[Colombia]

I've been taking notes throughout this game, and I'd thought I'd share them. I always find EOG's interesting to learn from others, and I'm especially interested where my perceptions of the board and other players were completely wrong :)

This EOG isn't intended to talk about map design, I have some thoughts there and I'll share with kaner and others on the other thread; this is just about this game and I welcome thoughts from anyone who takes the time to read it.

Before I go into a chronological summary of things I want to address the outcome up front: a 4 way draw. I want to emphasize a few things - since I had this conversation with other players and was twisting arms to make it happen. The elimination of "minor" powers like Amazon, Song, and Nigeria was never about points (well only a little bit), personal problems, or disrespect for their play. Indeed I admire the way all those players played this particular game, and how close they got to sharing the draw. Indeed their roles were anything but minor. My insistence on their elimination was based solely on my own risk assessment: I was in a position to make such a demand and get a better result if it was agreed to, and the heightened tension by my continued pushing of that demand increased conflict between players on the board and might in fact have opened the solo window again. By giving me the four way, other players removed a lot of my leverage to divide the board and I was not delusional enough to think I might crack the massive defensive lines they had built. It was probably the best result I could hope for, so if was offered, I might as well take it. The same was not true of the 7-way.

I want to emphasize, along the whole way Thai and Phil stood up for their partners, Nigeria and Song (Indeed Phil stood up for Thai when I asked him to eliminate Thai much earlier). I know Phil has a somewhat controversial reputation in the community (and even in this game), but in this instance he stood shoulder to shoulder with his allies as long as he could - however ultimately I had an enormous amount of leverage and he had to make the correct game call despite his personal inclinations to the contrary.

Anyway I've gotten ahead of myself and already amassed quite a wall of text. Let's start from the beginning...

The Early Early Game

I drew Colombia. I had never played the regular WWIV map before but Colombia seemed a strong country to draw; a nice defensive coast (GLP's lack of "convoyability" adds to that), a land bottleneck to the North. Not perfect obviously, but better than most. It seemed clear the first order of business was to make friends and figure out how South America would shake out.

Mexico was the first country to contact me, and we hit if off straight away Amazon and I formed a close connection as well and I knew I wanted to work with the two of them at the start. Brazil, Inca and Cuba were quickly on the outside (either through absent or overly aggressive press) and the beginning of the game seemed clear.

Mid Early

I had partnered with Oceania and Argentina early on, but considered their alliances junior to my commitments to Amazon and Mexico. Though Amazon seemed willing to a three way division of South America, I was dubious about the long term stability of such an arrangement (and not looking forward to overextending myself in the Pacific - a lot of empty spaces to fill there and I didn't have the units to do it). So Oceania and Argentina were the next to go. The stab of Argentina was clumsily done and perhaps my most vulnerable point. Had Amazon sided with Argentina I would have had to scramble and might have been gone long ago.

At this point the other major players began to become obvious (on the board and through press); Illinois was consolidating North America, Egypt and Nigeria were solid in Africa, Thailand (and Song and Man) and Phil were the obvious Pacific powers, and C-A (and Catholica) were bringing Eurasia to heel.


Late Early

Two major power axis began to develop. An "African" alliance seemingly spearheaded by Egypt and an outsider "alliance" of Phil and Illinois and their junior partners. My major ally Amazon was debating heading towards Africa or North America, my other major ally Mexico was beginning to stagnate. I had some tough calls to make - I could unite South America (appealing for defensive reasons) but would lose one of my strongest allies, or head across the Pacific against Phil (likely a slow war that could results in a back stab later on). Ultimately Amazon decided to attack Illinois with the Egyptian alliance (joined by C-A and his allies). I didn't see how I could help much but I wasn't going to object to units leaving South America. I waited - letting the board develop, diffusing tension with Phil while helping Amazon, but ultimately decided to make the move and attack Amazon. It was not easy - Amazon had been loyal throughout. We had deeply discussed strategy...and he could have done me in and sided with Argentina earlier. But ultimately it was the right game move. Simply too tempting.

Early Midgame

I expected that Amazon would proxy himself out to the Africans and there might be a few turns of me cleaning up South America. But Amazon and I were able to talk things out and come to an arrangement that would last until near the end of the game. I was very lucky in that sense - that Amazon chose not to play emotionally, but rationally - still trying to do his best to get part of the draw instead of just trying to screw me (which would have been a perfectly valid strategy). The stab of Amazon had damaged (but not destroyed) my relationship with Egypt and Nigeria. There may have been room to work together, but the Pacific's vastness still scared me and I was worried that the African navy stationed in the Atlantic would eventually get tired of simply sitting still. So I decided to formalize a partnership with Phil.

Mid Mid

With Amazon with me, and a clear partnership with Phil ahead of me, it became a matter of who our North American partner would be: Illinois or Mexico. I favored Mexico if only because we continued to be close and I figured he trusted me more than Illinois. Nothing against Illinois - he seemed like a very strong player. There was some tension between Mexico and Phil, but ultimately things got resolved and there was little Illinois could do stop our advance. Africa was a grind with Nigeria and Egypt falling back to defend the coastline - gaps became visible, but each small advance was game years in the making and every mistake and misorder harshly punished. It was clear that something would have to change in the game's alliance structure to move forward.

Late Mid

Phil and I had been working C-A for a while to turn on his alliance while we ground out small gains in Africa. C-A, to his credit, explored the options (instead of falling into static game play). However I think C-A's big mistake was not comprimising enough on what he needed for the stab. While it was important to get some collateral in terms of centers and stabbing of our own partners, I think he would have been wise to take some of the favors "on credit" if you will. Make it clear he was going out of his way to make the stab and using that as a strong bond with either me or Phil or Mexico (and seeing if we were willing to stab others). He did that a bit in the end (asking me and Mexico to stab Phil afterwards), but the negotiations were so exhausting I found myself unsure of what to do. Nigeria flipped after C-A (the floodgates were open at that point) and played a key role in the elimination of Egypt.

Early End

The endgame began with Mexico and me moving on C-A. This was a critical point in the game. The two of us had been working together well and were deciding whether to move next against Phil or C-A (we were lucky that the two of them preferred to work with us instead of allying as a counterbalance to us). We were actually favoring moving on Phil (something that I suspect Phil was extremely worried about), and came very close to pulling the trigger. Ultimately we went the other way - and though there were a lot of factors that went into moving on C-A instead - the main factor for me was that I felt if I moved on C-A a solo window might open later on where he would side with me and the rest of the board would be unwilling to reconcile with him to stop me.

Mid End

Cracking C-A through Europe was a key advancement for me because it meant that I wasn't merely holding a line while the East broke through (which would completely remove the possibility of a solo). The unwanted support moves and dual retreats pulled off by me, Mexico, and Amazon was something I'm particularly proud of, and, if you'll forgive the vanity, a tactic I'd like to refer to as a "Colombian Exchange" (pun intended). With my armies on Europe I now had a window to decide when to try for the solo. Business in real life, as well as a reluctance to betray the partnership I had built with Phil and Mexico kept staying my hand until...

Late End

We got to the point where C-A was clearly broken...but between him, myself and Amazon we had roughly half the centers. I began conversations with him to help me solo in return for an agreement like I had with Amazon. Song and Thai would be forced to spend units against him, while I could rush the Pacific with fleets. I was torn if I should move on Mexico - I knew Phil would not tolerate me growing so large so fast, but I thought maybe Mexico would be open to attacking Phil in some sort of three way final arrangement with Amazon as a balance point. If we were more balanced in size I would have floated a test balloon of this idea to Mexico, but given my size advantage over him, I figured there was no way he would go for it - and he and Phil would likely be alarmed enough by my scheming to begin to close the gaps that stood wide open.

So I made my move. Phil and Mexico took it reasonably - I was told that this was the turning point - if I continued on this path there could be no peace - solo or bust. I don't know if that was true but I had to stop and think about it. Part of my judgment in making that move was that there was no risk - the rest of the board seemed only interested in eliminating C-A and calling it a game. So why shouldn't I take the risk? They likely couldn't eliminate me (or it would take a VERY long time) and there weren't better alternatives on the table.

So it turned out the best way to change that assessment was to put on the table a good outcome (a 4 way draw) that was easily achievable and unlikely to occur if I tried to solo. Phil and Mexico and I hammered it out (I tried to turn it into a three way but Phil demanded Thai be included in the end - which I ultimately agreed to, but turned out to be a big factor later as Thai wasn't in the conversations).

From then on I was committed to that end. Yes I kept an eye out for cracks and thought about ways I might do better, but nothing serious ever presented itself. However it soon became clear that the operations against Song and Nigeria were not moving as quickly as one might expect...and Phil and Thai made clear they had reservations about eliminating powers who had helped them (and me) get to the end. I was of course, unhappy - if this was to be the end it was clear I had made the wrong choice. I was back to my worst case scenario just this time without any chance of solo'ing...

At this point I used the only leverage I had - the deal had been made clearly with Mexico's assent and he was also not pleased with proposed outcome. He threatened to throw the game to me - I myself am not sure if he was serious, though I think he was more serious than one might expect. I also knew that once we started down the road of me disbanding his units, it would be hard for me, much as I appreciated Mexico's partnership, to stop and pull back. The threat was enough for Phil and Thai to make the smart game move, even if it went against their personal preferences.

So that's the game. I want to emphasize that my decision to accept the draw was not (totally) about points. It was about forcing people to make calculated choices - and, if they took the sentimental ones, to realize the price they could pay. I know Nigeria, Song, and Amazon played well - but then so did Illinois, Egypt, C-A and others. People play this game with different motivations, but the only way I know how to play is selfishly - usually reasonably and mostly cordial as well - but ultimately selfishly. It's not a way to live one's life, and it gets hard to make those choices when you betray others for no other reason then your self interest. But to me, the trick of the game is making sure that other's selfish interests line up with yours (and making others think that they do).

I hope this overly long EOG is of interest to some. This game was fun - I am relatively new to the vdip community (having played extensively on another site) but it was fun to interact with a bunch of varied personalities and play on a massive map. The sealanes are a great innovation, and though some tweaking is in order, the map as it stands is completely playable. I know not everyone had as much fun as me, but thanks to those who stuck it out and never (or rarely) NMR'd - I'm sure you'll have the chance (if you haven't already) to slap me around in future games.

Rex