Messages - vDiplomacy

Chat archive

25 Jun 21 UTC	Spring, 1960: Tell me, what's your secret to winning so many Cold War games? What's your "internal algorithm"? In the last game you "predicted" some of my moves which I considered to be rather absurd. Do you play in a conservative mode where you want to minimize the worst case? Do you take great risks? In those guessing game situations, what's your basis of deciding how to guess?
25 Jun 21 UTC	Spring, 1960: to be fair, a lot of my wins were against inexperienced CW players as USSR, i try to play optimally (capturing supplies while defending my own). in this variant, even a one-supply differential can give you a nontrivial advantage which moves from our last game do you want me to elaborate?
25 Jun 21 UTC	Spring, 1960: I was particullarly suprized in year 2 when you moved to Ukraine and Yugoslavia. And in the last year when you left Moskow unprotected and didn't move to Paris
25 Jun 21 UTC	Spring, 1960: I understand how they are good moves, but there would always be other good moves too. So what's your principle on deciding which move to take out of the pool of "good moves"?
25 Jun 21 UTC	Spring, 1960: year 2 a lot of inexperienced NATO players go A West Germany-East Germany and A Istanbul-Ukraine. i thought you were one of those (no offense), so A East Germany-Ukraine stops both advances. paired with A Albania-Yugoslavia, F Baltic-Denmark, and F Ionian-West Mediterranean, West Germany is captured and I have a positional advantage.
25 Jun 21 UTC	Spring, 1960: last year of the game i didn't think i could take Paris without giving up something else. in other words, the opportunity cost of giving up a positional advantage for Paris wasn't worth it to me. also, due to the previous moves, i was going to be up in supply centers anyway, so repositioning my army was fine by me
25 Jun 21 UTC	Spring, 1960: Alright, thanks for the explaination
25 Jun 21 UTC	Spring, 1960: in theory, there is a pool of good moves, but each move has its pros and cons both USSR and NATO have safe year 1 opening strategies, but there are riskier alternative openings i can explain the openings if you want, but there are a lot of nuances to cover
25 Jun 21 UTC	Autumn, 1960: I have thought about some alternative openings to the obvious ones. Baisically there are many options where you allow both sides to capture an additional neutral center. Or Moscow to Ukraine.
25 Jun 21 UTC	Autumn, 1960: for USSR, if you want A Moscow-Ukraine-Istanbul, then you pair it up with F Albania-Ionian-Tunis (i.e. no Greece bounce) that way, if NATO F Istanbul-Greece-Albania, you counter it with the army move. if NATO protects Istanbul by bouncing, then Albania is safe for building
25 Jun 21 UTC	Autumn, 1960: for NATO year 1, F Australia-West Pacific-Japan is safer than F Australia-Indian-India,
25 Jun 21 UTC	Spring, 1961: You can guarantee Japan but the opponent will get Sai or India, so both have one extra build. I personally didn't choose the 4 build option because then it's a bit of a gamble where to build.
25 Jun 21 UTC	Autumn, 1961: Wow what a weird situation that is
25 Jun 21 UTC	Autumn, 1961: it is what it is
29 Jun 21 UTC	GameMaster: USSR voted for a Concede. If everyone (but one) votes concede the game will end and the player _not_ voting Concede will get all the points. Everybody else will get a defeat.
29 Jun 21 UTC	Well played, you are the Cold War Master here.
29 Jun 21 UTC	gg