Ulmish Civil Wars - All Ulm all of the time... - Page 11

chrispedersen · #**101** March 31st, 2009, 11:18 PM

This was about the "I'm not getting any turns unless I ask for the turn to be resent, in which case I get two" thing I've been talking to you about the week or two.

And, as I also said in email .. it seems to be working again.

chrispedersen · #**102** April 3rd, 2009, 04:11 PM

I'm a little confused - sometime back you announced we had a nap Tolkien yet, you attacked without notification. Can you clarify?

I thought this was a little against the spirit of the game - but I guess I'd just like to know where we stand and whats going to happen.

Mithras · #**103** April 3rd, 2009, 04:43 PM

I wasunder the impression that this was a no diplomacy game. Otherwise I would have tried some. Of course diplomacy isn't really an issue when you have one obvious leader.

chrispedersen · #**104** April 3rd, 2009, 04:50 PM

Yeah I agree Steurm. I have been very careful not to talk except that one slip up.

I haven't actually attacked anyone in this game, except they attacked me first.

I probably should have gotten tolkien to rescind or clarify what he said earlier - but as I haven't attacked anyone before now it hasn't mattered before now.

Still, I'd like to know what to expect.

Tolkien · #**105** April 3rd, 2009, 04:57 PM

Those were my spys. I didn't know scouting was an act of war.

THIS turn I invaded. Being an ND game, I didn't think the NAP was going to be binding. If it wasn't, I would've notified you a few turns ago, 3 or 4.

Besides, I'm tired of sitting on my hands and building up blood slaves. I want to use them.

chrispedersen · #**106** April 3rd, 2009, 05:21 PM

Scouting isn't an act of war, however you attacked last round as well.

I feel a little disadvantaged; I wish you had clarified earlier. So I have now been attacked by all 3 players with no notice = ).

Fair enough, I shall do my best - although the advantage of surprise and two big militaries against me.. I will have to be a nelson to win this.

Ah well.. let loose the dogs of war!

Mithras · #**107** April 3rd, 2009, 06:02 PM

Because the advantages provided by 3 globals and a several advanced field armies aren't enough?

The following is not diplomacy.

Remember I trail at third in most graphs apart from the giant chaff armies. However I'm obviously no speed bump and invading me at this point would be a very bad move, because any party that attempted this (with or without the aid of a theoretical thrid party) would then be left weakened facing said third party.

Obviously I notice that the same applies to certain parties and see that hostilaties agaisnt such parties would be detrimental before some theoretical third parties are marginalised, through seperate but cohesive action on multiple fronts.

Oh and in regard to the indiscriminate weapon I am using. Realise that it is intended to a) Prevent the use of the same by theoretical third parties b) Destroy key components in the advanced armies of theoretical third parties c) Deal little damage to certain economies like say blood hunting and the use thereof.

*Whistles*

Tolkien · #**108** April 3rd, 2009, 06:12 PM

My millitary isn't that big at all: it's rather small compared to Mithras'. It's just concentrated on your border and my border forts. Mostly you're just going to have to worry about blood SCs dropping in on you and my magic, I got 300 slaves stored up and ready to go.

Father Illearth hungers for blood.

chrispedersen · #**109** April 6th, 2009, 09:34 PM

llamaserver down. Game will be delayed till tomorrow.

Mithras · #**110** April 7th, 2009, 03:14 PM

Hope you don't mind the astral corruption Tolkien, been watching you a bit and it seems you don't use nearly as many non blood slaves as chris, and I had a few slaves to burn. Oh and sorry about the misfiring wild hunt, it still hasn't netted me any of chris' nice battle priests yet... (although I did get one of his blood mages which is odd because I'm sure the spell said powerfful priests, oh well.)