Again, you only serve to weaken your arguement. The only way that you would know about what is going on in the game is if someone were to tell you what is going on. Since I am the only one actively arguing against the "merger", those petty insults would have to have been directed at me. The only person acting immature here is you. I have not said anything at all immature.
"My way" of playing SE4- as you so fallaciously put it- is how probably 95% of the people that I have played the game view surrender. In fact, it is how surrender was designed. I direct you to Aaron Hall's words on surrender from the Online SE4 manual:
Quote:
Surrender
When all is lost, and your empire cannot possibly go on, you can always surrender. You surrender to another empire by sending them a Surrender message. Once this message is sent, your entire empire will become controlled by that other player. Once you do this, your game will be over.
|
Nowhere in there does it say that surrender is to be used as a "merger" of two allied empires. It says that the option is to be used when your empire is nearly dead, and it implies that it is to be done to the empire that is doing the destroying. So, if surrender is to be used in such a contradictory manner, it must be set up in the house rules of the game to be done so. Otherwise, the default rule is that surrender cannot be used for a "merger."
I plan to ignore any further insulting remarks made in this thread. I ask that a moderator lock this thread if any more are made (or, at the least, remove the offending Posts). Thanks.