[PB81] naufragar is a rock. He is an iiiiiiiiiisland.

[The Black Sword]

GG nauf! Thought you did a great job getting yourself back in a decent position from the early game hole. Respectfully though, I think Boudica is part of why you were in that hole.

I was thinking around the time you settled the Caribbean that it would be an interesting game if America was turned to AI. M was probably the leader but with xist conquering his continent and you eating up those islands there would have been a lot of play for.

That mace invasion was probably the last time we came close to danger. Particularly if M piled on too we might have been in trouble. I thought the two of you had to try a dogpile at the end of that peace treaty too, but I felt a lot better about repelling that one since we had spent the whole GA preparing for it.

Also, your Privateers did an excellent job frustrating our navy's frigates. Top notch pirating there!

[Mjmd]

Numbered because long

1) I also didn't like the Boudica pick, but I didn't realize the game was a joke to you from the beginning. In your mind when you thought about invading the other continent at start up, did you imagine the other players on your continent reacting at all? Just some vague expansion / eco trait leader Portugal hope for astro lands is my kind of a game though.

I'm having so much trouble deciding a course of action because I can't imagine what my opponents are planning. Mjmd teched Calendar and looks to be doing his typical Mjmd builder thing. If he were concerned about TBS, he'd be at Construction and trying to knock over TBS' fortress of Celsus. So Mjmd, at least, thinks he can outbuild TBS with his land-lead.

2) So I thought seriously about killing Celsus 3 times early in the game. Once with two axes off galleys plus some 2 movers before it popped 3rd ring, another time with mainly chariots (once he added more than 1 axe), and then yes I thought about going construction and breaking it down. The main problem all those times is then TBS might not be scary enough. He probably would have still been in first, but would have been in first enough to keep you from 2v1 me. Any of those options would have slowed me down and I was already behind. I didn't want to add a 2v1 to me being behind.

1 turn out of order

naufragarWell, nevermind. After Mjmd took and auto-razed that island city of TBS, they're back at peace and with open borders. Guess it was just one of Mjmd's border adjustments.

Speaking of, he sent me fish for fish and I sent back the following:

3) The funny thing is I just send fish to fish with you because I sent to TBS after the war and I hadn't been communicating much. When you responded EXACTLY how I was thinking about the game I THOUGHT we were good. You would go off to astro lands and I would make sure TBS never felt safe and could never be safe taking you over. You get astro lands and TBS doesn't get astro lands. Win win for both of us.

EIGHT turns later and you attack.......

naufragar

I know I've written about this elsewhere, but it feels like players constantly use diplomacy as a "give me what I want" button. Apart from the first message, which offered a furs  , none of these messages are anything more than the statement, "You should be enemies with TBS." Ok, let's imagine I've already considered and rejected that, what's the point of stating it again, let alone multiple times? And if I haven't considered it, is there any argument besides "TBS is in 1st. You're in 3rd." If I'm attacking Mjmd because I think it improves my position relative to the rest of the field, TBS included, the argument "Ignore me and focus on TBS" isn't very persuasive.

So I gave Mjmd the opportunity to put his money where his mouth is. If you think the 3rd place player should ignore the 2nd place player to go after the 1st place player, prove it. Feed me, lower your own position, and focus yourself on TBS.

4) The fur trade was legit as I hadn't seen yet and was just trying to get open borders. The thing is IT VERY CLEARLY DOESN'T IMPROVE YOUR POSITION. WHO (expletive deleted) IS TAKING ON 1ST THEN????? Gav had the same bloody logic in PB66, and it ended up with Plemo having free reign to take over Amica and getting even stronger. Why would I feed you then fight like hell to help you out more??? Its not a good signal to send for future games. I have forgiven people for attacking me and focused on first in multiple games. I've been very good about it and taken SEVERE damage doing it. HOWEVER. this is the first game I've ever done it without getting my stuff back first, but it was more because TBS declared on me and you were defending that city better than I could at the time.

5) Like if 2nd ISN'T bordering 1st, then maybe ya it makes sense. Weaken them so they can't 2v1 you with 1st or any other player. When you border 1st and no one else is around? Are YOU going to get strong enough off of it? Because weakening an ally isn't just a gamble, its suicide then. You gained 330 gold and built 300 hammers worth of just galleys and triremes (I won't count the maces). With upkeep on them ect if you had just built wealth you would have come out the same.

6) After your attacked there was no one to contest TBS on any of the first to bonus's. There wasn't anyone close to him on any tech including military. To your last question on why that city mattered so much? Well
A) It wasn't just the city. I had a ton of pointless whips to defend myself. It was all obsolete units and I would have loved those whips for settlers or courthouses or just not whip and work tiles.
B) Speaking of my org courthouses were severely delayed between the payment and having to tech part of machinery. Another huge eco hit in addition to the extorted gold.
C) My great engineer was delayed as one of the cities being whipped was the HG city.
D) That city was 2-3 turns from finishing Moai. I eventually finished like 10 turns before the end of the game, but how many hundreds of production did I lose? Cost of Moai plus all the production it could have produced.

7) So ya if you think maybe 400 gold, at least 500 of production (probably much more, but I can't be bothered to math), slowing down my snowball, and a city lost isn't getting your game torpedoed, please give to me next game. I just wasn't strong enough to support those kind of losses.

8) My library system does have A copy of Pirates of Penzance I might have to check out eventually.

9) Did you ever consider defending your astro island instead of larking over to the other continent for reasons I still haven't figured out. Like you knew TBS was coming for them and you packed up your army and left them. Didn't even retreat to the mainland, just sent them off to territory you could never hope to keep.

Ok. Attack into TBS near the pig and stone resources on turn 158.

And so we do:

10) I think some people took this post seriously ignoring that the army was two turns in so you very clearly attacked T157 and NOT T158 and you did not attack near the pig and stone. I was indicting in between, but as stated in my thread even if you didn't figure that out, which I would have understood, attacking on the wrong turn over on that side was devastating as it drew his army over. TBS's army was stationed where it couldn't reinforce Celsus in time. If you HADN'T moved your army in, his army was unlikely to have moved towards it. I can just on T158 when I finish engineering so he doesn't know I can do it, and has no warning, move my army to the hill. Kill the city and settle my own on the hill so he can't counter attack. I can do all this WITHOUT YOU. Now if you had moved onto the jungle near Sereoyeh, like I suggested, the most you lose is the units that attacked. We kill two cities for minimal losses. A much better plan than getting stacks wiped vs cannons.

Oh, and btw, I wasn't trying to be a dick when I didn't give you that final peace. I was waiting for TBS to leave an opening so I can sneak Carracks into Scottish Hero and burn it. 

11) I  was actually afraid of TBS landing there as he had two galleons in range, so it was defended somewhat and I could have drafted 3 units that all could have made it there for total of 7, 5 of which would have been muskets. Could have pulled 2 more obsoletes in as well if needed. Not sure how much you had.

[naufragar]

Not going to go point by point, but I appreciate the thoroughness. Just 1 half point and 1 philosophical one.

Half-point: I question the necessity of the economy-ruining whips when I offered you a peace treaty on turn one of our war. You didn't have to whip at all. You could've just taken peace at a lower gold cost than you ended up paying.

Philosophical Point:

4) The fur trade was legit as I hadn't seen yet and was just trying to get open borders. The thing is IT [the galley attack?] VERY CLEARLY DOESN'T IMPROVE YOUR POSITION. WHO (expletive deleted) IS TAKING ON 1ST THEN????? Gav had the same bloody logic in PB66, and it ended up with Plemo having free reign to take over Amica and getting even stronger. Why would I feed you then fight like hell to help you out more??? Its not a good signal to send for future games. I have forgiven people for attacking me and focused on first in multiple games. I've been very good about it and taken SEVERE damage doing it. HOWEVER. this is the first game I've ever done it without getting my stuff back first, but it was more because TBS declared on me and you were defending that city better than I could at the time.

Bolding mine. This entire paragraph is so foreign to my thinking that I keep having to reread it. For example, one obvious reason you might endure a minor injury and keep working with the player who injured you is so that you preserve your best chance of winning. The alternative is to tank your own game to "send a signal" that if you are ever done a minor injury you'll throw the game. At every turn, surely you should make the moves you think lead to your most likely victory? Again, I feel like I'm misunderstanding. Actual victory > moral victory.

When you say "I have forgiven people for attacking me...However, this is the first game I've ever done it without getting my stuff back first," I start reaching for my dictionary. This isn't "forgiveness." This is returning to the status quo ante rather than reevaluating the board state. For what reason? Because we value the status quo for its own sake? And then when you say you "forgave" because "TBS declared on me and you were defending that city better than I could at the time," you're telling me that the only reason you forgave was because you couldn't exact revenge.

We can argue details (how bad the stab was, your contender status afterwards, etc.), but it seems like the big disagreement is how a player reacts to setbacks and especially how a player reacts to the players who set them back.

But let's hash these issues out in practical term! Come on down to the Diplomacy sign up thread and turn diplomatic theory into diplomatic practice!

P.S. Pirates of Penzance is so good! And, if memory serves, not very long.

[Zed-F]

Part of the reason we have the sometimes-applied maxim ‘never do a small injury’ is because people often react emotionally and/or unpredictably when done a small injury, rather than rationally evaluating their best move from the current board state. It’s often better to do small injuries only if you are in a position of durable and persistent strength, so that you can get away with nibbling not because you couldn’t do more than nibble, but because it’s convenient to only nibble, while you continue to safely build your lead (see PB77 for an example.)

In this case you were doing a timing attack, not in a position of durable and persistent strength, so it’s maybe not too surprising that your victim would hold a grudge rather than accepting there’s nothing to be done about it. Timing attacks lend themselves to existential warfare much more than to small injuries. Your other option would have been to take a wait-and-see approach on aggression and just look for some opportunity if TBS and Mjmd were to come to blows while focusing on the island hopping plan. Not to say this would have been necessarily better, or fit your pirate theme, mind you. But it could have improved your winning chances.

[Mjmd]

Again, I lose gold and my moai city. Its a better outcome, but still probably losing. As I stated in my thread at the time, the play to win the game was to hope you wouldn't be stupid (ie flurry of diplo). If it hadn't been an almost complete moai, ya I would have pulled a PB66. Let you have it and then come back and get it later before then going on to fight the leader. I dont' consider it throwing the game. Should I in a weakened state with 0 chance of winning to try to take down the leader? NO. To me its YOU that threw the game. So ya its sending a signal, but its a signal I also want  to win and ya if you give me almost 0 chance to win, I probably won't just try giving you the game. Its also just a reality that you shouldn't try to extort players YOU NEED. Like in your thread at one point you saw my power rise and were worried about me attacking you, but that MADE 0 sense. I was NEVER going to attack you this game. Heck I let you have that fish despite a completed settler and work boat to make sure you were strong and not ticked at me.

Why would I work with someone who did something so stupid? My best chance of winning after you attacked was to ignore both of you and hope TBS went after you and got bogged down. If I had been strong I would have made sure TBS never was able to feel safe going after you, but I couldn't do that. In fact TBS was so much stronger than both of us he just got to do a casual 2v1 war.

My contender status afterwards was garbage. So amount of damage done vs where I would have been who knows. I couldn't contest AP or Taj (I said AP in thread but in honestly Taj was looking more attractive). Its not like I had many more set backs after that and you can see how the game went with me in my weakened state. Heck at least maybe it would have been a better show. Attacking your only possible ally or at least counter weight is NOT a good move unless you get so strong YOU can then take on number 1 alone.

There actually is a Civ 4 game I want to start, but I'm going to delay doing that as I want to apply for jobs.

[Commodore]

If it helps, I don't see a world where TBS doesn't win from turn 0.