My unfortunate resignation as France.

The inaugural game was won by Paul & Dee (Germany)

My unfortunate resignation as France.

Postby Zytoxine on Mon Jan 05, 2009 3:08 pm

*EDIT
I posted a long-winded essay about my reasonings behind resigning, and I'm just going to rewrite and paraphrase each of those ideas.


Long story short, I feel the swapping of Paul for Dee ultimately destabilized the game for Russia and myself. While I speak only for me, our relying on Germany's pacts and personality was our downfall when Paul resigned and Dee took over. We trusted that we could leave our flanks undefended while Paul was working on other things, just like us, and his own personal intentions. When Dee moved in, we weren't in a position to get a feel for what kind of player he'd be, and defend properly until we could trust him.

The "Gang of Three" as we were known as, was just an alliance in the best interest of each of our nations, due to the neutral or hostile positions of neighboring nations. Because of our open line of communication with Switzerland, I feel that gave him an unintentional edge when he moved into Germany. Now Turkey, Italy, and Austria seem to be doing the same thing, and there's little or no sideline criticism against them. Even when our alliance was broken up, we were still referred to as some super threat to be taken out. That was sort of demoralizing.

I made a majority of my game moves based on RP-politics, and am very sad to see all of that completely disappear as soon as Dee moved in (Except for on Dee's part). Now it's a giant land-grab, and I've had very little success with any lines of communication. Those which I HAVE managed to communicate with, only end up doing the opposite of what we discuss.

Anyways, when a player leaves, the rulebook doesn't permit the game master to take up residence in their position. I have nothing against Dee, but swapping players out mid-game, especially with someone who has been a part of a LOT of secretive information, really wasn't fair, and sabotaged the playing field. A few people I've talked to who have been watching our game progress agree.

If we plan on having another game, I'd love to take part in it, but we'd all need to metaphorically sit down and set some new rules. Pre-game biases were another issue we had. While many of us didn't fully grasp how to play Diplomacy when we started, I think we're better off now to not get so emotionally involved in our alliances or our roleplaying, since apparently how the game SHOULD be played, neither of those things are worth very much.

Anyhow, feel free to respond back with however you feel to this. I wanted to give the real reason I left, instead of saying something unprovocative. I'm positive certain people will be angry with me, but hopefully I've proved my arguement and they can understand where I'm coming from. Like I said, I'd love to be a part of another game, provided we could all discuss making some new rules to prevent any mixups in the future.
User avatar
Zytoxine
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 10:50 am

Re: My unfortunate resignation as France.

Postby David Yun on Mon Jan 05, 2009 9:02 pm

"Destabilization" is the whole point of the game. You think Paul wasn't going to turn on you guys as soon as it was expedient? Of COURSE that was your downfall. That's Diplomacy. You had ample time to ready your defenses (well not Vargas, he was screwed and it had NOTHING to do with me) OR to make me a reasonable offer. Which you STILL could, you quitter.

And trust, in this game? You should only trust someone as far as your interests coincide, or in the amount of deterrence when they don't. A couple of turning points in the game, on the very turn that Paul abdicated, caused me to enact my current policy - it was pragmatism, and nothing else.

And straight up - the "Gang of Three" was NOT acting in accordance to it's own best interests - it was acting in accordance to Paul's best interests. Russia giving up Sevastopol for Norway? HAH. France building four navies and stretching itself thin across two coastlines? HAH. You both got played. As for Turkey/Italy/Austria? YOU guys created that beast, by forcing them to align against you. That WAS in their own best interest.

I'll tell you exactly why I did what I did thus far, and it doesn't involve any "secret information". (What secret information are you specifically referring to? What "unintentional edge"? I played according to the board, and the deals I could arrange.) The Go3 messed up by allowing Austria to turn the flank on Warsaw. That meant Russia was FINISHED, and only a question of how much time. I knew I had to "land grab" as much of it as I could, and hopefully secure my NE flank. At the time, you were asking for my assistance in conquering England, in return for Edinburgh, which you knew I couldn't even claim until after you were consolidated.

The Go3 also messed up by placing the German fleet in London, but about to be annihilated by three British fleets. England offered me a deal to save my fleet in London, and get it out to the North Sea, saving me two full turns in my race to St. Petersburg. It was the only chance I had to see that Turkey didn't roll the entirety of Russia, and giving them access to my flank. On top of that, compare that plan (+3 supply centers guaranteed) to your offering (+1 supply center IF you decided to honor it). What course of action should I have taken?

I offered you a couple of other scenarios, but you were unwilling to make compromises on your grand designs. You've had little success with communication because you don't seem to grasp the concept of compromise and negotiation. You just TELL us what you want, and shoot down anything not in line with those plans. When we respond in like, you decline to make a reasonable counter-offer. I certainly hope you have the sense to see why I had to go take down Russia in a timely fashion instead of fiddling around helping YOU take England.

Also, the RP died before I took over. YOU made note of that, as I recall. And nobody referred to the Go3 as a threat after Paul resigned. Trust me that all the attention is on another power, and it's not you. If you can't see it, that might be part of the reason you find yourself in your current situation. Frankly, I'm in danger of putting myself in the same situation of being a target now.

As for the rule book, "It is probably best, if enough players are present, to allow someone else to replace any player who leaves the game." I violated no rules, and as a couple other players can attest to, have maintained strict guidelines for myself in enacting my own orders. Each set of my orders were finalized before I even began accepting orders from other players. Kang is a witness to this as he was over last night as I received orders, and another player can attest to the fact that I couldn't follow up on an idea of his at the 11th hour because I had already begun to transcribe other players orders. Name even one specific piece of information that gave me an unfair advantage. I played the board, and the deals offered to me.

There were no mixups here, except on your, and possibly Vargas' end. Nobody else brought "pre-game biases" to the fray. As for your drastic turnaround on the value of RPing? That's just sad. It's useful for both entertainment and as a public face for current foreign policy.

We don't need to make "new rules" because you were the only one playing by the "old ones".

And I'm not at all angry, just disappointed.

You've got until the end of tonight (Monday) if you want to change your mind about continuing France. You should learn to negotiate in a reasonable manner. If you had any vision, you'd see that my straying army is in position to A) take Paris B) take Belgium C) help you save Marseilles or D) almost in place to help defend Brest. War is fluid, and you should find a decent offer to make me. Just look at our positions on the board, and anticipate my needs. Offer me something tangible in return for what you need.

If I don't hear from you, I'll find a replacement.
"I want me some glory hole." --Jerry Jones
User avatar
David Yun
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3954
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 2:52 am
Location: Diremanistan

Re: My unfortunate resignation as France.

Postby David Yun on Thu Jan 08, 2009 9:14 am

Nice orders Mike - it's appropriate you played France. I'd have preferred it if you had let a legit player take over.
"I want me some glory hole." --Jerry Jones
User avatar
David Yun
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3954
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 2:52 am
Location: Diremanistan

Re: My unfortunate resignation as France.

Postby Zytoxine on Thu Jan 08, 2009 9:30 am

I do believe that in a similar position, Kang had planned on doing the same thing to prevent Germany from gaining power. I'm not out of the game yet, I've made certain pacts with Italy and England. You're right, outright quitting isn't the right thing to do. Sometimes you have to have severe losses before you can get back on your feet. England has shown me this, and I'm hopeful that my day will come when I can rise to power once again. In the meantime, I won't be keeping the west occupied for you. :)
User avatar
Zytoxine
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 10:50 am

Re: My unfortunate resignation as France.

Postby David Yun on Thu Jan 08, 2009 9:45 am

You willingly gave up all three home supply centers. You could've kept Marseilles and taken Edinburgh.

Kang was at two supply centers, and completely surrounded in the example you're talking about. Vargas has one now, and he's showing as much spine as possible.

You were at seven and surrendered. Nice.
"I want me some glory hole." --Jerry Jones
User avatar
David Yun
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3954
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 2:52 am
Location: Diremanistan


Return to Diplomacy I

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

Learn about Advertising | Learn about Contributing | Learn about Us

Website is © 2005-2008 Direman Press. All content is © their respective creators. All rights reserved.
cron