| Diplomacy GameCode dip1104 | ![]() |
| C=Clyde E=Edinburgh Ln=London Li=Liverpool=Lvp Wa=Wales Y=Yorkshire |
![]() |
Fin=Finland Liv=Livonia Mos=Moscow Sev=Sevastopol StP=St Petersburg Ukr=Ukraine War=Warsaw |
| Bre=Brest Bur=Burgundy Gas=Gascony M=Marseilles P=Paris Pic=Picardy |
Ber=Berlin Kie=Kiel Mun=Munich Pru=Prussia Ruh=Ruhr Sil=Silesia |
|
| Bo=Bohemia Bud=Budapest Gal=Galicia Tri=Trieste Tyr=Tyrolia Vie=Vienna |
||
| A=Apulia N=Naples Pm=Piedmont R=Rome T=Tuscany V=Venice |
||
| Click cursor on map to see/remove armies/fleets/names |
Ank=Ankara Arm=Armenia Con=Constantinople Smy=Smyrna Syr=Syria |
|
|
Neutral: Al=Albania B=
Belgium Bul=Bulgaria
D=Denmark
Gre=Greece H=Holland
Nor=Norway NAfr=North Africa |
||
| Player | Awtg | Placement | Actions Taken | Armies | Fleets | Supply Centres |
() |
| KenW | 5th | F Nor-Swe; F StP-Nor | 0 | 2 | 2 | 2 | |
| Paul | 3rd= | A Ukr-War; A Mos S War; A Rum-Bud; F Swe-GoB | 3 | 1 | 4-1+1 | 4 | |
| Brian | Winner | A Por-Spa; A Gas-Bre; A Mar S Spa; A Hol-Ruhr; F EngC-MidA; A Vie-Tri; A Tyr S Tri; A Bud S Tri; A Sil-Pru; F BalS-Swe; F Den S Swe; A Wal-Lpl; F Yor-Edi; F NorS S Edi | 9 | 5 | 14+5-1 | 18 | |
| Chandler | 3rd= | F GoL-Mar; F TyrS-WMed; F IonS-TyrS; F AdrS-IonS; A Ven H; F Edi H | 1 | 5 | 6-2 | 4 | |
| Carl | 2nd | F Gre-IonS; F EMed S IonS; F AegS S IonS; A Tri-Alb | 4 | 3 | 8-2 | 6 | |
| Crispin | =6th place | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Bob | =7th place | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Legend: | P=Place, R=Retreat, D=Disband, y=orders required Order in Red is a conflict : Order Highlighted in Red is illegal and not moved | ||||||
Game Log: 2 March -12 November 2005
| 1909: Game End |
Builds: | Brian: F Ber & A Kie; Carl: F Con; Chandler disbands A Lon, A Tri & A Alb |
| Spring | Conflicts in Nor; War;
Pie; Bel/NorS;
IonS; Tri/Bud
Spa : Nor is
a standoff (1vs1) so no movement; War is
a standoff (1vs1) so no movement; Pie is
a standoff (1vs1) so no movement, and preventing Brians move to Mar
and Chandlers move to Ven; Bel is
a standoff (1vs1) so no movement, but then NorS
is a win for Brian (2vs1) forcing Chandler to retreat.
IonS is a standoff (1vs1) so no
movement. Tri
is a standoff (1vs1) so no movement, but leaves Bud
with only 1 defence so Brian wins (2vs1), forcing Carl to
retreat. Spa is
a standoff (1vs1) so no movement, and prevents Chandlers move to
GoL. Retreats required for: Carl in Bud, but none possible, and Chandler in NorS to Edi Potential Gains: Bud to Brian from Carl |
|
| Autumn | Conflicts in Swe; Bud; Mar; Edi; IonS; Tri; Paul moves out of Swe and Brian beats Ken to it (2vs1); Brian holds Bud (taken from Carl in the Spring); Mar is a standoff (1vs1); Edi is taken from Chandler by Brian (2vs1); Carl wins in the IonS over Chandler (3vs1) moves out. Tri - Carl tries to move out but is blocked by his own man, however Brian muscles in (2vs1) to take it. Brian moves into Brest without opposition to take it from Chandler | |
| Appeals: | ||
| Centres: | Brian gains Swe from Paul;
Brian holds onto Edi so no
change; Brian gains Bud
from Carl even though Paul has a go; No challenge for
Brian to take over Spain from Chandler. Paul gains
War back from Brian Retreats: Chandler: F Edi; Carl: A Tri are irrelevant since:---------- Brian gains 5-1 more giving him a total of 18 Supply Centres, and thus being declared Ruler of Europe. Game End subject to Appeals Final Position: 1 Brian (18); 2 Carl (6); 3 Chandler & Paul (4); 5 Ken (2); 6 Crispin (0); 7 Bob (0) |
|
| Statement from Brian | It is a bit of a Diplomacy tradition (where I play) to
write an End Game Statement at the end of every game to say thank you and
give some insight into why you played the way you did. Chris has not requested this, but to be honest I feel weird if I don't do it, so here goes: This was one of my better games, mainly because I executed two text book stabs and got away with it. That is, the stabs were timed so that my enemies could not recover. I don't usually stab so why here? Well, the game started with England, France and I rapidly agreeing to ally to fight as West vs. East. I was happy with that but had an uneasy feeling about Ken (England) because I know he is such a good gamer and I had a feeling he had plans for me. The diplomacy was odd. Hardly anyone was speaking. I rapidly got on with invading Russia (Paul Summitt) and that got the email going. Talking to Paul made me think I had missed the opportunity to make a potentially good ally. In addition, Paul let me in on a secret; there was apparently an English / French / Russian alliance against me? I decided to let Russia live as a German vassal to see what might happen. Then France had a prod at me and after a stern warning from me confirmed the alliance against me and agreed to withdraw. From there I used Russia (Paul) to assist me in the east, keep England (Ken) busy, get access to the North Sea and land an army in England. An army in England is devastating for any English player and getting France (Chandler) to help me out was fatal for England (Ken). My only concern through all this was that Russia (Paul) started to pursue his own agenda again. His reluctance to move on Turkey suggested to me an alliance which was confirmed by later moves. Fortunately though, France kept Turkey busy even as I attacked his homeland. The stab of France (Chandler) went brilliantly and really left him no room to recover or get back on his feet. For there it was a matter of consolidating my gains. Thank you all for the game. Perhaps I will meet some or all of you again in the future. I am not always a stabby ally! Sorry about that! Thanks to Chris for running the game too. Dippy GMing is often a challenge I am sure this game was no exception. I am very impressed that Chris adjudicates by hand. Thanks Chris. |
|
| Statement from Paul |
I kinda like the idea of providing an End Game Statement. My first comment would be to thank Chris for hosting this. I also want to thank Brian for being an excellent mentor, Carl for being a steadfast ally, and the rest of you for being there. I had not played Diplomacy since the early 1970's and really missed the fun I had playing it back then. Unfortunately, I still miss that fun. I don't find the online version to be near as interesting and exciting as the FTF (Face-to-Face) version. Let me take a moment before discussing this particular game to explain my viewpoint and comments. One of the things I liked most about Diplomacy was the interaction. As Brian stated, this game lacked considerably in that respect (at least from my perspective). The online version is just not as interactive as I remember it being FTF. I find the online GunBoat version of the game even less fun and downright boring. The computerized version of the game playing against six AI opponents is slightly more fun than either of the two games I have played simply because it doesn't take forever to get anything done. Another factor that I really liked about Diplomacy back in the '70's was the Black and White rules. The rules were taken as being hard fast and not open to interpretation. We didn't add to or subtract from the rules. Those actions that were not covered in the rules were not allowed. If the rule book had something written in a specific particular sequence, any order that did not follow that specific sequence was ruled invalid. Unfortunately, the Internet seems to have spawned a group of interpretations of the rules. Due to some specific situations in both this game and the Gunboat version that I took part in, I spent considerable money and time purchasing books on the game, downloading all versions of the rules, and then reading everything to try and come to an understanding of how some of the events transpired as they did. I must say that both Chris and the arbitrator of the Gunboat game I took part in went to considerable effort to answer my questions and provide me with information by which I could come to an understanding of the arbitration. I discovered that the online version of the game of Diplomacy is very much like science and religion in my humble opinion. As we all know, science is nothing more than a group of people who get together and agree as to what the facts should be. (BTW, from a more modern, Quantum perspective of communication there are no such things as facts as everything is open to subjective interpretation.) Religion is splintered due to people taking the same book (or groups of books) and interpreting things the way the want to and agreeing that this is what that book says rather than taking the book at face value. That's why there are so many denominations and so much strife and pain in the religious world. Needless to say, I lost everyone of my arguments over how some of the arbitrations were done not because every version of the rule book (or any version of the rulebook) said I was wrong but because the current group interpretation of that concept was that I was wrong. It's hard to play by the rules when what is specifically written in the rulebook is not followed. And the argument that specific situations are not covered by the rulebook is simply rectified by not allowing it. Don't add to and don't take away from. So, all of that said, what follows is my interpretation and
perspective of what generally happened during this game.
I want to congratulate Brian and look forward to perhaps playing
again either FTF or online. I learned a lot from you and
appreciate the time you took in schooling an old dog. Just
remember, old dogs can learn new tricks.
Carl, as Spock said, "You are, and always will be, my
friend."
Chris, as usual, an amazing job. Thank you for allowing me
to take part.
The rest of you guys, I really appreciate the understanding you
showed when my wife had the heart attack. This year has been a
difficult one for me and I am thankful that I have guys like you to try
and kill Chris is supposed to be putting another Wooden Ships and Iron Men
historical scenario together and I'm going to be in it so will hopefully
see some of you there soon.
|
|
| 1900 | Awaiting Players - 8 Players joined January 2005 : Powers (colours) yet to be allocated. And now we are 5+2 : All set |