Game 96 (No TA)

[The Rottweiler]

It looks like the previously mentioned march on Madrid has been, temporarily, postponed. On the up side, the North American evictions in Italy are going swimmingly.

[Ike]

You were lucky your morale was high enough ;-)

[The Rottweiler]

Morale is often the unsung hero.

[brogan]

Things are heating up again in the small corner of the world down in the Greek penisula. What will it take to drive those darn Persians and Iraqis out?

 

- Germany 96

[dageraad]

New map:

 

 

- Yes, I am still active.

- I even did something Agressive.

- Still minus 1019 ship points destroyed

[dageraad]

 

- The game seems to be slowing down

- The Icelandic airforce seems to be bothered by the winter. Come on, you're Iceland! What's a few metersof snow to you?

- Interesting moves all over the map, but it is sometimes difficult to depict who is fighting who.

[don]

Calling all players, I have signed up for 99 and am hoping others will as well

Don of Canada

[jimmyo]

signed for 99 as well

[brogan]

How full is 99?

[Ike]

Irish troops have been driven completely out of France, Lowlands is in the defensive in France and in Italy Lowlands seems retreating into Switserland. GB is slowly losing its home territory to Sweden despite the help of Ireland and Iceland.

[Thors]

Ike, that's an understandable perspective, and one that isn't entirely true to the context of 96.

 

GB got caught with it's pants down. Plain and simple, and was unable to recover from a consertive singular effort by one Nation, with support by 5+ nations (directly or indirectly). I only had sustained support from one (Ireland), who was in a similar situation of initially putting most effort into France. In hindsight I should have developed a more suitable land force to remain in GB proper, rather than ignore ARM production (trade for increased AIR) and send most across the channel. But if I did that, I wouldn't have lasted as long as I did against you in France.

If you recall, before Sweden attacked, at best we were at a standstill. It was give and take, and towards the end, you were winning. That's when LL joined, rather than let you push all the way up to his borders.

 

You had the advantage of 2 whole nations of production of your own, and were not facing the intrinsic hardship of naval transportation for your land units and supplies. Once my production was garroted by losing north GB, and Strategically bombed in my two most major pop centers, and lost a third to Norway... Well it was only a matter of time. I certainly couldn't fight you any more in France, and even trying to withdraw troops back to GB; I was thwarted by you and others.

 

Let this put it into better perspective: 9 nations are still at a state of Declared War against Great Britain. How many nations declared war and maintained actual war on Portugal? Do you realize I have not declared war on anyone other than France and Italy?

I only delayed accepting a treaty with you, because it was a suspicious situation. You were likely to DW on Ireland. And you did. Ireland wanted to work with you, but couldn't right away. That wasn't soon enough for you perhaps. Or perhaps the initial talks were just a smoke screen. Whatever, I do not blame you for going to war with Ireland and GB. It was Geologically logical.

 

By the way, as far as I know, Iceland has not supported me in anything other than maintaining an Ally status and DW'ing on Portugal. It was a paper pledge, without substance. But I do thank Iceland for not adding to the list of GB enemies. It was probably tempting, but he maintained his convictions, and I respect that.

 

It's easy to place a superior and negative perspective on another nations situation, when you have way more friends than enemies, and he has way more enemies than friends.

 

 

I had been displeased with this "special game" from early on. But I admit it has a lot to do with perspective. Mine was a notion that it could reduce or eliminate the "dog pile on the rabbit" situation that is prevalent in a 5 TA situation, with the perk of " 5 Allies for life". I did understand that the idea of "I'd rather a friend win this game (than a non friend)" could apply, but not to the level that I've witnessed. People are simply not limited to 5 perma-allies. Yeah, I had two myself... But it was self motivating ethics that kept it minimal. Ethics that others did not apparently share or even consider. And I still think that a couple people are playing multiple Nations. There are sham and puppet nations.

If this was a TA game, I doubt I would have had such a disparaging political situation of 10 enemy conditions with only 3 ally situations from early on.

 

Anyway Ike, I'm out, and there are no hard feelings to you. In fact, I'd like to see you win the game.

[Ike]

A pity you are quiting. It will make the game less interesting.

True there are several countries that work together but from my prespective there were no unfair fights. Like in every game everyone tries to get a strategic advantage over another country to cooperate with other countries

 

Like you said you and Ireland were in the disadvantage in France because you had to cross water. But most countries like Canada, USA had greater transport issues than any other country (and they are fighting in Italy). Also Sweden and Norway are fighting across sea just like you were in France and Italy. The only countries that were not fighting across water are Lowlands and me. Overall I think it was a fair fight. Maybe we see eachother in another game and in another setting.

 

Peter

[don]

I too am sorry to see you drop Thors. Canada too is a very hard nation to play under any conditions but without total allies it is especially hard. You pushed me out of Italy and then when you came under fire from other areas withdrew only to let Lowlands take your position in Italy with 2 SS armies and a motor army. It is nearly impossible for Canada to ship to this area in any case as it takes 6 turns for a round trip and an huge amount of fuel. Even with my son playing US and helping on the same front it would be impossible to wage a war without cooperation from Portugal and others as he could easily control GIB1. Long and short of it is this is a game of co-operation.

 

You have issues with shipping to the mainland but not like Canada or US.

 

That said, I enjoy the challenge of playing Canada, this is my third time. The first one in 55 my two TA's both dropped but I was lucky enough to find a nation that also had dropped that I could use as a base that being Iceland then later Norway which gave me the chance to expand all the way to Northern Russia. This can not be done if other nations gang up on you as they did in 96 against you, never the less , I am surprised Sweden managed it even with help. I have tried the northern end run against Great Britain at least three times and never have been successful.

 

Thank you for an enjoyable game and I hope you sign up for 99.

 

Don

[Thors]

I did not say the "unfair" word. The concept of fairness in a game like this is highly subjective. For instance, things that Mickey thought were unfair, I thought were just how people did things. Things that others thought were just using game mechanics to their advantage, I thought was unfair. Yes, Subjective, and I recognize that, and that's why I've not taken anything personal.

However, in old posts I did raise the issue of game manipulation to seek "unfair" advantage. I'm over that, but of course it's left a feeling of displeasure with the game. The concept of "well he did it, so I'll do it too" does not sit well with me any more. The concept of "all's fair in love and war" does not sit with me well either. Because this is a game, not real life. A certain level of "fairness" is something I've grown to appreciate in games. You don't exactly want to cut off your "enemies" head and prance around, bouncing it off the ground while strutting (game 93 comes to mind)... -figuratively, not literally (LOL)! You cant do "dick" things and then expect to have them play another game with you. I've learned that from both sides. My philosophy of gameplay started not in 96, but in 93 and carried over. I started out with some moves I wouldn't do again that fell into the "well it's a common strategy, so I should do it" and gradually developed to its current ideal of trying to take a higher path, the "honorable" approach. The problem with the high road is, that not every player will share that ideal and you may make judgment errors yourself, that will bite you on the ass. And if others don't choose that path, who will be disappointed? The high road can be lonely. And that's why Mickey quit. And why I've come close to quitting Victory.

 

Yes Don, this is a game of co-operation. But what were your expectations of a non TA game? Apparently it was either the removal of limitations to some, or the placement of limitations to others. Reality is both, but game philosophy tends to draw towards one side or the other. I was disappointed that it seemed more about less limitations when you have 10 nations DW one, when it probably wouldn't have happened in a TA game.

About my comment of "Sham" Nations: That perception is based on a few Nations that appeared to do almost nothing in the game. No visible warring activity that one would expect. There's an artificial "buffer zone". So it's an easy deduction that all they are there for, is to support their 'friends". Perma-allies that do hardly anything. So perhaps they are robots. helping another nation, built up supplies and send them? Yes, this is speculation. And if they were total robots I'd probably have faced more extensive attacks. Seems a waste of money to me.

If that's how this game's social cooperation has developed, a sort of "I'll help you win this game, you help me next" then I'm not prone to play it.

Yeah, speculation. But we are dealing with feelings and perceptions, all subjective aspects, when you think to yourself "Do I like this game?".

 

And yes Don, Seafaring nations are a PITA. Much more tedium and more sensitive to errors. This was my first try, and with partially self inflicted black eyes and bloody nose, I'd not play them again. Too much disadvantage that is not properly compensated. -But you take it as a challenge, and that's great (for you).

We would have been a somewhat equal match in Italy, had my supply train not been severed by the Portuguese war. Had my production not been reduced to half a nation. And had you not the extensive support of North Africa (You needed them, I get that) -Not particular complaints, but more-so observances.

 

How else would you feel, when you're the rabbit?!? 10ish nations declared war on me! WTF? LOL

[don]

Understood