For those interested, there is a game of Maharajah's Diplomacy
underway in the Academy of Creative Destruction.  ACD-225 can be
publicly viewed in the ACD-Games yahoogroup, or if you drop me a line,
I can put you in touch with the GM, who I am sure would have no
problem emailing you the adjudications.

in regard to Luis's comments on Delhi's EOG:

 

      Yes, I was eliminated in the first round.  Yes,

I was eliminated by Luis and Andrew.  That was

more or less public knowledge if anyone wanted

to check.

      If Luis is saying that I shouldn't have been allowed

to be a replacement he should take it up with David.

Sometimes you take the replacements you can get.

I waited to see if someone else would come forward.

I wasn't champing at the bit to get back into the

tournament.

       Luis seems to think that I had to know that

he, or Andrew I still haven't checked, won our

first round game.

  I never bothered to look because

frankly I didn't care.  I blocked his email because

I felt like it.

  Luis is not a correspondent that

one enjoys having, an opinion that I am not

alone in holding.  Feel free to block my email

if you please.

  I won't mind a bit.  You'll

notice that neither Andrew nor Luis can

claim that I wouldn't talk to them or negotiate

with them as I did so extensively.  I treated

them the same way I would treat any other

player who I knew from experience to be

difficult to work with.

       As for this being a sick game, I think

Luis is "the pot calling the kettle black" here.

Luis' problems in this game were of his

own making because he simply has to

always have his own way because, after

all, he is both always right, and entitled to

have the game go the way he plans.

My guess is that without Andrew's support,

(wasn't that the deal you offered me in the first

round, Luis, go for first and second in round

one and then carry that cooperation over into

round two?),

he would have been the first

eliminated.

       I think that allowing a wildcard spot was a mistake

and I would have liked to have had the chance to have

had the final be declared a draw with the tournament

winner decided on some point system.  Still it was

a well run tournament and the best man won so I

suggest we now have a few words from the winner.

 

Lynn

Hello all,

First of all, a simple but truthful statement: I am
not like this.

In this game you've seen me NMR, lose interest and get
into a self-destructive pattern of ignoring
communications. I'm not like that. In fact, in 6 years
of PBEM, excluding this game, I've played more than 50
games in which I've NMRed once in total.

As for game at hand: I think Rajputana's position is
definetely the hardest one. There are 5 potential
enemies to deal with and the sea (which usually allows
for tactical flexibility) is not next to it. Still, I
thought if I could keep all my neighbors busy with
each other, I might be able to get something out of
this.

I was partiucalarly worried over Mike, as I had seen
him in action in the past and I consider him a *very*
effective player. My initial negotiations were towards
a very friendly relationship with both Persia and
Delhi, but Delhi was silent. Had to re-think the
strategy... So, what I wanted to see the game go to
was 3 wars and me at the role of the referee. That
would mean G vs V, P vs B and M vs D.

Needless to say, things didn't go according to plan. G
vs V took for ages to materialize, instead B was hit
on two sides and G started pushing my front. M did
attack D with my help, but immediately held the attack
off and turned on P, while D was more upset with my
offer of support than the actual attack. I needed
allies quickly, and the most potential was to be found
in the P-V axis, since (like I said) my thought was on
Mike from day one.

I clumsily joined the attach against B. Then P decided
to borrow one of my centers, and forgot to tell me
about it. This proved to be both a tactical burden
(loss of critical unit at the wrong time), as well as
a major stance in my relations with P-V. To Paul's
credit he did his best as the middle man, but I had
already lost ground to the Lynn as the new Delhi ruler
and the Mughals were growing out of proportion.

Around that time I entered the NMR phase of this game.
It's like a major vodka hangover, I can hardly
remember anything. I tried to patch things up with
Luis, but it was already too late for me. I stayed on,
but the position was doomed anyway.

Congratulations to Mike for winning. Well done for all
of you who reached the final, I thought Mike would
have wrapped this up earlier than he actually did.
Special thumbs up to Paul, who also had a very
difficult power to play but put a lot of effort in it
and was a very resourceful player (at least during the
years I was still in the game).

As for the EOGs Philippe asked why I didn't step down.
I seriously considered doing so at some point but
1)the game had already gone through a number of delays
and 2)finding replacements for variants is difficult
so I thought it would be better to stay on. I felt it
would cause less disturbance to the game and my fellow
players than having to look for a replacement.

This was certainly far from my best performance (talk
about euphimisms!) and I hope that next time we meet
over a board you'll have the pleasure of witnessing
how reliable an ally and how obedient a side-kick I
can be. <innocent smile>

Regards,
Gregory
Rajputana in M-I/Final





___________________________________________________________
Save time, find those important emails with search capabilities for scanning
your inbox and folders.
Get Yahoo! Mail http://uk.mail.yahoo.com

Luis,

> We could follow like this for centuries.
>

Agreed, this will likely be my last response since most of this has already been
discussed between us, and the others are probably tired of listening in.

> Still:
>
> However, you and Andrew did cooperate, first kicking me out of BID, then
> advancing Andrew's troops southward. The fact that this active
> cooperation did not continue does not defeat the possibility that it may
> have.
>
> With your intervention in Bid, a piece of map I was not willing to cede
> to anyone, and in the "neutral zone" too, with your agression in more
> plain words, you provoked that I allied with Andrew and helped him to
> conquer all your mainland territories in the hope that I could get read
> of you. Anything, even Gondwana growing too big for me to manage was
> worth to get rid of an adversary that wouldn't accept to discuss peace,
> that would not yield to reasoning, that had only one objective in mind:
> to destroy Bahmana or force it to become a fleetless country.
>

Since this part of the discussion was about Rajputana's choices, I'm not sure
what relevance your response has.  Regardless of why you and Gondwana were
cooperating, you were cooperating, and that wasn't a good thing for the Raj.


> I didn't have other options actually.
>
> In allocating the Gondwanan centers, it was reasonable to include those
> neutral centers he had access to so you would not have been working for
> free (BID and MAL as I recall).
>
> This is like me claiming Seylac or Aceh. Nonsense. Anyhow, I wasn
> totally uninterested in Malwa, a center for which I would have needed to
> fight. I wanted peace. :-)
>
> Andrew was willing to give me the only disputable center I asked for:
> Bidar, you claimed to accept the same deal.
>

Again, you are changing the subject to which my response was directed, namely
your claim that you wouldn't help me against Andrew because I wouldn't share the
spoils.  You don't have to justify why you chose to work with Andrew - that was
clear enough.  To respond relevantly, you would need to justify why your deal
was a fair one despite you not being willing to join me against Andrew.


> Besides, you had already claimed SEY, which fell as much into my sphere
> of influence as yours,
>
> Again nonsense. I could claim Seylac unopposed in 1501, you couldn't.
>

Perhaps technically correct, but not really.  You could claim it if you were
willing to leave yourself vulnerable elsewhere.  In fact, you did not move to
LaS in the spring and could not take it in 1501.  After that point, it was
equidistant from my centers and yours, and Vijayanagar is more clearly a naval
power.  Thus, it was part of the reasonable negotiations between us.


> The offense is what we were planning...
>
> No. I was planning defense. An homogeneous 6 SC Gondwana with no
> conflicts (other that the one Persia willingly was geting in): 5
> mainland SCs, 2 buffer neutral zones north and south and one natural
> colonial center in Somalia. After that I planned to start the offensive
> against Persia, as he had set clear that would not allow me any room in
> the seas nor wanted any DMZs nor any arrangements of any sort. He was
> maybe too straightforward to be succesful (as did I).
>

My point was that the negotiations were setting up paths of expansion, which is
offense, and that your plan left you a much more advantageous path of expansion
than it did me.


> Survival is sometimes the first step to victory.
>
> And I was trying to arrange my survival precisely. :-/
>
> Since we rarely were able to even start negotiations, there aren't that
> many proposals to judge.
>
> My offer was clear: peace and fight back with back. This zone for me
> that one for you. It was obvious that we didn't have the same interests,
> what I considered something positive but you considered a reason to
> blackmail me to adapt to your strategy.
>

Not so obvious from my end that your interests (particularly building a navy)
didn't conflict with mine (having a secure rear).  The rest is repetition.


> My basic offer was that if you attacked Andrew, I would stop attacking
> you in order to also attack Andrew.
>
> That was your only argument after you started attacking me. But that
> wasn't what we had agreed in the early negotiations. Besides I wasn't
> willing to trust a treacherous blackmailer like you.
>
> At the time, you were also being attacked by Persia and Rajputana, and I
> indicated that I had influence toward being able to stop those attacks
> as well.
>
> I could fence off those attacks on my own.
>

"On your own" meaning due to Rajputana's NMR and Mughalistan's attacks on Persia
and Rajputana from the north.

And it is "extortion", not "blackmail".  :)  Whether you chose to deal with me
again or not was up to you, but to automatically preclude the possibility worked
against you.  Insisting on the prior agreement wasn't going to get you anywhere.
Circumstances change, and you have to be able to adapt.  But I guess I'm tired
of pointing that out.


> ...
>
> And with this I give as concluded my discussion with Paul, a person I
> hope not share board with again in many years.
>
> Best,
> Luis.
>

The feeling is mutual.  It is not that I necessarily dislike you Luis, but our
perspectives are so different, it seems unlikely that we could ever work
fruitfully together, and I'd hate to put myself in a hole by having one less
potential ally at the start.

Paul "V"

Well, Luis, you asked.
On the positive side, I think you are a fair tactician, and have a generally good grasp of the big picture. That said, you seem to have a tendency to anger people, you are somewhat inflexible in negotiation, and you do not seem to be able to see things from the point of view of other players.
----- Original Message -----
From: luis <lialdamiz@...>
Date: Thursday, July 21, 2005 3:04 pm
Subject: Re: Mughalistan EOG

Feel free. I can handle critics as much as I can make them. :-)
Luis.
zendip18@... wrote:

Luis, you don't *really* want me to comment here, do you? ;^) 

I'll confine myself to an EOG for Byzantium for Western World 901, in the appropriate forum.

Greg, Carleton and David have also witnessed my ability to cooperate with my neighbours (and my inability to cede to demands that I consider abusive) in another game (WW-901) played almost simultaneously with this one.

Luis,

In general, you may be right that Rajputana has more to gain in the north, but in Diplomacy, nothing is always true. It depends! Certainly, Rajputana has to be concerned about the potential for a strong BG alliance to his south. In this game, Carleton was virtually useless as an active ally,

Then he should have be made useful for my hypotetical M-R (+G) alliance as mere meat. I think that P was willing to cooperate in such a project as his main concern was to control the seas... and you weren't bothering G either, so free ride...

That was an option, and I think it is clear that Greg did try to pursue attacks on Delhi with Mughal help, but the alliance truly was "hypothetical". Mike chose to not pursue the attack on Delhi, cutting Greg's option out. This discussion of a "hypothetical alliance" is symptomatic of your tendency to play the game as you think it should be than how it actually is. Believe me, I'd have been more than pleased to see Gondwana move on Delhi as that would have forced a reaction from the latter. 

Besides, there was never a strong B-G alliance only a good vecinity pact (that I knew Andrew would eventually break). I think that's only a convenient ghost for you to scare the masses.

I'm not going to deny that I exaggerated the possibility in my negotiations, but the other players were astute enough to discount for that. However, you and Andrew did cooperate, first kicking me out of BID, then advancing Andrew's troops southward. The fact that this active cooperation did not continue does not defeat the possibility that it may have.

I've already said that I'm sure you can do well when you find someone willing to put up with you. My comment referred to Mike's claim that he found Philippe's demand for Herat offputting. If such was the case, I felt your insistence on your own view would have resulted in a similar situation if you had been Persia.

In MR-1, I was willing to leave Herat to Mughalistan on certain conditions (since winter 1502, after I used it to build up my navy). I was being much more generous than Philippe, I think this would have worked with a less intransigent neighbour than Lynn.

Perhaps then, you would have succeeded with Mike, and I'll withdraw my supposition. What it really comes down to though is the quality of your offer and your potential ally's willingness to accept it. If they agree to your plan, then you can probably get along well enough, but if there is disagreement, your inflexibility leaves little room to compromise. Such disagreements are much more likely among neighbors than between distant powers.

And I guess I didn't see your proposal as that good for me long term. You would have greater opportunity for growth than I would and in fact would block much of my ability to expand on the continent. I would have had to commit to hitting Gondwana almost immediately without any assurance that you or Delhi would assist me.

I desisted on any suport as you weren't willing to allow me to take anything in his territories. In these cases I'm a mercenary: I work for a price. You wanted me to work for you for free and that's not serious.

In allocating the Gondwanan centers, it was reasonable to include those neutral centers he had access to so you would not have been working for free (BID and MAL as I recall). Besides, you had already claimed SEY, which fell as much into my sphere of influence as yours, so it could well have been considered part of the division. If I had allocated you RAI as well, my continental expansion would have been even more cut off than it would already have been. Your response to my suggestions left the possibility that you would help against Gondwana in severe doubt, and I wasn't that enamoured with distracting Gondwana for your benefit. All of these factors contributed to my dissatisfaction with the deal.

 And I would be exceedingly vulnerable to your stab whenever you were ready to do so, especially with you determined to have a strong navy. I reluctantly went along with your plan when I could not get a hold of Andrew early. When I finally did make contact with Andrew, and especially with an indication of the strong possibility that you had leaked my plans to him, I wasn't exactly reluctant to go another route. (I'm not really trying to rehash this as much as explain why cooperation between us failed.)

I know your story. :-/

 I got the distinct impression that you were pushing an unbalanced plan to me on the knowledge that you held a stronger position than I did. Fair enough, but it did mean less likelihood of actually reaching a deal that would be kept.

I knew that defensively my position was better but ofensively Bahana is not better than any other power and I already had enough problems with Persia. Still, you and I started with 3 SCs each: 2 armies and 1 fleet, and I think that V is a potentially strong power and was one of my favorites for this game (together with B and D). You always play the victim and I just can't stand that. :-(

The offense is what we were planning, and your plan was more offensively advantageous for you than it would have been for me. Your defensive position meant my alternatives to working with you were not that attractive, especially with an absent and untrustworthy (by reputation) Gondwana, a point you made clear. Again, I don't necessarily criticize this use of leverage, but you can't complain then when it backfires. I find your last comment above highly ironic! :)

But Luis, I saw you as the excessively demanding neighbor! And inflexible to boot.

Yes, sure. :-/

 I can't help but wonder how many opportunities you've missed out on in games because you have a preset notion on how things are "meant" to play out.

Everyone has his own style mine includes a good dose of firmness.

 I know you don't see that as a weakness, but from my perspective, it surely is.

Everyone has its weakness, and these can well be the same as his strengths, depending on the circumstances.

True enough, which is why it is handy to be able to play more than one style.

Still, do you think that you ever offered me any deal that allowed hopes of victory? You know I don't play for mere survival, which I consider exactly the same as a total elimnation.
You did never ever offered me a good deal nor you did with good manners. It was always just very irritating blackmail.
Luis.

Survival is sometimes the first step to victory. Since we rarely were able to even start negotiations, there aren't that many proposals to judge. My basic offer was that if you attacked Andrew, I would stop attacking you in order to also attack Andrew. At the time, you were also being attacked by Persia and Rajputana, and I indicated that I had influence toward being able to stop those attacks as well.
Whether you could turn that situation into a win would have been up to you, but it certainly would have improved your odds over the then current situation. Andrew was the biggest threat in our area at the time so I certainly had reason to follow through.
Further proof is that when Andrew did attack you, there was a brief period when it seemed like we might actually ally. You insisted on being able to develop a navy even when you had none at the time and such would threaten my holdings. This period is no doubt why you include the provision that my offer include chances for your victory. (By the way, such a high threshold would seem to prevent most common agreements from being considered "good deals".) You claimed at the time that without a navy you could not win. That is subject to debate, but the point was that without my cooperation, your odds of winning were even less, and I felt under no obligation to give you good odds of winning at my own expense. To expect such is living in a dream. It was partly your refusal to forego a navy that led to my encouraging the capitulation of Arabia and the endgame alliance structure that eliminated you from the game. If you had agreed to go without the navy, the game may have turn
!
ed out very differently.
Paul "V"

Luis,

> >In general, you may be right that Rajputana has more to gain in the north,
but in Diplomacy, nothing is always true.  It depends!  Certainly, Rajputana has
to be concerned about the potential for a strong BG alliance to his south.  In
this game, Carleton was virtually useless as an active ally,
> >
> Then he should have be made useful for my hypotetical M-R (+G) alliance
> as mere meat. I think that P was willing to cooperate in such a project
> as his main concern was to control the seas... and you weren't bothering
> G either, so free ride...
>

That was an option, and I think it is clear that Greg did try to pursue attacks
on Delhi with Mughal help, but the alliance truly was "hypothetical".  Mike
chose to not pursue the attack on Delhi, cutting Greg's option out.  This
discussion of a "hypothetical alliance" is symptomatic of your tendency to play
the game as you think it should be than how it actually is.  Believe me, I'd
have been more than pleased to see Gondwana move on Delhi as that would have
forced a reaction from the latter.

> Besides, there was never a strong B-G alliance only a good vecinity pact
> (that I knew Andrew would eventually break). I think that's only a
> convenient ghost for you to scare the masses.
>

I'm not going to deny that I exaggerated the possibility in my negotiations, but
the other players were astute enough to discount for that.  However, you and
Andrew did cooperate, first kicking me out of BID, then advancing Andrew's
troops southward.  The fact that this active cooperation did not continue does
not defeat the possibility that it may have.

> >I've already said that I'm sure you can do well when you find someone willing
to put up with you.  My comment referred to Mike's claim that he found
Philippe's demand for Herat offputting.  If such was the case, I felt your
insistence on your own view would have resulted in a similar situation if you
had been Persia.
> >
> In MR-1, I was willing to leave Herat to Mughalistan on certain
> conditions (since winter 1502, after I used it to build up my navy). I
> was being much more generous than Philippe, I think this would have
> worked with a less intransigent neighbour than Lynn.
>

Perhaps then, you would have succeeded with Mike, and I'll withdraw my
supposition.  What it really comes down to though is the quality of your offer
and your potential ally's willingness to accept it.  If they agree to your plan,
then you can probably get along well enough, but if there is disagreement, your
inflexibility leaves little room to compromise.  Such disagreements are much
more likely among neighbors than between distant powers.


> >And I guess I didn't see your proposal as that good for me long term.  You
would have greater opportunity for growth than I would and in fact would block
much of my ability to expand on the continent.  I would have had to commit to
hitting Gondwana almost immediately without any assurance that you or Delhi
would assist me.
> >
> I desisted on any suport as you weren't willing to allow me to take
> anything in his territories. In these cases I'm a mercenary: I work for
> a price. You wanted me to work for you for free and that's not serious.
>

In allocating the Gondwanan centers, it was reasonable to include those neutral
centers he had access to so you would not have been working for free (BID and
MAL as I recall).  Besides, you had already claimed SEY, which fell as much into
my sphere of influence as yours, so it could well have been considered part of
the division.  If I had allocated you RAI as well, my continental expansion
would have been even more cut off than it would already have been.  Your
response to my suggestions left the possibility that you would help against
Gondwana in severe doubt, and I wasn't that enamoured with distracting Gondwana
for your benefit.  All of these factors contributed to my dissatisfaction with
the deal.

> >  And I would be exceedingly vulnerable to your stab whenever you were ready
to do so, especially with you determined to have a strong navy.  I reluctantly
went along with your plan when I could not get a hold of Andrew early.  When I
finally did make contact with Andrew, and especially with an indication of the
strong possibility that you had leaked my plans to him, I wasn't exactly
reluctant to go another route.  (I'm not really trying to rehash this as much as
explain why cooperation between us failed.)
> >
> I know your story. :-/
>

> >  I got the distinct impression that you were pushing an unbalanced plan to
me on the knowledge that you held a stronger position than I did.  Fair enough,
but it did mean less likelihood of actually reaching a deal that would be kept.
> >
> I knew that defensively my position was better but ofensively Bahana is
> not better than any other power and I already had enough problems with
> Persia. Still, you and I started with 3 SCs each: 2 armies and 1 fleet,
> and I think that V is a potentially strong power and was one of my
> favorites for this game (together with B and D). You always play the
> victim and I just can't stand that. :-(
>

The offense is what we were planning, and your plan was more offensively
advantageous for you than it would have been for me.  Your defensive position
meant my alternatives to working with you were not that attractive, especially
with an absent and untrustworthy (by reputation) Gondwana, a point you made
clear.  Again, I don't necessarily criticize this use of leverage, but you can't
complain then when it backfires.  I find your last comment above highly ironic! 
:)


> >But Luis, I saw you as the excessively demanding neighbor!  And inflexible to
boot.
> >
> Yes, sure. :-/
>
> >  I can't help but wonder how many opportunities you've missed out on in
games because you have a preset notion on how things are "meant" to play out.
> >
> Everyone has his own style mine includes a good dose of firmness.
>
> >  I know you don't see that as a weakness, but from my perspective, it surely
is.
> >
> Everyone has its weakness, and these can well be the same as his
> strengths, depending on the circumstances.
>

True enough, which is why it is handy to be able to play more than one style.


> Still, do you think that you ever offered me any deal that allowed hopes
> of victory? You know I don't play for mere survival, which I consider
> exactly the same as a total elimnation.
>
> You did never ever offered me a good deal nor you did with good manners.
> It was always just very irritating blackmail.
>
> Luis.
>

Survival is sometimes the first step to victory.  Since we rarely were able to
even start negotiations, there aren't that many proposals to judge.  My basic
offer was that if you attacked Andrew, I would stop attacking you in order to
also attack Andrew.  At the time, you were also being attacked by Persia and
Rajputana, and I indicated that I had influence toward being able to stop those
attacks as well.

Whether you could turn that situation into a win would have been up to you, but
it certainly would have improved your odds over the then current situation. 
Andrew was the biggest threat in our area at the time so I certainly had reason
to follow through.

Further proof is that when Andrew did attack you, there was a brief period when
it seemed like we might actually ally.  You insisted on being able to develop a
navy even when you had none at the time and such would threaten my holdings. 
This period is no doubt why you include the provision that my offer include
chances for your victory.  (By the way, such a high threshold would seem to
prevent most common agreements from being considered "good deals".)  You claimed
at the time that without a navy you could not win.  That is subject to debate,
but the point was that without my cooperation, your odds of winning were even
less, and I felt under no obligation to give you good odds of winning at my own
expense.  To expect such is living in a dream.  It was partly your refusal to
forego a navy that led to my encouraging the capitulation of Arabia and the
endgame alliance structure that eliminated you from the game.  If you had agreed
to go without the navy, the game may have turn!
  ed out very differently.

Paul "V"

Well, Luis, you asked.

On the positive side, I think you are a fair tactician, and have a generally
good grasp of the big picture.   That said, you seem to have a tendency to anger
people, you are somewhat inflexible in negotiation, and you do not seem to be
able to see things from the point of view of other players.




----- Original Message -----
From: luis <lialdamiz@...>
Date: Thursday, July 21, 2005 3:04 pm
Subject: Re: Mughalistan EOG

> Feel free. I can handle critics as much as I can make them. :-)
>
> Luis.
>
> zendip18@... wrote:
>
> >Luis, you don't *really* want me to comment here, do you?  ;^)
> I'll confine myself to an EOG for Byzantium  for Western World
> 901, in the appropriate forum.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>Greg, Carleton and David have also witnessed my ability to
> >>cooperate
> >>with my neighbours (and my inability to cede to demands that I
> >>consider
> >>abusive) in another game (WW-901) played almost simultaneously
> >>with this
> >>one.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>

I don't usually write EOGs. I can't always remember what happened,
(...)

I did not like Persia's demanding stance. We bounced in Herat
the first year, while I also bounced with Carleton in Kmr and took
Sam.

My bounce with Carleton lead Philippe to believe I had
been appropriately bullied. He moved south in the spring of the
second year, took Herat with one army and left none for support.
I moved two armies into place to take Herat.

Also in the second year, Raj suggested I take Kmr with his
support. I wrote to Carleton to see if that would be OK with
him, but didn't receive a reply. So I accepted the support and
took Kmr. Carleton got back after the adjudication, apologized
for not responding, and accepted the situation. We continued
to have a strong alliance as long as he was in the game.

So I had six centers, an alliance with Delhi and a Persian enemy
as we entered the third year. I think at this time Raj totally lost
interest, had a couple of NMRs, and became a non entity. I
started a campaign against Persia, which I eventually won.

When Carleton quit Lynn entered the game, I was quite fortunate
that Lynn was willing to continue the alliance. He actually hedged
a great deal and wouldn't attack Andrew until Andrew attacked
him, but it gave me a secure border and enabled me to take the
whole eastern mainland.

The very prolonged endgame was very strange. I knew I couldn't
get a solo. I would need help to gain more than the 12 centers I
held, and no one would help me get the solo. But I also had a very
solid defensive line and could hold forever, if need be. So my
strategy at that point was to make sure Lynn didn't get more
centers than I held, and then just wait.

I had many discussions with Luis throughout the game, and worked
with him off and on. I don't think we ever fought. He also gave me
useful information and advice on occasion. So I did what I could at
the end of the game to help him survive, even though I knew he was
the only one voting against the end the game proposal. I can be
patient and reward a loyal ally when necessary.

I don't have much more to say. This was not a particulary enjoyable
game. Too many NMRs and too little communication. A couple of
the NMRs happened at very opportune times for me, so I feel that
I won by luck more than skill. But I'll take the "conceded board top"
in any case. I think Maharajah Dip is a very good game and would
like to play another one.

                                      - Mike

Luis, you don't *really* want me to comment here, do you? ;^) I'll confine myself to an EOG for Byzantium for Western World 901, in the appropriate forum.

Greg, Carleton and David have also witnessed my ability to cooperate with my neighbours (and my inability to cede to demands that I consider abusive) in another game (WW-901) played almost simultaneously with this one.

Luis, you don't *really* want me to comment here, do you?  ;^)  I'll confine
myself to an EOG for Byzantium  for Western World 901, in the appropriate forum.


> Greg, Carleton and David have also witnessed my ability to
> cooperate
> with my neighbours (and my inability to cede to demands that I
> consider
> abusive) in another game (WW-901) played almost simultaneously
> with this
> one.

Luis,

Rajputana has a difficult position indeed. Still, in both games I've played, I've seen R wasting their shots at Bahamana when they should be, in my understanding, working with Mughalistan against Persia and/or Delhi. Bahmana is too tough a nut for R to take anything of value there, specially as it doesn't have a good naval position either. Fighting there only can favor 3rd parties as Persia. Persia should be the most interested in R wasting its energies in the south, Delhi has also good interests in that, as do Gondwana and Vijayanagar if they have conflicts with B, as seems common. But Rajputana? That can only be a waste of time for him.

In general, you may be right that Rajputana has more to gain in the north, but in Diplomacy, nothing is always true. It depends! Certainly, Rajputana has to be concerned about the potential for a strong BG alliance to his south. In this game, Carleton was virtually useless as an active ally,

 and Philippe couldn't focus north because of your opposition, and there was certainly evidence of BG cooperation. So Greg's decision to try to push for alliance with Mughalistan against Delhi (which fizzled because Mike made up with Carleton) and to aid Persia and myself against you was perfectly reasonable. If he had not NMR'ed and then subsequently given up the southern fight, I dispute that he'd have gotten nothing out of you.

Mughalistan instead could hypotetically work with Persia as ally and expand in complementary directions, if there's enough trust. I suggested this to Lynn in the first game but soon he stabbed me.

As Persia in the first round, I suggested the same to Mughalistan, but a miscommunication undermined the potential for the alliance and so I took him out early. But then again, I had good relations with Bahmana (Mike) in my game.

A contrario of what you may think, Paul, I can also work with neighbours. A good example is the alliance that Mike and I have in another game (of Sengoku) recently started. Our powers are designed to fight against the other, instead, so far, we are cooperating very well. It's kind of the A-I alliance in standard or what I proposed to you early in the game: one sea for you and the other for me.

I've already said that I'm sure you can do well when you find someone willing to put up with you. My comment referred to Mike's claim that he found Philippe's demand for Herat offputting. If such was the case, I felt your insistence on your own view would have resulted in a similar situation if you had been Persia.

 Since I'm not following your Sengoku game, I can't really comment much. Perhaps you can tone things down and be more reasonable if the mood strikes you?

And I guess I didn't see your proposal as that good for me long term. You would have greater opportunity for growth than I would and in fact would block much of my ability to expand on the continent. I would have had to commit to hitting Gondwana almost immediately without any assurance that you or Delhi would assist me.

 And I would be exceedingly vulnerable to your stab whenever you were ready to do so, especially with you determined to have a strong navy. I reluctantly went along with your plan when I could not get a hold of Andrew early. When I finally did make contact with Andrew, and especially with an indication of the strong possibility that you had leaked my plans to him, I wasn't exactly reluctant to go another route. (I'm not really trying to rehash this as much as explain why cooperation between us failed.)

Greg, Carleton and David have also witnessed my ability to cooperate with my neighbours (and my inability to cede to demands that I consider abusive) in another game (WW-901) played almost simultaneously with this one.

Again, no comment since I don't know the circumstances. Perhaps the plans you offered seemed less one-sided to them than the one you offered to me in this game did.

 I got the distinct impression that you were pushing an unbalanced plan to me on the knowledge that you held a stronger position than I did. Fair enough, but it did mean less likelihood of actually reaching a deal that would be kept.

In the first round of Maharajihad, playing as Persia, I also worked very well with one of my neighbours, Rajputana, and would have done with Mughalistan wouldn't Lynn had stabbed me. In this very game I did my best not to clash with any of my neighbours, asking for DMZs and early agreements with all (but Persia, with whom no agreement seemed possible). The problem I have is not with neighbours but with excessively demanding neighbours.
Luis.

But Luis, I saw you as the excessively demanding neighbor! And inflexible to boot.

 I can't help but wonder how many opportunities you've missed out on in games because you have a preset notion on how things are "meant" to play out.

 I know you don't see that as a weakness, but from my perspective, it surely is.

Paul "V"

Luis,

> Rajputana has a difficult position indeed. Still, in both games I've
> played, I've seen R wasting their shots at Bahamana when they should be,
> in my understanding, working with Mughalistan against Persia and/or
> Delhi. Bahmana is too tough a nut for R to take anything of value there,
> specially as it doesn't have a good naval position either. Fighting
> there only can favor 3rd parties as Persia. Persia should be the most
> interested in R wasting its energies in the south, Delhi has also good
> interests in that, as do  Gondwana and Vijayanagar if they have
> conflicts with B, as seems common. But Rajputana? That can only be a
> waste of time for him.
>

In general, you may be right that Rajputana has more to gain in the north, but
in Diplomacy, nothing is always true.  It depends!  Certainly, Rajputana has to
be concerned about the potential for a strong BG alliance to his south.  In this
game, Carleton was virtually useless as an active ally, and Philippe couldn't
focus north because of your opposition, and there was certainly evidence of BG
cooperation.  So Greg's decision to try to push for alliance with Mughalistan
against Delhi (which fizzled because Mike made up with Carleton) and to aid
Persia and myself against you was perfectly reasonable.  If he had not NMR'ed
and then subsequently given up the southern fight, I dispute that he'd have
gotten nothing out of you.

> Mughalistan instead could hypotetically work with Persia as ally and
> expand in complementary directions, if there's enough trust. I suggested
> this to Lynn in the first game but soon he stabbed me.
>

As Persia in the first round, I suggested the same to Mughalistan, but a
miscommunication undermined the potential for the alliance and so I took him out
early.  But then again, I had good relations with Bahmana (Mike) in my game.

> A contrario of what you may think, Paul, I can also work with
> neighbours. A good example is the alliance that Mike and I have in
> another game (of Sengoku) recently started. Our powers are designed to
> fight against the other, instead, so far, we are cooperating very well.
> It's kind of the A-I alliance in standard or what I proposed to you
> early in the game: one sea for you and the other for me.
>

I've already said that I'm sure you can do well when you find someone willing to
put up with you.  My comment referred to Mike's claim that he found Philippe's
demand for Herat offputting.  If such was the case, I felt your insistence on
your own view would have resulted in a similar situation if you had been Persia.
Since I'm not following your Sengoku game, I can't really comment much.  Perhaps
you can tone things down and be more reasonable if the mood strikes you?

And I guess I didn't see your proposal as that good for me long term.  You would
have greater opportunity for growth than I would and in fact would block much of
my ability to expand on the continent.  I would have had to commit to hitting
Gondwana almost immediately without any assurance that you or Delhi would assist
me.  And I would be exceedingly vulnerable to your stab whenever you were ready
to do so, especially with you determined to have a strong navy.  I reluctantly
went along with your plan when I could not get a hold of Andrew early.  When I
finally did make contact with Andrew, and especially with an indication of the
strong possibility that you had leaked my plans to him, I wasn't exactly
reluctant to go another route.  (I'm not really trying to rehash this as much as
explain why cooperation between us failed.)

> Greg, Carleton and David have also witnessed my ability to cooperate
> with my neighbours (and my inability to cede to demands that I consider
> abusive) in another game (WW-901) played almost simultaneously with this
> one.
>

Again, no comment since I don't know the circumstances.  Perhaps the plans you
offered seemed less one-sided to them than the one you offered to me in this
game did.  I got the distinct impression that you were pushing an unbalanced
plan to me on the knowledge that you held a stronger position than I did.  Fair
enough, but it did mean less likelihood of actually reaching a deal that would
be kept.

> In the first round of Maharajihad, playing as Persia, I also worked very
> well with one of my neighbours, Rajputana, and would have done with
> Mughalistan wouldn't Lynn had stabbed me. In this very game I did my
> best not to clash with any of my neighbours, asking for DMZs and early
> agreements with all (but Persia, with whom no agreement seemed
> possible). The problem I have is not with neighbours but with
> excessively demanding neighbours.
>
> Luis.
>

But Luis, I saw you as the excessively demanding neighbor!  And inflexible to
boot.  I can't help but wonder how many opportunities you've missed out on in
games because you have a preset notion on how things are "meant" to play out.  I
know you don't see that as a weakness, but from my perspective, it surely is.

Paul "V"

Subject: Mughalistan EOG
I don't usually write EOGs. I can't always remember what happened,
and since I see it as just a game, I have no spleen to vent. But there
has been so much interest in this game (after the fact, strangely
enough), I will add my two cents.

I would almost say that if there had been this level of exchange consistently during the game from all parties, it would have been a much more interesting game.

I chose Mughalistan because I wanted a challenge. And it was -
very interesting in the beginning. Kudos to David for designing
such a balanced game. With the right diplomacy, and a little luck,
I think any power can win.

Any variant can be balanced by the players once the map imbalances are known. Short of that, I think that the variant still favors Bahmana greatly with slight advantages for Persia and Delhi. I'd say Rajputana has the most difficult position overall.

Mughalistan has an interesting position. Only two significant
neighbors, and of course no threats to the north. I sent alliance
suggestions to both Persia and Delhi. Philippe demanded Herat
as the price for peace, and insisted I go southeast. Carleton,
OTOH, agreed to an alliance. We would bounce in Kmr for a
turn or two, until we decided who needed it most, and would
work together later in the game. Carleton was quite concerned
about Andrew, and wanted a peaceful northern border.

I'm not sure exactly why he wanted northern peace since he showed no indication of moving on Andrew. Did he give you any clue into his long term strategy?

I did not like Persia's demanding stance. We bounced in Herat
the first year, while I also bounced with Carleton in Kmr and took
Sam. My bounce with Carleton lead Philippe to believe I had
been appropriately bullied. He moved south in the spring of the
second year, took Herat with one army and left none for support.
I moved two armies into place to take Herat.
Also in the second year, Raj suggested I take Kmr with his
support. I wrote to Carleton to see if that would be OK with
him, but didn't receive a reply. So I accepted the support and
took Kmr. Carleton got back after the adjudication, apologized
for not responding, and accepted the situation. We continued
to have a strong alliance as long as he was in the game.
So I had six centers, an alliance with Delhi and a Persian enemy
as we entered the third year. I think at this time Raj totally lost
interest, had a couple of NMRs, and became a non entity. I
started a campaign against Persia, which I eventually won.

Actually, Carleton quit before Greg had his movement NMR so the time frame is a bit skewed here, but the essence appears correct. Your campaign into Persia was more conceded than fought however. Philippe couldn't focus on both fronts and so had to make a choice.
You make no mention of Philippe's gift of Arabia (and Hormuz) here, the former of which he and I had to convince you to take. Was your reluctance due to the realization that acceptance would change the game (as it certainly did)? You seem to have been fortunate that Lynn only half cared if you won or got the solo or not.

When Carleton quit Lynn entered the game, I was quite fortunate
that Lynn was willing to continue the alliance. He actually hedged
a great deal and wouldn't attack Andrew until Andrew attacked
him, but it gave me a secure border and enabled me to take the
whole eastern mainland.
The very prolonged endgame was very strange. I knew I couldn't
get a solo. I would need help to gain more than the 12 centers I
held, and no one would help me get the solo. But I also had a very
solid defensive line and could hold forever, if need be. So my
strategy at that point was to make sure Lynn didn't get more
centers than I held, and then just wait.

You may not have had a perfect stalemate, but your opponents were not cohesive or trusting of each other (with good reason) so it was just as good. And none of us were that opposed to your win (if not a solo).

I had many discussions with Luis throughout the game, and worked
with him off and on. I don't think we ever fought. He also gave me
useful information and advice on occasion. So I did what I could at
the end of the game to help him survive, even though I knew he was
the only one voting against the end the game proposal. I can be
patient and reward a loyal ally when necessary.

I'm sure it is much easier to ally with Luis when he is on the other side of the board. There's much less likelihood of disagreement. If he and Philippe had switched roles, I doubt you two would have been allied if you took objection to Philippe's demand to Herat.

I don't have much more to say. This was not a particulary enjoyable
game. Too many NMRs and too little communication. A couple of
the NMRs happened at very opportune times for me, so I feel that
I won by luck more than skill. But I'll take the "conceded board top"
in any case. I think Maharajah Dip is a very good game and would
like to play another one.
- Mike

I do think you had a significant dose of luck in this game, but luck alone rarely wins a game. You took able advantage of the breaks that went your way and avoided making committed enemies throughout the game. That, combined with your evident skill in our first round matchup, convinces me you are a worthy champion.
Paul "V"

> Subject: Mughalistan EOG
>
>
> I don't usually write EOGs. I can't always remember what happened,
> and since I see it as just a game, I have no spleen to vent. But there
> has been so much interest in this game (after the fact, strangely
> enough), I will add my two cents.
>

I would almost say that if there had been this level of exchange consistently
during the game from all parties, it would have been a much more interesting
game.

> I chose Mughalistan because I wanted a challenge. And it was -
> very interesting in the beginning. Kudos to David for designing
> such a balanced game. With the right diplomacy, and a little luck,
> I think any power can win.
>

Any variant can be balanced by the players once the map imbalances are known. 
Short of that, I think that the variant still favors Bahmana greatly with slight
advantages for Persia and Delhi.  I'd say Rajputana has the most difficult
position overall.

> Mughalistan has an interesting position. Only two significant
> neighbors, and of course no threats to the north. I sent alliance
> suggestions to both Persia and Delhi. Philippe demanded Herat
> as the price for peace, and insisted I go southeast. Carleton,
> OTOH, agreed to an alliance. We would bounce in Kmr for a
> turn or two, until we decided who needed it most, and would
> work together later in the game. Carleton was quite concerned
> about Andrew, and wanted a peaceful northern border.
>

I'm not sure exactly why he wanted northern peace since he showed no indication
of moving on Andrew.  Did he give you any clue into his long term strategy?

> I did not like Persia's demanding stance. We bounced in Herat
> the first year, while I also bounced with Carleton in Kmr and took
> Sam. My bounce with Carleton lead Philippe to believe I had
> been appropriately bullied. He moved south in the spring of the
> second year, took Herat with one army and left none for support.
> I moved two armies into place to take Herat.
>
> Also in the second year, Raj suggested I take Kmr with his
> support. I wrote to Carleton to see if that would be OK with
> him, but didn't receive a reply. So I accepted the support and
> took Kmr. Carleton got back after the adjudication, apologized
> for not responding, and accepted the situation. We continued
> to have a strong alliance as long as he was in the game.
>
> So I had six centers, an alliance with Delhi and a Persian enemy
> as we entered the third year. I think at this time Raj totally lost
> interest, had a couple of NMRs, and became a non entity. I
> started a campaign against Persia, which I eventually won.
>

Actually, Carleton quit before Greg had his movement NMR so the time frame is a
bit skewed here, but the essence appears correct.  Your campaign into Persia was
more conceded than fought however.  Philippe couldn't focus on both fronts and
so had to make a choice.

You make no mention of Philippe's gift of Arabia (and Hormuz) here, the former
of which he and I had to convince you to take.  Was your reluctance due to the
realization that acceptance would change the game (as it certainly did)?  You
seem to have been fortunate that Lynn only half cared if you won or got the solo
or not.

> When Carleton quit Lynn entered the game, I was quite fortunate
> that Lynn was willing to continue the alliance. He actually hedged
> a great deal and wouldn't attack Andrew until Andrew attacked
> him, but it gave me a secure border and enabled me to take the
> whole eastern mainland.
>
> The very prolonged endgame was very strange. I knew I couldn't
> get a solo. I would need help to gain more than the 12 centers I
> held, and no one would help me get the solo. But I also had a very
> solid defensive line and could hold forever, if need be. So my
> strategy at that point was to make sure Lynn didn't get more
> centers than I held, and then just wait.
>

You may not have had a perfect stalemate, but your opponents were not cohesive
or trusting of each other (with good reason) so it was just as good.  And none
of us were that opposed to your win (if not a solo).

> I had many discussions with Luis throughout the game, and worked
> with him off and on. I don't think we ever fought. He also gave me
> useful information and advice on occasion. So I did what I could at
> the end of the game to help him survive, even though I knew he was
> the only one voting against the end the game proposal. I can be
> patient and reward a loyal ally when necessary.
>

I'm sure it is much easier to ally with Luis when he is on the other side of the
board.  There's much less likelihood of disagreement.  If he and Philippe had
switched roles, I doubt you two would have been allied if you took objection to
Philippe's demand to Herat.

> I don't have much more to say. This was not a particulary enjoyable
> game. Too many NMRs and too little communication. A couple of
> the NMRs happened at very opportune times for me, so I feel that
> I won by luck more than skill. But I'll take the "conceded board top"
> in any case. I think Maharajah Dip is a very good game and would
> like to play another one.
>
>                                        - Mike
>
>

I do think you had a significant dose of luck in this game, but luck alone
rarely wins a game.  You took able advantage of the breaks that went your way
and avoided making committed enemies throughout the game.  That, combined with
your evident skill in our first round matchup, convinces me you are a worthy
champion.

Paul "V"

Gentlemen.  A clarification for you.  It was neither a solo concession nor a
draw.  If you want to consider it a conceded board top, that would be fairly
accurate.  It was a vote to terminate, and when passed it resulted in Mike
Morris winning the Maharajiad, since he topped the final round board.

True, which is why contrary to Luis' statement, the game was stalemated.

 

I agree.

> EoG Statement for Delhi:
>

Comments in response:

>       Paul seemed reasonable enough but was  apparently
> playing the patsy to Andrew and was in the process
> of giving up his centers on the subcontinent.  This  might
> have made sense to him, but it left me with no
> ally to help hold Andrew and Luis in check.

Ah, but my "patsy" status was at least part due to the absence of any pressure
from Delhi on Gondwana earlier on when I faced an implacable foe in Bahmana.  I
believe you greatly underestimated my independence and my ability to aid you.

>        I found working with Mike very  agreeable.
> I had some bad moments when Andrew and
> Paul came after me and I lost a center but
> it wasn't too difficult to split them and get
> Paul embarked on the reconquest of his
> home centers.  Meanwhile I was busily
> taking out Greg's centers and tripling the
> size of Delhi.  Eventually I reached 10 centers,
> approaching Mike in terms of size, and establishing
> a fish hook shaped domain with  the shaft along the
> mountains in Delhi's original territories and the
> coast line of the Bay of Bengal and extending
> to the hook in Guj.

You glossed over the whole AYU episode quite a bit here!  While you may have
thought getting me to switch to you was "easy", I can tell you from my
perspective that you came very close to self-fulfilling your own prophecy by
pushing me away.  The capture of AYU was designed to get me another unit with
which to hit Andrew, but your stance on the subject was very offputting.  Put it
this way - you sounded just like Luis at the time!

>       At this point I decided to give Andrew  and Paul
> what they wanted and appear to oppose MIke without
> making him angry enough to attack me in enough
> strength to successfully defeat me on his own.  This
> I managed to do.  Paul thought he was writing my
> orders, but frankly I didn't need the help.  I did  change
> the orders repeatedly because I frankly thought that
> if Andrew knew what they were he would pass them
> on to MIke.
>

First, on the orders, I offered my suggestions freely, and you were free to
adapt them (as you did).  Personally, I think I was giving you good advice, and
I'm sorry if it offended you.  At that stage of the game, there wasn't anything
else to discuss, and especially in areas where you and Andrew had to
collaborate, I figured a suggestion from me would be the best way to come to
agreement.

Why would Andrew have passed the orders on to Mike?  We were working to stop
Mike from soloing at that point.  And given that you make it sound like you and
Mike were fighting a phony war during this period until Luis was eliminated, why
would that have mattered?  Really, this explains why Mike's moves were so easily
countered during this stage - he wasn't trying to advance.

>       At the end of the game, true to form,  Andrew was
> trying to lie his way to an advantageous result.  He  told
> me if I would concentrate on attacking Mike, he would
> attack Paul.  The last thing I wanted was Andrew with
> any significant number of builds which would occur
> directly in the rear of my defenses fighting Mike.
> Secondly I thought he would simply pass my acceptance
> of his scheme on to Paul and convince him to join
> in an attack on Delhi looking to reduce the number of
> survivors to three: MVG.  Perhaps they would have  spared
> Persia and perhaps not.
>

Whittling under the circumstances would have been pointless.  It risked the solo
for not much gain.  Certainly, Mike, who had the tournament win as his main goal
and likely a solo as his secondary one, would have no reason to go along with
that.  And I was as suspicious of Andrew as you were - it would have taken
hostile action by you to get me against you at that point.

>       So in the end I saw no real chance to  solo.  Even if
> I had enjoyed any success against Mike, I felt I could
> count on Andrew stabbing me in the back.  If I  attacked
> Andrew I looked to end up fighting GMV and being
> eventually overwhelmed.
>

True, which is why contrary to Luis' statement, the game was stalemated.

>      I was frankly pleased by the result in the  end.
> I tripled the size of Delhi, which I initially saw as
> a mercy position.  Mughal won.  Mike won.  He
> was certainly the most pleasant of my adversaries and
> the most diplomatic (in the sense of polite, truthful
> and reasonable).  Luis was eliminated, a result that
> his attitude and primitive diplomacy basically deserved.
> I'm sorry that I couldn't eliminate Andrew as well,
> but sometimes you have to take what you can get.
> Maybe next time :>).
>
> Lynn

Mike won primarily because he didn't make enemies.  It seems nearly everyone
felt that "If I can't win, I don't mind if Mike does."  And a lot of this seems
to have less to do with Mike than the hostilities left over from the last round
and experienced within the current game.  Heck, I can't wait to hear Mike's
perspective on all this!

Paul "V"

> Subject: Persia's EOG

Philippe,

As mentioned before, I really enjoyed working with you, and it is a pity that
neither of us were quite strong enough to direct the course of the game.  I
admit I felt some trepidation after I helped you into SEY, but I was optimistic
that at that point in the game and from then on, we did need to work as one (as
you have described elsewhere).  Together, we were larger than Luis and able to
have some leverage against Andrew as well.

In the past, I've normally played on the judges, but in the last two years or
so, I've gotten away from that a bit what with playing three rounds in the
Worldmasters, this tournament, and a couple large world variants on Redscape.  I
imagine in the future, I'll be playing both on the judges and off.

I guess I didn't realize that you were keeping our relationship as secret as you
were (later in the game), so I probably revealed it with my own press.  From my
perspective, once we each were relatively reduced in size, it made sense to
negotiate with as much power as possible.  Of course, the other powers might
well have decided I was bluffing if you were telling them something else!

I'm certainly glad the game ended when it did.  Lynn had questioned whether I
was willing to remove you from the game in order to get the game to end.  I
answered truthfully that I would be reluctant to do so, but that if that was the
only way to get the game ended that I would, but mainly because you had in fact
already offered me your centers if I wanted them.  Fortunately, the subject
never arose again.  My capture of GOA was for the reasons stated, not a prelude
to elimination.

Paul "V"



> Anyway, my only edge throughout the game was the close relationship
> that was establish with Paul. It went from: yeah let's help each other
> but let's hope Luis is more annoyed with you then with me, to: you want
> my sc for such and such reason, no problem here it is. In fact, this
> relationship is the main thing that kept me in the game and I look
> forward to playing with him again. Do you play on judges Paul? Small
> note, I try to keep the extend of my relationship with Paul secret as
> much as possible so it wouldn't become a problem for others and I
> wonder how successful I was? I remember a couple of letter from Lynn
> reassuring me regardind some worries I had mentionned regarding Paul,
> but I'm not convince I was really taken seriously :-)
>
> Philippe of Persia
>
>

I foolishly didn't bother to check to see who else was in the game and

was not pleased to find Andrew and Luis had both managed to

make their way into the final.

Navally, we were. We had 5 ships against 2, one of wich was Greg's.
Even if Andrew had build another one, we would still have outnumbered
him enough to block his attempt to contest the seas long enough to
allow us to make some kind of play.

Who care, his going for the seas would have sign our death warrant,
so anything that could have been done to hurt him would have been
done. We weren't so feeble that we couldn't interfere with his solo
and speed up Mike's solo.

lcmldm@... wrote:

Andrew, basically struck me

as lying and appeared to think that most people were too

dense to notice.

 

I don't think that badly of other players and in actual fact I wasn't lying to you. It was you who consistantly lied to me if you recall?

>>>> "However, given that I was growing at the same rate as him, I wasn't
>>>> too  concerned. But my fortunes chnaged when Lynn took over Delhi
>>>> from  Carleton. He seemed to have a much clearer idea of what he
>>>> wanted and  things became harder. In the end, I decided to bow to
>>>> pressure from Paul  and Lynn and stab Luis. This was a bad error,
>>>> because the moment I  attacked Bahmana, Paul and Lynn desrted me. In
>>>> retrospect, I had a bad  feeling in my gut they would do this but then
>>>> I NMR'd which made the whole  thing worse. My stab on Luis probably
>>>> cost me my chance of winning the  game, but I don't know for sure."
>>>>
>>>> I'm sorry Andrew, you never had a chance to win the game and I wonder
>>>> if this delusion was self-induced or if Mike had something to do with
>>>> it? Think about it.
>>>
>>>
>>> In Winter 1504, Andrew controlled 9 centers, while Mughalistan only
>>> controlled 8. Would had he been slightly more active navally and ended
>>> with V (always kill them totally) to secure himself a "corner position"
>>> he could have then attacked Delhi without I moving a finger. He would
>>> have got no other rival than Lynn and would possibly have gotten in
>>> position of cotntrolling half the continent.
>>>
>>> Wether he would have won or not is difficult to say but at the time I
>>> thought it probable. I hoped that, the same that I had recovered
>>> against
>>> him in the first game, I would do that again but his position was very
>>> very good at the time.
>>>
>>> But instead of building ships, in 1505 he stabbed me and gained 1
>>> center
>>> (bad move) and besides it was a center I couldn't forgive because it
>>> was
>>> the backdoor of Bahmana's nut. In 1507 Vijayanagar had stolen him 2
>>> centers, in 1508 he had lost Malwa to Delhi. Obviously his error was
>>> his
>>> opportunism and choice of allies.
>>>
>>> But else he could had well won the tournament. At least he ahd
>>> extermely
>>> good chances.
>>
>>
>> Sorry, it didn't matter that Andrew had one more sc then Mike. Me & Paul
>> had control of the seas and there's no way we would have allowed him to
>> take this only edge from us.
>
> You weren't in such good position at the time. You were losing ground
> quickly to Mughalistan! And Andrew could afford M to grow a little more
> (not desirable but better than remain under the pirate blackmail of you
> two... anything). Anyhow, I was advising Andrew to build navally since
> long before. If he would have listened...
>
> You can't play Gondwana like Mughalistan. You have wide coast: you need
> an area of naval control.


Navally, we were. We had 5 ships against 2, one of wich was Greg's.
Even if Andrew had build another one, we would still have outnumbered
him enough to block his attempt to contest the seas long enough to
allow us to make some kind of play.


>> The minute he would have try to seriously do
>> so, I would have started helping Mike and assisted Paul in blocking
>> Andrew.
>
> But that would have been playing two small powers in decline against two
> solid powers in full growth (+ myself).


Who care, his going for the seas would have sign our death warrant,
so anything that could have been done to hurt him would have been
done. We weren't so feeble that we couldn't interfere with his solo
and speed up Mike's solo.


>> As for Delhi, even if you didn't lift "a finger", Mike would have
>> obviously
>> done so, assisting Delhi or starting his own invasion as seem most
>> appropriate
>> at the time.
>
> That's it: my perfect game. :-)
>
> G and M grow simultaneously on Delhi and the pirates and I could still
> maneouvred between the two. Well, Rajputana was also around at the time
> and M's threat wasn't so big with three neighbours still solid enough to
> contain him.
>
> They would have kept their victory options and not became victims of
> your blackmail. If M won was because he was stolid and persistent, not
> fearful.
>
>> Basically, Persia & Vij. had become one power by that time.
>
> That was a problem since the very start.
>
>> There wasn't
>> any other power I would have trusted more then Paul, both because of our
>> ongoing discussion and our sharing the same goal to survive to the draw
>
> Draw: here is the (conceptual) problem!
>
> Still there was no draw, thanks to the rules!
>
>>   with
>> wichever land powers made it to the end. Our nightmare was for Mike to
>> solo
>> with nothing being done to stop him, but Andrew's own attempt to solo
>> would
>> have quickly superseded this as it would have been done directly at our
>> expense.
>
> This is very vicious.
>
> You were playing for an inexistent option.
>
> ...
>
> Luis.


Yeah, well knowing that at the time would have been very helpfull ;-)
Anyway, your plan as stated would have meant my starting to throw the
game to Mike in 1505. Could have been fun and made for a quick game,
but that's not what happened.

Philippe

"However, given that I was growing at the same rate as him, I wasn't
too  concerned. But my fortunes chnaged when Lynn took over Delhi
from  Carleton. He seemed to have a much clearer idea of what he
wanted and  things became harder. In the end, I decided to bow to
pressure from Paul  and Lynn and stab Luis. This was a bad error,
because the moment I  attacked Bahmana, Paul and Lynn desrted me. In
retrospect, I had a bad  feeling in my gut they would do this but then
I NMR'd which made the whole  thing worse. My stab on Luis probably
cost me my chance of winning the  game, but I don't know for sure."

I'm sorry Andrew, you never had a chance to win the game and I wonder
if this delusion was self-induced or if Mike had something to do with
it? Think about it.

In Winter 1504, Andrew controlled 9 centers, while Mughalistan only
controlled 8. Would had he been slightly more active navally and ended
with V (always kill them totally) to secure himself a "corner position"
he could have then attacked Delhi without I moving a finger. He would
have got no other rival than Lynn and would possibly have gotten in
position of cotntrolling half the continent.

Wether he would have won or not is difficult to say but at the time I
thought it probable. I hoped that, the same that I had recovered against
him in the first game, I would do that again but his position was very
very good at the time.

But instead of building ships, in 1505 he stabbed me and gained 1 center
(bad move) and besides it was a center I couldn't forgive because it was
the backdoor of Bahmana's nut. In 1507 Vijayanagar had stolen him 2
centers, in 1508 he had lost Malwa to Delhi. Obviously his error was his
opportunism and choice of allies.

But else he could had well won the tournament. At least he ahd extermely
good chances.

Sorry, it didn't matter that Andrew had one more sc then Mike. Me & Paul
had control of the seas and there's no way we would have allowed him to
take this only edge from us.

The minute he would have try to seriously do
so, I would have started helping Mike and assisted Paul in blocking Andrew.

As for Delhi, even if you didn't lift "a finger", Mike would have obviously
done so, assisting Delhi or starting his own invasion as seem most  appropriate
at the time.

Basically, Persia & Vij. had become one power by that time.

There wasn't
any other power I would have trusted more then Paul, both because of our
ongoing discussion and our sharing the same goal to survive to the draw

  with
wichever land powers made it to the end. Our nightmare was for Mike to solo
with nothing being done to stop him, but Andrew's own attempt to solo would
have quickly superseded this as it would have been done directly at our
expense.

>> "However, given that I was growing at the same rate as him, I wasn't
>> too  concerned. But my fortunes chnaged when Lynn took over Delhi
>> from  Carleton. He seemed to have a much clearer idea of what he
>> wanted and  things became harder. In the end, I decided to bow to
>> pressure from Paul  and Lynn and stab Luis. This was a bad error,
>> because the moment I  attacked Bahmana, Paul and Lynn desrted me. In
>> retrospect, I had a bad  feeling in my gut they would do this but then
>> I NMR'd which made the whole  thing worse. My stab on Luis probably
>> cost me my chance of winning the  game, but I don't know for sure."
>>
>> I'm sorry Andrew, you never had a chance to win the game and I wonder
>> if this delusion was self-induced or if Mike had something to do with
>> it? Think about it.
>
> In Winter 1504, Andrew controlled 9 centers, while Mughalistan only
> controlled 8. Would had he been slightly more active navally and ended
> with V (always kill them totally) to secure himself a "corner position"
> he could have then attacked Delhi without I moving a finger. He would
> have got no other rival than Lynn and would possibly have gotten in
> position of cotntrolling half the continent.
>
> Wether he would have won or not is difficult to say but at the time I
> thought it probable. I hoped that, the same that I had recovered against
> him in the first game, I would do that again but his position was very
> very good at the time.
>
> But instead of building ships, in 1505 he stabbed me and gained 1 center
> (bad move) and besides it was a center I couldn't forgive because it was
> the backdoor of Bahmana's nut. In 1507 Vijayanagar had stolen him 2
> centers, in 1508 he had lost Malwa to Delhi. Obviously his error was his
> opportunism and choice of allies.
>
> But else he could had well won the tournament. At least he ahd extermely
> good chances.

Sorry, it didn't matter that Andrew had one more sc then Mike. Me & Paul
had control of the seas and there's no way we would have allowed him to
take this only edge from us. The minute he would have try to seriously do
so, I would have started helping Mike and assisted Paul in blocking Andrew.
As for Delhi, even if you didn't lift "a finger", Mike would have obviously
done so, assisting Delhi or starting his own invasion as seem most
appropriate
at the time. That's for Andrew. On Mike's side, expansion was alot easier
since no fleets were needed and Greg lacked the time to really play the
game.

Basically, Persia & Vij. had become one power by that time. There wasn't
any other power I would have trusted more then Paul, both because of our
ongoing discussion and our sharing the same goal to survive to the draw
with
wichever land powers made it to the end. Our nightmare was for Mike to solo
with nothing being done to stop him, but Andrew's own attempt to solo would
have quickly superseded this as it would have been done directly at our
expense.

Even without knowing how close I was with Paul, Andrew knew that I would
work with him against Mike but that I wanted him to leave the seas alone
and concentrate on building the necessary line of defence in the middle.
Afterall, even if I hated Paul for whatever reason, why would I want to
allow a major land power to replace a small sea power who is no threat to
me? For Andrew to have me on his side against Paul, it would have
necessited
a close relationship between us, wich there wasn't, alot of trust, wich
there
wasn't, and alot of direct assistance elsewhere to prop me in compensation
for
the risk taken, wich he never was in position to offer. In short, we're
talking
of a whole different game were I would be as close to Gondwana as to Vij.

Of course, if Paul felt differently about his association with Persia, I
would like him to explain how he saw things exactly :-)

Philippe