Newsgroups: bit.listserv.dipl-l
Date:         Wed, 7 Oct 1992 13:50:01 EDT
Reply-To:     Rick Desper <desper@MATH.RUTGERS.EDU>
From:         Rick Desper <desper@MATH.RUTGERS.EDU>
Subject:      Duplex Endgame and Summary

Warning:  This is a very long posting......
The following is a brief history of the endgame and draw in the recent
double-country Youngstown Gunboat game Duplex, as played on Judge:

Broadcast message from Japan in duplex:

	I think we've reached a stalemate line here.  While I could
have taken Egypt this past turn, and held it, too,  I will not be able
to crack either the Suez or the MAO.  Russia/Austria, fleetless, will
not be able to retake St. Pete or make advances into France.
France/England is too busy holding off my fleets to get any kind of
offensive against Russia going.
	And let's face it - if the other two large powers have any
kind of war, I will win.  While I have held off making such a
suggestion before, since I hoped - maybe I could get Omsk, Tunis,
Pentopolis and Egypt, I really think we ought to call this a draw.
	Could we make some kind of token concession to the fact that I
have 32 SC's (I'll never see that again!)?  In particular, I propose a
draw which includes any remaining country which owns all of its own
home supply centers.  Namely: China, Japan, Austria, and France.
After all, neither England nor Russia even controls its capital.
	What do y'all think?
			Grand Emperor of Asiatic Co-Prosperity Sphere


Broadcast message from England in duplex:

Sorry for the delay, we had a connectivity loss here with the Internet, in
a place I can't mention for fear of giving away my identity.

Well, as this is really only a 5-player game, I can't see how the
draw can be anything but AR-CJ-EF.  The only reason England controls
few of its own centers is because France has them!!

So I vote for a three-way draw between the surving powers, Japan (china)
Austria (Russia), what are you views.


Broadcast message from Italy in duplex:

To England/France: So you want a 3 way draw. How nice. I can see it now. You
   brag to your friends, "I came in first in a game of Youngstown Dippy"
   (they all go "wow!"). Then you say, "Actually, I had a 3-way tie for
   first" (they say, "Hum, still, not too bad". Then you go on, "Well,
   there were only 5 players total" (your ex-friends just shake their
   heads and walk away).  :-) :-| :-(

   Yeah, great. You get a 3-way tie for 1st from a total of 5 players. Let's
   see you hold your head up on that! Come on man, where is your fighting
   spirit? Your urge to be a total victor?

Italy

Broadcast message from England in duplex:


Italy:  Pretty tough words for someone who was eliminated, twice!  Besides,
I am in a complete deadlock with Japan/China, and attacking Austria/Russia
would only allow Japan/China to win!

Broadcast message from Japan in duplex:

	I was trying to change the draw into a four out of 10 draw,
for precisely the reason that Italy was pointing out, that a 3-way
draw in a five-player game sounds pathetic.
	In any case, we really have a draw here.  As I pointed out
before, there is no way for my fleets to penetrate the Med or the
Atlantic, barring incredible stupidity on the part of my adversaries,
who are well aware of my near-victory and will presumably not make
things easy for me.
	This is somewhat discouraging, as I was going so well for so
long.  I would rather win, certainly, but I do not see the purpose in
digging the trenches deeper.  In the best of conceivable worlds, I get
the remaining 3 African supply centers.  End of story.
	My argument for the 4-country draw is that I think that, were
the countries played independently, this would be the most natural
resolution.
	Finally, I should have stated "controls more than half of home
supply centers" as my criterion for snubbing England and Russia.  And
it is not true that only France controls English home SC's, as the
good citizens of Joharra will attest.  An alternative criterion would
be "Must have at least 10 SC's"
	In any case, whatever label is placed on this game, I will
still leave chagrined that I could not pull off a victory.  Silly
Eurocentric map.  In fact, I wonder if Japan could ever win
Youngstown.
	What is the Austrian opinion?
					J & C

Broadcast message from England in duplex:

		I was trying to change the draw into a four out of 10 draw,
	for precisely the reason that Italy was pointing out, that a 3-way
	draw in a five-player game sounds pathetic.

Facts are facts!

		My argument for the 4-country draw is that I think that, were
	the countries played independently, this would be the most natural
	resolution.

And I would vote against it . . ., as you are still talking about Austria, I
assume that you are willing to accept a three-way draw that I proposed.

		Finally, I should have stated "controls more than half of home
	supply centers" as my criterion for snubbing England and Russia.  And
	it is not true that only France controls English home SC's, as the
	good citizens of Joharra will attest.  An alternative criterion would
	be "Must have at least 10 SC's"

I forgot about S.E. Asia, has England ever held on to Joharra in the long
run in a Youngstown?

		In any case, whatever label is placed on this game, I will
	still leave chagrined that I could not pull off a victory.  Silly
	Eurocentric map.  In fact, I wonder if Japan could ever win
	Youngstown.

I think it can, one possible example could be the game bali, where Japan
is leading quite well, however it is missing a few players, and hasn't moved
in a while.  (Anybody want to help rescue that game?)

E & F

Broadcast message from Austria in duplex:

       Greetings all!!!!!
           I am sorry I have not written until now, but I had gotten a new
job and I have not had the same amount of time to play all of my games.
I like the idea of the four way draw.  I think that everybody that is left
played very well and I enjoyed playing this game more then any of the ones
I have played before, because everybody played like they knew how.  Even
the ones that died.   Turkey in the beginning I thought played extremely
well and I would have done the same thing as he,  but unfortunately I
could not get through until China and Japan started to tear up the Indian
Turkish alliance and gave me my opening.  Germany just had bad luck with
four countries attacking him.  Italy also had bad luck with me finally
starting my fleet production and breaking through also due to help from France
and Japan, because he was not expecting an attack from somebody he was
supporting.
          I of course like the four way draw, because it at least
sounds somewhat better and I do have the single country with the
most SC's, but Russia just got trounced on in the beginning and there
was nothing I could have done about it and not being able to get Sweden.
ARGHH!!!  Good play by Germany.
          Well I have blabbed long enough now that is my vote, because
if it does go on I will not attack anybody except (St. Petersburg) since
it is my home.   If I attacked any farther China/Japan would win and I prefer
the draw.  I mean the four way draw proposed by Japan.  That is my vote.

           Good Game everyone..........

     Should we try another one, but a little different and maybe even with
press, but that would be weird, but still be guboat.
Is there anyway to get the Diplomacy Adjudicator to print the builds and
removes in a different order, because I knew as I am sure everyone else
did too,  what the alliances were, because everyones build were joined
together.   What are everyones opinions?

                    Austria and Russia


Broadcast message from India in duplex:

Well, it seems the game is over, and the only remaining question is how to
declare the victor. I don't have much to say here; whatever you all agree on
is fine with me. I personally get much more satisfaction out of knowing I
played well than out of knowing that I won, and I agree that almost everyone
did the former.

I say almost everyone on purpose: I'm not sure if the current England/France
is the same player who started the game, but I would argue that his (pardon
gender assumptions) early play was a decisive boon to China/Japan. Though I
had some suspicion of which pairs were allied , I wasn't certain until I saw
the first builds, since (as Austria noted) the judge apparently prints
builds in the order they are received. I was fairly certain at that point
that China/Japan were allied, and that they would soon be coming for my head
as India.

My first thought at that point was "Oh no, I hope England/France pick up on
this too, and join me in helping keep the C/J alliance at bay, or they're
going to sweep the board." Sure enough, England devoted much of his time to
attacking Burma and getting in my way, when in fact I would have been more
than happy to allow E/F to prosper as long as they joined me in keeping C/J
under control. I admit that I had originally hoped to wipe them out in the
Pacific, and that I would have continued to look for opportunities to do so.
However, at the time all I wanted to do was keep C/J from eating me alive,
but E/F's constant harassment tied my units up in Southeast Asia, and
effectively served me to C/J on a silver platter.

I have to assume that the current E/F is not the original player, because
the currentplayer showed a lot more sense than his predecessor. Letting the
German fleets slip through the E/F net was a horrible mistake, and bailing
out the Pacific to remedy it actually gave me a slim chance to hold off C/J
(though it didn't last long). Had E/F cleared out in 1902, or pitched in
from 1901, this game might have gone very, very differently.

A few other comments. I was taken very much by surprise in Fall 1901 when
Austria and Russia supported each other so seamlessly. I immediately knew
they were allied, but the damage had been done--I'd been counting on an
Austria hostile to Russia when planning as Turkey, and when that didn't
materialize, a lot of my plans fell apart. China/Japan also did a good job
of camouflaging his alliance, though the 1901 builds blew that bit of cover.
Needless to say, E/F missing the first deadline exposed his alliance in a
big way, and is yet another mistake made by the original E/F player.

Some thoughts on the general concept. I was surprised that so many closely
neighboring pairs got taken--I was expecting a more scattered distribution
of powers, but it just didn't work out that way. I/G and I (N/T) were kind
of screwed in that our powers were in some ways split across "heartlands"--
though my silent neutrality pact with Italy let Turkey keep A/R at bay, the
absence of something similar with E/F meant that India was just doomed.
In general, it seems like getting two powers in one heartland sets up a very
powerful situation, especially in a no-press game when others can't connive
against you.

There are at least two other games of this type running now on the judge,
dragon and dynamite, though I'm only following dynamite. It took a different
approach, assigning the pairs before gamestart: E/G, F/I, A/T, R/J, C/N.
This guarantees that everyone has an adjacent neighbor, and has so far
worked out fairly well, though R/J and F/I seem to be getting the short end
of the stick. C/N isn't as fearsome as it could be, and A/T was hindered by
Italy taking Trieste in 1901. E/G are starting to roll over France, though,
and Russia is still a _really_ hard power to play, even allied with Japan.
On the other hand, while pre-made alliances make for more balance, part of
the fun of this game was trying to figure out who was who (I even jotted
down some of my early thoughts on this if anyone is interested), though the
judge made it painfully obvious (it was certainly painful in my case to find
out that C/J were allied!) much too early.

I don't think I have the time to start another game right now, but I enjoyed
this one, even if I was highly frustrated by E/F's insistence on hindering
my attempts to pose at least a _challenge_ to C/J in the Far East. Other
than the original E/F player, I think everyone made a good go of it, and am
only sorry that I happened to be the victim of E/F's short-sightedness. So
it goes. :) Thanks for playing, all.

The United Ghost Kingdoms of India and Turkey


Broadcast message from Japan in duplex:

	I'm glad to hear that the Austrian/Russian empires prefer the
four-way draw over the three-way/six-way draw.  Hopefully, the
English/French alliance will also agree?
	I would also like to make some endgame comments, in
particular to respond to some of the previous comments in part, and
also make my in observations.
	I, too, was surprised that the original E/F player (there were
two players, of this I am sure - more on why I am sure later) let his
guard slip (I have a good idea of the identity of this player, since a
certain player who plays many Judge games withdrew from many games
exactly when our original E/F left.)  The first move left me confused:
I was fooled by the Russian move to Galicia, and thought Germany and
Russia were allied against England.  The second move eased some
fearss:  clearly E/F and A/R were alliances, which meant that what I
feared most, a N/R alliance, did not exist.
	Then, as is my habit, I did a summary command, which neatly
listed the ten countries in five pairs.  Take a look at a summary of
duplex, and you will see what I mean.  Austria and Russia are both
listed as player #1, I am player #2, the original E/F is player #3,
the second E/F is player #4, G/I is player #5, and India/Turkey is
player #6.
	I felt a touch guilty about having deciphered the alliances,
but since two of them had already been smoked out in an obvious
fashion, I felt that it would be sufficient to do something which
tipped my hand.  Thus the fall '01 builds: armies for China, and
fleets for Japan.  On the other hand, since Russia had attacked China
in 1901 (had I stayed in Manchuria, I would have retreated to
Vladivostok, which really would have made the Russian campaign quick!)
building two Chinese armies was not that unusual.
	Apparently India read my cue, and he decided to invade.  In
retrospect, a logical decision, but it really annoyed me at the time,
since I was looking for an ally.  Russia missed the cue: he attacked
China, and appeared to be looking for Japanese help!  Taking the three
Russian eastern SC's was short work.  Thankfully, Russia took my hint
that I only wanted a secure northern border, and A/R quickly set up an
unassailable position in Omsk.
	My S02 move also was designed to use the unique oppurutunity
afforded by control of two countries: planned retreats.  I planned to
bounce France in Siam, and retreat the Chinese fleet to Borneo,
replacing it in the South China Sea with a Japanese fleet.  France
outwitted me there, supporting himself into Siam, but the manuever
sufficed to hold Borneo for a year.  This gave me one more Chinese
army which helped me get rid of the pesky Indians in Kansu and Sikang.
	I agree with India:  the original E/F made some errors.  When
I saw the list of alliances, I figured the game would come down to a
match between E/F and me.  Attacking India was gratuitous, but I did
not mind.  E/F just seemed to be attacking everyone.  I think the
major error was not so much attacking India, but the decision to
invest so many forces in SE Asia in the first place.  At one point
there were six or seven E/F fleets defending four SC's.  Had he used
those forces in Europe, 1) he would never have lost the English SC's
to Germany, as the forces would not have been able to leak through
2) In fact, he would have quickly controlled all of Germany and Italy,
and would have been pressing A/R and T for a victory.
	Moving to the Gulf of Tonkin seemed to turn the tide for me.
I was able to use superior land power and an uncuttable sea support to
drive upon SE Asia.  India did not have enough armies, and E/F had
none.  I could literally walk into Laos and Shan unopposed.  The
French move of the fleet to Annam backfired when India disbanded A
Laos, and I forcibly disbanded the French fleet.  At that point, I
started to go after the E/F fleets, since I realized he could keep
them alive with his European SC's, and I wanted them gone.
Ultimately, I ended up sinking quite a few :-)
	I had a good deal of respect for the Indian manuevers.  N/T
tried to catch me off guard in Sinkiang, but I was ready!  His fleets
in Java and EIO were troubling.  The inability of N and E/F to
coordinate moves really helped me.  There were many advances I made
that just would not have been possible against the slightest amount of
coordination.  I was amazed when they actually got lucky, and sank a
Chinese fleet in Thailand, but that was the exception.
	Turkey made one error:  leaving Turkistan.  I still don't know
why he did so, as this really left the door open for my Chinese armies
to outflank India and attack Iran.  My first attack on Iran failed,
and had the second also failed, the outcome might have been
considerably different: with the capture of Egypt, Turkey could have
built in Baghdad and held Iran indefinitely.
	So I got lucky.  At this point my plan was to take out India
and see if I could get to the Atlantic fast enough to help out
Germany/Italy, who seemed to need a friend.  Had my telepathy been
working better, this would have been a good idea.  But we crossed
signals in the defense of Liverpool.  I could have been in the English
Channel, but tried for Brest instead, which failed.  I attacked
Portugal, to cut support.  If Italy had attacked Spain out of the Gulf
of Lyon with Western Med support, instead of the other way around,
Spain would have become Italian, and we might have been able to pull
it off.  But Italy attacked  the other way, and the other French fleet
cut the support, so Spain stayed French.
	At this point, E/F was blocking NAO, Iri, and the Channel
rather effectively, so with the builds he was getting, I realized that
further attacks in that direction were hopless.  My only chance for a
victory meant taking Italian SC's, which I did not like, but a chance
for a victory is so rare that it must be pursued.  I rationalized
attacking Yemen and Magudisco, as Italy had not taken the care to
protect these places from the rogue English fleet, he must not care
about them that much.  This apparently annoyed Italy, as he defended
English Magudisco from me rather than Italian Ethiopia from England.
This slowed me down enough that I could not get to the Suez in time to
stop Austria from plugging it.  Once Austria plugged that, and
preferred defending Omsk from me over defending St. Pete from England,
I knew that victory was not to be had.
	To all:  good play, especially to the Fascist alliance
(Germany and Italy) who really had a much stronger E/F on the ropes.
I thought ironic that Japan was going to try to get an alliance with
Germany and Italy.  I enjoyed this game immensely, and hope to see my fellow
players in other games.
	I am not playing in either dragon or dynamite, but am
observing both.  I promised myself I would not use the summary trick
to find out what the alliances are, but there they are in the build
reports again!
				Asiatic Co-Prosperity Sphere

(At this point I (C/J) thought we had a draw...Others disagreed)

Broadcast message from England in duplex:

I thought I had said I voted AGAINST a 4-way draw?  I proposed a 3-way draw,
for AR-CJ-EF.  If I had known that we would be doing draws on original
countries, I would not have had France occupying half of England!  Each
combo of two powers, is essentially one, and I believe that draws must
be done on that basis.  And if that is not wished, then I will insist on DIAS.

EF


Broadcast message from Japan in duplex:

	England, why are you being such a hindrance?  You and I both
proposed draws, and Austria preferred my suggestion.  The final draw
settlement is not so important, but you are definitely in the
minority.
					Japan


Broadcast message from England in duplex:

Since when did we start doing these votes on majority rules?  But more
to the point, how on earth can you conceive of three players in a
five player variant coming up with a 4-way draw???  It must be a three-way.

EF

Broadcast message from England in duplex:

I decided to ask Mark Nelson (amt5man@sun.leeds.ac.uk) what his
opinion on a draw was, Mark being the god of variants:

Here is what he said:

>There is a debate going on in the youngstown game duplex, on how
>to agree to a draw.  Essentially (remember each player runs two countries)
>EF, AR, and CJ have met a stalemate, with EF and AR blocking a CJ victory.

>CJ wants an ACFJ draw, claiming that ER are minor powers.  (That would
>be a 4way draw, out of 10).  EF wants and AR-CJ-EF draw (a three-way draw
>based on 5 players).  Everyone agrees that it is a draw, it is the
>nomenclature we are fighting about.

>Could you comment?

Yes!  There are two approaches you can take.


The first approach (the one I take) is that this is a 5-player game.
The fact that each player initially controls *2* countries is not relevant.

There are 3 players left  in the game.  THe result is a 3= draw from 5 players.


The second approach you could take (I don't like it) is that if the players
can't agree on a result then play continues.  If the GM thinks that
no further progress is possible then he declares a draw.  (Is this an
EP houserule?  It should be!)  If CJ can eliminate ER then he is entitled
to play on.  If he can't the GM declares it a 6= way.

My view is simple.  This is a 5 player variant.  THe game starts with 5
players.  THere are 3 players in the draw.  Hence this game is a 3=
draw.  THe number of countries that each player has in that draw has
nothing to do with the final result.

Mark


Broadcast message from Japan in duplex:

	Sure, bring in a heavy hitter for your side.  Let me explain
why I proposed a four-way instead of a three-way draw.
	If you look carefully at the countries listed in the four-way
version, coincidentally, half of them are mine.  2/4 > 1/3.  You must
be aware of this, England, else you would not oppose me.  You oppose
me, since 1/4 < 1/3.
	I brought up the issue of Austria's agreement since, while
England can steadfastly veto any suggested draw I make, I have a
similar veto power over draws he suggests.  When we discussed this
last week, my opinion was that, since the two of us had differing
opinions, we would let Austria/Russia serve as the arbitrator.  I was
willing to go along with the 3-way suggestion if this had been the
Austrian opinion.
	Of course, we never AGREED that Austria was to serve as an
arbitrator, but I thought that this was implied at some point.
	My argument regarding control of home supply centers is more
of a rationalization than a justification.  The real justification of
wanting a bigger slice of the pie is my position as controller of
nearly half the world's SC's, which is larger than A/R's by a third,
and which is twice as large as E/F's.  To give equal distinction to my
powerful fleets, which crushed all resistance in Asia, and the
pathetic English fleets, which were not sufficient to stop a wimpy
German force from taking EVERY SINGLE HOME SC OF ENGLAND - well to give
equal distinction to these two countries seems unfair.
	Regarding the rest of Mark's comments, since we have no GM,
there is nobody to declare a draw.  I agree with his later comments
that if there is no agreement, play ought to continue.
	After all, I have not visited Fuji, Hon, or Hir yet, and my
subjects are lonely.
				Emperor of the Sun

p.s. We have not heard recently from Austria regarding this proposal.
To get this game over with, I will agree to let Austria serve as
arbitrator.  Alternatively, I will even let N/T serve as arbitrator,
considering the wisdom behind his earlier comments.


Broadcast message from China in duplex:

	One last thing - this is more of a comment regarding the
structure of double-country Youngstown than anything particular to
Duplex.  I think that the game ought to be viewed along national
lines, rather than player lines.  It is conceivable that, should some
poor soul be stuck with non-adjacent countries, yet be a good
tactician, that the good performance of one of the two ought to be
considered independently of the bad performance of the other.
	For example, suppose a player controls Germany and India.
India goes down in flames in  1903, yet since England and France are
not allied, and Russia is taking a pounding in the east, Germany
manages to prosper and actually seize all of western Europe.  Should
we not consider these two performances independently?
					the Emperor

p.s. I think these conversations would make for good DIP-L postings,
though I have a feeling somebody will already take care of this (??)


Broadcast message from Italy in duplex:

  >Alternatively, I will even let N/T serve as arbitrator,
  >considering the wisdom behind his earlier comments.

Why not me? Especially since my "wimpy German force" took "EVERY SINGLE
HOME SC OF ENGLAND" shows that I too have some influence in the world. :-)

Italy


BTW: I actually don't want the job as an arbitrator. But if this game continues,
then I'll throw my last fleet on the side of the person who promises me two
of my home centers back.


Broadcast message from Japan in duplex:

	Actually, since Italy is still alive, asking him to arbitrate
would be, I felt, opening myself up to demands that Italy be included
in the draw.  Certainly we would all welcome the Italian opinions.

	Oh, I'll promise you two of your home SC's left.  I don't
think I have the power to back it up, though.  It would be interesting
to try to get the Tunisian fleet to Magudisco alive.
					the Emperor


Broadcast message from England in duplex:

For those who are wondering, I will be making an end of game statement later . .
 .

Now about that draw:  My main reason for concern, is that we are going
to be establishing some sort of precedent with this game, being the first
game of this (sub-)variant.  Now for the scoring system presently used
in EP Chapter 2.

A Youngstown game solo win gets 9.0 points, a standard win gets 6.0 points.
So what do we give this game, 9.0 points?  Never, there are only 5 players,
it must get 4.0 points.  A simple extrapolation of this would lead to a
draw between players, not a draw between powers.

EF

Broadcast message from Austria in duplex:

      Greetings,
        Again I must concure (sp?) with Japan/China.  It is still three people
winning, not four it does not really matter what title you put on it.
I just think that Japan/China's idea makes better sense, because he does
have more centers than the rest of us and if we did continue he would
win anyways (if we fought, but we know we will not.) So it will be
a draw.  I did not really think there was a point system for winning.
How do you find out, what your points are for it then?  That is besides
the point though.  That is my opinion, but it is a draw. end of story.

         Austria

Broadcast message from England in duplex:

Ok, lets agree that it is a draw (WITHOUT ITALY) (and if ITALY objects,
I am sure we can arrange something to get rid of him).

Let people interpret how they may, (and let whoever compiles the Hall
of Fame do what they wish).

In favor?

Against?

EF

Broadcast message from Austria in duplex:

     I agree a draw without Italy.  Sorry Italy, you did play well, but one
fleet can not do much.

      Austria/Russia

How do you find out the point thing from the Hall of Fame or whatever it is?


Who would be interested in another one of these?  Maybe even with press,
which would be interesting, but I am not sure how feasible it would be.


Broadcast message from England in duplex:

I think we are all on in agreement, about the "draw that does not include
Italy", for lack of any other way to phrase it.  Is China-Japan in
agreement, if so, you can issue the termination order . . . .

and then we can take off our masks.

EF

Broadcast message from Italy in duplex:

I never expected to be included in a draw. I just think you all are wimps
by doing a 3 out of 5 draw. IMHO, this is the same as doing a 5 out of 7
draw in a regular dippy game; e.g., the first two countries get eliminated
at which point the other 5 countries look at each, smile, congratulate
themselves for being such *good* players <-- heavy note of sarcasm here, and
declare a draw.

So I'll say it again:


  W     W    W    IIIIIII     M     M    PPPP    !!
   W   W W  W        I        MM   MM    P   P   !!
    W W   W W        I        M M M M    PPPP
     W     W      IIIIIII     M  M  M    P       !!



Italy.

someone@somewhere as China has terminated
game duplex.  Anyone who signs on can restart the game by using
the 'resume' command.  The game will self-destruct if no one signs
on for one week.
Broadcast message from China in duplex:

	A draw it is.
	As to Italy's "wimp"  accusation:  the three-way draw is much
different than a five-way draw in regular dippy, as the usual five-way
draw does not include a power which will win if any of the other
powers fight each other.
	I will feel about this game as:  I played well, but a win
eluded me yet again (frustration).  The next Youngstown game I play, I
will play a European power, since the game has a European bias.  I
really think it is physically impossible for any of the three Asian
powers to win.
					C/J

(After terminating, I looked at the summary and discovered the England who said
"let the Hall of Fame compiler interpret it as he wishes" just happened to be
that Hall of Fame Compiler)

Broadcast message from China in duplex:

	Well, Nick, do you want to post the discussions regarding the
draw, or should I?
	I had a feeling that Nick was running E/F since the powers
were taken over on a Sunday, when few people are logged in, and they
were taken over at a time very close to when I got some other press
from Nick.
	I imagine that you can interpret the draw as a three-way for
Hall of Fame purposes, but I still think that there is some validity
to my argument regarding independence of powers.
	For those who are ignorant, the hall of fame rankings give
points to each draw participant via the formula P-W/W, where P is the
number of players in the game (five for us) and W is the number of
winners.  As such, each of the three draw participants would receive
2/3 of a point, which is pathetic.  My suggestion would have given
each of the four countries 6/4 of a point, and would have given me 3
points, as I would have taken twice the usual portion.  In hall
standings, this would have pushed me pass the gridlock of 6-pointers,
players with 1 victory.
	Of course, the logical extension of this argument would have
given me nine points for a win, which seems unfair.
	On the other hand, there are still some problems with the Hall
scoring system.  For example, a participant in a four-way Chaos draw
fares better than a regular Dip winner!  A Chaos win rates higher than
five regular wins!!
	Good game to everyone, I would be interested, in principle, in
another game.  I am still playing four games (though Timor hardly
counts) and I am trying to keep things at about that level, so I might
not want to.
					Rick



CAST OF CHARACTERS
India..................Josh Smith (irilyth@fenris.claremont.edu)
Turkey.................Josh Smith (irilyth@fenris.claremont.edu)
Japan..................Rick Desper (desper@math.rutgers.edu)
China..................Rick Desper (desper@math.rutgers.edu)
Germany................Rick Westerman (westerm@aclcb.purdue.edu)
Italy..................Rick Westerman (westerm@aclcb.purdue.edu)
England................Nick Fitzpatrick (nick@sunburn.uwaterloo.ca)
France.................Nick Fitzpatrick (nick@sunburn.uwaterloo.ca)
Austria................Steven Stuart (stuart_s@ocf.Berkeley.EDU)
Russia.................Steven Stuart (stuart_s@ocf.Berkeley.EDU)

and
original England.......Bill Kirbly (wkirby@angelo.Stanford.EDU)
original France........Bill Kirbly (wkirby@angelo.Stanford.EDU)


Broadcast message from Italy in duplex:

BTW: I'm glad to know Japan's stab of me near the end of the game was not
in anger, but rather opportunistic. If there had been open press, I feel
J/C/G/I could have taken out E/F. And I am very happy that I took every English
build center. A big BRRRRTTTT! to England.

All in all, a fun game.

Rick (I/G)

Broadcast message from Turkey in duplex:


A few messages back, Rick asked why I pulled out of Turkistan. My hope was
to send Arm-Syr-Jor-Egy, Tur-Ira-Arm, and build an army in Baghdad to fill
the Turkistan gap before China got around to barreling through. Looking
back, it appears that even if things had gone smoothly, China would still
have gotten to Turkistan before me, but as Italy didn't cut France's
Pentopolis support at the right time, I didn't get Egypt as quickly as I'd
hoped to in any event.

So, looking back, I'd say it was a mistake, but one that would have been a
lot less costly had Italy let me into Egypt. I was pretty squeezed at this
point anyway, though: I could either stay where I was, and risk the French
wandering across the Suez; send Arm down to Jordan to take Egypt and leave
Armenia unguarded, risking a Russian incursion into Turkey's back; or what I
did, which was send Arm south, Tur west, and hope that China was slower on
the uptake than he was. I think I could have been severely reamed either
way, but I would still play it differently now, I think.

-Josh the Turkey

Broadcast message from England in duplex:

Yes, it is indeed me, (Nick - nick@sunburn.uwaterloo.ca),
I will provide a detailed response later this evening.  A few notes.

I didn't take over England until 1906, I kicked Germany out, not in.

I really think CJ could still have won.

And if you want a copy of the Hall of Fame, send me some E-mail.

Nick

Broadcast message from England in duplex:

Oh, and I was planning to encapsulate the EOG statements for
publication in EP, tonight.

By the way, who came up with this variant?

I would be willing to GM a game of this variant, however I am too
busy to play at the moment,  any takes?  Gunboat? Non-Press?

Nick

Broadcast message from India in duplex:

I came up with the variant originally, as far as I know. I certainly came up
with independently, but it's possible that someone else might have had the
idea first on the judge.

I stopped updating my map when I was eliminated, but at that point, it
looked to me like C/J were well on their way to invading the Atlantic and
winning the game. I was surprised by Rick's call for a draw. I'll have to
look at the later maps at some point and see whether I agree with Nick that
he could have won, but that was certainly my impression as of Winter 1909.

Broadcast message from Japan in duplex:

	So, I'm the only one who thinks a CJ victory was hopless?
	Assuming I took Tunis, Pentopolis, and Egypt, how was I going
to get of the shores of Africa?  Suez could be supported from the
Eastern Med, Tyrrhenian and Lyon could have supported Western Med, MAO
was jammed, and getting the Ionian would be hopeless.
	Of course, if you guys let me, I could have won.  Maybe I gave
you too much credit.
	To Italy:  we could have taken England.  Wish we had.
						Rick


Summary of game duplex through S1913M.

  Austria:       Steven Stuart         stuart_s@ocf.Berkeley.EDU
  China:         Rick Desper           desper@math.rutgers.edu
  England:       Bill Kirby            wkirby@angelo.Stanford.EDU
   from S1906M:  Nicholas Fitzpatrick  nick@sunburn.uwaterloo.ca
  France:        Bill Kirby            wkirby@angelo.Stanford.EDU
   from S1906M:  Nicholas Fitzpatrick  nick@sunburn.uwaterloo.ca
  Germany:       Rick Westerman        westerm@aclcb.purdue.edu
  India:         Josh Smith            irilyth@fenris.claremont.edu
  Italy:         Rick Westerman        westerm@aclcb.purdue.edu
  Japan:         Rick Desper           desper@math.rutgers.edu
  Russia:        Steven Stuart         stuart_s@ocf.Berkeley.EDU
  Turkey:        Josh Smith            irilyth@fenris.claremont.edu


Game parameters are/were as follows:
  Move    clock 1410 min 12.00 next  24.00 grace  72.00 delay 0.50 days -MTWTF-
  Retreat clock   -1 min  0.00 next  24.00 grace  72.00 delay 0.50 days -MTWTF-
  Adjust  clock   -1 min  0.00 next  24.00 grace  72.00 delay 0.50 days -MTWTF-
  Access:  Different-site, Level: Any, Unrated.
  Variant: Youngstown, Gunboat.
  Flags:   NoNMR, NoProxy.
  Press:   None, No Partial.


Historical Supply Center Summary
--------------------------------
    Mag Egy Tun Rom Mar Bre Spa Ire Lon Nwy Den Bel Ber Mun Tri Klu Gre Bul
Year  Eth Pen Nap Ven Par Mor Por Liv Edi Swe Hol Kie Pos Vie Bud Ser Rum Con
1900 I . . . . I I I F F F . . . . E E E . . . . . G G G G A A A A . . . . T
1901 I . . I . I I I F F F . F F E E E E E . G G F G G G G A A A A A T R A T
1902 I I I I I I I A F F F F F F E E E E E . G G F G G G G A A A A A A A A T
1903 I I I I I I I I F F F F F F E E E E E . G G F G G G G A A A A A A A A T
1904 I I I I F I I I F F F F F F E E E E E E G F F G G G R A A A A A A A A T
1905 I I F I I I I A F F F F F F E E G E E E E F F F G G R A A A A A A A A T
1906 I I F F I I I A F F F I F F E E G E G E E F F F E R F A A A A A A A A T
1907 E I T I I I I A F F F I F F E G F G E E E F F F E R F A A A A A A A A T
1908 E I I I I I I A F F F I F F E E F G E E E F F F E R A A A A R A A A A A
1909 E E I I I I I A F F F I F F E E F F E E E F F F F R A A A A R A A A A A
1910 J I I I I I A A F F F J F F E E F F E E E F F F A R A A A A R A A A A A
1911 J C A A I A A A F F F J F F E E F F E E E F F A A R F A A A A A A A A A
1912 J C A A I A A A F F F J F F E E F F E E E F F F A R A A A A A A A A A A


Historical Supply Center Summary (cont)
---------------------------------------
    Ank Bag Yem Mad Cey Tha Jav Sai Vtn Han Sin Man Phi Kyo Kar Vla Stp War
Year  Smy Ira Del Cal Brm Joh Bor Cam Can Pek Omo For Osa Tok Kor Oms Mos Sev
1900 T T T . . N N N . . . E . . F . . C C C . . . . . J J J . . R R R R R R
1901 T T T T I N N N . N E E N . F F . C C C C C R J J J J J J R R R R R R T
1902 T T T T I N N N N N E E N C F F . C C C C C R J J J J J J R J R R R R R
1903 T T T T I N N N N N E E N E F F N C C C C C C J J J J J J J J R R R A R
1904 T T T T I N N N N N E E N J F F C C C C C C C J J J J J J J J R R A A R
1905 T T T T I N N N N N E E N J J F C C C C C C C J J J J J J J J R R A A R
1906 T T T T I N N N N C N E N J J C C C C C C C C J J J J J J J J R R A A R
1907 T T T C I N N N N C C J J J J C C C C C C C C J J J J J J J J R R A A R
1908 T T C C E N C N J C C J J J J C C C C C C C C J J J J J J J J R R A A A
1909 R A C C C C J C J C C J J C J C C C C C C C C J J J J J J J J R R A R A
1910 R A C C J C C C J C C J J C J C C C C C C C C J J J J J J J J R R A R A
1911 R A C C J C C C J C C J J C J C C C C C C C C J J J J J J J J R R A R R
1912 R A C C J C C C J C C J J C J C C C C C C C C J J J J J J J J R F A R R


History of Supply Center Counts
-------------------------------
Power    1900 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09   Player
Austria     4   6   9   9  10  11  11  11  13  13   Steven Stuart
China       3   5   6   6   7   7   9  11  13  16   Rick Desper
England     4   7   7   8   8   8 \                 Bill Kirby
                                    7   6   8&  7   Nicholas Fitzpatrick
France      4   8   9   9  11  11 \                 Bill Kirby
                                   11  10   9  11*  Nicholas Fitzpatrick
Germany     4   6   6   6   4   3   2   2   1       Rick Westerman
India       3   5   6   7   6   6   6   4   2       Josh Smith
Italy       4   6   8   9   8   7   7   7   7   6   Rick Westerman
Japan       3   6   7   8   9  10  10  12  13  13   Rick Desper
Russia      6   8   7   4   4   4   4   4   4   6*  Steven Stuart
Turkey      4   7   5   5   5   5   5   5   2       Josh Smith
Index:     15  42  50  53  57  59  60  63  72  83

Power    1910 '11 '12                               Player
Austria    15  18  18                               Steven Stuart
China      16  17  17                               Rick Desper
England     5   5   5                               Nicholas Fitzpatrick
France     10  10  11                               Nicholas Fitzpatrick
Italy       5   1   1                               Rick Westerman
Japan      15  15  15                               Rick Desper
Russia      6   6   5                               Steven Stuart
Index:     89 100 101

* = 1 unused build.
& = 2 unused builds.

Index is the sum of squares of the number of supply centers divided by the
number of players.  It is a measure of how far the game has progressed.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU