I'll disband the F Hel.
>
>Yes, thank you. I have been serious all along when I said that I didn't
>want to see you eliminated. If you disband HEL, I'll work to see that you
>survive.
Ok, done.
If you have things you want me to do, let me know. My preference is to hole
up in Nwy/Stp, though the resources are a bit thin for taking both! If I
got into Nwy, I bet I could get Hohn to support me into Stp. I know that he
and Edi would be happy to see me occupy Stp with a fleet. (Probably they'd
be glad to see you there with a fleet.)
Gentle King J
Vienna, (Free Press)
The Nine Riders had returned to the Dark Tower with news from all the fronts:
The Russian pagan dogs once again were barking in the night from howls of an
obsessive trance with the shadow of the Dark Tower. They once again tried to
help the Roman heretics in their efforts to drink at the moat of power. Once
again digging into the realm of ESP the Master's minions turned them back.
Now the Russians have starved their outpost in Silesia and the mobs of Moscow
have stoned the White Russian Garrison and appealed to the Turkish guards to
restore order.
The Russian demise continues to be a staggering display of failed
communication with Munich clearly in his grasp by the sacrifice of the Gentle
King Jamie's Fleet in Helgoland, the Russians sought not anything but their
blind obedience to rail against their fate before the forces of destiny and
self made malaise. How cruel we are to ourselves when we deny the reflections
of history and simply repeat the raving of ones fate rather the control of it.
The French forces have crossed Savoy and entered into Piedmont where it is
rumored they were greeted by envoys from both Italy and the Dark Realm. The
questions remain deep in the future as to where they shall venture in the
Spring.
However in the East in the true homeland of the Transylvanian Hills,
BirSauron's attention is drawn with a scowl: "By the winds of a dead goat of a
heathen savage what fouler odor is coming from this garbage barge of a Turkish
fleet doing off of the Rumanian Coast?"
The Nine Riders looked at each other with astonishment. "This must be
corrected."
Meanwhile in the Western capitals there is a whisper in the dreams of the
ambitious and an undertone to pounding of the waves of the future shores that
echos through time itself: "Feel the Force. Come to the Dark Side."
Private message from Russia to Italy:
Hi Cal
See below...
>
>Not sulking. This is the first time I've sat down to write ANYBODY this
>turn.
>Given the way this game is going, my interest is waning. I miss the
>dynamics of the first few turns... sigh.
** So do I. I don't regret the decisions made, only the (non-)results
vs Edi and Hohn. I think we could have/should have taken him down, but
he got Hohn to chime in, and it hurt us. In retrospect, the game would
have been more fluid -- perhaps -- had we stuck to the original QC. Of
course, neither of us EXPECTED a less-fluid match when we set upon AT.
(And, sadly, for everyone except you and I, and Jamie, the game HAS been
fluid.)
>> Cal: what's up? Still need support for TRI one more turn, or can I be
>> released for GAL duty?
>
>I'm going to ask France to move to Tyrolia (btw, he's in Piedmont at my
>request
>(I hope)) and help defend Trieste.
** I figured (and hoped) that. Also am 'hoping' F Mar is to buttress
the TyS
> That means I'm asking for one more
>turn
>of hitting Vienna. Pretty please with beer in it!?! With France's good
>intentions (ahem), there's a chance of a stalemate line in the Med.
** What exactly do you want with VIE? You support me? Me support you?
Part of me would prefer to strike out for GAL, as Edi doubtless expects
me to do nothing but support you. And if he does this right, you still
might lose TRI w/o gaining VIE. Nonetheless, never let it be said I
shaft my allies (despite Eng's views to the contrary). Give me
guidance how you want to do this.
>
>If I can establish THAT, who knows what can happen in the future? (he
>said
>naively).
>
>ttyl
** ttfn yourself
Faz
Private message from Italy to France:
> Message from [email protected] as France to Italy in 'ghodstoo':
>
> Okay, I'm at your service. What should I do?
Here's the plan: if you can move to Tyrolia, I'll be able to hold
Trieste
AND the Ionian against Edi & Hohn for at least the next few moves. That
should hold them up long enough to keep them from getting across the
stalemate line. THAT will put a real crimp in their long range plans,
which may be all I can play for at this stage.
To go along with this, how about moving to Lyo this turn? I can see you
moving to Western Med the following turn, Tunis the turn after (in
Spring)
and the Ionian in the Fall. If things don't improve for me by then, I
will try to do my best to give you my centres instead of the A/T duo.
How do you see your long term alliance with Germany? The reason I ask
this is because of some mail I got from Russia. He has been waging a
war
of words with Edi over who did what to whom and he sent me a copy of the
latest missive. I think you will find it interesting, so I'm going to
reprint it here. I thought about sending you only the part where Edi
claims that Pitt has been and STILL IS in with A/T against everybody
else, but I want you to know the letter is authentic (I wouldn't bother
to make up something THIS long...grin).
Maybe we'll have something a little longer-term than blocking up the
Med, eh?
Here's the letter:
Subject:
Diplomacy notice: ghodstoo
Date:
Tue, 6 May 1997 23:56:50 -0500
From:
USIN Diplomacy Judge
To:
[email protected]
News about USIN can be found at
http://kleiman.indianapolis.in.us/usin.htm
**** Judgekeeper will be away from May 3 until May
10. Any USIN problems during that week will not
be resolved until my return. GM's, please adjust
your grace periods to reflect this time of risk ****
All unmoderated games will be removed.
Judge keeper is [email protected].
Judge address is [email protected]
Private message from Russia to France:
Guys: note my little diatribe with Edi. That part probably doesn't
interest you as much as one paragraph (toward the end) where he mentions
the THREE-WAY ATG. (Yes, Jamie, I was a fool. What else is new?)
I'm open for ideas and suggestions.
Faz
-------------------------------------
>press to a
>Hi Edi,
> See your note, below. My stuff at the asterisk (**).
>
>This by the way was the long detailed answer to you missive to Austria and I/
>
>>Guys:
>>Once again, AT shows themselves for the unyielding monolith.
>>
>Wait a minute right here. Sit down and look at all the moves from Fall of
>1901 and then tell me that there has not been an Italy -Russia monolith
>against Austria.
>
>** Edi: this is chicken-and-the-egg. Of course there's been one. We can
>make the same case that you planned this all along, ever since the steal of
>RUM and the alliance with Hohn. Who spoofed who here?
>
>Look at the correspondance from you to me and then then orders that you have
>done and tell me if you have not been monolithicly opposed to me and blaming
>me for everything.
>
>** Yes, I fought you after my two tries at Hohn (allied with you, by the way)
>failed. After you 'recommended' I build a F StP(nc) to screw "our" English
>ally in F/W '01 (all the easier to brush me aside in the Balkans, eh?); and
>after your hedge at invading Germany ... which, if you want to be truthful,
>you probably NEVER planned to do. Right? If I could attack Hohn, I would
>have (and did, in SEV); you're the closer of the two enemies, and there's an
>ally that can help me vs you -- so logically, you WOULD be the enemy to hit
>'monolithically.'
>
>Look at the correspondance between me and Cal and me and you and see if I
>have
>not repeatedly reviewed the strategic cause and effect of Russia and Italy's
>policy against me and what it forces me to do vs. Turkey.
>
>** Cry me a river. Your moves -- and Hohn's utterances in mail between
>ourselves -- point to crocodile tears on this one. Your "review" of the
>strategic cause included approximately three notes with any semblance of move
>recommendations -- and one of those mentioned how I wouldn't get RUM back.
>Nice way to offer alliance and/or cessation of hostilities.
>
>Look at the manner in which your play as Russia has systematically and with
>great determination attacked everyone of your neighbors repeatedly and
>without
>regard for consequences.
>
>** Oh ho! "Great determination" in hitting Hohn as part of your conceived
>plan? "Great determination" in moving to Nwy--which YOU sanctioned (the
>build idea, above, during your first phone call, remember)? The German move,
>which YOU had originally signed up to as part of the "Quadripartite?" The
>pot calls the kettle black. No, your only act in this is sitting back,
>washing your hands, Judas-like, while I get arrested for the "smoking gun."
>In criminal law, you'd be arrested as part of the 'felony-murder' rule. But
>of course, here you get off scot-free.
>
>As an exercise start with Spring 1901 and make a chart of your units
>actions...ignore all the correspondance just look at where the pieces moved
>and who they attacked.
>
>** You can't ignore the correspondence, Edi. if you did, you'd notice the
>pure vanilla PAP you sent, with no concrete offers other than "let's make
>peace." On your terms. With no regard for my southern security.
>The moves are BASED on your lackluster efforts at true peace.
>
> All I have asked for repeatedly is for you to stop attacking me and all you
>have done is attack and attack and attack.
>
>** See above.
>
>Even this last turn you sent me
>this last minute blast where you say you are going after Germany and that if
>I
>don't lay off of you, you are throwing every thing against me. That more
>than
>anything convinced me that you were going to attack me, which you did.
>
>** Hey, all it would have taken was a note saying, "honest injun, I'm leaving
>Warsaw, and no more war." YOU are in the driver's seat here. I shouldn't
>have to grovel to a true "peacenik" after he and his pal have taken two of my
>home centers. You were never serious, which is why you sent nothing in
>reply. You're self-rationalizing.
>
>You had Munich guarranteed because of the English attack on Kiel and instead
>you chose to support an attack on me in Vienna and a futile attack on Warsaw.
>
>** Yep, sure did. What does Munich get me? Emnity vs Pitt and further
>northern reduction. And it allows you to consolidate your gains of MY
>centers, thank you very much. I'm trying to see beyond the short-term, yes,
>even beyond Russia. You know, allies, stopping the leaders, etc. Helping
>Cal, who has been the only true ally this game, is not such a bad thing, Edi.
> Sure, for you it is, because you can;t gain even faster on the bones of
>those who hose, but sometimes life is tough.
>
>You could have had been in Munich and had for the first time since the end of
>Spring 01 vs. Austria done provided some strategic basis for rearranging
>things. But no, you had to go on and attack me again.
>
>** You never gave me any reason not to. Reread your letters, and see. Oh,
>that's right -- "forget the correspondence and just look at where the moves
>were made." Isn't that what you said up above?
>
>There is no Ole' boy network here, in fact I know Cal White probably for 20
>years. The only network that has worked here is that your actions have
>cemented an alliance against you.
>
>** This much I grant you. You should know; you weaved most of it.
>
>That Cal has consistently also attacked me
>and ignored all the strategic reasons to lay off of me has further
>strengthened Austria's reliance with Turkey.
>
>** Indeed; almost makes you dependent on him. That's the idea. Sooner or
>later he'll turn on you.
>
>I have had a very very consistent policy with Russia since Fall of 01 in that
>you have to do what you say once and get out of my country first. You have
>not liked that and you have never gotten out nor have you done what you have
>said.
>
>** Could I not say the same thing to you? My consistent policy is "give me
>back what you stole, and help me."
>Yet all I got was excuses on why RUM was "Lost, for now," and other such
>truisms....
>
>Furthermore in your fixation on Austria, you have ignored that there is a
>third party to the alliance and that is Germany who has also been quite
>consistent with Turkey and I as a triple alliance coordinating moves and most
>importantly diplomacy.
>
>** Don't think the little lightbulb didn't come on when Pitt did what he did.
> So what, at this stage? This merely, ONCE AGAIN, proves you weren't serious
>about allying with me. Why do it, when there's a three-way already working?
>
>Mark this game has got to be an abberation for you for I am sure that you can
>play much better than this.
>
>** Aberration is right. Better abilities in a game, also true. But is not
>an aberration also when three neighbors are relentless in pummeling me? I
>haven't been ghod-like at all this game, but without being overly maudlin, I
>haven't had much help in anything I've wanted to do, be it anti-T or anti-A.
>other than Cal, and England, who I SHOULD have listened to.
>
>You have the following choices before you:
>Remove in the north and die this year giving your centers to the alliance or
>remove in the south and work yourself into a survival stalemate line holding
>Norway and St.Pete. with the hope that France and England will push against
>Germany.
>
>You have to do what is best felt for you.
>
>** You see what I've done. Good luck, Edi.
>
>Faz
>endpress
>signoff
Private message from Germany to France:
I don't recall receiving the message you refer to below but, in all
honesty, I've been so overloaded that I might well have missed it. Please
don't think that my inquiry was indicative of any problem in our
relationship. I assumed that your move to NTH was for just the reason you
gave but I wanted to know for sure. I remain completely committed to our
alliance as you. Thanks for your reassuring message.
-Pitt
>Pitt, we must have had some kind of equipment failure (not necessarily the
>judge). I sent you a message before moves processed telling you what I'd
>be doing, including eng-nth. I said in that message that I would order
>eng-nth to cut or generally make trouble for RE fleet moves. I did not
>want to vacate the channel, and the fleet did not have any other job to do
>at that time.
>
>I also sent a long note regarding our relationship, in which I explained
>why I am and will remain committed to long-term FG alliance. Did you
>receive that?
>
>
>John
>
>
>
>
>
Private message from Italy to Russia:
> Message from [email protected] as Russia to England and Italy in 'ghodstoo':
>
> Guys
> Any thoughts on my previous notes or questions? Sulking at me? No time
> for a dying Russian? I understand if that's the case.
Not sulking. This is the first time I've sat down to write ANYBODY this
turn.
Given the way this game is going, my interest is waning. I miss the
dynamics of the first few turns... sigh.
> Cal: what's up? Still need support for TRI one more turn, or can I be
> released for GAL duty?
I'm going to ask France to move to Tyrolia (btw, he's in Piedmont at my
request
(I hope)) and help defend Trieste. That means I'm asking for one more
turn
of hitting Vienna. Pretty please with beer in it!?! With France's good
intentions (ahem), there's a chance of a stalemate line in the Med.
If I can establish THAT, who knows what can happen in the future? (he
said
naively).
ttyl
Cal
Private message from Russia to Germany:
Hi Pitt,
Read on!
>
>You know, I don't know why it is but you and I truly do seem to have
>difficulty in communicating. Sometimes even the simplest statements or
>questions are grossly misinterpreted by the other.
** Well, true, to a point. I think it's just the nature of the beast,
though. The game -- especially THIS game -- is filled with supposed
"aces of the hobby." Most of them have taken something from me this
game. Most of them have known each other for years and years. It's
just easy to put 2+2 together and come up with four. if I've come up
with "five," then I apologize for any ruffled feelings. PBEM allows
keyboard emotions at times that just wouldn't show in slower letters or
ftf play. As for the misinterpretation: you could, theoretically,
interpret your words as you did (honest query devoid of subtle intent)
or like I did (not necessarily "gloating," but more like "I've got this
secret handshake with your tormentors, and now it's just become obvious
to you.") I honestly figured you knew what was going on, so I figured
it was a waste of keystrokes to say the obvious. Anyway, please accept
my apologies if it ruffled feathers. I was just being "game aggressive"
after receiving Edi's note -- which basically threw you in cahoots with
A/T, by virtue of taking Swe, not helping me in the East when I needed
it, refusing to cede Swe back, etc etc.....And while that's certainly a
good fib by Edi, you can, I hope, see where it would be easy to believe,
Pitt. especially after promises of alliance, followed by doing what's
best for you...
> I really don't have any
>idea why you think you understand my action (or inactions) after you talked
>to Edi. I would be very surprised if Edi had any real idea of my plans and
>goals since I've made it a point not to share them with him. Yet, when I
>ask you what you mean by your statement, you accuse me of gloating.
** Again, apologies for misinterpretation.
>
>It's a hell of a way to work together...
** That's true. I COULD be the cynic now and say "Not helping me in the
East -- and stealing Swe -- is also a "hell of a way to work together."
True? I mean, HAVE we "worked together" to date?
>>>Who ends with SWE and NWY?
>>
>>** Would be nice to hear YOUR views on this.
>
>OK, fine. I keep SWE, you keep NWY. I'm perfectly happy with that
** I would assume so!
> but I
>expect that you won't be since you've benn demanding the return of SWE
>since I got there.
** true. But can you blame me? I've been on the decline ever since
1902...
>
>>** But I can't see you feeling totally secure if both
>>E and R continue to live; you'll always worry a little.
>
>I'll always worry a little *anyway*...that's the burden we
>parano...er...realists have tio live with. However, if you and England are
>both holding at 2 SC's (as he is and you will be if you agree to holding
>NWY and STP) and you're both at least somewhat dependent on me for support
>and continued existence, it's a worry I can live with.
** OK, let me mull it over for awhile. To sweeten the pot, I don't
suppose you can tell me your intent for Swe or Ber? If Swe's holding
and Ber-Bal/Bot is a plan, that tells me that you might even be serious
about stopping AT. If you're reticent about plans, I understand. But
after wanting to hold ill-gotten gains, confidence could only be built
up by honest discussion, Pitt.
Just out of curiosity, why don't you want to even consider returning
Sweden? I've given you what I think are logical reasons for keeping me
at three (harasssing AT with BOh, holding STP with your help, and a
fleet-in-being to secure your northern flank). if you're NOT in cahoots
with AT, why wouldn't you want that third harassing pice available for
operations? I'd be honestly interested in hearing your intent and
logic.
Faz
Private message from Germany to Russia:
>>Really? Why?
>
>** You mention further down your note that you might just see me being
>cynical after one of my comments. Allow me to offer that right now, I
>can see you with a big sh**-eating grin on your face, knowing full well
>what I mean.
You know, I don't know why it is but you and I truly do seem to have
difficulty in communicating. Sometimes even the simplest statements or
questions are grossly misinterpreted by the other. I really don't have any
idea why you think you understand my action (or inactions) after you talked
to Edi. I would be very surprised if Edi had any real idea of my plans and
goals since I've made it a point not to share them with him. Yet, when I
ask you what you mean by your statement, you accuse me of gloating.
It's a hell of a way to work together...
>>Who ends with SWE and NWY?
>
>** Would be nice to hear YOUR views on this.
OK, fine. I keep SWE, you keep NWY. I'm perfectly happy with that but I
expect that you won't be since you've benn demanding the return of SWE
since I got there.
>** But I can't see you feeling totally secure if both
>E and R continue to live; you'll always worry a little.
I'll always worry a little *anyway*...that's the burden we
parano...er...realists have tio live with. However, if you and England are
both holding at 2 SC's (as he is and you will be if you agree to holding
NWY and STP) and you're both at least somewhat dependent on me for support
and continued existence, it's a worry I can live with.
-Pitt
Private message from Russia to Germany:
Pitt,
Been thinking more about what you said earlier -- that we seem to have
trouble communicating this game, for whatever reason.
The reason's probably me. I had the same discussion/disagreement type
of exchanges with Turkey (and again, usually after he hosed me) -- I
guess I'm the cyberspace equivalent of the Walter Mitty guy who becomes
the highway nut once he gets behind the wheel. Only it applies to me
with a keyboard, maybe...I dunno. Anyway, I'm a nice guy, really. I'm
just frustrated this game, and I'd like honesty and a little help from
someone, rather than the status quo. (in general -- not all directed at
you.) When I get the glad-hand, brush-off over returning centers, or
basically run off the road, I become that crazed highway nut. Silly me.
On a different note: Welcome to AHIKS! Saw your name in the latest
issue (32-1). You're just in time to see next issue's announcement of
the Fassio Prize. An aged, and good, bunch of Joes in that
organization.
Faz
(StP -- Russian Free Press)
Tsar Faz, defiant to the end, recently called a press conference to
discuss the latest foul winds emanating from the Austrian castle of
BoreSauron.
"The ArchDeluxe of Austria (the "ham" variety, rather than the bacon)
thinks us fools, and cousins to Hamlet, cruelly lamenting our fate. He
sees us as crashing our ships from the Siren's Song, as if we are
mesmerized by some mind-numbing design. he thinks we blame all but our
own miscalculations. He assumes...things.
Nay, friends, it is something more obvious, yet something a Dark Lord
like SoreOn cannot comprehend. It is a thing called honor. Alliance
promises. The desire to play the game for more than the
self-gratification that comes from the easy steals, the game-long lies,
the unbending lock-step alliances made years back. These things, such as
we've seen throughout Russia's previously-owned provinces. This concept
of service to others is incomprehensible to the Vulture of Transylvania.
Why did Russia not strike for Germany, as Austria muses? True, we could
have easily done it, and the gratification for Kasier Pitt's ODIOUS stab
would've been great. Unfortunately, the Russian mail service failed us at
the critical moment that England sought clarification and ordered
otherwise. (The Postmaster has been shot.) In retrospect, having MUN
would have been grand -- but would it change the overall situation, the
Grand Advance by AT? No, it would not. It would merely cause more
internal Western fighting and the unchecked rapid advancement by the
foemen: Edi, the Houdini of Hungary, crafter of smoke and mirrors, and
his silent partner, Hohn the Occupied (the obvious staff officer of the
alliance, busy under reams of paper, emerging to transmit orders and
then return to business).
Russia realizes it will be the first to die on this board of sharks. And
we doubtless deserve it, given our propensities for board position, vice
outright stealing. But when we go, it will be with the satisfaction that
we fought to keep an expanding AT from overruning Europe *even when* only
loyal Italy helped - and when others merely watched the fight from a
distance, looking after their own affairs. Your time will come, now that
the center is open, oh Delayers of Aid. Our only regret is not helping
England when we could have, and thus upsetting our dear English cousin.
Ah well, spilled milk....all the Tsar's horses, and all the Tsar's
men....
To end this missive, then: AT will gain, because they march in
mind-numbing lockstep-- hordes of lemmings, led by the Teflon King
himself. It is their destiny. But if the forces of good (?) in the West
awaken soon, the south will be effectively cordoned, and possibly the Far
North as well. And then we will truly see a Clash of Titans. "We",
however, may not include Russian forces, should this present unfortunate
trend continue. Nonetheless, we can tie down the Red Menace for a few
more turns--that might suffice for the key mid-game turns."
With that, Ttsar Faz donned his rakish cap (tilted at a jaunty angle),
grabbed his blunderbuss, and chatted with the troops in the
southward-facing trenches. Moscow will soon be burning, he mused. Sad.
So sad.
Private message from Russia to Master:
Hi Jim
Just very short "game thoughts" this time -- papers to grade, kids to
take places, etc...hope you're doing well.
Ger: He's hidebound to keep his ill-gotten gains, and I can't do much
against him. Hitting him merely opens the board (even more) to AT, and,
quite honestly, his Berlin fleet and A kie can cover any centers I'd try
for. Long-term relationships with Germany can either be good (he gives
me SWE, I keep a fleet and 3 units, and have expansion westward.,
someday); neutral (he "lets" me keep nwy and I veg-out at 2 in a
perpetual, overseen stalemate position ad nauseam); or bad (he moves
into position and kills me with/without AT help).
He sees mutual benefit as helping Pitt only, it seems....
In retrospect, I should've called the GM or the English when my moves
didn't get accepted by the computer; at least he'd be in Nwy now. A lot
of bitter disappointment happened because I didn't get off my duff.
Fra: Silent, conniving (no doubt) and fence-sitting. Nothing wrong
with that, but he doesn't give much help or advice. I should've enticed
Italy to stay west and kill him with Jamie.
Eng: Tuning me out because I goofed up some stuff, and he at least
knows the FG threat, rather than my finnickiness. Ouch. Don't know if
he or I will be the first to die.
Ita: Loyal, frustrated (as I) with the stalemate, and asking France to
help. (Fox in the henhouse?) I've been 100% up-front with him, and I
think he also with me. It's a shame we couldn't guess right vs Edi.
Cal deserves better.
A/T: I'll lump the monolith together. Quite honestly, probably half
the reason Hohn sticks with Edi is because of real-work pressures and
the fact that it would take too much time and inconvenience to dedicate
more effort into making this interesting. That may be sour grapes on my
part, especially as it WORKS for AT, so why tinker with success? But
his level of involvement has been minimal to me (and I'll be to the
others), and the game's dynamism of 1901 has settled into the
predictable FG vs AT, someone-stabs-their-ally mode for the mid-to-late
game. Edi is full of hot air in his assessments (don't know if he
really believes half the stuff he puts out) but I admire the heck out of
his play: 99% skill and the 1% luck factor combine to make him a true
ghod. Hohn is certainly no slouch, either. I admire his play, too.
Rus: I deserve nearly everything happening to me this game, even though
no one deserves all three neighbors atacking at once. I didn't hit
enemies (G) when I had allies (E); I didn't stop G's attention toward E
(vice F) when I probably should have, thus causing the German problems I
have now; and I tried to get EI away from F and directed vs "my"
expected longer-term enemy. It takes two to tango, so I'm not entirely
to blame, but if I could re-do some moves, believe me, I'd start with
S'01 and go from there. I'd have gone with Hohn, hit Edi, encouraged G
vs E, and then played it from there. Ah well, if wishes were horses.
Game Plan:
1) Continue to tie down Edi (Boh) and perhaps 'go rogue' in the fall.
2) Continue to pester Pitt about SWE's ownership while trying to get
something firm from him
3) Hope for a stalemate line and the chance to open up again in 1906
4) Live to see the mid-game...
A pretty pathetic set of (optimistic?) goals for Russia at this stage.
Faz
Private message from Italy to Russia:
> Message from [email protected] as Russia to Italy in 'ghodstoo':
> ** What exactly do you want with VIE? You support me? Me support you?
> Part of me would prefer to strike out for GAL, as Edi doubtless expects
> me to do nothing but support you. And if he does this right, you still
> might lose TRI w/o gaining VIE. Nonetheless, never let it be said I
> shaft my allies (despite Eng's views to the contrary). Give me
> guidance how you want to do this.
Just move to Vienna. I'll support you and we'll both say a few "Hail
Calhamer's"...
btw, both the French move to Piedmont and the fleet build were at my
request. Here's hoping I didn't merely offer him a handy excuse...
Cal
Private message from France to Germany:
Pitt,
Given the shakiness of email communications of late, I thought I'd better
contact you again. I don't recall receiving a response to my last messge.
In it, I explained eng-nth. Did you get that message?
Rumors are circulating of a GAT alliance. What's your take on this?
John, France
Private message from France to Italy:
I'll move as you suggested.
Edi expects me to hit Venice so he can get into Trieste.
BTW, he told me you informed him that I was in Piedmont by your invitation.
That kind of diminished my credibility with him, to the detriment, I
think, of what we are trying to do. But, perhaps you had a good reason.
I'd like to know.
John, France
Private message from Germany to France:
>Given the shakiness of email communications of late, I thought I'd better
>contact you again. I don't recall receiving a response to my last messge.
>In it, I explained eng-nth. Did you get that message?
Yes, and I replied to it. I've included a copy below.
>Rumors are circulating of a GAT alliance. What's your take on this?
Well, I've had no contact with Hohn, so the 'T' portion of that would have
to be purely psychic...;-) As for 'A', I have, as usual, been in touch
with Edi. I have no committments to him, however, and I'm more concerned
about what AT is going to do next than I am interested in forming a GAT.
Frankly, the way I see it, if FG doesn't stick together like glue, we'll
both go down to AT. At the same time, I'd like to avoid a "kiss your
sister" 4-way FGAT, so I'd like to see if we can't use Cal to chip away at
Edi, or get Hohn to stab him. That gives us a shot at an FG 2-way or,
perhaps more realistically, an FGx 3-way with is able to pick from among 3
weak powers, IAT, who will join us in the 3-way.
What are your thoughts?
-Pitt
--------------------
>:: Judge: USIN Game: Ghodstoo Variant: Standard
>:: Deadline: S1905M Mon May 12 1997 23:30:00 EST Boardman: 1997KT
>
>Message sent to France:
>
>Message from [email protected] as Germany to France in 'ghodstoo':
>
>
>I don't recall receiving the message you refer to below but, in all
>honesty, I've been so overloaded that I might well have missed it. Please
>don't think that my inquiry was indicative of any problem in our
>relationship. I assumed that your move to NTH was for just the reason you
>gave but I wanted to know for sure. I remain completely committed to our
>alliance as you. Thanks for your reassuring message.
>
>-Pitt
>
>>Pitt, we must have had some kind of equipment failure (not necessarily the
>>judge). I sent you a message before moves processed telling you what I'd
>>be doing, including eng-nth. I said in that message that I would order
>>eng-nth to cut or generally make trouble for RE fleet moves. I did not
>>want to vacate the channel, and the fleet did not have any other job to do
>>at that time.
>>
>>I also sent a long note regarding our relationship, in which I explained
>>why I am and will remain committed to long-term FG alliance. Did you
>>receive that?
>>
>>
>>John
>
Private message from Russia to Italy:
Guys:
Two short notes before class....
To G:
You know, Pitt
If I was a suspicious kind (Heaven Forbid), I'd say your moves weren't
too much in the "spirit of cooperation" you talk about so much....
1) The "I'll support you in StP" moves look more like
"surround/annihilate Swe and try for Nwy moves" up north;
2) The Mun-Boh move -- coincidentally timed with Edi's move to GAL,
fancy that -- seems awkward, in lieu of any purported desire to stanch
the westward AT flow.
If you're really serious about working together, you *could* support
Lvn-StP and provide the stalemate line unit again. (I moved to Lvn in
the hopes of stopping Edi's move there, should he have tried it.)
Naturally, you can eliminate me this turn by seizing Nwy and/or
supporting Hohn to Moscow. But that would fly in the face of your
desire "not to see anyone elminated so early in the game," right?
I think I realized the real reason we can't seem to communicate well
this game, Pitt. I think it's one-way communication with honest intent,
and return communication with utter BS. What do you think?
To I:
Cal, I'm bummed that they got ALB. I know it was a 50-50 crap shoot of
ALB vs ION defense, but I would have gambled and tried for the bounce.
Is Hohn continually feeding you Optimism Pills, or do you know something
about him that we don't? Of course, I'm a fine one to talk, with
elmination a turn away....
I imagine Edi may retreat to RUM this turn (unless he now bounces me in
WAR), to compensate for his loss of GRE. We'll need to figure out what
to do with BOH for my last hurrah. Maybe a support for me this time?
Won't be many more of these e-mails, guys, given the lack of Russian
friends on the board. Keep plugging.
Tsar Faz
Retreats
Private message from Turkey to Master:
Jim,
Thoughts on the previous turn.
I am happy I managed to convince Edi to agree to me taking RUM.
Things are looking good on that front. Also, inexorable progress
against Mark.
I'm going to stick with Edi. My concern is that my lack of
diplomacy this past turn or two (with the exception of Edi) is
going to hurt me down the road. I am also concerned with a stab
by Edi this turn, but I'm going to trust him simply because I
have little other choice. Had I been able to more carefully
analyze the board and conduct negotiations with Cal, I might have
another option. But real life intrudes, and thus I am stuck with
going with Edi. To be fair, I think I would have done that
anyway, with the rationale being AT is almost always good for T.
But I wish I had more time to devote to this game. I feel like
I'm letting you down in that sense, and I apologize.
Hohn
Ssssshhhhhhh! Be vewy quiet! I'm hunting wabbits!
Private message from Germany to England:
>I've entered my moves. I'm ordering Nth S Lon-Eng, in case you're
>interested. If there's something different you want me to do, you will have
>to tell me what it is; my psychics all turned out to be frauds.
Zing!!!
Too bad I deserved that. Truth is, I still don't have any real sense of
what's going on, so I don't have any real good ideas for your moves. Your
plans are as good as any. Hell, it's one hour before moves are due and I
*still* don't know what I'm going to do.
I'll attempt to be a better strategist next turn...
-Pitt
Private message from England to Germany:
Pitt,
I've entered my moves. I'm ordering Nth S Lon-Eng, in case you're
interested. If there's something different you want me to do, you will have
to tell me what it is; my psychics all turned out to be frauds.
Gentle King Jamie
Private message from France to Austria:
Edi,
I don't recall making any promises. But be that as it may, let's review
the situation. Germany is in no position to turn on me. I don't fear a
German attack. It could happen, but we'd both go down if it does. What I
have seen is a solid AT that has defeated Russia and is turning its forces
on Italy. Italy stands between me and the AT fleets.
In addition, as you described the disposition of units on the phone, I was
struck by how unattractive the situation you envisioned was to France.
Apparently, Turkey was to rake in most of Italy, largely as a consequence
of my assistance. Not something I am eager to see.
So what's in your offer for France? Presumably, a distant strategic
advantage as Austria first attacks its game-long ally in the east (leaving
you wide open to attacks from the west, by the way), and then takes on
Germany. It sounds implausible, and even if it were not, too many
contingencies would intercede between here and there.
Now this is not to foreclose our options. I have not done anything for
Italy yet. Seems to me the main thing that has happened is that he's
watched calmly as French units enter his domain. I am not going to look a
gift horse in the teeth.
In short, everything is up for grabs. I did not think much of your
previous deal, but let's give it another try.
John
Private message from England to Turkey:
Witch,
Have you been in touch with Kaiser Pitt? Because I was just thinking,
looking at the board (in an abstract, disinterested way with no practical
implications for myself, of course), and it seems to me that if you each
stabbed your biggest neighbor right now, it would be awfully hard to stop
you. But maybe I'm mistaken. You'd have to count on Italy's continuing
engagement with Austria, of course.
As you must have noticed, Dorothy has dropped a house on your old sister
witch up here in this corner. Be careful lest she pour water on your head.
Squashed Witch
Private message from England to Germany:
France now has three units committed to the south, and my two fleets will
tie up his two northern fleets (plus his A Par next move, I think). Even
though you will not get a build (unless you luck out in Stp, I guess), this
might be the moment to strike. You don't have to comment on that fact, I
don't expect you to share that kind of information. But, geez, it sure
looks good now. Russia can't hurt you, and Austria has his hands full just
trying to save Vienna and Warsaw (and he'd better make sure to get that
Turkish fleet into Ionian or he loses Gre too -- I assume that's the idea,
that Alb-Adr and two Turkish supports get the yellow F Gre into Ion).
Have you been talking to Hohn? If the two of you stabbed now I don't
believe you could be stopped. (Strange--with only eleven units between you!)
Let me know if you have any orders for my fleets. You have to let me cover
Edinburgh though, right? If France retreats to Wales, I'll have to cover
London, too, but that might not be a very good retreat for him. Well, we'll
see about that.
Gentle King Jamie
With great regret, the French government has seen the security situation in
the Mediterranean deteriorate to an alarming extent. France has employed
all peaceful means at its disposal to bring about a settlement of the
disputes engaging the southern powers. These efforts have failed to secure
the much-sought peace among Italy, Austria, and Turkey.
In light of these events, and fearing that the balance of power has shifted
in a dangerous direction, France has sent peacekeeping forces to the
region. France asks that Austria refrain from attacking Italy's positions
so that negotiations leading to a permanent settlement can begin. France
requests the Turkish government to hold its fleets behind a line extending
from the southern tip of Greece to the island of Crete so as to aid the
confidence-building measures.
France's troops will secure civilian populations against attack and ensure
the timely delivery of humanitarian relief.
French troops will engage in combat only if the attacks on Italy continue.
In that case, France will intercede to ensure the stability of the region.
With all due respect,
Jean Barquemondieu
Prime Minister of the 23rd Republic (more or less, but who's counting?)
>>[email protected] as Observer in 'ghodstoo' said:
>>Ssssshhhhhhh! Be vewy quiet! I'm hunting wabbits!
Shoot him now! Shoot him now!
DD
Private message from Russia to Germany:
Pitt
Have recolored my maps and relooked the board. While I'm still less
than thrilled ("nonplused" is a good word) with your hit of BOH and your
fleet move to SKA, I will *more* than admit you could wordsmith a reply
of "security", "hedging your bets against a rogue Russian," etc. And
while I do NOT think you gave me Sweden out of the kindness of your
hearts (or the whining of my hundreds of notes), I still *do indeed*
appreciate the gesture, however it came my way.
Let me once again reiterate my whole view of life, and then I throw said
life into your hands.
1) I agree with you that Russian survival would be fun and nice. I'd
like 3 centers, but you have the big toys, not me, and there's not much
I can do if you say it's 2, not 3.
2) If you're just spoofing me and intend to take me out, then go
Ska-Nwy, Den S Bal-Swe, Bot S (T) Mos-StP, and let's just end this
life-support system.
3) If, on the other hand, you actually do mean what you said before,
then there is much room for joint ops.
I envision either:
OPTION A:
Bot bounces with Lvn-StP (thus keeping it open for the Swe build)
Den-Pru (Bal C)
Ska-Nth
This gets me a second army up there, and allows me to massively tie down
At units, thus stopping up the north.
OPTION B:
Bot S (R) Lvn-StP
Den-Lvn (Bal C)
Ska S (R) Swe-Nwy
Then, in 1906, I support you to Nth, following behind you with Nwy, or,
taking Swe again (once you get an English SC) and then building an army
in STP once we mutually bounce to open it up.
WHAT'S THE BOTTOM LINE?
* if you're in this for peace and cooperation, I'd like your opinion
about either Option, above, or any ideas you might have;
* if you're in this to finish off your bothersome Russian neighbor, then
let's just end this charade of 'goodwill' and 'staying in the game' and
kill me quickly. I want fun or death, not agonizing boredom watching
you and the others have all the fun! I would think you'd feel the
same way.
Faz
Private message from Russia to Germany:
Pitt
Excellent news and note! Please read on...
>You know, you're a funny guy.
**That's me, all right; a real yukster. The computer version bears no
reality to the human one.
>After due consideration (and with much
>internal argument) I decide to acquiesce to your request (nee demand) to
>give you back Sweden and the initial response I get is that I will
>"wordsmith" an explanation for the *rest* of my orders...orders which we
>never discussed and you never asked about...
** C'mon, now. I'm sure you can see that the initial note was one of
unease on my part. Your moves can easily be painted as either anti-AT
or anti-R, based on whatever final plans you'd craft. You know that to
be true. I assumed the worst, and said so. I was wrong, and you said
so. And my second note DID say I was sorry. I hedged my bets, is all,
because "we" did ask to discuss moves. (I asked you what the fleets
were doing in an open question my last note before moves.) "We" never
discussed the answer to that, so "I" hedged my bets. Hence, Nor-Swe. I
never expected you to give it to me after all your notes to the
negative. Glad to see my 'hundreds' of notes actually had some effect,
however bothersome. It shows we both agree on the northern front.
As for Boh: I didn't expect your move there, given that any support for
Italy to Vienna (had I done so) would've been cut by your move. Not to
mention, if you really wanted to pressure Edi, you could have done
better by a move to SIL (where our bounce would NOT have occurred, and
where you might've bounced Edi), thus giving us pressure on WAR and/or
GAL this season. I read the Mun-Boh move as a hedge on your part,
addressing the question, "will Faz go nuts and try for MUN in some last
crazy move?" Again, Pitt, we're not talking rocket science here -- as
the bureaucrats say, "Mistakles were made." I made 'em.
>
>>while I do NOT think you gave me Sweden out of the kindness of your
>>hearts (or the whining of my hundreds of notes), I still *do indeed*
>>appreciate the gesture, however it came my way.
>
>Well, you think wrong. At least partially anyway. I'm willing to give you
>Sweden now and allow you to keep 3 units by also keeping NWY and STP
>because your "hundreds of notes" convinced me that it was in my (and our)
>best interests to do so, even if it meant that I would lose an SC (which I
>most assuredly will).
** Which is why I also 'saw the light' and asked about retreating back
to NWY, to help support you to Nth and to allow myself some future
gains, thus not seeing you reduced, howevr briefly. But I understand
your desire to contain me up north, however, with three eastward-facing
units.
>However, I am *not* an altruist and the return of
>SWE (I can retake it this fall after all if I wish) is predicated on the
>understanding and agreement that I will get an equivalent SC back ASAP
>(which SC, I'm not sure yet...it depends on what happens with AT). If you
>agree to that, then SWE is yours and I will also use BOT to help you
>protect STP. If not, well...
** Fine and dandy; I never expected you to play altruistically with a
reduced force just to make Russia happy. I'll help you get a center
_anywhere you want_ (which is why I offered Swe-Nwy, to get you into Nth
for sure in spring '06...after all, it's still a 50-50 crap shoot if Nth
and Clyde bounce over Edinburgh...). Get into SIL or PRU and we can
start thinking Warsaw, or wait until 1906 and have France or me support
you to Edi or Lon. You do need some centers (don't we all?), but a lot
depends not just on AT, but on F. If you & France are in cahoots, your
Low Country units are just idling. If you still mistrust him, then
another build won't hurt.
>
>Oh, and by the way, my move to BOH was with the epxress purpose of getting
>another army adjacent to Austrian SC's if you vacated BOH (which I
>anticipated as your obvious move).
** Why would it be so obvious, after numerous turns of helping Cal, and
with the balance down there so obvious against Tri if I _didn't_ support
him? I can't see where you'd think I'd spend Russian treasure and time
to help Italy for three turns when it was 50-50 over centers, and then
abandon him (leaving Boh) in the turn when Edi _could_ take Tri
guaranteed, if I didn't support?
>I don't see why that gives you any
>concern at all. It should have been a confirmation of my concern about AT.
** Ok, whatever; confirmed in my mind. Yours was a good, if incorrect,
assumption.
>
>As for NWY, I don't think you need to worry about it. You and I could
>bounce there to protect it but England must cover both EDI and LON, so his
>F NTH is going to be busy. I intend to take NTH so that I can improve my
>chances of getting an SC next year.
** Again, I'm not so sure that you'll get Nth this turn, but what the
heck. Good hunting (or sailing, as the case may be).
>
>>OPTION A:
>> Bot bounces with Lvn-StP (thus keeping it open for the Swe build)
>
>Yes.
** Let's hope that Turkey doesn't read this one. (Any thoughts of
writing him, describing what a horrendous pain-the-a** I am -- he'll
agree with you -- and then try and offer a mutual deal to take me out,
i.e., you go for Swe and Nwy, and support him to Mos in the hopes of
seeing T stab A? He might read the fake and do exactly what we don't
want...but he might bite in the hopes of getting Mos AND StP and seeing
Russia gone....whattya think?)
>
>> Den-Pru (Bal C)
>
>Probably.
Would make for a logical move to put pressure on the East and signal to
AT that the western ride is over. or it can sit for an eventual retake
of Swe or convoy to England in a turn or three.
>
>> Ska-Nth
>
>Yes.
>
>>OPTION B:
>
>Nope. Option A was what I was thinking so long as we're on the same page
>regarding reparations for the loss of SWE. Please let me know.
** Again, Pitt, two things (three, really):
1) Sweden compensation is agreed on, and if it means leaving Swe
sometime soon because you can't get an E or AT (or F?) center, so be it.
Just let me know. And the fleet is always ready to sortie to help, if
your High Command will let it. But just what *is* a good 'compensation'
for Sweden at this stage?
2) Thanks for the moves, and
3) Thanks for the moves. (It needed said twice.)
Faz
Private message from Germany to Italy:
Cal,
Russia's innuendo filled message notwithstanding, I am still very much
concerned about AT (and, in particular, A). My MUN-BOH order was made in
the hope that I woud take BOH on the slight chance that Russia's BOH-VIE
order succeeded. The idea was to get another friendly unit alongside
Austrian SC's. I didn't really expect it to work but I figured it couldn't
hurt.
Anyway, I will continue to try to get into position to further the cause.
Let me know if there's anything specific you'd like to see.
-Pitt
Private message from Germany to Russia:
>Have recolored my maps and relooked the board. While I'm still less
>than thrilled ("nonplused" is a good word) with your hit of BOH and your
>fleet move to SKA, I will *more* than admit you could wordsmith a reply
>of "security", "hedging your bets against a rogue Russian," etc.
You know, you're a funny guy. After due consideration (and with much
internal argument) I decide to acquiesce to your request (nee demand) to
give you back Sweden and the initial response I get is that I will
"wordsmith" an explanation for the *rest* of my orders...orders which we
never discussed and you never asked about...
>while I do NOT think you gave me Sweden out of the kindness of your
>hearts (or the whining of my hundreds of notes), I still *do indeed*
>appreciate the gesture, however it came my way.
Well, you think wrong. At least partially anyway. I'm willing to give you
Sweden now and allow you to keep 3 units by also keeping NWY and STP
because your "hundreds of notes" convinced me that it was in my (and our)
best interests to do so, even if it meant that I would lose an SC (which I
most assuredly will). However, I am *not* an altruist and the return of
SWE (I can retake it this fall after all if I wish) is predicated on the
understanding and agreement that I will get an equivalent SC back ASAP
(which SC, I'm not sure yet...it depends on what happens with AT). If you
agree to that, then SWE is yours and I will also use BOT to help you
protect STP. If not, well...
Oh, and by the way, my move to BOH was with the epxress purpose of getting
another army adjacent to Austrian SC's if you vacated BOH (which I
anticipated as your obvious move). I don't see why that gives you any
concern at all. It should have been a confirmation of my concern about AT.
As for NWY, I don't think you need to worry about it. You and I could
bounce there to protect it but England must cover both EDI and LON, so his
F NTH is going to be busy. I intend to take NTH so that I can improve my
chances of getting an SC next year.
>OPTION A:
> Bot bounces with Lvn-StP (thus keeping it open for the Swe build)
Yes.
> Den-Pru (Bal C)
Probably.
> Ska-Nth
Yes.
>OPTION B:
Nope. Option A was what I was thinking so long as we're on the same page
regarding reparations for the loss of SWE. Please let me know.
-Pitt
Private message from Germany to Turkey:
Greetings, O not-so-distant one! Long time no speak. Congratulations on
taking MOS.
Of course, you know that's not the only reason I'm writing. In addition to
my good wishes for you (hey, they're free, so why shouldn't I give them to
you?...;-) I'm also looking for a helping hand. Specifically, I'm asking
for MOS support for BOT-STP/sc. Will you help me out? I'd much appreciate
it and I'll owe you one.
I've been talking to Edi and he's been assuring me that you would provide
the support but, shame on me, I haven't broached the subject directly with
you before this. On a related note, I'd like to suggest that, once I take
STP, we also make LVN a DMZ (Edi has already agreed to this). Also, I will
agree to hold STP with a fleet instead of an army, so there's no threat to
MOS. What do you think?
-Pitt
Private message from Germany to France:
Wow! That was an inspired retreat! At first glance, I looked at it and
thought "what the heck is he doing?! MAO is exposed!?" But, then, I
looked closer and saw that you get either EDI or LON if he goes for MAO.
Nicely done.
Other than that, I thank you for your continued pro-German moves. As you
can see, my focus is still in the north and will continue to be until that
situation is resolved. That may be a bit problematic with England...until
I can get a fleet out into NTH we don't have enough units on him to do any
damage if he plays defensively. I will probably be able to do that next
spring if things go well in Scandinavia.
I am still concerned about AT, particularly A. I'm glad to see you get
that army into position to help out Italy. I had hoped to get my MUN army
further south, too, but Russia's attack on VIE was unsuccessful and I bounced.
Anyway, let me know if you need anything.
-Pitt
[ 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.