WM02SF02 ? French EOGS.

Gentlemen,

Congratulations Jan, yours was an expert piece of GMing; uncomplicated, 
unfussy and superbly efficient. A true model of how to run a table, thank 
you. Sadly my own performance as a player didn't even come close to living 
up to yours as a GM. I played poorly and took the beating I deserved. I made 
errors right from the initial exchanges and I was never lucky enough, or 
good enough, to recover.

My reading of the opening diplomacy was that A/I/R were very close and so I 
feared a westward move by Italy. I reasoned that the antidote would be a 
German alliance since that would limit England's threat and cause Jake to 
think twice about his chances of sufficiently rapid progress against me. 
Unfortunately I couldn't sell the idea of an anti- English pact to Stephen 
so I was left looking for other options.

My first decision was to head off any Italian threat, while also damaging a 
potential E/G, by agreeing to support Jake into Munich in F01. I did that 
with a heavy heart but hoped that Austria would get so nervous about Italy’s 
move to TYR that, if necessary, I might be able to talk Jake out of 
following through. Meanwhile a deal with England was pretty much last on my 
list but in the absence of an agreement with Germany that was the way I 
chose to go. So although I wasn’t happy with the opening moves at least they 
contained no surprises for me.

Even so I continued to press Stephen for a Franco-German pact. I argued that 
if I denied Jake support into Munich he would not attack it and that Germany 
could therefore afford to leave Munich unguarded and support me into BEL 
instead. This was a good plan that would have worked and would have put F/G 
into a very strong position. Sadly my diplomacy wasn’t good enough, Stephen 
wouldn’t buy it, did a deal with Justin instead and, dramatic as it sounds, 
F/G’s last chance died in F01.

An uncooperative Germany pretty much put paid to any hopes of prospering 
against England so, reluctantly, I had to commit to the deal I’d done with 
Justin. He had failed to deliver his promised moves in F01 but since I 
couldn’t fight him I let it go and made my dash south against Jake. In order 
to disguise my potential Anti-Italian intentions I had followed through with 
the support into Munich. That pretty much put paid to any hopes of working 
with Stephen of course but I would say that ‘frustrating’ was already the 
way to characterise my exchanges with him even at that early stage.

Unfortunately England once again failed to keep his end of the bargain in 
S02 so there I was arranged for war against Italy but without an ally I 
could trust. I couldn’t continue to push south with confidence so I made my 
apologies to Italy and turned myself around again. I knew full well that 
this would condemn me to a defensive struggle with little hope of topping 
the board but I decided it was a better option than being stabbed to death 
by the English!

I have been praised for my defensive play against England but I think this 
is undeserved. It seemed to me that Justin could have broken through (by 
taking MAO) any time he wanted but my guess is that he chose not to make 
himself an even bigger target by establishing a still more dominant 
position. This was, IMO, great play on his part.

In fact I thought all of Justin’s play was very high class in this game. 
Obviously I didn’t like his stabs and the attack but his choices were all 
good. They served his interests and, coupled with his diplomacy, left me no 
room for real retaliation. Top play Justin, my hat’s off to you. The logic 
of the game dictated that I oppose you and that I refused to enter into any 
plan to assist you into ‘8th’ place but if you make it and that leads to you 
finding a seat in the big game you’ll have deserved it.

Naturally I wanted to top the board and reach the final so it is slim 
consolation to play the role of puppet but I tried to enjoy that situation; 
Diplomacy is a game after all. I offered my services to Jake and would have 
delivered on my promises to him had it not been for what I feel is the worst 
move I’ve ever seen at this level of play.

Jake’s decision to take Spain without permission or, even notice, baffled 
me. He explained that he didn’t think I’d mind. That’s completely illogical 
of course since if he really thought I wouldn’t mind then he should have 
asked me. If I didn’t agree then his only sensible option was NOT to take 
it. As things stood I don’t think there was a way for Italy to top the board 
without my active help so risking alienating me was unwise. I said it before 
Jake but I have to say it again, rank bad play mate.

In many ways I felt that the best performance on this table was Paul’s. As 
far as I can judge he was never really in any strong position strategically 
or diplomatically but he hung in there, continually making the best of a 
tough spot. Again I didn’t like it when he left me to do the donkeywork 
against England but it was the right plan for him and I was impressed by the 
way he did it. If there is a slight criticism, and I mean this as a 
constructive observation, it’s that I sometimes felt patronised in the 
messages you sent. The way you laid out your suggestions or commented on my 
moves made me feel that you thought that you were talking to a novice. 
Perhaps that is how you felt (and perhaps you were right to feel it!) but 
it’s probably not a good idea to transmit the impression! :)

I’ve enjoyed the World Masters tremendously and can’t wait for the next 
instalment. Thanks one and all.

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself with cool new emoticons http://www.msn.co.uk/specials/myemo



------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
Make a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo! Companion Toolbar.
Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/xTHqlB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->