I want to prove secret diplomacy in game 9482563 [noted]

[Qwert]

geger
Because what? Because you really wanted that someone broke teal's bonus. Because the bonus was taken from you. You wanted a vengeance, wanted to attack teal, but silver eliminated you before your turn. Then you looked for an answer, why silver eliminated you. And here we are.

kostko
Yes I agree with you

Kostko, i think that you dont have enough evidence to back up these case. Also you need to say that team 3 and team 4 ,lost game against team 2. So your construction are fail down, because if they play together,then they will win a game,not lost a game.

my question again( underlined is a correction):

Can anyone explain why did MD212(team4) spent reinforcements two rounds6&7 to eliminate blue player out of Alps (picture2 and picture6),near Alsace+2 bonus that team3 holds. Instead placing them all in Finistere so team4 could have more chance at taking and hold Brittany+2, or stack on Cher for better defence against team3 that was holding Alsace+2, or stack on Osie(grey(team4) was stacking on Osie in round 7,8) to take Picardy+3? Can there be any other posible explanation than team4 helping team3 to eliminate blue out of Alps and team4 somehow knowing team3 wont attack them at the same time? Orange was obviously not going for Burgundy+4 bonus or a spoil as it was a no spoil game.

Theory of conspiracy, mine taxi driver, only what you have are theory of conspiracy,nothing else. And i dont know where are Mods? They have more power,and maybe can give you answer on your question?

[Geger]

And i dont know where are Mods? They have more power,and maybe can give you answer on your question?

They are busy with other case

[kostko]

geger
Because what? Because you really wanted that someone broke teal's bonus. Because the bonus was taken from you. You wanted a vengeance, wanted to attack teal, but silver eliminated you before your turn. Then you looked for an answer, why silver eliminated you. And here we are.

kostko
Yes I agree with you

Kostko, i think that you dont have enough evidence to back up these case. Also you need to say that team 3 and team 4 ,lost game against team 2. So your construction are fail down, because if they play together,then they will win a game,not lost a game.

my question again( underlined is a correction):

Can anyone explain why did MD212(team4) spent reinforcements two rounds6&7 to eliminate blue player out of Alps (picture2 and picture6),near Alsace+2 bonus that team3 holds. Instead placing them all in Finistere so team4 could have more chance at taking and hold Brittany+2, or stack on Cher for better defence against team3 that was holding Alsace+2, or stack on Osie(grey(team4) was stacking on Osie in round 7,8) to take Picardy+3? Can there be any other posible explanation than team4 helping team3 to eliminate blue out of Alps and team4 somehow knowing team3 wont attack them at the same time? Orange was obviously not going for Burgundy+4 bonus or a spoil as it was a no spoil game.

Theory of conspiracy, mine taxi driver, only what you have are theory of conspiracy,nothing else. And i dont know where are Mods? They have more power,and maybe can give you answer on your question?

qwertis copy&pasting quotes from different posts, c'mon qwert dont do that, how old are you . I was agreeing with the post Geger did above mine. I agreed on comment in picture 10 beeing wrong, and not with a statement you copy&pasted. Geger can confirm this.

[kostko]

I think I see something!

Look at the pictures 12 :

Team 4 : Orange just moved from Cher to Paris (captured from green), Silver had 10 in Oise
Team 3 : Pink had 12 in Eure, Teal had 11in Meuse and 9 in Doubs.
And from some previous turns, we can see team 4 dropped either in Finstere or Oise.

The question : What was the best move from team 3 to make their position stronger?

The answer is clear : Reduce and then kill silver's troops in Oise , Pink from Eure and Teal from Meuse via Marne.

If team 3 did that, they would gain 2 advantages :
1. Eliminating a stack near their bonus >> they could take Picardy and Burgundy later
2. Forcing team 4 to drop only in Finstere >> blue's job to take Brittany would be harder

But instead that, teal attacked green in Corsica from Savoie via Alps (Picture 13). With only 20 troops, green wasn't a thread at that time. Team 3 should give more attention towards team 2.

But I don't know, that was a SD or a bad Maneuver. Hm...

.

Yes, yes my point exactly and this is why team4 is allways somehow too weak to attack bonus team3 holds. But still team4, has enough army to spend it on Finistere preventing blue from having a bonus, if they really wanted to take Brittany+2 then MD212(orange team4) would not spend his reinforcements in Alps, but would place it on Finistere. This sure was not a bad maneuver, MD212and radioman212 shure had some good maneuvers when they eliminated me(red). So they sure knew what they were doing.
Finaly someone who took a look at the pictures.

Can anyone else explain why did MD212(team4) spent reinforcements two rounds6&7 to eliminate blue player out of Alps (picture2 and picture6),near Alsace+2 bonus that team3 holds. Instead placing them all in Finistere so team4 could have more chance at taking and hold Brittany+2, or stack on Cher for better defence against team3 that was holding Alsace+2, or stack on Osie(grey(team4) was stacking on Osie in round 7,8) to take Picardy+3? Can there be any other posible explanation than team4 helping team3 to eliminate blue out of Alps and team4 somehow knowing team3 wont attack them at the same time? Orange was obviously not going for Burgundy+4 bonus or a spoil as it was a no spoil game.

[Qwert]

no fear wotson,i find more " inconsistency in the statement" (i use google translator to be proper write). Ok here we go "fasten your seatbelts" (again google trans).
here first

In the end none of the teams accused of secret diplomacy won, because "2011-09-28 22:32:00 - nhulbert was kicked out for missing too many turns" in round 33. At that time nhulbert in team4 was holding Alsace (+2) bonus.

and second

At 2011-08-20 09:22:10 green player asks a question all teams can see. I remember well, how danhulbert answered with something like that: "We (danhulbert,nhulbert) are brothers , our similar nickname prove that we have nothing to hide. We will fight each other till the end."

Do you see " inconsistency in the statement" ?
Nhulbert are kicked for missing a turns-so if they are brother, why danhulbert not play hes turns? Its these possibile that danhulber tell a true,and that ,even if he have choice to help brother to not miss turns,he refuse that because how he tell "We will fight each other till the end".
If they conduct secret diplomacy,danhulbert will not alove that nhulbert miss 3 turn to be kicked out of game. He refuse to help hem(these is mine guessing),and because that he whas eliminated. These is another strong evidence that its hard for you to prove that these is secret diplomacy. Just pure logical conclusion
Man im good

[kostko]

no fear wotson,i find more " inconsistency in the statement" (i use google translator to be proper write). Ok here we go "fasten your seatbelts" (again google trans).

In the end none of the teams accused of secret diplomacy won, because "2011-09-28 22:32:00 - nhulbert was kicked out for missing too many turns" in round 33. At that time nhulbert in team4 was holding Alsace (+2) bonus.

Yes, he(nhulbert) was kicked out after missing three rounds, and his army turned in neutrals. Alsace+2 was full of neutrals(cca15). Why would anyone attack neutrals at that time (round33) if he had live opponents. qwert you just admitted you are using google translate, to read&write this.I dont know how well google translate can translate from english to serbian language, but after reading your posts it sure does translate bad . You cannot go copy&pasting statements and answers from different posts and fit them as you like, please , grow up a little. qwert I speak your language, plese write me PM in serbian and we can talk, just dont go and write nonsense here. English is not your language and google translate is just not the way to go in this sensitive situation.

Everybody please read the second last post from Geger.

Can anyone else explain why did MD212(team4) spent reinforcements two rounds6&7 to eliminate blue player out of Alps (picture2 and picture6),near Alsace+2 bonus that team3 holds. Instead placing them all in Finistere so team4 could have more chance at taking and hold Brittany+2, or stack on Cher for better defence against team3 that was holding Alsace+2, or stack on Osie(grey(team4) was stacking on Osie in round 7,8) to take Picardy+3? Can there be any other posible explanation than team4 helping team3 to eliminate blue out of Alps and team4 somehow knowing team3 wont attack them at the same time? Orange was obviously not going for Burgundy+4 bonus or a spoil as it was a no spoil game.

[Qwert]

pa sta onda zezas bre??
Jel tebi logicno da ako su njih dvojica braca,i ako imaju tajno dogovaranje, pa zasto bi onda ovaj jedan dozvolio da mu brat propusti 3 kruga da bude izbacen iz igre? To je meni nelogicno. Now these is question what need explanation to.

For me its totaly ilogical,that dhulbert not help to nhulbert ,and alove that nhulbert miss 3 turn, and they are brothers????
If i play with mine brother, i will try to help hem to not be eliminate, because in these way,he ruin a game for team 3 and team 4.
And i very little use google transator.

[Qwert]

kostko,i dont say that he need to attack neutrals,lol,

[kostko]

pa sta onda zezas bre??
Jel tebi logicno da ako su njih dvojica braca,i ako imaju tajno dogovaranje, pa zasto bi onda ovaj jedan dozvolio da mu brat propusti 3 kruga da bude izbacen iz igre? To je meni nelogicno. Now these is question what need explanation to.

For me its totaly ilogical,that dhulbert not help to nhulbert ,and alove that nhulbert miss 3 turn, and they are brothers????
If i play with mine brother, i will try to help hem to not be eliminate, because in these way,he ruin a game for team 3 and team 4.
And i very little use google transator.

And this is exactly what secret diplomacy is qwert . Those two brothers from different teams, playing 2vs2vs2vs2 game, helping each other out, without writing it into chat.

*The translation of what qwert is saying in serbian language :
"Why are you provoking, man? Isn't it clear to you that, if they are brothers(danhulbert & nhulbert), and if they have secret diplomacy, why would this one let his brother have 3 rounds to be eliminated from the game? This is not logical to me. Now this is a qouestion that needs to be explained." (use google translate for his lines in serbian and compare )

kostko,i dont say that he need to attack neutrals,lol,

Yes I know, you did not write it. I just dont understand why you pointed out, that nhulbert was kicked out in round33 . How does that reject SD . It just gives me one more reason that you might not understand what secret diplomacy is.

Everybody please read the second last post from Geger. and answer my question:

Can anyone else explain why did MD212(team4) spent reinforcements two rounds6&7 to eliminate blue player out of Alps (picture2 and picture6),near Alsace+2 bonus that team3 holds. Instead placing them all in Finistere so team4 could have more chance at taking and hold Brittany+2, or stack on Cher for better defence against team3 that was holding Alsace+2, or stack on Osie(grey(team4) was stacking on Osie in round 7,8) to take Picardy+3? Can there be any other posible explanation than team4 helping team3 to eliminate blue out of Alps and team4 somehow knowing team3 wont attack them at the same time? Orange was obviously not going for Burgundy+4 bonus or a spoil as it was a no spoil game.

[Qwert]

if i understand what you say,hes secret conversation going something like these:

-danhulbert "we are going great broo, now its round 33 and you need to miss 3 turn"
-nhulbert "are you crazy! do you know that then i will be knocked from game,for missing 3 conscutive turn,are you crazy!"
-danhulber " You are stupid,you dont understand elementary of strategy! I read all Napoleon books,and now its time for these move, who will change battle in our favour,and we will win, now move and execute mine order! you dipstic!"
-nhulbert " ok,but these stink"
(round 50)
-danhulbert "hmm,i dont know where we make mistake? In book write that after supprise surrender, Napoleon again win a battle, but we lost. "
-nhulbert " Great strategy you @#%#$^&@*@(@(, he,he now you also be reported for secret diplomacy,mine smart brother"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok, these is possible scenario of hes secret diplomacy,but still i can not understand why he miss 3 consecutive turs, what they gain from these -please need answer on these elementary question.

[JoshyBoy]

wtf, this guy's petition should be granted only because of the effort.

+1

Immense report, 110% effort.

[kostko]

if i understand what you say,hes secret conversation going something like these:

-danhulbert "we are going great broo, now its round 33 and you need to miss 3 turn"
-nhulbert "are you crazy! do you know that then i will be knocked from game,for missing 3 conscutive turn,are you crazy!"
-danhulber " You are stupid,you dont understand elementary of strategy! I read all Napoleon books,and now its time for these move, who will change battle in our favour,and we will win, now move and execute mine order! you dipstic!"
-nhulbert " ok,but these stink"
(round 50)
-danhulbert "hmm,i dont know where we make mistake? In book write that after supprise surrender, Napoleon again win a battle, but we lost. "
-nhulbert " Great strategy you @#%#$^&@*@(@(, he,he now you also be reported for secret diplomacy,mine smart brother"

Ok, these is possible scenario of hes secret diplomacy,but still i can not understand why he miss 3 consecutive turs, what they gain from these -please need answer on these elementary question.

I already explained that, please read all my posts. here is a copy paste of my answer of danhulbert's, statemet where he says that they would won if they were playing together.

You guys team3&4 intentionally lost that game after players in the Game 9482563 became suspicious:
(copied from chat)2011-10-14 20:25:55 - Red Truck: Hummm, weird game
(copied from chat)2011-08-20 09:22:10 - siddify: Teal, I'm curious why you're so worried about my single stack when you've got grey stacking up against your bonus... Is there some secret diplomacy going on?

You danhulbert are smart enough to know when it is enough and that secret diplomacy will be harder to prove, if you guys lose. This is exactly why grey(nhulbert) in round 33 left the game."2011-09-28 22:32:00 - nhulbert was kicked out for missing too many turns". And exactly why you(danhulbert)missed a turn, "2011-09-04 13:48:11 - danhulbert missed a turn" in round 19 so yellow was able to eliminate you (see log). You(danhulbert) had that bonus +3 Picardy already in round 16(see in log file) and not in 18 as round 16 picture is missing. You saw team3 had two bonuses and team4 was fighting hard to prevent team1&team2 to have at least one bonus . Green player was already asking something about secret diplomacy. Leaving the game by missing turns was a good choise, because you knew secret diplomacy with team4 would become too obvious, if you stayed in the game.

I hope this answers your question. yes? I would answer it in my previous post , but I just did not understad, what you are trying to ask. And if I comment your made up conversation between danhulbert and nhulbert you are completely wrong qwert. In my opinion, there was no conversation at all between them in round 33.

Everybody please read the second last post from Geger and answer my question

[Geger]

I want to add 2 things :

1. The fact, that silver kicked from the game in round 33, is irrelevant, because green suspected a SD around round 12 or 13 and told the other in Game Chat

2. Everybody here (especially qwert) just focused to the brothers nhulbert and dnhulbert. Don't you see they are all friends?

But anyway, I'm not 100% sure, there was a SD in place. I agree with the opinion of some people in the early parts of this thread, the cause of actions was partisanship, because team 3 and 4 are friends.

And the funny thing, this partisanship made them lost. If they were not friends, team 3 would attack silver's stack in Oise, thus opened the opportunity to hold Burgundy and Picardy, before team 2 took Brittany (read my last analysis)

.

[danhulbert]

Gregor,

I instructed teal to attack green on the turn you mention. The reason I did that was because he was already almost 2x the size of the next biggest stack and I wanted him reduced in size before I tried to hold another bonus. Left unchecked, he was going to be a big problem I also figured our team was the only team in position to deal with him at the time. He ended up growing very large anyway in the end and had a huge impact on the game.

Bottom line, the potential damage he was capable of was getting to be higher than any other stack.

Very good analysis, though . . . very appreciated.

Dan

[Geger]

Gregor,

I instructed teal to attack green on the turn you mention. The reason I did that was because he was already almost 2x the size of the next biggest stack and I wanted him reduced in size before I tried to hold another bonus. Left unchecked, he was going to be a big problem I also figured our team was the only team in position to deal with him at the time. He ended up growing very large anyway in the end and had a huge impact on the game.

Bottom line, the potential damage he was capable of was getting to be higher than any other stack.

Very good analysis, though . . . very appreciated.

Dan

This is, that I want to say.

I do agree, that green a potential danger would be a threat in the future, but not at that time (round 10/picture 12), he had only 20. Green could be only as a threat, if he could take and hold Alps. He couldn't do it at that time. I think he needed 4 extra rounds (+12 extra troops). With 32 troops he could take Alps and still had 25 troops (38% chance), 5 troops in 5 regions, 20 troops on 3 borders, he could split them to 6, 6 and 7 or 5, 5 and 8.

Also green would need 4 extra rounds. But in 4 rounds, I think, team 3 could hold Burgundy and Picardy. With these 2 extra bonuses (or at least 1 extra bonus from Picardy) green wouldn't be a problem anymore.

Like I said before, I failed to see a SD here, I just see team 3 didn't act objectively.

To be fair we can see, team 3 had 2 things to do : got rid of silver (to open an opportunity to take an other bonus) and green (to eliminate a potential danger). But they could do only one, and the choice fell to green. Maybe because silver is their friend, or maybe not.

I've read an article, but can't find it now - I think I read about that here, that people should not always act rationally. If they are given a choice and may choose only one :
1. a chance to eliminate losses
2. the opportunity to earn a profit
most people prefer the first

.

.

[Qwert]

kostko,these is another suspicion, that they want to cover SD in a way,that nhulbert miss 3 turns and ruin a game to team 3 and team 4. When you collect are evidence here, you have much more things against SD,then for SD.
If they win a game, and you prove a SD, then what will be hes punishment? Official warning to not do that again. I realy doubth that here Mods have evidence to give hem a warning, except if they find some more evidence who can back up your effort to prove SD. But after 5 page, its look that these case is last hole on the flute here (he-he)

[kostko]

*reply to qwert

kostko,these is another suspicion, that they want to cover SD in a way,that nhulbert miss 3 turns and ruin a game to team 3 and team 4. When you collect are evidence here, you have much more things against SD,then for SD.
If they win a game, and you prove a SD, then what will be hes punishment? Official warning to not do that again. I realy doubth that here Mods have evidence to give hem a warning, except if they find some more evidence who can back up your effort to prove SD. But after 5 page, its look that these case is last hole on the flute here (he-he)

I am not writing this all to get them punished. Please qwert read everything before you ask questions I already answered.

And again, I am writing this only because danhulbert provoked me with his many PM's about telling me how unfair it was from me to left him a secret diplomacy tag at the end of the game and how I offended him with raiting I left. I would not be writting this accusation on my behalf, this is all because he wanted to know why I left him bad raiting. I am writing this publicly so we can also get an outside opinion.

*reply to danhulbertabove

I instructed teal to attack green on the turn you mention. The reason I did that was because he was already almost 2x the size of the next biggest stack and I wanted him reduced in size before I tried to hold another bonus. Left unchecked, he was going to be a big problem I also figured our team was the only team in position to deal with him at the time. He ended up growing very large anyway in the end and had a huge impact on the game.

This does not answer my question, I am talking about picture 2 and picture6, beeing obvious example of team 3 and 4 working together. For the last 5 pages of this thread danhulbert is avoiding this question:

Can you explain why did MD212(team4) spent reinforcements two rounds6&7 to eliminate blue player out of Alps (picture2 and picture6),near Alsace+2 bonus that team3 holds. Instead placing them all in Finistere so team4 could have more chance at taking and hold Brittany+2, or stack on Cher for better defence against team3 that was holding Alsace+2, or stack on Osie(grey(team4) was stacking on Osie in round 7,8) to take Picardy+3? Can there be any other posible explanation than team4 helping team3 to eliminate blue out of Alps and team4 somehow knowing team3 wont attack them at the same time? Orange was obviously not going for Burgundy+4 bonus or a spoil as it was a no spoil game.

danhulbert, it might not be you who did SD, but radioman212(team3) and MD212(team4) sure did drag you into it. The idea :"Team4 is fine with team3 holding two bonuses(from round 16 on, see log) Picardy+3 and Alsace+2, but on the other side team4 was fighting relentlessly to prevent team1 and team2 from having one bonus", was strongly present until round 18 and it gives me no doubt about them (team3 and 4) playing together.

*reply to Geger above

1. The fact, that silver kicked from the game in round 33, is irrelevant, because green suspected a SD around round 12 or 13 and told the other in Game Chat

This is not irrelevant, team3 and 4 were still playing together after danhulbert got eliminated in round19. If dhulbert did not quit in round 33 this game could be played for 50 more rounds, because team3 and 4 were still playing together even after danhulbert got eliminated in round19, holding the bonus+2 and +3. Ofcourse, after danhulbert was eliminated, they were forced to play together if they wanted to survive, because team1 and team2 clearly realized that they were playing quad game. Ofcourse its easy to say their moves were not objective, what else can they say in their defence.

[danhulbert]

Again, Kostko, I am not avoiding your question . . .I just do not know what the answer is. I discussed it very briefly with my brother yesterday but did not get into the details and I got the inpression he was not interested.

As for MD212, I will be talking to him later this week and will try to get your answer.

I can speak for Radioman212 because, as I said, I was directing the attack in this particular game but that does not help with your answer.

gregor, I agree that green was not a threat YET but I wanted to see if we could possibly get lucky and eliminate him altogether and also control that area of the board . . but we were unlucky while taking several off him but also losing a bunch

Dan

[kostko]

Again, Kostko, I am not avoiding your question . . .I just do not know what the answer is. I discussed it very briefly with my brother yesterday but did not get into the details and I got the inpression he was not interested.

As for MD212, I will be talking to him later this week and will try to get your answer.

I can speak for Radioman212 because, as I said, I was directing the attack in this particular game but that does not help with your answer.

gregor, I agree that green was not a threat YET but I wanted to see if we could possibly get lucky and eliminate him altogether and also control that area of the board . . but we were unlucky while taking several off him but also losing a bunch

Dan

I understand he is not interested in talking about the game, its just a game after all (no money , no power as you say and I agree), who cares. I just wanted to make you understand that there were some strange moves involved in the game, you cannot explain, from your side(team3 and 4 together), and that would prove about my raiting to you guys beeing fair. And that is all. I dont want you guys beeing banned in any way, this is not why I created this thread, I explain that in my previous posts. You were hard to talk to before danhulbert, just read some of your previous answers to me here, and thanks god for Geger reading&commenting this.

[Qwert]

kostko wrote:
And again, I am writing this only because danhulbert provoked me with his many PM's about telling me how unfair it was from me to left him a secret diplomacy tag at the end of the game and how I offended him with raiting I left. I would not be writting this accusation on my behalf, this is all because he wanted to know why I left him bad raiting. I am writing this publicly so we can also get an outside opinion.

Ok, so you want to prove that your tag in rating are fair? What will hepend if Mods decide that these is not SD, are you going to remove these tag?

[kostko]

kostko wrote:
And again, I am writing this only because danhulbert provoked me with his many PM's about telling me how unfair it was from me to left him a secret diplomacy tag at the end of the game and how I offended him with raiting I left. I would not be writting this accusation on my behalf, this is all because he wanted to know why I left him bad raiting. I am writing this publicly so we can also get an outside opinion.

Ok, so you want to prove that your tag in rating are fair? What will hepend if Mods decide that these is not SD, are you going to remove these tag?

Raiting is there to stay forever. Unles you guys somehow manage to explain your moves in my question. I already told you how I feel, if c&a declear your innocence. If c&a team could invalidate my accusation they would already do it and if they could confirm it they would also already do it. I guess they are somehow stuck in the middle between a freemium guy who isnt completely wrong and a quad of premium players with a good raiting, that arent completely right. Or they just dont wanna close this thread, because they are having too much laughs at us arguing here. I understand c&a has a hard time confirming four premium players of doing SD and its not my goal to talk trash about you guys here. I will be completly satisfied if this thread closes it self by c&a team saying something like:"there was suspicion of secret diplomacy that we could not invalidate nor confirm because none of the accused team won".

qwert stop asking me questions that I have already answered.

[ubcman64]

are the mods ever going to rule on this? or will it just go on indefinitely

[Qwert]

well then kostko, if these tag stay forever,no mather what mods decide, then you are winner in bouth way. Maybe its better to stop posting, and then mods will show hes red heads here.

[danhulbert]

are the mods ever going to rule on this? or will it just go on indefinitely

Love to see a Packer fan . . . I am also from WI . . . Go Pack.

[king achilles]

Although I applaud the effort you put in to your report, I would say that there is still not enough evidence to conclusively indicate there was a secret diplomacy between team 3 and 4. The pictures presented and how you translated their moves can be subjective. We can probably see what we want to see and suspect them of teaming up. If Teal had 11 troops on Meuse and then 10 on Doubs, you expect team 4 to do something to attack Teal's Alsace? So, based on your analysis, unless team 4 attacks teal's Alsace, they are teaming up to let one of them win? because team 4 should do everything in their power to focus on team 3 because teal holds a bonus zone. They should worry about the other teams if they get their own bonus area as well.

Now, did teal ever left his border open for an easy attack in Meuse? No. For pic 18, should grey have attacked him with his 13 troops? Let's say he gets +3 on his starting turn and deploys on his 13 so he gets 16 total. Then what? attack the 11 on Meuse? If he does win, what do you think would be left of him after the attack? teal has 10 on Doubs just waiting for a counter attack, not ot mention pink too. What would happen with grey after that? What does he or his team get out of the attack? This is more like a matter of difference in gameplay and strategy. Not everyone thinks the same way.

We can suspect what we want to suspect. If teal had little troops guarding his bonus area and grey had an opportunity to attack him without weakening him at the same time, then maybe there is merit to your suspicions. However, if the territory in question is guarded enough, you can't always expect an opponent to make the attack.

This is cleared but still noted because of grey's move to transfer from Oise to Marne, which I agree that it looks strange.