Diplomacy GameCode dip1104                                    Return to Home page
Game Over: 12 November 2005
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

Click to Enlarge Map

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  
Por=Portugal   Rum=Rumania  Ser=Serbia  Spa=Spain   Swe=Sweden   Tun=Tunisia
Seas: Ad=Adriatic Sea  EMed=Easter Mediterranean  HB=Heligoland Bight  Sk=Skagerrack  T Sea=Tyrrhenian Sea=TyrS

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.  
As I said at the beginning of this diatribe, I was very excited about this game beginning because it had been so long since I had played.  I had also gotten the country that I wanted so was happy about that too.  Feeling quite humble due to my lack of online experience with the game I waited for others to contact me first (a mistake).  Turkey and I exchanged a few emails making the Black Sea a neutral zone that either side could use as long as they cleared it with the other first thereby laying the groundwork for an alliance that I think lasted the entire game.  Brian (Germany) took Warsaw relatively early in the game and received a scalding email from me in retaliation (everyone saw how fast he pulled out of Warsaw as a result of that email).  Convincing Brian that I was worth keeping around (in his words "becoming his vassal") allowed me to send emails to everyone asking that they attack him.  I was never aware of any alliance against him as I rarely felt that I received any useful responses from anyone. I never quit having my own agenda and never trusted anything that Brian told me.  I simply did what was necessary to stay alive, especially after England took St. Pete.  At that point I used Brian to help me hold England off.  I found quickly that neither England or Germany could be trusted.  After my initial attacks against Austria-Hungary and Turkey's attacks against Italy I quickly realized that Turkey and I really needed Austria and Italy if we were going to counter what I perceived as an England France Germany coalition.  I quickly perceived that all three of these players were probably Republicans and realized that I needed to do something to keep the world free (ok, it's only funny if you understand my politics so never mind).  Unfortunately, our initial attacks against Austria and Italy prevented them from being able to trust us when it mattered most.  Italy wasn't even aware that France was eating his lunch from the West until I pointed it out to him.  Austria was a lost cause. I turned my attention to trying to get Germany to cooperate more with Turkey and myself as at that point in time England and France were dangerously close to having a combined 18 SC required for a fake win (I say fake win because the rulebook does not recognize any win other than a single player win.  Nothing else is accepted.  It's like Highlander you know, there can be only one.  Despite this the players out there that feel that you can add to or take away from the rulebook at will have decided that you can have group wins.  Sorry, doesn't exist in the rulebook only in the minds of those who delude themselves.).  While helping Germany I rarely could count on him to keep his word.  Future FTF or online "real" (traditional, non Gunboat) diplomacy games will not see me as trusting of him.  BTW, the only place anything resembling Gunboat is found in the rules is where they talk about playing one or two turns with no diplomacy to get new players the "feel" of the game board and the game action.  Then you're supposed to play "REAL" Diplomacy following the rulebook.  
I dont know which "two" stabs Brian is talking about as being "textbook" but I know he stabbed me first.  I tried to warn both England and France before their stabs that the stabs were coming and that Germany could not be trusted.  Neither listened. Toward the end the diplomacy seemed to break down again as people quit talking, at least to me.  I attempted contacting people during the last few turns but most were not returned.  In the end I was simply trying to prevent Germany from getting those last SCs but failed.  

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 (in a game anyway).  It helps with the stress.

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.  
Finally, In the end, there was only one.  And that is the way it should be.

1900   Awaiting Players - 8 Players joined  January 2005  : Powers (colours) yet to be allocated. And now we are 5+2 : All set