hahaha, you want to claim I was silent guys? I sent notes to the whole group, everyone saw them. I called on Italy to make the stab while the door was wide open. But wait, I didn't say that? You all saw that or do you ALL want to lie about it ever being sent?

No, I was quiet only AFTER you refused to budge and I called out this play to draw at that time. You deny it but gee, what transpired? Pathetic playing to a draw...horrible, just horrible, you guys wasted all our time!

LoL ... That's funny, Tom ... You edited your post and took out the section where you thought I was France. Then you claim "I never called you France"

Tee Hee... That really says it all.

I'm sorry I got so angry yesterday. Let me try to explain my position in a gentler way...

You are correct.... For 48 hours after you were stabbed, you screamed to the whole board for someone to attack France. But public messages are not negotiations. Italy and Turkey had already planned to stab Austria. No one was in a position to stab France then. And even if Italy was in position, no one is going to conduct serious negotiations through a group email sent to all players. From my point of view, I figured you were just letting off steam!

I think part of the problem here, is that we have a different set of values when it comes to playing the game. If I can't win, I'm happy to finish as a strong power. If I can't finish strong, I'm happy to survive. Some of my best games have left me on a small number of centres.

I think the reason why I got so angry with this thread is because I strongly agree with your basic sentiment. I absolutely hate it when I am stuck on a board with two or three players who simply will not break their alliance. I agree with you completely. It ruins the game for everybody. In recent years, I've found this has become far too common on Redscape. And it's one of the main reasons why I'm losing interest in the hobby.

So when you accused me of being part of the very thing I hate, I got very angry.

You don't have to believe me, Tom. But I was playing to win. If I had been able to negotiate with England or Germany, when Italy suggested stabbing France ( it was about 1905, I think) I would jumped at it. But by that stage you and Germany were silent, and I needed an ally to get me across the stalemate line. If I could have worked with you to partition Russia, I would have been happy to encourage an Italian stab on France. But I needed Italy to get me across the stalemate line or else I couldn't win.

That's why I'm annoyed about your silence after you were stabbed. Your refusal to continue to play the game to the best of your ability, altered the game dynamic. And was a key reason why the FIT didn't break.

Straight after the stab, you claimed that you didn't care about surviving, you only wanted to see France destroyed. I'm not sure if you meant that or not. But if that was genuinely your game objective after 1903, then you are correct... There was no point writing to me. But if your objective was to survive, then I would have been a vital player to you. We could have worked together to get Italy to stab France, and then we could have partitioned Russia.

I agree with you that after 1903, you were unlikely to solo or even board top, but the game was still very much alive. If I were in your shoes, I would have played on, fighting to survive and maximise my score. If you had done that, then you would be well within your rights to complain about a three way draw arranged in 1903. But the fact is, everyone who got stabbed in this game, seemed to stop negotiating. By 1905, there were 6 players sending in orders but only three were playing the game.

Hmmm.

In tournament play, going for a draw is perfectly fine and very common. In single games, it's less common but I don't see it as some high crime. If the other players don't see it and stop it (in a similar way to not seeing and stopping a Juggernaut or a solo), and lose, well.... that is what the game is - brutal and stabby and unfair for most of the people in the game.

Also, very often I've seen a 3-way alliance where its clear that no-one can really benefit from a stab without working with someone else, who is not giving any signals that they won't just join the 'victim'. Sometimes it's better to agree to end a game than to spend a few turns dancing around each other.

Maybe that isn't what happened here and it was the plan all along to stick at three. Not my style, perhaps, but even so, it's just a game, so move on. Perhaps learn something about particular players and their styles, but don't take it to heart.

I don't see how the discussion above encourages people to play more games here.

danivon wrote:I don't see how the discussion above encourages people to play more games here.

Maybe not. But, much like a car wreck, you can't help but slow down and look. Good times, fellas!