Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 6920
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 16 Jan 2014, 10:32 am

The 3-way DIAS has been approved. Thank you all for a good game, and forgiveness of my foibles.

Post EOGs (if you like) in the forums.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 20 Jan 2014, 6:52 am

I will not be posting an eog, nor do I plan on replying to any of the trio who ended the game in a draw. This was one of the poorest examples of game play I have ever seen. An arranged triple draw? What an insult to all who played, what an insult to the games GM, just a colossal waste of time, this was horrendous to watch develop! Pathetic is probably the best word for it. We play to WIN, anyone who plays for a draw ruins the game for all, here we had three people quite happy to do so, three people I frankly want nothing to do with in the future....luckily, I never keep track of these things and no doubt I will forget all about who did what!

and as stated before, it's not because I lost, I have lost plenty and will lose plenty more. Stabs happen, heck, draws even happen! But to play to an arranged three way draw??? No excuse for this sort of lack of sportsmanship, I get mad even thinking about it. It was pointed out often yet always denied, who's kidding who? NEVER was an attempt made by these 3 to stab another and the game ended as soon as it came down to those three, it was arranged and it was planned for...pathetic!
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 364
Joined: 12 Aug 2000, 3:11 am

Post 21 Jan 2014, 4:46 am

I feel I must respond to this.

Firstly... I completely disagree with your opening premise. A person can play the game for any objective that they want. This isn't a fascist organisation. A player may choose to play to solo, or to aim to board top or aim to survive... Or even aim to exact revenge on another player for actions taken within the game. That is part of the dynamic of the game. No one has a right to condemn another player for choosing a different game objective from themselves. This is a game!

Secondly... Having said that, I always play to "win." I define win as either solo or board top. There was no opportunity of me to do either in this game. As was discussed in both Italy's and turkey's EOG, both these players seriously considered a stab of their allies.

If I was going to seriously push for a win, I needed an ally on the other side of the board. I never had one. Unfortunately both the amount and the quality of communication from your end of the board was utterly pathetic. Aside from the public, adolescent tantrum you threw after France stabbed you, you never once wrote to me to discuss any cooperation. If you felt there was a danger of an arranged draw, then you needed to get onto your diplomatic bike and try to convince someone to stab.

That's what I did when I saw the EFG. I went hunting for someone who I thought I could convince to stab. You refused to talk to me, Germany made it clear he was going to be your ally all game. The only stabber in your group was France. I committed myself to writing to France every couple of days for four weeks to convinced him to stab you.

The fact that you didn't even try to convince me to stab Italy or France was just bad play on your part.
Had you written to me, I would have replied and given careful consideration to any proposal you may have made. That's how I play.

So I must say I take your accusations of poor sportsmanship rather personally. I do not believe that this game was an example of bad sportsmanship on my part, it was an example of incompetent diplomacy on your part.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 21 Jan 2014, 1:16 pm

Nope, not buying this line of garbage in the least.

First off, any who do not play to WIN as their main objective does nobody any favors and ruins the game for others. If "your idea" of a win is anything other than an actual win, then you should play some euro-game that rewards such nonsense. This game was designed to be WON, to play it differently makes the game worse for all others involved.

Second, you in no way played to win. You avoided countless opportunities to stab your allies for tremendous gains that would have lead to a win. All three remaining players avoided such stabs and played simply to a three way draw. Hell, as soon as it came down to three players the draw was voted on and passed, no stabs, simply a play to a draw....yechhh, I wish I were not part of such nonsense! You "were seriously going to push for a win"?
yet you never did, and we are to believe you ...why? Your actions all pointed to nothing but playing for a draw so it was never exactly "serious" now was it?

I am quite happy you are taking my poor sportsmanship accusations personally,they SHOULD be taken as such since that is how you played and how you ruined the game for the others. You want to blame ME because I didn't ask you to stab another? I didn't explain to you that you should be playing to win? This had to be explained and begged for????
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3293
Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am

Post 21 Jan 2014, 4:02 pm

I didn't play, or even follow this game, but Tom I think you're over-reacting. Stabbing in a three-way is really problematic, as you're often the odd man out. The person who stabs in a three way often loses and if you don't want to lose, you don't stab in a three-way.

Most players play to win, but I know many primarily play not to lose. There is an article on the Dip Pouch titled: A Diplomacy Game Should Always Result In A Draw, here, I found it for you:

http://www.diplomacy-archive.com/resources/strategy/articles/draw.htm

If you take the logic there and the first mover disadvantage on the in stabbing on a three-way, I think it is quite logical such a game ends in a draw. Again, I didn't follow the game and there may have been key points where such a stab was viable, but we all make choices that can be second-guessed with 20/20 vision in hindsight, but it is never as clear at the time. Take some time and think about it.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 21 Jan 2014, 4:08 pm

you could be right ...but not here. These three worked as a triple the entire time always avoiding stabs that would have guaranteed sure fire winning. and the end result, a triple with a weak Italian in the center that could easily be squeezed? nope, it was mamby pamby nonsense where they agreed to play to a tie from the games second year!

your guess is off base in this game and my criticism is aimed directly at these three not for stabbing me, god lord no. Our French player did a masterful job of that and I am over it of course, the game was simply played to a tie, I called them on it very early on and while it was denied, every move all game long right up to the draw vote the VERY turn all others were eliminated...all planned to end in a tie and that folks is poor sportsmanship to not play to a win.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3293
Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am

Post 21 Jan 2014, 4:52 pm

OK. I won't argue with you on the specifics of this game, since I just don't know, but I will point out the following section from the article I posted:

So given seven players who are all playing for the best possible result (win, followed by a draw featuring as few players as possible), and that these players do not miss a deadline, then I submit that the game will end in a 3 or 4 way draw. Normally, the first few years see a couple of countries out and two or three strong powers emerge. It is at this point that the major powers must beware. Not only must they try to extend their own empire, but they must take care that another power does not develop at a greater rate and reach a position where he can make a grab for the final centres for victory. In fact, given that all players are playing for the best possible result, the game rapidly reaches a stalemate.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 364
Joined: 12 Aug 2000, 3:11 am

Post 21 Jan 2014, 8:17 pm

Tom,

This isn't a no press game. No one attacks another player unless they know they have an ally to help them win. To do otherwise would leave you stuck in a stalemate and vulnerable to a third power.

From the moment France stabbed you in 1903, you effectively dropped out of the game. Neither you nor your game long German ally wrote. Sure you sent in orders... But that's not playing the game. The primary mechanism of the game is negotiation, and you didn't play. In effect, you went into cd the moment you were stabbed. Now I call that bad sportsmanship!

The simple truth is, that you were such a poor sport that once you realised that you couldn't win, you didn't care about the game anymore. So you sulked and whined and pointed accusing fingers publicly at everyone you could. But not once did you act like you were still playing the game. That was a disgraceful performance. And your public, personal attacks on me are even more disgraceful.

Given the fact that you refused to write to me privately ( I am ignoring the single letter you sent in 1902) I am amazed that you are so keen to publicly slander me in this forum. What is your motive, I wonder?

So here is my last word on this sorry business. If you had not thrown a tantrum and left the game, after you were stabbed, the game would have developed very differently.

I have no problem with your desire to solo but good sportsmanship demands that even once that prospect is taken from you, you should continue to play the game *to the best of your ability*. You did not do this. Your accusations against me are unwarranted, petulant and frankly and embarrassment to yourself. If this were a f2f game, I'd be finishing my beer, picking up my car keys and walking out the door shaking my head.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 21 Jan 2014, 9:08 pm

That is a patent lie!
For several turns I wrote many asking for stabs to be made, I posted a few things as well.
and your claim that nobody will stab unless they have an ally is a bit of a joke, by that theory, the game would never be won, since allies are not going to usually help another win forcing themselves into the losers position. Stop trying to talk your way out of this, it was crystal clear all game long, this was played to end in a three way draw, ZERO attempt to win was ever taken. It's obvious and pathetic.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 21 Jan 2014, 9:11 pm

and public slander? I never called anyone out by name only stating the trio that joined together did so with nothing but a draw in mind and that is exactly what happened, absolutely zero effort to win by any of these three powers made any attempt to win...sad!

One thing I DID say was the stab of me was well done! That isn't slander.
And when I was stabbed, I wrote to Italy asking him to make his move on you ...he failed to do so, because he was playing for a draw!
Last edited by GMTom on 22 Jan 2014, 8:10 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 364
Joined: 12 Aug 2000, 3:11 am

Post 22 Jan 2014, 12:46 am

And now you accuse me of lying. Amazing!

Here is where your incompetence is revealed. You don't even know what country I was playing. I was playing turkey. I never stabbed you. France did. And you may have written to Italy, I can't comment on the extent of your "negotiations" with Italy. I know you launched a public tantrum but that is not negotiation. Perhaps you wrote to Italy privately in a reasonable, mature and intelligent manner. I don't know.

What I do know is this ... After you were stabbed by France in 1903, YOU NEVER WROTE A SINGLE MESSAGE TO ME! As far as I was concerned, you had picked up your bat and ball and gone home, crying.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 22 Jan 2014, 8:02 am

well gee
You accuse me of not writing anyone and dropping out.
I point out this is not true, if it was not true, that is called a lie.

If the shoe fits...

and on to the rest,
My incompetence is revealed?
Where did I confuse you with anyone else? I supposedly slandered 3 players and I pointed out how I said ONE of them (I never called you France now did I?) did a good job of a stab. You want to assume the world revolves around you...you assume I confuse you for France, you assume I wrote nobody else, you assume since I did not talk to someone who could not help my position in the least means I "dropped out" it's all about YOU?

and no I did not write you after the stab, or before the stab for that matter
please explain how you could have helped me fight France?
You COULD have made it worse by attacking Italy should he have attacked France when France was WIDE OPEN to his stab (forcing Italy to cover his back-side). Please oh please explain how you would have been able to help me and why I should have written you? The simple fact is you could do me no favors so I did not waste my time writing pleasantries. And you already admitted I went on rants, but earlier you said I did nothing. Once again proving the point that you seem to enjoy a good lie now and then? Maybe you should look up "slander" it isn't slanderous if the accusation truthful now is it? You may not like hearing the truth about you telling fibs but it most certainly is true.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 885
Joined: 24 Apr 2003, 6:31 am

Post 22 Jan 2014, 8:32 am

You didn't write to me, either Tom. You had a public tantrum, the premise of which I disagreed with. After a few public emails, *I* took it off the public setting and wrote to you individually. Our discussion from there was centered around the idea that you could no longer win. I pointed out ways that you could try to get back into it, but you wouldn't listen. I was the one who brought up me stabbing France, and as I said in my EOG, it was part of my plan. You never wrote to me again after that, and never asked me to stab France. Your comment that "For several turns I wrote many asking for stabs to be made" is either a lie or all your messages got lost in the ether, because neither Turkey nor I received anything from you. Even if you wrote to France, which I'm thinking you probably didn't, that still doesn't constitute the "many" you supposedly wrote to.

You are 100% wrong in your premise that we agreed to a draw from 02. I guess that doesn't matter though since everything you say is right, isn't it?
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 123
Joined: 02 Jun 2012, 9:41 am

Post 22 Jan 2014, 9:17 am

The article posted by geojanes was very interesting, thanks for that. A well-written article, succinct and well-put.

Tom, you claim that all three of us "avoided stabs that would have guaranteed sure fire winning". I'm not sure that's true at all. I made my move when I stabbed you in 03 I believe, after that, my forces were pretty well wrapped up with finishing you off, which took me several game years. Where, exactly, could I have made a stab?

I stabbed you because I weighed my options and decided we were looking at a pretty likely early stalemate if we kept our western triple up. Maybe I was wrong about that, I guess we'll never know because I decided otherwise. I made a move that I thought would improve my position and bring me closer to winning. And it did! No, I didn't achieve a solo in this game. But my stab did get me closer. Sure, at the end of the game, I could have stabbed Italy. Turkey and I could have squeezed him. But it was quite unclear how that would turn out, I could maybe have gotten a solo, or Turkey could have gotten a solo. In every game, there are a few times that you have to decide between Now or Later. In 1903, I clearly decided on Later. When this game ended, I looked at the board and decided Now. Does that make me a wuss, because I didn't want to risk going for it, possibly soloing but possibly allowing Turkey to solo, for example? Maybe you think so, but I really don't. Does anyone who agrees to end a game in a draw qualify as a wuss? There are a few RG games that recently ended in DIAS..are those players all playing the game the wrong way because they agreed to end in a draw, instead of going for a solo at all costs?

Of course we all begin the game trying to win, but the overwhelming majority of the time it becomes apparent at some point in the game that it just isn't going to happen. So you try and secure the best result for yourself. That's what I did, and it appears to me that's what both Sendric and Darren did as well. I just really don't see where you're coming from on this one, or how this game's end result is really all that different from most other games of Dip.

You seem to think that the three of us got together in 1902 and said, ok, lets end this game in a three-way draw between us? That is so far from the truth. Look at the maps again…in 1902, I was still part of the EFG we began the game with! In the fall and winter of 1902, I was beginning to get discouraged with my progress in the Med and thought I needed to shake things up, or risk a really boring, early end to the game. I had not yet decided I was going to stab..I stabbed in spring 03 and I remember going back and forth in my own head almost right up to the deadline. You can choose not to believe me, but it is true.

You said you aren't going to write an EOG or respond to any of ours. That's fine, but you probably at least read our EOG's, right? We each explained in pretty good detail our thought processes and strategy throughout the game, nobody said that we agreed to a draw ever since 1902, or even close to that, because we didn't.

Really, is it more likely that the three of us conspired in our EOG statements to cover up this big secret you choose to believe in, or that you are just bitter about the way this game ended, and being a real poor sport?
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 22 Jan 2014, 11:40 am

try to say otherwise guys but the facts remain...you never ONCE moved to stab one another and as soon as we got to the three of you, the game ended in a draw. Italy avoided stabbing France when France sold out to the English assault. Turkey and France never worked together to squeeze Italy (and why did Italy never worry about getting squeezed?). No, the facts are plain as day, this trio played to a draw, one they agreed to early on in the game and that fellas is shameful!

Trying to say it was never discussed is even worse, c'mon, are we blind?
It was pathetic, trying to deny the obvious is even more pathetic.
and Italy saying I did not write...further pathetic. Did I write OFTEN? Hell no, he refused to take advantage of a wide open opportunity, I wasn't about to beg for something when we already saw the agreed upon three way was already in place and not going to be moved.