First of all, thanks once again to Hamish for running a prompt and clear game while keeping things relaxed at the same time. It's been a great game to have been a part of and it wouldn't have been possible without you.
Next, congratulations to the winners - Jerome, John and Nathan. I think on balance that the eventual result was a close enough reflection of how the game was played to count as being 'fair', but naturally I had hoped it would turn out rather differently. A separate congratulations too to Jerome on winning the whole tournment - very well played sir.
Like John, I too can hardly remember the beginnings of the game, but a few things are still clear in my mind in terms of my first thoughts concerning how to proceed in this game. Each game should of course be played as its own discrete event, but you can't help but take the tournment context into consideration as part of your thinking. I know that having fared pretty well in the first round (a strong 3 way draw) I was in with a shot at a decent finish to the tournament - I was looking to get a share of a two or three way draw and finish in the top 5 as my aim.
The other thing I was clear on is that under no circumstances should Jerome be allowed to take anything from this game. Being the only soloist from the first round, he entered this board with a big target on his back, and I assumed that everyone else on the board would be thinking the same as me and do all they could to bring down the tournament leader. Of course, that didn't happen, and with no intended disrespect to anyone on the board I think it's absolutely criminal that Jerome was able to walk away from this game as the tournment winner. What's worse is that he did it without (visibly at least) having to make any really tough decisions or execute any big stabs - it was a very easy ride to a three way draw for him and if I'm honest I think the rest of us (some more than others!) are culpable for putting his victory on such an enticing plate. I'm sure it took some excellent play from Jerome to avoid getting attacked from all sides from the start (as AUSTRIA too!), so I don't want my comments to take anything away from his achievement, but I can't help but feel a sense of disappointment that not everyone saw things the same way as me in this game. Perhaps it's me that needs to take the look in the mirror though and try to see things differently in future?
I found communications with Nathan starightforward and fair at the beginning of the game, and it was clear to me very early on that he'd be my ally of choice - although of course I tried to keep other options open by talking across the board. Others on the board were warning me against Nathan and saying that he couldn't be trusted, but Brian's relatively short messages led me to side with Nathan against Germany from the start.
Scott was also very easy to communicate with and we soon had a bit of an EFI going, but meanwhile, John and I were also starting to develop an understanding that would come to threaten the EFI a few years down the line. Things culminated in a difficult decision about 3/4 years into the game (I think) where against Nathan's pleas I sided with Turkey against Italy rather than the other way around. The truth was I needed build badly and that was the only way I was going to get them anytime soon. I also had high hopes of eventually being able to turn John against Jerome and so I wanted to show that I was willing to work with Turkey.
I'm a little unclear on the specifics and the order it all happened in, but I know that the next period of the game was a real 'who will blink first' kind of situation where Nathn, Jerome, John and myself were all urging each other to forsake our current alliances in favour of suggested new ones - that may or may not have ever been intended to be real. 'If you want me to do x then you need to do y' kind of stuff, with it being very difficult to agree timings and therefore who would need to make the first leap of faith. This was the period of the game that saw things start to go very badly for me. Basically, the moment I really fully committed myself to sticking with the EF alliance and attacking Turkey was the moment that Nathan made his move against me. I was hesitant to leave myself exposed in the North and throw everything against Turkey because I didn't fully trust that Nathan would respect our agreed DMZs, but when I did exactly that I found that my suspicions were well founded and I'd made a huge mistake. Even worse - I took Nathan at his word when he and I discussed him aborting his stab and sticking with the EF.
It was bad play by me to be so trusting of England, and my 'stab' of Turkey was particularly sloppy, but I also don't see what other choices I had at the time. I was completely convinced (and John's EOG confirms I was right) that there was no way Austria and Turkey could be driven against each other. That was a rock solid alliance and I had no chance of turning John, despite all the teasing he offered. At that stage though, with England onside Nathan and I had the position to be able to push A/T back and work towards a two way draw - which would have been a great result for both of us. I tried to sell it to Nathan as David vs. Goliath, on account of Jerome and John's past successes in the Winter Blitz and clearly experienced and competent gameplay. If he was going to help anyone, surely he'd rather help the guy with the worse track record? Clearly I'm no salesman!
After Nathan's second stab the game was straightforward for me - do anything and everything I could to make sure Nathan didn't succeed in his bid for the solo. It took me out of the game and I left with an elimination, but I take some heart from knowing that Nathan at least also fared worse than he would have done if he'd stuck with our alliance.
Maybe I just see things differently to others, but I tend to always think than in a game like Diplomacy or Risk, etc, there should in theory never be a winner, because the players should all always feel dutibound to stop anyone else from winning and fight the leader. Underdogs should always unite and put their differences aside to work together against a dominant force - whoever that is at the time.
Hopefully that was at least partly coherent and didn't come across as ranty! Once again - respect and thanks to all who played and congratulations to the winners.
Benjy
