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

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3486
Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am

Post 07 Sep 2016, 9:36 am

[Posted for der Blaue Rieter]

Partial EOG:

Sooo....I've always had fun playing in games with Greg, but for whatever reason I've not until this game found myself in an honest-to-god alliance with him.

And fairly soon I decided that it kinda sucked.

I had been ready to roll with the E/G setup from the get go. I figure a 3-way split of Scandinavia is always a bit unstable, and did not want to be on the short end of that stick. In fact, for Germany and England alike, and to a lesser extent Russia, dominating Scandinavia is a goal that makes sense. Making a deal with England to split it, have him top it up with F STP would give me free reign to dominate in Russia without making a lot of low value-added commitments in the west.

I did a crappy job year one psyching Randy out, didn't really try much as I didn't feel like lying too blatantly and he's clever enough to see stuff like DEN-SWE coming. The plan seemed to change though with Austria1 (Monte) gunning hard east in an apparent partnership with Italy. I was content to let E/F diplomacy stay more or less noncommittal at this stage, trying to prod Steve or Dave into some sort of friction that I could take advantage of. Dave's cautious approach left me feeling pretty good about my ability to focus East, but things did seem likely to come to a head a bit too soon for me to get Warsaw and that crucial build. The bigger issue was Monte. So much was left unsaid, potential mutual commitments that never quite materialized, Randy clearly driving him crazy (RUM-GAL I think in particular IIRC) but a deep seated fear of me on MOS/WAR looming over all the gains he might naturally expect in an eastern push. It never even got to the point where I promised him SEV or anything, in part because I really didn't know what was going on with Barry a bit in the mix as well. I believe my experience with Monte was much like the rest of you: his "strong, silent" type style in this match left me not having much to hold on to. Later in the game word seemed to reach me that others, particularly Steve, were also having trouble finding a good working arrangement.

That relationship with Austria was so non-productive that I had no promises to keep or relationship to uphold when I considered moves. Therefore when the 'great northern rapprochement' took place (more on that in a moment), and I shifted back west away from Warsaw, I had no compunction in throwing my army in Bohemia even though Monte would clearly be pissed off. This seemed a minor, almost irrelevant move, but it led to me getting a 1-season lead on Italian forces trying to come the opposite way across the same space--and I was quite pleased with myself pulling that off. I haven't double checked but I believe that army is the one that ultimately conquered Greece.

Meanwhile back in the northern flank, things were a bit iffy. It was time to make the decision, far earlier than I had wanted. Greg wanted a leg up vs France, and David wasn't committing to the Med as per the 3-way option, so we needed to strike but didn't really have the units. I generally prefer EG to FG, but the terms weren't right. Basic basic basic is England gets no more than 2 armies, and Germany gets no more than 2 fleets. But both are well served by having at least 2--and for me that was non-negotiable to the point that "it goes without saying". Well, probably I should have said something about it, because after fully committing to the EG (stealing Belgium), Greg proposed that I only have 1 fleet. We had a whole complicated retreat planned where I was to go OTB to get down to the 1.

(Note to all: if I propose 6 ideas to you and you only respond to the 2 that are clearly in your favor, I don't consider that an adequate conversation about tactical options).

So touchy negotiations with the barbarian led to some sympathetic back and forth with Dave, that I was really pleasantly surprised with, having found him a bit demanding as a negotiator in the past. We worked out a good swap logic, and on basically the last season I would ever have the opportunity, I stabbed Greg a flipped to Dave.

I think this sequence: start vs Russia, Flip vs France, Flip vs England is notable not because I love to stab everyone, but because I was able to do it in coordination and on the right season, and execute with the desired results. Contrast that to Jon's stab of Steve, where Barry wasn't able to close the deal and beat Russia under. My diplomatic failures with Steve and Monte (and to a lesser extent Jon--I had lobbied hard for him to pick Randy over Barry) were made up with by clear successes with Greg in the initial duel for influence, Randy during the flip, and Dave during the stab of Greg. Barry and I talked all along but with me ending up supportive of Russia there was never any meat on those bones.

It was about this time someone smarter than me started pointing out how the alliance combos were likely to go: Kill the corners vs kill F/R vs something else. I didn't make my play based on that kind of long game (and somehow all the proposals I saw had G+the author in the final lineup, irrespective of reality), but it did make me start to think of how the larger picture would leave me set up to finish. I felt that the board situation augured well for a well-armed northern theater where France and I stood each other off, with the real action in the Med. Russia was in my pocket as he would naturally come to help vs Greg, given the way I made sure I wasn't on the hook with a home SC. :-)

Randy was perpetually desperate in the south, either shoring up Turkey or staving him off...that gave he and I plenty of time to cement the relationship.

So as the final alliance gelled (FGR), my obvious potential concern was being the guy in the middle. But given the rest of the board, and the growth plans in the Balkans and the Med and Turkey, we were cruising towards a 3 way. And in this case there was no stalemate line in sight, all of us straddled them. Plus, while sure, there was no way France and Russia would let Germany win in these circumstances, they each knew if they betrayed me I could always pull the nuclear option and let the other one solo. Pretty basic MAD-type relationship that has very powerful stability, and in this case never really came into question.

Back to the action: the next real turning point was Jon's stab of Steve. I am not sure, but I don't think I've seen two more radically different playing styles. I think Monte plays a rare kind of game, and there are a good number of folks who play like Jon (myself included), but watching it play out in real time was a bit shocking. I had been inured by many seasons to expect progress as slow and powerful as a glacier from the AI, and when it all went to hell it was pretty crazy to watch.

Because I had the unit in BOH/TYR, I had some diplomatic insight into eastern positions and a ringside seat when Jon arrived and decided to do his little mid-game Hedgehog. The unit, plus my relationship with Russia led to me lobbying hard for Jon to flip Steve for Randy, though before it actually happened I didn't think it would. When he decided to go with Barry I was doubly shocked--since AT is risky, the AR looked like a solid tactical thing. I am really curious to hear how Barry pulled that off! Or how Randy screwed it up, one or the other. I didn't have any diplomatic leverage, nor had I built any kind of successful communications with Steve, to argue for him to go vs Jon, so I didn't even try. I did want to break up the AI somehow though, I didn't see how that being successful was going to help me. Plus by this point Steve+Dave's unconditional love-fest seemed obvious, if kind of unfounded.

So by this point my game was pretty set. Dave and I killed Greg, and there was much rejoicing. Greg didn't ever bother to send me a plausible survival proposal, nor did he to Dave at that point either I believe. There were several opportunities where he could have, in fact as we closed in his best tactical play was to pile on Denmark, disbanding one on the home islands, but he didn't choose that. He could easily have pawned to Dave and kept in the game I suppose, I don't really know why he preferred to fall on his sword.

I could probably find a bit more to say but will let this ferment...doubtless I've misremembered some stuff, and I expect most of you would characterize plenty of this differently. But aren't we all nice guys in our own minds? :-)

A thousand thanks to George, I learned a lot about Verdun this game! Thanks to all of my competitors here as well, a very good group.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 07 Sep 2016, 1:28 pm

Back to the action: the next real turning point was Jon's stab of Steve. I am not sure, but I don't think I've seen two more radically different playing styles. I think Monte plays a rare kind of game, and there are a good number of folks who play like Jon (myself included), but watching it play out in real time was a bit shocking. I had been inured by many seasons to expect progress as slow and powerful as a glacier from the AI, and when it all went to hell it was pretty crazy to watch.


This is as close to an EOG on this game as I'm going to get.

I should have gone straight after Monte. I knew he is overly cautious as Austria. This is an approach I believe is hopeless.

Well, wait a second. I have been forced into caution as Austria and then finished on 6-8 sc's. Then again, I don't consider that success. So, yeah, it's a hopeless approach.

I tried to spur Monte on, to no avail.

When Jon came in, I knew I was vulnerable. However, stabbing me seemed self-defeating.

Well, not only did Jon do it, but he lied to me after I tried to reason with him in the intervening negotiations. After he lied to me twice, I didn't care if he promised to build a wall and pay for it.

Was I "happy" to outlive Jon? Not really, but it was better than having him eliminate me.

There was something hokey about this game. I don't know what it was, but let's just say I'm suspicious of loaned sc's that are returned with interest.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3486
Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am

Post 07 Sep 2016, 2:07 pm

Doctor Fate wrote: let's just say I'm suspicious of loaned sc's that are returned with interest.


I don't mean to be thick here, but can you be more specific?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 07 Sep 2016, 2:18 pm

geojanes wrote:
Doctor Fate wrote: let's just say I'm suspicious of loaned sc's that are returned with interest.


I don't mean to be thick here, but can you be more specific?


Yes, I think the whole Stp thing was more than it appears.