Messages - vDiplomacy

Chat archive

29 Nov 19 UTC	Spring, 1860: Ok. Good luck!
29 Nov 19 UTC	Spring, 1860: Ok. Good luck!
29 Nov 19 UTC	Spring, 1860: Good luck general Lee!
29 Nov 19 UTC	Spring, 1860: Ok. Good luck!
29 Nov 19 UTC	Spring, 1860: That makes you Grant! Two exceptional generals, perhaps not the greatest in all history, but they have my vote for the finest American ones. Like Napoleon and Wellington, Lee was a master at maneuvering and fighting though outnumbered, with a legendary ability to disguise his plans and choose the time and place of battle. Grant, like Patton, was strategically brilliant, carefully studying his enemy, able to ascertain despite all the noise and pressure their one crucial weakness, and then focusing all his mental and physical strength against that weakness, no matter the cost or efforts to distract him, until he crushed his opponent. Quite the contrast in styles and strengths. Who will win this time?
29 Nov 19 UTC	Autumn, 1860: Yep. If I remember correctly, Lee had the flower of the American army, officers who were veterans of the wars with Mexico. Grant had on his side the great resources of the North and therefore strategic superiority. Lee, like Napoleon, had to bring back tactical successes to balance the overall inferiority. Both Lee and Napoleon have only managed to gain time and obviously a place in history! I have wondered several times whether the Confederation or the Union is more advantaged in this map. My impression is that the Confederation has a little advantage because of its proximity to the Caribbean centers, but who knows?
29 Nov 19 UTC	Autumn, 1860: Yep. If I remember correctly, Lee had the flower of the American army, officers who were veterans of the wars with Mexico. Grant had on his side the great resources of the North and therefore strategic superiority. Lee, like Napoleon, had to bring back tactical successes to balance the overall inferiority. Both Lee and Napoleon have only managed to gain time and obviously a place in history! I have wondered several times whether the Confederation or the Union is more advantaged in this map. My impression is that the Confederation has a little advantage because of its proximity to the Caribbean centers, but who knows?
29 Nov 19 UTC	Autumn, 1861: Well, I tried something risky, ma it didn't go very well… lol
29 Nov 19 UTC	Autumn, 1861: Lol! Well said. In my limited experience in 1v1 games (maybe a dozen) is that it’s precisely about taking risks! Which ones, though? That is the question. The answer I think resides partly in the advantages each side has in this game. They are different advantages. Maybe it would be best to play this game twice, switching sides the second time. For now, I will say you have made an important observation concerning where the supply centers are distributed across the map. But is the essential significance of that distribution what you perceive? Or is that only part of it? Is there something else? P
29 Nov 19 UTC	Autumn, 1861: Lol! Well said. In my limited experience in 1v1 games (maybe a dozen) is that it’s precisely about taking risks! Which ones, though? That is the question. The answer I think resides partly in the advantages each side has in this game. They are different advantages. Maybe it would be best to play this game twice, switching sides the second time. For now, I will say you have made an important observation concerning where the supply centers are distributed across the map. But is the essential significance of that distribution what you perceive? Or is that only part of it? Is there something else? P
29 Nov 19 UTC	Autumn, 1861: Lol! Well said. In my limited experience in 1v1 games (maybe a dozen) is that it’s precisely about taking risks! Which ones, though? That is the question. The answer I think resides partly in the advantages each side has in this game. They are different advantages. Maybe it would be best to play this game twice, switching sides the second time. For now, I will say you have made an important observation concerning where the supply centers are distributed across the map. But is the essential significance of that distribution what you perceive? Or is that only part of it? Is there something else? P
29 Nov 19 UTC	Autumn, 1861: Lol! Well said. In my limited experience in 1v1 games (maybe a dozen) is that it’s precisely about taking risks! Which ones, though? That is the question. The answer I think resides partly in the advantages each side has in this game. They are different advantages. Maybe it would be best to play this game twice, switching sides the second time. For now, I will say you have made an important observation concerning where the supply centers are distributed across the map. But is the essential significance of that distribution what you perceive? Or is that only part of it? Is there something else? P
29 Nov 19 UTC	Autumn, 1861: Lol! Well said. In my limited experience in 1v1 games (maybe a dozen) is that it’s precisely about taking risks! Which ones, though? That is the question. The answer I think resides partly in the advantages each side has in this game. They are different advantages. Maybe it would be best to play this game twice, switching sides the second time. For now, I will say you have made an important observation concerning where the supply centers are distributed across the map. But is the essential significance of that distribution what you perceive? Or is that only part of it? Is there something else? P
29 Nov 19 UTC	Autumn, 1861: Lol! Well said. In my limited experience in 1v1 games (maybe a dozen) is that it’s precisely about taking risks! Which ones, though? That is the question. The answer I think resides partly in the advantages each side has in this game. They are different advantages. Maybe it would be best to play this game twice, switching sides the second time. For now, I will say you have made an important observation concerning where the supply centers are distributed across the map. But is the essential significance of that distribution what you perceive? Or is that only part of it? Is there something else? P
29 Nov 19 UTC	Autumn, 1861: Lol! Well said. In my limited experience in 1v1 games (maybe a dozen) is that it’s precisely about taking risks! Which ones, though? That is the question. The answer I think resides partly in the advantages each side has in this game. They are different advantages. Maybe it would be best to play this game twice, switching sides the second time. For now, I will say you have made an important observation concerning where the supply centers are distributed across the map. But is the essential significance of that distribution what you perceive? Or is that only part of it? Is there something else? P
29 Nov 19 UTC	Autumn, 1861: Lol! Well said. In my limited experience in 1v1 games (maybe a dozen) is that it’s precisely about taking risks! Which ones, though? That is the question. The answer I think resides partly in the advantages each side has in this game. They are different advantages. Maybe it would be best to play this game twice, switching sides the second time. For now, I will say you have made an important observation concerning where the supply centers are distributed across the map. But is the essential significance of that distribution what you perceive? Or is that only part of it? Is there something else? P
29 Nov 19 UTC	Autumn, 1861: Lol! Well said. In my limited experience in 1v1 games (maybe a dozen) is that it’s precisely about taking risks! Which ones, though? That is the question. The answer I think resides partly in the advantages each side has in this game. They are different advantages. Maybe it would be best to play this game twice, switching sides the second time. For now, I will say you have made an important observation concerning where the supply centers are distributed across the map. But is the essential significance of that distribution what you perceive? Or is that only part of it? Is there something else? P
29 Nov 19 UTC	Spring, 1862: Lol! Well said. In my limited experience in 1v1 games (maybe a dozen) is that it’s precisely about taking risks! Which ones, though? That is the question. The answer I think resides partly in the advantages each side has in this game. They are different advantages. Maybe it would be best to play this game twice, switching sides the second time. For now, I will say you have made an important observation concerning where the supply centers are distributed across the map. But is the essential significance of that distribution what you perceive? Or is that only part of it? Is there something else? P
29 Nov 19 UTC	Spring, 1862: It is not just a question of density of centers. Mumble. I think the main difficulty is in managing Ohio. It is far from the coast, while Confederacy home centers are compact. Then the capture of the first center near Ohio already sends an army away from the front. If the front is close, keeping Ohio open to build is increasingly difficult. This time I took a big risk. I thought it was better to raise than to die of slow agony.
29 Nov 19 UTC	Autumn, 1862: Lol! Well said. In my limited experience in 1v1 games (maybe a dozen) is that it’s precisely about taking risks! Which ones, though? That is the question. The answer I think resides partly in the advantages each side has in this game. They are different advantages. Maybe it would be best to play this game twice, switching sides the second time. For now, I will say you have made an important observation concerning where the supply centers are distributed across the map. But is the essential significance of that distribution what you perceive? Or is that only part of it? Is there something else? P