Re: BSoD (Newbie, LA, CBM 1.92) [Started!]
 

Grats to revenant on the win.

Re dispelling of Globals, my take on it is this regarding NAPs.

You should NOT overwrite a global with someone you have a NAP. In a game being played, I had to cancel a NAP with the warning to the player I had no intention of attacking him, he then realised it was only to cast a global that would over write his. Which I cast.

Now castying a global that will overwrite one of the 5 existing globals is fine, as you can't be sure whose will get over written.

As far as just casting dispel on a global, thats fine, as its anonymous spell, just like casting anonymous ritual spells that cause hurricanes etc.

Cheers guys and thanks for the game.

HD

Re: BSoD (Newbie, LA, CBM 1.92) [Started!]
 

How amusing.

Well, thing is, I'm just trying to use "deal struck is the deal struck" approach to the Dom3 diplomacy. Meaning that I may say a lot of fuzzy and evasive things before a deal and may be dealing with other players under the table, but after the deal is struck I'll find really difficult for me to directly violate it. I may reconsider this approach after a few games, but for now I'm going to go with this method. I'm especially wary against a NAP violation, in this dog-eat-dog of Dom3 it is pretty important to maintain at least some measure of civility.

Utterdark and Burden of Time are world-attacking spells. They have a same effect as casting direct-attack spell at the every single of your provinces all of the time. Thus, casting them without notice is a direct hostile action. Thank you for considering the results of casting it by me, but well, taking somewhat less damage from the nuclear winter is still taking damage.

Casting a direct attack spell is a hostile action for me. Utterdark is a direct attack spell. Spying is not. Did my scouts attack your provinces or cut 90% of your gem supply?

You told me that 2 turns ago - with no mention of using UD (and you spoke with me about possible using BoT before that in the future so I had some stupid naive idea that I'll have some notice of you casting UD). The same time you scripted dispelling my global, by the way. I asked you last turn in reply about sudden disappearance of this global, had no answer, scipted some war preparation things. This turn I was going to send you NAP dissolval message, and I was going to attack you in three turns.

Re: BSoD (Newbie, LA, CBM 1.92) [Started!]
 

Spying actually is an offensive action. On the battlefield replay it shows up as an attack and the patrolling force can easily lose units due to friendly fire.

And as far as the dispelling the global goes, it's an anonymous action. And I neither confirmed nor denied that I dispelled it. As far as you're concerned it could have been cast by an AI or a dastardly plot by another player to mess with you.

Yeah I know, it might seem far-fetched since I obviously was the one to benefit from it, but then again, why would I waste a turn and astral gems for a game-ending enchantment? I used well over 500 death gems to cast Utter Dark and I guarantee you that it was going to overpower whatever was there.

And it's not like I needed those other enchants after UD anyway. My death income is over 50 without Well of Misery, I'm overflowing with units so Soul Gate doesn't really help (I don't have enough commanders for all my undead), and Strands of Arcane Power lost its effectiveness a long time ago.

Re: BSoD (Newbie, LA, CBM 1.92) [Started!]
 

I'll just capture the world with the legions of heavy-armored unkillable scouts. Sigh. Scouts die, that is pretty sad.

And I'm not saying that dispelling my global was a hostile action. You are totally right, I have no means to prove that it was your dispel. I'm saying that UD itself is a hostile spell.

Another funny thing: while it is impossible to prove that it was your dispel, "neither confirming or denying" accusations in the language of diplomacy means "you may think anything you want, maybe yes, maybe no" - but with some extra meaning. When one side accuses another of having a nuke, it is a good policy (translation: "LOL, come at us and check your luck - we may bluff or no, better to be our friend than our enemy"). When one side accuses another of sabotaging a power plant, it is a bad policy (translation: "Well, my bad, but I do not want to say a direct lie, and having me admitting it will be bad for me too").

Re: BSoD (Newbie, LA, CBM 1.92) [Started!]
 

I finally have time to chime in a bit. Couple thoughts/points

1) It sounds like everyone is about ready to concede. I know the writing is on the wall, but I'd like a few turns of fighting with Ermor to try to test some things and learn some things. If others want to turn AI that is fine, but I'll stick it out a bit longer.

2) I found it amusing how LL kept insisting I was the main threat based on research and 1 battle while it was painfully obvious that Ermor was conquering the world. Everytime I tried to point out that Ermor was the main threat I'd hear from LL and Shardphoenix about how easy it would be to beat Ermor. Well, we see how that turned ou.t

3) There was a somewhat long thread on the main forums page about NAPs. The consensus seems to be there is no consensus. Some players think its perfectly acceptable to move 20 stealthy armies into every province during a NAP, cancel, then spring a huge Alpha. Others would be appalled by that. My view tends to be the strictest form. No spies, so stealthy armies (only scouts allowed), no "offensive globals" (like UD) although I think dispels, etc. would be ok. Perhaps in future games, players should be encouraged to define the details of the NAP when they make them. I see lots of areas of potential conflicts.

4) I have enjoyed the game. Although I am going to hang in a little longer, my congrats to Rev on the win. my thanks to the subs who helped out. Holey, my thanks to you on a smart and beneficial NAP that we created early on. Parone: Thanks for hanging in for so long.

Re: BSoD (Newbie, LA, CBM 1.92) [Started!]
 

Same thing. I'll fight until my armies will be destroyed.

Actually, the same thing. I had a talk with LL and he managed to make me think the same way. Sorry.

Again, I agree. Still, it is really difficult to engage in such discussions in fast games when you can't even have any response from some players.

And again, I'm going to repeat those worlds.

Re: BSoD (Newbie, LA, CBM 1.92) [Started!]
 

Yes...and 1 continuation on my point #4. I tip my hat to Russian Comrade. This was your first MP game I believe. You were in a tight spot, especially with Patala going down so fast! You did well in a really hard position and I enjoyed your diplomacy and conversations! No worries about LL. He was very persistent! LOL.

Re: BSoD (Newbie, LA, CBM 1.92) [Started!]
 

Thanks.
I wanted to have someone soft to me to rush him with highly-blessed troops. Unfortunately, there was Ermor.

Also, I'd like to have a 24h extension.

Re: BSoD (Newbie, LA, CBM 1.92) [Started!]
 

k. I'll add 24 to the timer.

Re: BSoD (Newbie, LA, CBM 1.92) [Started!]
 

Atlantis deserves a ton of credit for going all out against me in the beginning. He was truly an unstoppable monster in the beginning, who burned almost everything to come after me. The only thing that saved me was the map, which made it difficult for him to reach me in enough time to wipe me out. I don't have the map in front of me, but his capital is like 5 moves from mine over mountainous terrain.