Broadcast message from thcarrez@stipple.seas.upenn.edu as England in barney:
I am very impressed by Dan Shoham play on this game. He managed to manipulate us all with just one center, never giving a clue he was the strategic genius behind Carragher's successes...
[From Dan Shoham]
> It didn't work. England managed to create conditions for Turkey to safely
> extinguish France, and despite Carragher's efforts (mostly through my
> inspirations) to promise each of them in turn a victory, they both proceeded
> to crush him between them and without threatening each other.
I had many surprises in this game. I considered Bob Carragher and Dan Shoham as "potentially dangerous" even reduced to a few centers. I wanted a two-way draw, and I thought one of them might devise a new technique to steal this draw from me. Therefore I "assured" a two-way draw, providing Turkey all security, never giving up something Dan might have used to turn him back against me. If I had been more aggressive, I think I would not have achieved this result, since France, Russia and Turkey would have formed a some kind of line to prevent me from getting my 18th center, and I would have been forced to accept a 3 or 4-way draw.
> England asked for my help against France. He really didn't need that help
> - especially since he wasn't even trying to win. I couldn't quite figure
> out why is he asking for it.
I thought (perhaps I was wrong) that Turkey+France might have a chance to stop me at this point of the game. I had to distract Russia at this point, which I thought was not interested in the game anymore :-)
> Once I reached Budapest, it was time to betray my benefactor. I took
> advantage of ex-president Carragher to try and talk England into pressing
> Turkey, as I turned on my deal. The idea was that England couldn't possibly
> have a reason NOT to pressure Turkey - given that his own 17-SC stalemate
> line was totally secured - and Turkey might not be able to handle my
> defection and maintain a stalemate line simultaneously. I just might get
> into the final draw after all. Even if England offered Turkey - following
> a failed stab - the breathing room to extinguish me, the latter might not
> trust England enough for anything and might prefer the "safe" 3-way draw
> over risking it all for a 2-way.
> I made a quick U-turn and headed for Serbia. With 5 (!) adjacent supply
> centers - 6 if you count Serbia itself - I figured it would take a great
> tactical exercise to knock me out without endangering the stalemate line.
> Turkey might be too exhausted to even try.
I quickly saw the danger of this. I proposed several solutions to the Sultan, the simpler being staying far away from him in the North. It may have succeeded, though.
> I did not see any tactical or strategic boo-boo that would be the mark
> of a novice player (excluding Germany's suicide attack on Turkey, but
> I discounted that as boredom).
Well, I played a few board games before, but this is my first year in E-Mail diplomacy. I am not very comfortable with stalemate lines, and I know time is running against me in most situations...
-King Terry (Thierry) II of England
PS : To prevent fake messages from being used against me, I always used the "King Terry II" signature with Russia and France, and the "-England" signature with Turkey... I don't know if it influenced the game, but I think it will explain what this "King" stuff is to Turkey :-)
Go Back to the Diplomacy Academy
Read the next article (France's Second Response)