I can't speak for France, but as far as I'm concerned that's entirely untrue.
I made my moves based on the fact that I, as Germany, wrote the English player and heard nothing in return and had also heard from France and Russia. Nothing more dictated my moves. Not even my past experience with Sheep as a player and GM (which has been ABYSMAL). It is NOT my responsibility to keep track of who is in the game and who isn't, and I cannot make an assumption about a player not being in the game simply because I haven't heard from him. Maybe he was planning an opening with France. Maybe he wanted to see how I opened before opening up communications. Or maybe he just prefers to play gunboat. But to insinuate that myself or France or anyone else tried to 'slip one by' the rest of you by going after a nation we both knew was going to NMR is preposterous.
Untrue. Even in the fall, he can easily take the Norwegian or North Seas, and perhaps both depending on German and French moves.
Good, because that is more speculation.
Also untrue. I've already worked out several scenarios on realpolitik if a player were to replace England, and it would take at least 2 years of solid English play before a determined and unwavering Franco-German alliance could breach the Island Fortress. Besides, what if we'd both rather work with the new England and form a western triple? What if one of us gets England to work with them against the other? There are simply too many scenarios considering we get someone to take over England (and we already have that person!)
Complete speculation again. It is unfair to determine that FGR will simply carve up England into equal shares.
Germany has a 'safe' three builds, but how does France? The way I see it, France only has a 'safe' one build.
A good player doesn't always go after dots.
I wouldn't take the Throne if you paid me, and anyone who volunteers imho is doing it quite out of pity.
I've taken far worse positions than this. If this were really the case, you'd have a ton of drop outs because once a nation looked like it was in trouble, there'd be no point in playing. I for one would like to see what the replacement England can do. I think he's got just as good a shot as any of making an impact in this game. I think it would be an even greater testament if he could survive, share in a draw, or dare I say - solo!
My first preference would be to have the GM stop the game before the moves were announced, but we can't go back in time and fix that. So I see no problem with continuing with standard Diplomacy rules. I'd have the same opinion whether I was playing any other nation.
If that is what it comes down to, fine, but I won't be playing. And that's not out of spite, it's just that I refuse to put that much effort into another gmae once I've already designed a strategy in my mind. I took a lot of time to write people and post on this board, and I don't feel like doing it again ESPECIALLY if the nations are the same!
These openings are hardly 'new' or 'cool'. Italy's opening is fairly standard anti-France, and the French opening (while gutsy!) is hardly innovative. I've seen the Gascony opening many times (in fact, I even suggested it in my first letter to France). Sure beats Picardy, IMO, especially with the Spa opening.
Most common means nothing. Where does the Gascony opening rank on French openings? How about the Italian anti-French opening? How about Austria's opening? Why should we assume that England would make a pro-France anti-Russia opening just because it's the most popular?
You're absolutely right it's moot, it's moot because it does not matter what you think an England would make in this position, let alone a Turkey, because the rules CLEARLY state what to do in the event of an NMR. ALL UNITS HOLD.
And to answer the second question, it's possible that a Turkish player may want to open that way. I opened to Clyde Yorkshire and English Channel in the last game of Diplomacy I played here, and I believe I ended up winning it. Granted, it was a standard variant, but there could always be a rationale for moves that you don't see because you're not in that country's position. That is why making up ANY set of moves other than those laid forth by the rules (ALL UNITS HOLD) is arbitrary and unfair.
And who was playing England? Perhaps we should write in a "Sheep" opening?
F London - Wales
A Liverpool - Yorkshire
F Edinburgh - Clyde
Now, I'd personally like to continue the game as is with our brave replacement player and a slight delay for him to get caught up. If the Eastern powers are worried about the quick growth of an FG, they should take that into account in their strategy. A first turn NMR is MOST unfortunate, but I don't think everyone else should be punished, nor do I think that we should take this opportunity to arbitrarily 'fudge' some moves out.
