Quote:
Originally Posted by WraithLord
Technically, this is not in violation of NAP. However I do agree that this is in the gray area and is not something I'd normally do. The reason I made an exception is that you are very close to winning the game. You have remaining two VPs under siege and will likely take them soon. I need a leverage on Eriu's VP in order to stand a chance.
|
this is quite understandable, and I don't even disagree with the appeal to
force majeure. Yet if you can decide to interpret NAPs as you wish due to the situation (as well you should), how can I maintain any confidence that you might not decide upon similar, further, interpretations as these turns progress? If my having one fewer VP than you, but having broken walls on another (and having a tart besieging 300 TC troops in another cap, as you had one unit besieging another VP) serves as justification for getting "needed leverage", how much stronger will be the justifications for other acts forthcoming?
I do not wish for the other game players to point and whisper as I pass, a poor cuckold and chump, good only for the derision of the multitude.
perhaps i should probe those territories w/ some scouts, merely in order to determine whether you have decided you were in error and vacated the disputed lands. or should we just dispense w/ the niceties next turn, and set to brawl?