Quote:
Originally Posted by Corinthian
[
Bluemage and Roland Jones are Goons. I know next to nothing about them but I will assume from their goon reputation that they are axecrazy madmen that will attack their neighbors on sight and who do not believe in things like peace or NAPs. So far Bluemage have lived up to his borrowed reputation but Roland Jones have been disappointingly calm. Possibly due to his bad start. I have talked fairly much with both of them over the course of the game. Mainly because you can always find them on IRC.
|
Your assessment of goons in general- and the two of us in particular- is... shall we say, *unique*. Goons are typically not ax-crazy, mad, or indiscriminate. If anything, good goon Dom3 players (of which I am NOT one) should have a reputation for being deliberate, conniving, and opportunistic. You can count on them to do exactly as they say they will, for exactly as long as it benefits them- and no longer.
Except for trades. No goon would dishonor a trade. No matter how sneaky.
The big difference between Shrapnel players and SA players is the mindset. Shrapnel seems to favor late 18th century to early 19th century rules of war- gentleman generals, upholding their honor on the field of battle. For one thing, you favor binding agreements, and some degree of professional courtesy.
Goons are more like the Great Houses of Dune. If you haven't heard from somebody, they're probably planning to invade you. If they have talked to you, they're either busy killing somewhere else (and want a nice, quiet border while they do it), or are trying to get you to drop your guard before they invade. The only agreement that is binding is one that is in the best interests of the goon, and even then, only until it stops being so. The only question in an alliance is who will break it first.
After all, this is a game of war. There can only be one winner. All alliances are, by definition, temporary, since no team can ever win the game. You can't have a pair be Pantokrator. In the end, you WILL have to fight everybody else, so maintaining an alliance is effectively pointless, unless it benefits you in the short term, or keeps another player from dominating the game.
Oddly enough, both Roland Jones and myself are generally less treacherous than most goons. Generally, if we say something, you can assume it to be the truth- more than you'll get from most goons. I won't say much more about RJ, except that we've always been able to keep things cordial, amicable, and honorable.
(Mind you, I might be lying about being honest/getting along with my fellow goon. You never know.
Paranoid yet? Good. You're ready for an SA game.)
Apparently, though, Corinthian is either relying on first impressions as he writes his opinions, or not reading my turns. When faced with a rapidly expanding enemy, the last thing you want to do is let them consolidate- and his own graphs show you just how well his expansion is going. A desire to stop him from taking all of the land flows rationally from that fact.
I had just wiped out a conventional army of his, with relatively trivial losses. As far as I could tell, I was facing a small group of giants, the remnants of the army I'd killed, and little else. The plan was to make a play for territory, quickly drive down to the edge of where I'd wanted to be anyway, and sue for terms based on a much more defensible border, cutting off one avenue of expansion in the process, and making it conceivably possible for me to keep the juggernaut off my back. There was both time and thought put into that plan, and I would've gone for immediate peace were it not for two things.
1. Fomoria was in territories I'd claimed as mine. (I mean, really? Did he not SEE the invisible signs I'd posted?)
2. I assumed that what I'd seen was representative of his armies as a whole, and figured I could intimidate him into a better border.
Suffice it to say that Cori would've been FAR better off to assume less insanity, more sense, and a LOT less knowledge on my part.