[Reply]

[Reply]

[Reply]

[Reply]

Quebec buidls the usual ACBM (anti-cuba ballistic missile) and votes yes to the proposed 3-way.





From: Former Trout [mailto:former.trout(at)gmail.com ([email]former.trout(at)gmail.com[/email])]
Sent: Wed 8/13/2008 9:44 PM
To: dc138
Cc: Andrew Clarke; Andrew Tanner; Bruce Quinn; Bruce Ray; Jason K; Michael Sims; Nathan Deily; Rob Ackerley; Samuel Smith; Steve Lytton
Subject: DC138 Winter Of Our Discontent - Fall 2013 - Waterworld



If you never did, you should. These things are fun, and fun is good.

Great wisdom from simple pages... Meanwhile I wish I could say that the unexpected happens in Fall 2013 but, uhm, no can do. The curtain falls for California as BC actively supports the advancing Floridian armies into the Heartland.

My grateful thanks go to Ray for taking the plunge and learning the map in order to play this one. The Brucester is counted out in this one, but I'm sure it will be just a matter of time before we're all dancing to his strings once again. =P

With no retreats required, we move on into the Winter turn. Winter 2013 adjustments will be due Friday, August 15th (11:59 PM GMT). Meanwhile, the email lines have been burning up with requests to propose a BC/Mexico/Florida draw once again so we'll dump that end-game proposal on the table and ask for yay or nay votes with the Winter adjustments.

Cheers all!

Trout

Movement results for Fall of 2013. (DC138 13 FALL)

BC: A Chicago Hold.
BC: F Greenland - North Atlantic Ocean.
BC: F Gulf of Santa Catalina Hold.
BC: A Indiana Hold.
BC: A Iowa Supports F Arkansas - Missouri (*Void*).
BC: F Cape May - Mid Atlantic Ocean.
BC: A Montana - Dakotas.
BC: A Nebraska Supports A Missouri - Kansas.
BC: A Nevada Hold.
BC: F North Pacific Ocean Supports F Hawaii.
BC: F New York City Hold.
BC: F New York State Hold.
BC: A Ohio Hold.
BC: F Oregon Hold.
BC: A San Francisco Hold.
BC: F West Coast Hold.
BC: F West Pennsylvania Hold.
BC: A Wyoming Supports A Kansas - Colorado.

California: F South Pacific Ocean Supports F Southwest Pacific Ocean (*Cut*).
California: F Southwest Pacific Ocean Supports F South Pacific Ocean.

Florida: F Arkansas Hold.
Florida: A Dallas Hold.
Florida: F Deep South - Tennessee.
Florida: F East Coast Hold.
Florida: A Houston Hold.
Florida: A Kansas - Colorado.
Florida: F Lesser Antilles Hold.
Florida: A Missouri - Kansas.
Florida: F North Carolina Hold.
Florida: A New Jersey Hold.
Florida: A Tennessee - Missouri.
Florida: A Washington DC Hold.

NewYork: A Philadelphia Hold.

Quebec: F Mab refuses to support May since May has not seen any
action in 5 turns of repetitive support.

Cuba: A Venezuela Hold.

Mexico: A Chihuahua Hold.
Mexico: A Coahuila Hold.
Mexico: F Coast of Mexico Supports F Galapagos - South Pacific Ocean.
Mexico: F Galapagos - South Pacific Ocean (*Fails*).
Mexico: F Gulf of Campeche Hold.
Mexico: F Hawaii Hold.
Mexico: F Mid Pacific Ocean Supports F Hawaii.
Mexico: A San Antonio Hold.
Mexico: A San Diego Hold.
Mexico: A Tabasco Hold.
Mexico: A Vichada - Venezuela (*Fails*).
Mexico: F Yucatan Hold.

Unit locations:

BC: A Chicago, A Dakotas, F Gulf of Santa Catalina, A Indiana, A Iowa, F
Mid Atlantic Ocean, F North Atlantic Ocean, A Nebraska, A Nevada, F
North Pacific Ocean, F New York City, F New York State, A Ohio, F
Oregon, A San Francisco, F West Coast, F West Pennsylvania, A
Wyoming.
California: F South Pacific Ocean, F Southwest Pacific Ocean.
Florida: F Arkansas, A Colorado, A Dallas, F East Coast, A Houston, A Kansas,
F Lesser Antilles, A Missouri, F North Carolina, A New Jersey, F
Tennessee, A Washington DC.
NewYork: A Philadelphia.
Quebec: F Massachusetts Bay.
Cuba: A Venezuela.
Mexico: A Chihuahua, A Coahuila, F Coast of Mexico, F Galapagos, F Gulf of
Campeche, F Hawaii, F Mid Pacific Ocean, A San Antonio, A San Diego,
A Tabasco, A Vichada, F Yucatan.

Ownership of supply centers:

BC: Anchorage, Calgary, Chicago, Greenland, Los Angeles, Manitoba,
Massachussets, Michigan, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, Montreal, New York
City, Ohio, Ontario, Oregon, Quebec City, San Francisco, Ungava,
Vancouver, Washington.
Florida: Colorado, Dallas, Dominican Republic, Georgia, Havana, Holquin,
Houston, Jacksonville, Kansas, Kingston, Louisiana, Miami, Missouri,
North Carolina, New Jersey, Tampa, Tennessee, Washington DC.
NewYork: Philadelphia.
Quebec: Nova Scotia.
Cuba: Venezuela.
Mexico: Arizona, Bogota, Cali, Chihuahua, Durango, Guadalajara, Guatemala,
Hawaii, Lima, Mexico City, Nicaragua, Nuevo Leon, Panama, San
Antonio, San Diego, Veracruz, Yucatan.

BC: 20 Supply centers, 18 Units: Builds 2 units.
California: 0 Supply centers, 2 Units: Removes 2 units.
Florida: 18 Supply centers, 12 Units: Builds 3 units.
Heartland: 0 Supply centers, 0 Units: Builds 0 units.
NewYork: 1 Supply center, 1 Unit: Builds 0 units.
Quebec: 1 Supply center, 1 Unit: Builds 0 units.
Peru: 0 Supply centers, 0 Units: Builds 0 units.
Texas: 0 Supply centers, 0 Units: Builds 0 units.
Cuba: 1 Supply center, 1 Unit: Builds 0 units.
Mexico: 17 Supply centers, 12 Units: Builds 3 units.

NEXT DEADLINE: WINTER 2013 ADJUSTMENTS DUE FRIDAY, AUGUST 15TH (11:59 PM GMT)!!

[Reply]

[Reply]

[Reply]

[Reply]

Hiya folks,
Guess it's time to post an EGS.

This is a great variant… I really liked it, despite the fact that I think North America does not make for good Diplomacy because it's basically one big mass of land with oceans on either side. No seas like the Mediterranean or the Baltic makes for no convoy action, and very little fleet interaction, but the introduction of the canals leading into the great lakes made up for it… just a bit. I still think NA geography is lacking in terms of tactical strategizing, but this one is about as good as it can get.

The game started out great, which lasted for about 2 turns. Rob, Andy, and myself set out with a triple, and we sent our troops off in opposite directions. We each got 3 builds in 01! We had the jump on all our neighbors, and BC really over a barrel. That was outstanding, and we were far and away the trio to beat on the board. Of course that lasted all of about 2 turns, as right off the bat Rob got Andy to turn on me, and then began the slow downfall.

I heard later on that Rob was never interested in the triple from the start, as he considered it unworkable… I will ALWAYS consider any alliance workable in any game – and love making unlikely alliances work out, but it just wasn't meant to be this time. After the initial stab by Andy, I tried to make a 2nd go at it, for we talked it over, and a turn later, yet again… Rob and Andy moved on me.

I really guess this just wasn't my game.

In the end, I have to thank Andy for not eliminating me when he could have done so via a retreat. I take that as payback for my trust of him in the opening rounds. And of course toward the end, I was doing all I could to stay on Andrew's (BC) good side since he was my initial target, and later, my protector.

I'm sure if the draws kept getting voted down, the big 3 would have had to go pick off the remaining 1-dotters. I'm 99% sure it was Ray voting them down, as nothing else seems to make sense. This part of draw votes always sucks… it might be nice to allow public voting in some variant, but as Trout pointed out that is not standard rules, and it would have to be a posted variant of some sort to allow a public binding vote.

Congrats to the victorious three, Andrew, Lee and Bruce. Well earned. Was interesting (in a "glad it wasn't me" sort of way) to see California lose 8 sc in one turn, that's surely a record that I've witnessed.

One thing I learned from this… Rob asked me early on if I would stab Andy with him, and so I should have absolutely assumed that he was asking the same thing of Andy against me. I outright told him no, I wanted to see if the triple would work, but that is no reason to assume that the other player would see it the same. So that's what I consider my error, that I assumed that just cuz I turned down Rob's offer, that others would too. So if someone approaches you about stabbing their own alliance before it even gets off the ground, take heed! Something is probly awry in Pleasantville. Don't ignore the clues. That's what this game is all about.

Here's to seeing you all again in the next one,
-mike

[Reply]

MY EGP stands as written since nothing changed, however Mike reminded me of one thing. I have to thank Andy again for being such a good sport, and not taking the retreat to eliminate Mike after I begged, and begged, and pleaded that he leave Mike alive. It was to my dismay that I couldn't keep Andy alive to the end as I did Mike. Once again Andy, many thanks and my apologies.

Look forward to playing you all again! Perhaps on this map - I for one thoroughly enjoyed it, and actually considered a few convoys during the course of events, so I can't agree that the lack of interior seas is a terrible hindrance...maybe if the Caribbean was a bit larger or there were island chains with multiple centers accessible to armies...but I'd rather see BC have access to a second first year neutral on the Canadian plains.

All in all a great game with great players.

Thanks,
Andrew


On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 8:44 PM, Michael Sims <mike(at)southwall.com ([email]mike(at)southwall.com[/email])> wrote:
[quote:d7fac36047]
Hiya folks,
Guess it's time to post an EGS.

This is a great variant… I really liked it, despite the fact that I think North America does not make for good Diplomacy because it's basically one big mass of land with oceans on either side. No seas like the Mediterranean or the Baltic makes for no convoy action, and very little fleet interaction, but the introduction of the canals leading into the great lakes made up for it… just a bit. I still think NA geography is lacking in terms of tactical strategizing, but this one is about as good as it can get.

The game started out great, which lasted for about 2 turns. Rob, Andy, and myself set out with a triple, and we sent our troops off in opposite directions. We each got 3 builds in 01! We had the jump on all our neighbors, and BC really over a barrel. That was outstanding, and we were far and away the trio to beat on the board. Of course that lasted all of about 2 turns, as right off the bat Rob got Andy to turn on me, and then began the slow downfall.

I heard later on that Rob was never interested in the triple from the start, as he considered it unworkable… I will ALWAYS consider any alliance workable in any game – and love making unlikely alliances work out, but it just wasn't meant to be this time. After the initial stab by Andy, I tried to make a 2nd go at it, for we talked it over, and a turn later, yet again… Rob and Andy moved on me.

I really guess this just wasn't my game.

In the end, I have to thank Andy for not eliminating me when he could have done so via a retreat. I take that as payback for my trust of him in the opening rounds. And of course toward the end, I was doing all I could to stay on Andrew's (BC) good side since he was my initial target, and later, my protector.

I'm sure if the draws kept getting voted down, the big 3 would have had to go pick off the remaining 1-dotters. I'm 99% sure it was Ray voting them down, as nothing else seems to make sense. This part of draw votes always sucks… it might be nice to allow public voting in some variant, but as Trout pointed out that is not standard rules, and it would have to be a posted variant of some sort to allow a public binding vote.

Congrats to the victorious three, Andrew, Lee and Bruce. Well earned. Was interesting (in a "glad it wasn't me" sort of way) to see California lose 8 sc in one turn, that's surely a record that I've witnessed.

One thing I learned from this… Rob asked me early on if I would stab Andy with him, and so I should have absolutely assumed that he was asking the same thing of Andy against me. I outright told him no, I wanted to see if the triple would work, but that is no reason to assume that the other player would see it the same. So that's what I consider my error, that I assumed that just cuz I turned down Rob's offer, that others would too. So if someone approaches you about stabbing their own alliance before it even gets off the ground, take heed! Something is probly awry in Pleasantville. Don't ignore the clues. That's what this game is all about.

Here's to seeing you all again in the next one,
-mike

[Reply]

[Reply]

MY EGP stands as written since nothing changed, however Mike reminded me of one thing. I have to thank Andy again for being such a good sport, and not taking the retreat to eliminate Mike after I begged, and begged, and pleaded that he leave Mike alive. It was to my dismay that I couldn't keep Andy alive to the end as I did Mike. Once again Andy, many thanks and my apologies.

Look forward to playing you all again! Perhaps on this map - I for one thoroughly enjoyed it, and actually considered a few convoys during the course of events, so I can't agree that the lack of interior seas is a terrible hindrance...maybe if the Caribbean was a bit larger or there were island chains with multiple centers accessible to armies...but I'd rather see BC have access to a second first year neutral on the Canadian plains.

All in all a great game with great players.

Thanks,
Andrew


On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 8:44 PM, Michael Sims <mike(at)southwall.com ([email]mike(at)southwall.com[/email])> wrote:
[quote:d5af2c7107]
Hiya folks,
Guess it's time to post an EGS.

This is a great variant… I really liked it, despite the fact that I think North America does not make for good Diplomacy because it's basically one big mass of land with oceans on either side. No seas like the Mediterranean or the Baltic makes for no convoy action, and very little fleet interaction, but the introduction of the canals leading into the great lakes made up for it… just a bit. I still think NA geography is lacking in terms of tactical strategizing, but this one is about as good as it can get.

The game started out great, which lasted for about 2 turns. Rob, Andy, and myself set out with a triple, and we sent our troops off in opposite directions. We each got 3 builds in 01! We had the jump on all our neighbors, and BC really over a barrel. That was outstanding, and we were far and away the trio to beat on the board. Of course that lasted all of about 2 turns, as right off the bat Rob got Andy to turn on me, and then began the slow downfall.

I heard later on that Rob was never interested in the triple from the start, as he considered it unworkable… I will ALWAYS consider any alliance workable in any game – and love making unlikely alliances work out, but it just wasn't meant to be this time. After the initial stab by Andy, I tried to make a 2nd go at it, for we talked it over, and a turn later, yet again… Rob and Andy moved on me.

I really guess this just wasn't my game.

In the end, I have to thank Andy for not eliminating me when he could have done so via a retreat. I take that as payback for my trust of him in the opening rounds. And of course toward the end, I was doing all I could to stay on Andrew's (BC) good side since he was my initial target, and later, my protector.

I'm sure if the draws kept getting voted down, the big 3 would have had to go pick off the remaining 1-dotters. I'm 99% sure it was Ray voting them down, as nothing else seems to make sense. This part of draw votes always sucks… it might be nice to allow public voting in some variant, but as Trout pointed out that is not standard rules, and it would have to be a posted variant of some sort to allow a public binding vote.

Congrats to the victorious three, Andrew, Lee and Bruce. Well earned. Was interesting (in a "glad it wasn't me" sort of way) to see California lose 8 sc in one turn, that's surely a record that I've witnessed.

One thing I learned from this… Rob asked me early on if I would stab Andy with him, and so I should have absolutely assumed that he was asking the same thing of Andy against me. I outright told him no, I wanted to see if the triple would work, but that is no reason to assume that the other player would see it the same. So that's what I consider my error, that I assumed that just cuz I turned down Rob's offer, that others would too. So if someone approaches you about stabbing their own alliance before it even gets off the ground, take heed! Something is probly awry in Pleasantville. Don't ignore the clues. That's what this game is all about.

Here's to seeing you all again in the next one,
-mike

[Reply]

[Reply]

I'd like to summarize my EOG with one phrase - Damn Nova Scotia!

But that just wouldn't do it justice and Sims may be the only one who truly appreciates and understands it. So that said, let me share my thoughts on the early part of this game... the only part I was of any relevance...

Firstly, contrary to what Sims said about the 3 way, I do think they can work and work well for all involved - to a point. Unfortunately I have never seen a 3 way succeed to the end and all to often I see one or two of the partners getting ousted, or at the very least left to fend for themselves as buffers. On this map and the triple that was presented, I didn't see much long term merit in it. But more specifically I didn't see any long term advantage to NY to have Quebec to his north. That is why I planned and plotted with HL to attack Sims and eliminate him. And though I still can't figure out what was said to Andy that made him flip flop back and forth, the plan I laid out for us was impeccable had we both done our part... unfortunately for Andy and I, it didn't work out that way.

At one point, my confidence in our plan, prompted what was probably some unitentional, "gloating" negotiations with Sims over Nova Scotia and I fear that was what eventually caused Sims to say eff it and he cut a deal with BC to help him into NSc and eventually hold it long term.

Eitherway, I learned that you can never fully trust anyone to follow through 100% with anything. Whether ally or foe, you must always examine worst case and best case and everything in between. And secondly basedon this first lesson, you should never get too over eager in your negotiations.

Well played all - even the lessers - it was enjoyable... well at least the banter was... and thanks for keeping me alive - whom ever made that decision.

Rob


----- Original Message ----
From: Former Trout <former.trout(at)gmail.com ([email]former.trout(at)gmail.com[/email])>
To: dc138 <DC138(at)diplomaticcorp.com ([email]DC138(at)diplomaticcorp.com[/email])>
Cc: Andrew Clarke <a_c_2bcool(at)hotmail.com ([email]a_c_2bcool(at)hotmail.com[/email])>; Andrew Tanner <damienthryn(at)gmail.com ([email]damienthryn(at)gmail.com[/email])>; Bruce Quinn <coebq(at)yahoo.com ([email]coebq(at)yahoo.com[/email])>; Bruce Ray <raybrucea(at)aol.com ([email]raybrucea(at)aol.com[/email])>; Jason K <Githraine(at)yahoo.com ([email]Githraine(at)yahoo.com[/email])>; Mike Sims <mike(at)southwall.com ([email]mike(at)southwall.com[/email])>; Nathan Deily <ndeily(at)yahoo.com ([email]ndeily(at)yahoo.com[/email])>; Rob Ackerley <rob_ackerley(at)yahoo.ca ([email]rob_ackerley(at)yahoo.ca[/email])>; Samuel Smith <agenbite.lee(at)gmail.com ([email]agenbite.lee(at)gmail.com[/email])>; Steve Lytton <stevelytton(at)hotmail.com ([email]stevelytton(at)hotmail.com[/email])>
Sent: Friday, August 15, 2008 8:46:52 PM
Subject: DC138 Winter Of Our Discontent - Endgame - Peace Redux!!

Heya folks,

With pleasure, I'm happy to announce that this time the BC/Mex/Fla draw is approved! Congratulations to Andrew, Bruce and Lee for their 3-way draw. Kudos also go to Rob, Jason and Mike for their one-center survivals. And to our vanquished players - Ray, Nathan and Alex - hats off and many thanks for your contributions to the game. All players in this one definitely deserve a pat on the back. =)

Its been a pleasure to run this one - I always like Dip maps played on the North American map... This has definitely been an interesting one to watch unfold. Some EOG statements have already been published - but if there are more statements or updates to be published they'd be welcome...

Once again, congratulations to our 3 draw members and thanks to all of you for another successful game. We'll see you all in the next one. =P

Cheers!

Apocalypse Now Trout

Ownership of supply centers:

BC: Anchorage, Calgary, Chicago, Greenland, Los Angeles, Manitoba,
Massachussets, Michigan, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, Montreal, New York
City, Ohio, Ontario, Oregon, Quebec City, San Francisco, Ungava,
Vancouver, Washington.
Florida: Colorado, Dallas, Dominican Republic, Georgia, Havana, Holquin,
Houston, Jacksonville, Kansas, Kingston, Louisiana, Miami, Missouri,
North Carolina, New Jersey, Tampa, Tennessee, Washington DC.
NewYork: Philadelphia.
Quebec: Nova Scotia.
Cuba: Venezuela.
Mexico: Arizona, Bogota, Cali, Chihuahua, Durango, Guadalajara, Guatemala,
Hawaii, Lima, Mexico City, Nicaragua, Nuevo Leon, Panama, San
Antonio, San Diego, Veracruz, Yucatan.

BC: 20 Supply centers,
Florida: 18 Supply centers
NewYork: 1 Supply center
Quebec: 1 Supply center
Cuba: 1 Supply center
Mexico: 17 Supply centers
California - Elimianted
Heartland - Eliminated
Peru - Eliminated








Yahoo! Canada Toolbar : Search from anywhere on the web and bookmark your favourite sites. Download it now!

[Reply]