Quote:
izaqyos said:
My problem is that by deciding on an allied victory in our FFA game they turned the tables for other players.
|
I agree, that's exactly my problem as well. And the curent situation on the ground is the direct result of their "joint victory agreement". As the nation on the recieving end of it, I can qurantee that there is no way Mictlan would gain the territory that he gained since the begining of hostilites if not for their "joint victory agreement". Even more, if not for thier joint voctory agreement my own actions would be very different. For example - I would never attack Mictlan myself 4 turns ago, even after he withdrew from NAT. The only reason why I did it was thier "joint victory" plan that Pan have informed me about and Archae promptly confirmed, when they both withdrew from NAT treaties. At that point I knew I had nothing to lose since Mictlan would attack me anyway, as soon as he will finish positioning his sneaky troops over my territory, as he did with Machaka. So I decided that I might as well do something about it while I still can, instead of siting on my arse and waiting for the axe to fall.
I don't think that the map editing that somebody have suggested earlier is a good option either. First of all - it is a huge pain in the butt. Second - what about units/artifacts/armies, etc.? Third - I don't know about you, but I don't keep any old turns around on my comp. There will be no end of arguments about what was what and who was where if we try to "rewind" the game to the time when this "joint voctory" crap was introduced. At least I can honesty say that this proposol do not seem to be very viable to me, all things considering.