| Press for Spring of 1909 in pouchtoo |
Movement
Message from England to Russia in 'pouchtoo':
>Message from [email protected] as Russia to England in 'pouchtoo': > >Sorry, you were just too scary. I couldn't attack anyone, because whoever I >attacked would just throw the game once he had nothing left to lose. > >This was pretty obvious, wasn't it? We were just pretending. :) Yeah, I figured that, but one can hope, no? ;) Anyway, once I'm beaten down a bit, the original offer is still open, okay? Ciao Cal
Message from Russia to England in 'pouchtoo':
>Yeah, I figured that, but one can hope, no? ;) > >Anyway, once I'm beaten down a bit, the original offer is still open, okay? Yep. When the pendulum swings.... Though I'm not sure the other guys are going to be interested in 'swinging' anymore. The game may be pretty much over now. I'm not sure. Tsar J
Message from England to Russia in 'pouchtoo':
>Message from [email protected] as Russia to England in 'pouchtoo': >Yep. When the pendulum swings.... > >Though I'm not sure the other guys are going to be interested in 'swinging' >anymore. The game may be pretty much over now. I'm not sure. That would really, really suck and not just from the point of view that a four way is never very satisfying, but from the point of view that this is supposed to be a demonstration game. I would think that we owe it to the observers not to let boredom/fatigue enter into it. 1908 is a bit early to decide that the game has no play in it. It's funny; I've been thinking lately about doing an article on how the fatigue factor enters into Dip. I have never seen any medium (FTP, PBM, PBEM) where players didn't start to wear down after a certain time and this game seems to be a perfect example if you're right about Manus and/or Dave. I believe that games should end up Calhamerian in nature where there is a constant stop-the-leader battle (until someone makes a mistake or a stalemate line develops), but how often do you see that sort of alliance shifting? In any given game, it may happen two or three times max. Here it's happened twice and everyone is ready to settle for a draw. Surely (sorry, didn't mean to call you Shirley), one of Manus or Dave could be eliminated without giving me (or you) 18 centres? Even though I feel the fatigue as well, I think we owe it to the observers (present & future) to try and develop the game further. My contribution to that will be refusing to vote for anything worse than a three way draw even if it means MY elimination. Fair enough? Comments? Cal the Stubborn
Message from Russia to England in 'pouchtoo':
>That would really, really suck and not just from the point of view that a >four way is never very satisfying, but from the point of view that this is >supposed to be a demonstration game. I would think that we owe it to the >observers not to let boredom/fatigue enter into it. 1908 is a bit early to >decide that the game has no play in it. I don't know that it's boredom/fatigue. > Surely >(sorry, didn't mean to call you Shirley), one of Manus or Dave could be >eliminated without giving me (or you) 18 centres? Well, I don't know, actually (sorry, didn't mean to call you 'Ashley'). If I try it now, you will win. Manus and Dave know this. They also know that if you get chopped down much, there will again be an opportunity for an elimination. They must suppose that they are the likeliest candidates (though I've let Dave grow considerably, I still have a much better *position* than he has for eliminating or throwing). So maybe they are sensible in not wanting the game to progress! > My contribution to >that will be refusing to vote for anything worse than a three way draw even >if it means MY elimination. Fair enough? Ok, I will propose an RIA draw. ;-) >Comments? Let's see what happens next move, anyway. Tsar J
Message from England to Russia in 'pouchtoo':
>Message from [email protected] as Russia to England in 'pouchtoo': >Well, I don't know, actually (sorry, didn't mean to call you 'Ashley'). If >I try it now, you will win. > >Manus and Dave know this. They also know that if you get chopped down much, >there will again be an opportunity for an elimination. They must suppose >that they are the likeliest candidates (though I've let Dave grow >considerably, I still have a much better *position* than he has for >eliminating or throwing). So maybe they are sensible in not wanting the >game to progress! Okay, fair enough - from their point of view. You and I can still hope for better things, no? Here's what I propose. I'll continue to work into a stalemate line in the centre/south and you do your part for Manus & Dave. Meanwhile, let's keep the north relatively conflict free (like we did in the first part of the game, before Hohn's infamous move from Spain-Marseilles that changed the face of the game). That will let the game progress more or less as A/I want/expect it to and we will keep our options open. With luck and good tactics/strategy, I can get into a position which will keep my prospects at a level where you CAN catch up without risking my winning. (Geez, I should just send you a copy of the letters you wrote to me after I took Denmark and Kiel instead of composing this fresh!) For the record, a look at the board has easily convinced me that I have no chance of a solo, so what I outlined above is MY best-case scenario (yours too, I suspect) >> My contribution to >>that will be refusing to vote for anything worse than a three way draw even >>if it means MY elimination. Fair enough? > >Ok, I will propose an RIA draw. ;-) D(oh)! >Let's see what happens next move, anyway. Since no draw is likely to go thru and I don't see me picking up 18 centres before this turn, that seems sensible... ;) Cal
Message from Austria to Russia in 'pouchtoo':
> Hm, maybe I should have kept that F Ion. > > I mean, I think maybe we really can eliminate Italy, if you're interested, > but it might take some doing, since we'd need at *least* one more fleet > just for the stalemate line, and presumably two more to be able to > eliminate him without him managing to disrupt that line. > > Still, I think it's possible. I haven't worked it out carefully. Interested? > Worth thinking about. I've been wondering if we should take a shot at Munich. If we got it that would give me a second fleet. If Manus ends up losing Spa and disbands the army, then we're at a position when we decide to take him out that I've already got two fleets and we should each be able to build one on the turn of the stab. If we think we can do that and hold off Cal then we can give it a shot. If we get Munich, then we may well be able to do that. There's still some value to the northern fleet idea as well just to be able to keep Cal farther from the win. I don't want to risk an English win to kill Manus, but I'm definitely interested in the idea. -Dave
Message from Russia to Austria in 'pouchtoo':
Hm, maybe I should have kept that F Ion. I mean, I think maybe we really can eliminate Italy, if you're interested, but it might take some doing, since we'd need at *least* one more fleet just for the stalemate line, and presumably two more to be able to eliminate him without him managing to disrupt that line. Still, I think it's possible. I haven't worked it out carefully. Interested? Tsar J
Message from Russia to Austria in 'pouchtoo':
>Worth thinking about. I've been wondering if we should take a shot at >Munich. If we got it that would give me a second fleet. I think we probably should take a shot at Munich. A second fleet for you might be a mixed blessing, though. When you build it, Manus might smell something. > If Manus ends >up losing Spa and disbands the army, then we're at a position when we >decide to take him out that I've already got two fleets and we should >each be able to build one on the turn of the stab. That would be (more than) enough fleets (see below). Keep in mind that *my* fleets would have an awfully long way to go, though. But that may not matter. I do think it's worth considering the option of waiting until Manus loses Spain and disbands the Turkish army. That makes it much easier for me to waltz in and take Ankara back. The point is that we strip Manus down so low he can't defend himself or hurt us. But, hmm, I don't know. He'd still have Mar, Nap, Tun. He could keep three fleets. That could be serious trouble. > If we think we can >do that and hold off Cal then we can give it a shot. If we get Munich, >then we may well be able to do that. There's still some value to the >northern fleet idea as well just to be able to keep Cal farther from >the win. Right. What I was thinking was this. Cal is totally stalemated in the north, for all intents and purposes. Since we hold Berlin in that line, we can go for a position in which Cal gets Tunis but we hold the rest. This stalemate line requires only two southern fleets! (Ion plus one support for Ion.) The rest of the line you could hold by stringing armies along the west coast of Italy. There is certainly no problem with the number of armies (you'll be taking two Italian centers); the problem would be getting them there in time. But I *think* the only real problem turns out to be getting the two fleets into position in time. The timing is hard only because Manus will obviously be trying to break into Ionian and then to help Cal through. One way to do it is the very straightforward way. You order Tri-Adr and stab right into Rom. (You could either try for Munich or send A Tyo into Venice to support my A Pied right away in the Fall and even threaten Rom-Nap, Ven-Rom! -- I think the latter is better.) If Manus makes the prescribed moves, you can move Adr-Ion, and Manus's fleet in TyS (the only one that could challenge Adr-Ion) must go to Naples to prevent Rom-Nap. You would then build another fleet. Obviously, the problem here is that you could have some real trouble getting the new fleet into the right position. I haven't examined the situation, but I'm afraid it won't pan out. If Manus got his fleet into Ion, I'm not sure we could snuff it out before Cal got into position to use that Italian fleet to help him break through the line. A second approach delays your stab into Rome for just one season. The advantage of this is that it gives Manus an extra move to move his fleets *away* from protecting the Boot. You would end up owning Rome and positioned to take Naples right away next year, and the new fleet gains a tempo that way too (only in that Manus's return east is delayed, while the new fleet isn't). It still may be too slow to keep Manus from breaking past Ionian, and then Cal might keep him supplied long enough to use that fleet. (But could Cal really keep Manus supplied? I'm not sure. They might have to try to supply him with Mar and guess to keep me out.) The third approach is basically yours. Wait a year, get you another fleet, then stab him. I'll tell you what, if Manus continues this extreme 'hands off' attitude to the game, that is probably the best method. I'm just worried that he'll tell you, "Don't build another fleet or I will throw the game to Cal," and then you might be stuck. I mean, we might be. Of course, we could just do it that way, figuring that if Manus delivers an ultimatum, we settle for a 4-way, and that's that, no risk at least. >I don't want to risk an English win to kill Manus, but I'm definitely >interested in the idea. Fine, same here. Well, this is all too speculative, I will try to set aside some time for actual analysis tomorrow and let you know what I think. A last point to keep in mind is that it is quite possible, I would even say likely, that Cal will try to arrange things so that we can kill off Manus safely! Not this coming move or even coming year, but once Cal is satisfied with his booty and his position, I feel fairly confident that he will think about how he can back off a little to let us take a shot. (He actually suggested essentially that -- more precisely, he seemed to be saying that he would try to let me eliminate both of you! I don't know whether he was serious and just hadn't thought about it carefully, or whether he was joking, or whether he thinks I might possibly be an idiot. :-)) Tsar J
Message from Austria to Russia in 'pouchtoo':
Hi Jamie, My approach is actually a bit of a mix between your #2 and #3 I think. I want to move the fleet out and into the Ionian before considering the stab. Then, if Manus says I'm not allowed to build another fleet, I do or don't depending on the position of his units. Assume I don't, but build another army. In the Spring I move Ion - Tun, Ven - Rom, Tri - Ven. With my having not built the fleet I think there are good odds that Tys will be empty. So, Manus kicks me out of Tun but I take Rom and Nap and have three armies on the boot (Ven, Rom, Nap) with your army in Pie. I retreat Tun to Tys and build a fleet. Manus can be expected at best to have two fleets, assume he keeps Tun and Wes. Spring move is Tys - Ion, Tri - Adr, Ven - Tus and I think we are all set. Cal can't work a third fleet around fast enough to stop the two fleet plug of the Ionian. > > Well, this is all too speculative, I will try to set aside some time for > actual analysis tomorrow and let you know what I think. A last point to > keep in mind is that it is quite possible, I would even say likely, that > Cal will try to arrange things so that we can kill off Manus safely! Not > this coming move or even coming year, but once Cal is satisfied with his > booty and his position, I feel fairly confident that he will think about > how he can back off a little to let us take a shot. (He actually suggested > essentially that -- more precisely, he seemed to be saying that he would > try to let me eliminate both of you! I don't know whether he was serious > and just hadn't thought about it carefully, or whether he was joking, or > whether he thinks I might possibly be an idiot. :-)) > No, Cal is still playing the game. He's been proposing the same thing to me. He talks about a two-way between us. His idea is of course to start us fighting as he's got nothing to lose behind his stalemate lines and then hope to take advantage of it. Killing Manus can be done safely, trying to kill each other is going to result in the other one handing the game to Cal, and I think we both know that the other will do that. Regards, Kaiser D P.S. Oh yes, Munich. Will you use Sil to support me there? I just realized that Kiel is a fleet so you don't even need to risk Berlin by attacking it. Do you think we could convince Manus to attack Bur thus guaranteeing the attack?
Message from Russia to Austria in 'pouchtoo':
>My approach is actually a bit of a mix between your #2 and #3 I think. >I want to move the fleet out and into the Ionian before considering >the stab. Then, if Manus says I'm not allowed to build another fleet, >I do or don't depending on the position of his units. Assume I don't, >but build another army. In the Spring I move Ion - Tun, Ven - Rom, >Tri - Ven. With my having not built the fleet I think there are good >odds that Tys will be empty. So, Manus kicks me out of Tun but I take >Rom and Nap and have three armies on the boot (Ven, Rom, Nap) with >your army in Pie. I retreat Tun to Tys and build a fleet. Manus can >be expected at best to have two fleets, assume he keeps Tun and Wes. >Spring move is Tys - Ion, Tri - Adr, Ven - Tus and I think we are all >set. Cal can't work a third fleet around fast enough to stop the two >fleet plug of the Ionian. Yeah, that does look good. The only thing is, I'm not sure you could retreat Tun-TyS. Wouldn't Manus have F GoL? So wouldn't he order that fleet to TyS? If you had to retreat to Ion, Manus could take it in the Spring, and then there's trouble. Still, I will look over that basic idea. I think I have a cool idea of my own that complements yours nicely. >No, Cal is still playing the game. He's been proposing the same thing >to me. He talks about a two-way between us. His idea is of course to >start us fighting as he's got nothing to lose behind his stalemate lines >and then hope to take advantage of it. Killing Manus can be done safely, >trying to kill each other is going to result in the other one handing the >game to Cal, and I think we both know that the other will do that. Right. Huh, I'm a little surprised that Cal has suggested that to you. I guess I shouldn't be. >P.S. Oh yes, Munich. Will you use Sil to support me there? I just realized >that Kiel is a fleet so you don't even need to risk Berlin by attacking it. >Do you think we could convince Manus to attack Bur thus guaranteeing the >attack? Ah. Hmmmm. Sure, no problem using A Sil to support you to Mun. Let me think about this, though. There are other possibilities. One thing I was thinking about was asking Cal to support me into Marseilles! That would be a huge help if it were done at the right time, just because it removes another green fleet. We could get a gigantic stab that way, taking four of Manus's five remaining units (thinking of doing it next year). But if he feels pressure on Munich, he won't use up A Bur on a support for me, and if he loses Munich he obviously won't help. Tsar J
Message from Russia to Austria in 'pouchtoo':
Ok, I looked over some bits of the plans. Here's the first difficulty: >With my having not built the fleet I think there are good >odds that Tys will be empty. I don't know about that. He has four fleets. Where are they going to be? I assume three will be in Wes, GoL, Naf. The fourth could be in Tun, TyS, or Nap, and each of those hinders the plan. Here's the second main issue. As far as I can tell, none of the plans so far (except for the rather vague plan of waiting until Cal helps out) can work unless you build a fleet pretty early. I guess it seems to me that you have to build it next winter, and it could be my second option plan (where you stab for Rome this Fall), or it could be the plan where you get a build for Munich without stabbing Italy this year. I think I'm going to work on the plan in which you stab into Rome this Fall. That one is starting to look good to me. The tricky part is this: you order your A Ser to Albania in the Fall, too. You build F Tri, and *convoy* into Naples with support while F Tri goes to Adr. Now you own all of Italy and you can support your F Ion. The ugly part of this plan is that Manus would probably keep his Turkish army, and I would have to send my two armies in to round it up and kill it. Not trivial. I have to work on that part. If you can take Munich this year, that's probably a *simpler* plan. The virtue of mine is that it doesn't rely on anyone else's cooperation. Tsar J
Message from Austria to Russia in 'pouchtoo':
I think a lot depends on what happens this spring. Is Manus still going to be in Spa? If we suggest that Manus just do the support thing, then Bur has to help out to get Cal into Spa. The problem is making sure Cal makes the right move. So, one idea is that this spring, we take the shot at Munich and I move to Adr. Now I can move into Rom if needed, but if I have Mun, then I may not need to. I'm not sure about moving to Alb only because it's an odd move. Now maybe if we were to "stabalize" our borders more by my taking Greece in the fall while you shift to Smy and Bul? That puts you in a position to take out the Italian army if you need to and me in a position to do the convoy. The only question is if that would be too blatant a signal. On the gripping hand, if Manus has his fourth fleet in Tun instead of Tys, then it doesn't matter. I build a fleet, move Ven -Rom, Gre - Nap, Tri - Adr and it doesn't matter that he comes back to Tys. Kaiser D
Message from Russia to Austria in 'pouchtoo':
>I think a lot depends on what happens this spring. Is Manus still going >to be in Spa? If we suggest that Manus just do the support thing, then >Bur has to help out to get Cal into Spa. So you mean, have Manus support himself in Spain, and you take your shot at Mun, and one of those will work and the other won't. There is a potential problem with that, though. Cal could get into WestMed if Manus doesn't order Tun-Wes, and if Manus does order Tun-Wes Cal could take Spain and Manus would have no retreat for the F Spa. How big a problem is that? I forget, I think we worked it out already. > The problem is making sure >Cal makes the right move. So, one idea is that this spring, we take >the shot at Munich and I move to Adr. Now I can move into Rom if >needed, but if I have Mun, then I may not need to. Yeah. That sounds good if we don't have to worry too much about Cal getting into Wes, or if we don't have to worry too much about Manus being forced to disband the F Spa. Hm, but I think we really do have to worry about those things, they would be bad things to happen. >I'm not sure about moving to Alb only because it's an odd move. My suggestion was to do that at the same time as the actual stab move. So, the Spring is benign, then in the Fall you order Ven-Rom, Adr-Ion, Ser-Alb. Then Ser-Alb is not exactly revealing any secret! >Now >maybe if we were to "stabalize" our borders more by my taking Greece >in the fall while you shift to Smy and Bul? That puts you in a position >to take out the Italian army if you need to and me in a position to do >the convoy. The only question is if that would be too blatant a signal. Looks pretty blatant to me. Is there any plan in which you need to have an army ready to convoy and you'd have to have it there *before* the stab move? I don't see one. >On the gripping hand, if Manus has his fourth fleet in Tun instead of >Tys, then it doesn't matter. I build a fleet, move Ven -Rom, Gre - Nap, >Tri - Adr and it doesn't matter that he comes back to Tys. Ah, true. Ok, but if that's the plan, you can just move Ser-Alb on the prior move, never mind the charade of taking Gre. Tsar J
Message from Russia to Austria in 'pouchtoo':
Well, my great idea doesn't look so great. So, the problem with the plan in which you stab in Fall 1909 is that Manus keeps the army in Turkey, and I can only get two units against it, and if he keeps guessing correctly he stands me off until England takes Stp. Then I have to give up one of the two armies in Turkey, and there's real trouble. Adding units of yours doesn't help. We just don't have quite enough between us -- there are only going to be two spare ones after accounting for the units we need in the stalemate line itself. Ok, so I think we can't really do any plan that involves a stab this year. So your plan looks better. Now your plan doesn't work unless you get a build this year. Munich, it has to be Munich. So, I think we have to get Manus to order Mar-Bur. And I think there is a perfectly safe way to do this: Tun S Spa-Wes, Pie S GoL-Mar, Nap-TyS. I suppose some bizarre move in which Cal actually gets the A Bur out of the way would create a very wild position, but I'm not even going to consider that possibility. This really looks good, actually. I think this way does work. Even if Manus puts his foot down when you move Adr-Tun and insists that you not build a fleet. In that case, I think, the best plan is for you to wait until Fall 1910 to execute the stab. Well, see what you think. Soon we ought to come up with a fully explicit, concrete plan. I'm almost there! Tsar J
Message from Austria to Russia in 'pouchtoo':
> And I think there is a perfectly safe way to do this: Tun S Spa-Wes, Pie S > GoL-Mar, Nap-TyS. I suppose some bizarre move in which Cal actually gets > the A Bur out of the way would create a very wild position, but I'm not > even going to consider that possibility. > > This really looks good, actually. I think this way does work. Even if Manus > puts his foot down when you move Adr-Tun and insists that you not build a > fleet. In that case, I think, the best plan is for you to wait until Fall > 1910 to execute the stab. > Hmm, I assume you mean Adr - Ion? But, that aside, the only problem I see is that we have Manus in Gol, Wes, Tun and Tys. Having him in Tun and Tys is not good. How do we fix that in the fall? The question is can we make a good argument for Tun - Naf in the fall? Let's see, if Cal is NOT in Gas, then there is a play for taking Spain if there is a unit in Naf to attack MAO, so that's a good argument there. If Cal is in Gas and has fleets in Por, Spa and MAO, then maybe we can play on the Munich line a bit. The Munich army should be destroyed, so if Manus gets a fleet in Naf and can put pressure on Spa it will mean Cal will need an army in Gas, but that will risk having Mar and Mun take out Bur. I think we can probably work something out here. So, that means we've come to the following: Boh - Mun, Tyr s Boh - Mun, Adr - Tri Sil s Boh - Mun, Pie s Gol - Mar Gol - Mar, Spa - Wes, Tun s Spa - Wes, Nap - Tys, Mar - Bur Is that right? Kaiser D
Message from Russia to Austria in 'pouchtoo':
>> This really looks good, actually. I think this way does work. Even if Manus >> puts his foot down when you move Adr-Tun and insists that you not build a >> fleet. In that case, I think, the best plan is for you to wait until Fall >> 1910 to execute the stab. >> >Hmm, I assume you mean Adr - Ion? Right, sorry. > But, that aside, the only problem I >see is that we have Manus in Gol, Wes, Tun and Tys. Having him in >Tun and Tys is not good. How do we fix that in the fall? > >The question is can we make a good argument for Tun - Naf in the fall? Right. I *think* we can. To some extent, I'm counting on Manus being a little 'compliant' here, since he's obviously not paying too much attention. Unless one of us makes a really dubious suggestion, I think he'll just accept any plan one of us comes up with. >Let's see, if Cal is NOT in Gas, then there is a play for taking Spain >if there is a unit in Naf to attack MAO, so that's a good argument there. Right, good. I think he will be in Gas, though. >If Cal is in Gas and has fleets in Por, Spa and MAO, then maybe we can play >on the Munich line a bit. Hold on, before you get to that: I think there is still play for Spain. Well, it depends. It's quite possible that Cal will have either his F Eng or his F NAO go up toward Scandinavia. He doesn't feel quite safe around there yet -- and he'll need another fleet up there to be able to take Stp with real safety. If so, he won't be able to back up MAO and also protect Spain. We can take advantage of that, but only if Manus has his fleet in Naf. > The Munich army should be destroyed, so if >Manus gets a fleet in Naf and can put pressure on Spa it will mean Cal >will need an army in Gas, but that will risk having Mar and Mun take out >Bur. I think we can probably work something out here. Oh, right. I misunderstood this at first. >Boh - Mun, Tyr s Boh - Mun, Adr - Tri >Sil s Boh - Mun, Pie s Gol - Mar >Gol - Mar, Spa - Wes, Tun s Spa - Wes, Nap - Tys, Mar - Bur > >Is that right? Yes. I think you should add Bud-Vie, so you can have Vie-Boh in the Fall. Eventually you're going to need that army there to support Mun. Also, if Manus prefers he could do Tun-Naf instead of Tun S Spa-Wes. This is not quite as good for us, because *if* the F Spa gets destroyed, then Manus won't disband the A Ank! But I think it's not very likely that Cal will play Por-Spa, Gas S Por-Spa, MAO-Wes. He might, but I'm not too worried about it. And it does get the Italian Fleet into Naf, unless Cal goes MAO-Naf, which also seems somewhat unlikely. Tsar J
Message from Austria to Russia in 'pouchtoo':
Okay, just one last question. Who's doing the move proposal to Manus? Do we do it as a single joint broadcast as a "new" proposal or privately as something we've already worked out? Kasier D
Message from Russia to Austria in 'pouchtoo':
Well, let's see. I think it's probably not a good idea to tell him that we've been discussing it privately and this is what we came up with. I sent the two of you a rough suggestion for the Spring moves, before the adjustments were processed. Here is the text of that press: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------- >Message from [email protected] as Russia to Austria and Italy in 'pouchtoo': Hm. You know, it's probably best if you (Manus) just order Spa-Wes with support from Tys. Because if you order Tun-Wes and Spa H, it has no place to retreat if it's dislodged. And if you don't order Tun-Wes and try to support Spa, Cal could sail into Wes. Ok? If you get Tun-Naf, which I expect you will, the line is especially simple: all you have to order is Naf S Wes, and GoL S Mar! I'll add Pie S Mar. Your new fleet isn't even necessary. If by unlikely chance Cal bounces you from Naf, you can still start doing stalemate orders right away with GoL S Mar, Tys&Tun S Naf, or Tun-Naf, TyS S Wes. Tsar J -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- I think you didn't respond with PRESS TO RI, just with PRESS TO R. Well, I can't remember, but that's what my records seem to show. So, it would be reasonably natural either for me now to send something like, "I've been thinking a little more and we might just try this....", or for you to send something like "Jamie's idea was ok, but I think this looks a little better...." Either one should be ok. I guess maybe the former is just a tiny bit better. If all the suggestions come from me, Manus might be lulled into thinking that you've about had it with the game or something like that. On the other hand, we might try to portray it this way: Jamie is just suggesting moves for a stalemate line, Dave is itching for something a little more aggressive.... Then I could say, "Oh, sure, why not, as long as it's not at all risky." I don't know. Which do you think is better? Any preference? I'm happy to do it either way. Tsar J
Message from Austria to Russia in 'pouchtoo':
I think your recollections are right. Since I've got to run now, why don't you just send out the "I've been thinking note" and we'll see if Manus responds tonight. I'll chime in with an "okay" in the morning. Bis morgen. Kaiser D
Message from Russia to Austria and Italy in
'pouchtoo': Ok, so where do we stand now? Tsar J
Message from Italy to Austria and Russia in
'pouchtoo': > Ok, so where do we stand now? > Glad you asked because (big surprise) I haven't gotten around to looking at the map. I hope the deadline is a few days away. I am actually working on The Pouch and hope to get it out sometime soon.... Manus
Message from Russia to Austria and Italy in
'pouchtoo': Ok, I remember what I was thinking before the adjustments now, at least basically. I'll send out my assessment + suggestion shortly. Tsar J
Message from Russia to Austria and Italy in
'pouchtoo': Manus, the deadline is Friday. Movement deadlines are always on Fridays, I think. Right, so, it seems to me that although my earlier thoughts were ok, we could do a little better. We can (all together) capture Munich (Dave gets it, Manus and Jamie get the nice warm feeling that always comes from being really helpful). MANUS ORDERS: Mar-Bur [cutting support] GoL-Mar [covering Mar, help from RUS A Pie] Spa-Wes [Can't let Cal into Wes!] Tun S Naf-Wes [make sure Cal doesn't bounce in Wes and Nap-TyS [of course] obliterate the Italian F Spa] DAVE ORDERS: Boh-Mun Tyo S Boh-Mun Bud-Vie [preparing Vie-Boh, to hold Mun] JAMIE ORDERS: Pie S GoL-Mar [make sure Manus doesn't lose Mar] Sil S Boh-Mun [I only exist to support others] Ukr-Mos [gonna hold onto Stp as long as I can] If Manus prefers, he could order Tun-Naf, which seems to be pretty safe. So what do you think? I am assuming that nobody (esp. Manus) has any objection to Manus's just abandoning Spain. Cal gets it anyway if he really wants it, and it's not a serious loss since Manus can disband the Turkish army. The aim of my suggestions in that area is to keep Mar for Manus, and also to make *sure* there is a good solid stalemate set-up. If this goes as it looks like it must go, then next year we might have a try at either Burgundy or Spain or even MAO. That would be Manus's turn for a surge. As for me, I'll just be content to pick off Austrian and Italian cent... uh, I mean, I'll just sit on my part of the stalemate line and cheer. Until/unless Cal starts pulling fleets out of the Baltic area, anyway. If/when you guys get sick of it, let me know and I'll SET DRAW! Tsar J
Message from Austria to Russia and Italy in
'pouchtoo': That all looks good to me. Glad someone is doing some work around here! I checked out on the Spa just to make sure Cal can take it if he wants and he can. Since Jamie's move guarantees us Munich that seems like the best plan. Cal's got to keep a bunch of fleets up north to hold in Jamie's whaling trawlers so Manus may be able to have some fun around MAO or we may be able to push up the middle afterwards. Unless anyone has any objections, I'll go with the Tsar's plan. Kaiser D
Message from Russia to Austria in 'pouchtoo':
Hey, here's something I hadn't noticed. Given the current moves, I lose Berlin if England plays: F Bal-Pru F Kie S A Mun-Ber A Mun-Ber Hmm. Isn't there a line that holds Munich and not Berlin?? I thought there was, but now I don't see it. Well, I plan to do those moves anyway. The worst that can happen is that we hold neither Ber nor Mun in our line, which would mean we couldn't wipe out Italy as planned (because Cal would win if he got Tunis). Since it looks like our chance for a 3-way pretty much depends on your getting Munich, this seems like a good bet despite the small risk. Tsar J p.s. This would be a good time of the game to adopt the practice of double-checking each press to make sure the "to" line is the one you intend! If you have not adopted this practice already. ;-)
Message from Russia to Austria and Italy in
'pouchtoo': Ok, I'll enter those orders, then. Any objections (and esp. suggested revisions) before I leave work for the day tomorrow, please. (That's Friday, around 4:00 EST.) Tsar J
Message from Austria to Russia in 'pouchtoo':
> p.s. This would be a good time of the game to adopt the practice of > double-checking each press to make sure the "to" line is the one you > intend! If you have not adopted this practice already. ;-) > Oh yeah, I've been checking. In fact when I hit your bit about Manus I scrolled up to check on you! > F Bal-Pru > F Kie S A Mun-Ber > A Mun-Ber > I think that we actually can get it back in not too long if that does happen. Assuming we move an army up to Boh to cover for the one that's gone, then we can run the following attack: Lvn - Bal, Pru - Ber, Sil s Pru - Ber, Mun - Kie, Boh - Mun, Tyr s Boh - Mun. As he has a fleet in Kiel, he can't bring more than two armies to bear on Mun, so that guarantees us Berlin back with no risk to Mun. Kaiser D
Message from Austria to Russia in 'pouchtoo':
Oh yeah, one more little item. Think you can send Bul back to Con? You are going to want it there eventually to be able to take Ank and it's probably better done sooner than later. With your having just disbanded Gre and Ion, if Manus has any questions it should be easy to point out that are not planning a stab, just backing off the border with me to ease the tensions. Kaiser D
Message from Russia to Austria in 'pouchtoo':
(Checking: yep, press to a) >I think that we actually can get it back in not too long if that does >happen. Assuming we move an army up to Boh to cover for the one >that's gone, then we can run the following attack: > >Lvn - Bal, Pru - Ber, Sil s Pru - Ber, Mun - Kie, Boh - Mun, >Tyr s Boh - Mun. True. It could get a little tricky. He might have F Bot, F Bal, F Nwy by the time you got the army to Boh. Then Livonia would be vulnerable if I were to order Lvn-Bal. Also, I imagine he may well be planning to move the army in Belgium thus: Bel-Hol-Kie, with Kie-Den or Kie-Bal. Though maybe he can't really do that without my re-taking Berlin anyway. Yeah, that's right, he can't do that. Anyway, it's a pretty small risk, so I'm not terribly worried. >Oh yeah, one more little item. > >Think you can send Bul back to Con? Er. Do you think that's wise? I thought I would wait until Manus disbanded the army. > You are going to want it >there eventually to be able to take Ank and it's probably better >done sooner than later. Why? Oh, maybe I see. If the stab comes in a Fall move (F1910, say), it would be nice to capture Ank too. Hmmmmm. >With your having just disbanded Gre >and Ion, if Manus has any questions it should be easy to point >out that are not planning a stab, just backing off the border >with me to ease the tensions. I don't know. Even if he believes it, the move could still raise questions in his mind that we would rather not raise at all. Don't want him to start thinking about possibilities if he's currently just glancing at the board and checking our suggestions to see that they appear reasonable. Listen, as far as I can tell, the main plan works well even if I can't take Ank on the stabbing move but have to wait until the following year. The reason is that all of Manus's fleets are on the wrong side of the Tun-Nap line. His having one fewer isn't any advantage for us, I *think*. If this is right, then I prefer to leave the A Bul where it is, to avoid raising any suspicions. If I'm wrong and there is some significant benefit to snatching Ank *on* the stabbing move, then I'll risk the move to Con. Tsar J
Message from Italy to Austria and Russia in
'pouchtoo': Believe it or not, I intend to use a block of time that is beginning right now to concentrate on pouchtoo and get you a well-thought out response. About time I did something like that, huh? Manus
Message from Russia to Austria and Italy in
'pouchtoo': Ok. Listen, I have a sick two-year-old I have to take care of this afternoon. I *may* be able to check in around 4 EST, but it's possible I'll be too wrapped up in the nursery (so to speak). I will definitely check my mail at around 1:30 pm EST. I've ordered Pie S GoL - Mar -- and the other moves I mentioned earlier, but that one is the only one that Manus might need me to change in case he doesn't agree with my suggestion. I'm not sure what to tell you about this. I'm pretty sure you (Manus) will agree that this is a good plan, in any case. Tsar J
Message from Italy to Austria and Russia in
'pouchtoo': Well, I feel bad doing this, but it looks like you guys are right again and all I have to offer diplomatically (how boring) is agreement with your plan. Still looking at the map, but Jamie can probably rest easy taking care of his two-year-old. Manus
Message from Italy to Russia in 'pouchtoo':
Just to let you know so that it's not completely another Spring surprise, I'm moving Ank-Con. If Dave doesn't take Rome (and I get into Con), I will move back to Ank in the Fall and leave the status quo; if Dave DOES take Rome, I will take Smyrna in the Fall. Manus
Message from Italy to England in 'pouchtoo':
Cal: I know the deadline is today, so there's not much time to talk, but I thought I would mention how supremely concerned I am about your new presence in the west. Frankly, it makes me wonder how friendly you really are intent on being towards li'l ol' me. Your fleets, I can understand, because you set up the Gibraltar lock and we're all safe. But I see no reason for Gascony. Why Gascony? An eternal Bur-Mar is all you needed to do to keep that area static. As I say, I am very very concerned and would appreciate hearing from you. Manus
Message from Italy to Austria and Russia in
'pouchtoo': Okay, boys, my orders, in accord with the plan, are in. I know that there is a chance you're leading me down the garden path again, and if I see Ven-Rom, and no support for LYO-Mar, well, so be it. I'll have the dying comfort of knowing I was a good ally and that I always did my best to fight the most deadly threat to me. When you're an Italy that had an A/R threat and then an E threat come the way they did, I can be proud to have kept myself alive by seesawing by as long as I have. Assuming we're serious, though, about ending this together, year's end should see me shrink one (Spain) and Dave grow one. Frankly, I don't see much of a future for me; I now exist only through the kindness of my fellow Diplomacy players, all three of whom have stabbed me in this game, and that's certainly not saying much for my chances. My sole hope, of course, is that the Gibraltar lock I'm responsible for is too important for me to be tossed overboard. Sorry for the gloomy message. I just don't like the look of the board for me.
Message from Russia to Italy in 'pouchtoo':
>Okay, boys, my orders, in accord with the plan, are in. I know that >there is a chance you're leading me down the garden path again, and if >I see Ven-Rom, and no support for LYO-Mar, well, so be it. Relax. > I'll have >the dying comfort of knowing I was a good ally and that I always did my >best to fight the most deadly threat to me. When you're an Italy that >had an A/R threat and then an E threat come the way they did, I can be >proud to have kept myself alive by seesawing by as long as I have. Giving yourself a little pep-talk, are you? ;-) >Sorry for the gloomy message. I just don't like the look of the board >for me. Well, just don't do anything rash. For instance: >Just to let you know so that it's not completely another Spring surprise, >I'm moving Ank-Con. If Dave doesn't take Rome (and I get into Con), I >will move back to Ank in the Fall and leave the status quo; if Dave DOES >take Rome, I will take Smyrna in the Fall. I would really, really like to know what a move to Con does to help you in this plan. Maybe you warned me so that I can move Bul-Con. Ok, I will. I think that must have been your point. I very much doubt that Dave will snatch Rome without trying to get me in on the plot, and he hasn't done that, so I'm pretty confident that you are safe. If he does, then naturally you ought to take Smyrna. If he doesn't, then I really hope you are sincere about maintaining the status quo. I would be pretty annoyed if this nice alliance deteriorated into paranoia and bickering with an English win as the result. I don't understand your worry, frankly. I thought the reason you steadfastly refused to help me eliminate Dave, for so long, was that you were scared that you would not survive if you didn't have your Austrian helpmate. Now you are exceedingly gloomy about your chances anyway, you think that helpful old buddy is going to eliminate you! So why didn't you help me take out Austria earlier? Did you just not notice that something like the present position was going to be the result of your modus operandi? Tsar J
Message from Russia to Austria in 'pouchtoo':
Manus is really nervous. I fear he's going to keep the army when he goes down one. I'll try to figure out what to do about it if he does. I'm going to move Bul-Con after all. Tsar J
Message from Italy to Russia in 'pouchtoo':
> Relax. > (sound of deep breath being taken) > Giving yourself a little pep-talk, are you? ;-) > (yep. I'll let you know when it starts working. :-) > Well, just don't do anything rash. For instance: > > I would really, really like to know what a move to Con does to help you in > this plan. > > Maybe you warned me so that I can move Bul-Con. Ok, I will. I think that > must have been your point. > Kinda sorta. I don't mind if you do or don't move Bul-Con, but if you don't, I didn't want you being mad that I went Ank-Con. So I told you. As for how Bul-Con helps me with this plan to get a red dot if Dave gets a green one, to me it's obvious. If you and he are out to get me (sound of another deep breath being taken) then you ARE doing Ven-Rom AND Bul-Con (so as to make sure I don't take a second Turkish SC). See what I mean? If I'm going to lose Rome, then you are definitely moving Bul-Con to keep me from being sure of taking Smyrna. > I very much doubt that Dave will snatch Rome without trying to get me in on > the plot, and he hasn't done that, so I'm pretty confident that you are > safe. > (Another breath.) > If he does, then naturally you ought to take Smyrna. If he doesn't, > then I really hope you are sincere about maintaining the status quo. > I am indeed. I will NOT take any SC's without agreement. I just wanted to let you know that in case Dave doesn't feel the same, I wanted to make sure I could get an eye for an eye. > I would be pretty annoyed if this nice alliance deteriorated into paranoia > and bickering with an English win as the result. > Not a chance. > I don't understand your worry, frankly. I thought the reason you > steadfastly refused to help me eliminate Dave, for so long, was that you > were scared that you would not survive if you didn't have your Austrian > helpmate. Now you are exceedingly gloomy about your chances anyway, you > think that helpful old buddy is going to eliminate you! So why didn't you > help me take out Austria earlier? Did you just not notice that something > like the present position was going to be the result of your modus operandi? > (Time for me to re-read my pep talk to myself.) Anyway, let us re-approach this from the beginning. How about I start over: Dear Jamie: Do you have any important plans for Bul? If not, how about a bounce in Con. That way if Dave (who I admit I have left alive to worry me) takes Rome, I can be sure of taking Smyrna without your interference (not that you are in cahoots with him or anything, but better safe than sorry). Your friend, Manus
Message from Russia to Italy in 'pouchtoo':
Oh, ok. Cool! So we'll bounce in Con, that's fine. I'm going home to the two-year-old now. Tsar J
Message from Russia to Italy in 'pouchtoo':
p.s. I was planning to have A Bul support A Rum, but look at me! I'm not afraid of Dave! Look ma, no hands! Tsar J
Message from Italy to Russia in 'pouchtoo':
> Oh, ok. Cool! > Yay! > So we'll bounce in Con, that's fine. > Sounds good. I just hope this doesn't take Bul away from some other important duties, though, because if it does, you may indeed trust me to move Con-Ank or Con-Smy, whichever is appropriate, in Fall. > I'm going home to the two-year-old now. > My best to the little one! Manus
Message from Italy to Russia in 'pouchtoo':
> I was planning to have A Bul support A Rum, but look at me! I'm not afraid > of Dave! Look ma, no hands! > Well, as I said, feel free to do that support and be not afraid of ME instead. She no matta to me. But I take your point -- my fear is unjustified. Well, at least no harm will come of my unfustified fear. Hence my talking to you beforehand. Manus
Message from Austria to Italy and Russia in
'pouchtoo': Hi guys, been a busy day, just making a last minute check to see if there was anything. Jamie, hope your two year old recovers quickly, I know how miserable that is. Manus, didn't you recognize it, it's the old triple reverse behind the back stab. First Russia removes the two units closest to you, then in one continuous motion, he stabs you, me and himself in the back (<:. Have a good weekend. -dave