Wow...that is impressive. Well done.

I have to admit I didn't take the time to read the entire entry in detail, so I don't know if all your analysis is correct, but what you've done looks slick and appears well thought out.

Thanks! I know it's pretty long, but... there's a lot to say!

fun recap.

"(when was the last time a counter-truce formed because one player asked another to be nice?)"

i actually have a whole strategy dedicated to this, someone should coin a term about it later. when people exchange these pleasantries in chat, i.e. you take this one of mine, and i take this one of yours, then we'll be untangled and can play our games. i immediately respond with a 'COUNTER ALL?'. which annoys the shit outta the two people who are trying to amicably avoid destroying each other in the early game.

basically, out of 7 people starting, there is a fair chance that two of them are tangled up to begin with. and everyone on high tables knows that if you try to fight out of entanglement, you have about a 15% chance of winning and remaining strong, a 35% chance of winning and being crippled into 6th, and the opposite 35% and 15% of losing and crippling your opponent or losing and your opponent being strong. in other words, you got a good shot at 6th/7th if you choose to fight. so there are pleasantries exchanged, such as: yellow: oh, green we are quite mixed up here. green: no worries yellow, i think we can work things out.

whenever i see this at a high table, two alarms go off in my head: 1) that is a very possible alliance in the future, since they both like each others kindness to start with (and ive rarely seen two people untangle and then decide to do proper battle), and 2) wow, this is a great chance to manipulate everyone else into my propaganda.

the propaganda comes in the form of (depending on the players present and if i know they respond better to loud craziness or quiet deduction): montecarlo: OMG COUNTER ALL?, or montecarlo: guys, yellow and green are being friendly, i propose a counter.

at the high tables, lots of people are paranoid, and they know how devastatingly effective a truce can be, so a fair amount of the time, they will decide to counter.

meanwhile, yellow and green respond quite aggravatedly (and deservedly so), whining about how they never truced, and how can you counter a nontruce? normally they whine even louder, because really they arent even that strong anyways, compared to a couple of other colors in the beginning of the game, and it makes no sense for everyone to counter against two weak sort-of-tangled people. a couple times, ive actually seen them decide to fight each other just to prove that they arent truced. this NEVER works out for them, and they usually end up in the bottom 3 finishers because everyone else has already decided to be nice to each other, and doesnt want to attack each other because it feels like backstabbing.

anyways, its basically all a counter to the msak strategy (best way to stop a msak is to organize a loud fast counter). except most of these early untanglers arent really trying to msak, theyre just trying to survive the beginning of the game.

god, im a manipulating bastard. propaganda is hilarious when its in full effect, especially when its against someone who realizes how ludicrous it is (i.e. sam or jeremy), at a table with a bunch of people who are paranoid, and cant realize how ludicrous it is.

yes, im totally reinventing the winning strategies in this game, and yes, im turning it into an ass-kissing, propaganda shitfaced game. so go open up notepad and play dice wars.

Really nice analysis. A little confusing without being able to see each move but well written and pretty illuminating. I'd like to see more.

You can offer us the opportunity to test our pre-game analytical skills.

Post the initial board only. All we know is the original setup, who is playing, and who moves first.

Invite us to make predictions as to how the game will turn out. Award prizes to the best predictors (participants and watchers excluded, of course).

@OP

Cool beans, very good blog. Keep up the work.

And I 2nd Skrum.

Mm... I read it, and I think that teal had one of the worst starting positions.

Wo, thanks, you guys are really nice!

And xcrobin, could you say why?

This is a great job. I would like to see your commentary on a game with an active chat box. The commentary is intelligent and insightful.

I would also agree with Robin that teal's start wasnt the most desirable. He loses that first 4v3 and its game over. Hismain benefit was clearly from the anti-aggression situation with red which allowed him to focus on the north, while in the precarious middle position.

Really good job, congrats kelly.

And I agree with das: the analysis of a 2.5k or 10k game with an active chat would be great.

XC, your opinion in the blog to contrast kelly's interpretation would be fairly interesting too.