Hmm? You still don't seem to get that I'm playing the part of a nation that was betrayed by two nations whom it considered friendly. You showed no indication of wanting war with me, in fact you went as far to actually sign a non-aggression pact, and then, suddenly, you figured it was time to go to war and then you even brought Abysia into it. Thus you managed to make an already unfair situation extremely unfair. You left me with no other choice but to attack you the way I did, and you know that's the truth. At least you could've had the common decency to fight me on a one on one basis, when I would've done what I originally intended (bring my troops to the border, wait one more turn and attack) and I would've still lost. You're like a bully first going, "YOU'RE SO DEAD..." and when the one being bullied does something that hurts the said bully, he goes, "HEY UNFAIR, YOU ACTUALLY FOUGHT BACK." ;p
This poor sportsmanship BS is just as much BS as it was before when I got overrun by Helheim as Marverni, and I didn't even break anything there. Sure, I could instead just go "buhuhu I'm going to lose
(( I quit" every time things start looking grim to me, but I'm the kind of player who instead chooses to actually fight back as long as I can with the limited toolset I am given. This IS a wargame, you know, not a "I quit the moment I realize I've lost" game nor a "I care for the welfare of people who want to kill me" game. And you know... I think getting an ALLY out into the war is far worse sportsmanship than me attacking you one turn "early". And you got Jazzepi to show the same lack of "sportsmanship" by getting him attack me a turn early, too, instead of showing that you are "better" than me and waiting for the third turn - a turn you could've waited for easily because you guys are stronger than me ALONE already. So, your complaint loses its ground.
You are quite an unpredictable player (Burden of Time as Mictlan? Christ, no one saw that one coming, and let's not forget Astral Corruption! Both are direct violations of the spirit and the letter of non-aggression pacts, cuz they screw up people badly), but you're WRONG to think that others aren't capable of using the very same element. I caught you offguard. You should be complimenting me for the fact that I actually managed to do such a cunning feint instead of going "OMG UNFAIR" - then I might actually feel compelled to compliment you for your aggressive style of play, which, for all intents and purposes, is pretty effective, while not a way of playing the game that I enjoy. I do enough of this powergaming in Anarchy Online, thank you.
All is fair in love and war, they say. But apparently not in Dominions 3 gaming, because fighting back is horriblay. To give a counterargument on one of your other points, it's you whom people should be wary of making NAPs with (I know I will be after this). Why make a NAP with a person who'll just cancel it anyway when he thinks he's ready to kill you, and brings others to do the dirty work for him? My track record so far, however, shows that I only go against a NAP that's being CANCELLED ANYWAY when I'm under pressure from much stronger nations, and it's the only way I can do anything instead of just going instadead.
I really don't think you have any place to complain here. You made your intentions clear. You got an ally with you too. I made my conclusions on them, and I did what I deemed as necessary. Abysia broke the NAP as well, and I'm fine with that. I may have broken the 3 turn rule, but you went against the spirit (and letter) of non-aggression pacts. You don't seem to take the idea of non-aggression pacts as seriously as I do - which is good to know.
/argument hat
Don't worry, I can continue this argument for just as long as you want. It's pointless, it's stupid, yes, neither of us are really standing on any ground to accuse the other of anything as we're both doing what we're pretty much expected to be doing. I'm clinging to whatever shreds of continued life in-game I can find while you are bringing the smackdown on me... All should be good. The IC chatter was just that - IC chatter. What I've said is stupid, pointless stuff from a nation of warlike demon-things that kinda look like apes which are dying under the combined might of two of the strongest nations ingame, with insults and general nastiness being thrown from both sides.
EDIT:
For those who might read this argument and wonder about it, and possibly about my reasoning for what I did, I took a few of screenshots from the graphs to make my side of this silly argument a bit clearer and probably understandable.
1)
Provinces
As you can see, I have a LOT less provinces than either of them do. Even if I somehow doubled up, I'd still have less than either one of them.
2)
Armysize
While this does not generally look as bad as the Province count, it actually is. As you can see, from one fight with Sauro's troops my army size dropped considerably. It's because a large majority of my army consists of ghouls/ape ghouls and assorted undead chaff with some ape archers and sacreds - I can't even dream of trying to replace all the troops I lose when I end up in a fight.
3)
Income
Partly due to my horrible position (lots of wastes), partly due to the fact that they are insanely huge compared to me, their incomes, even alone, would be waaay above twice than that of mine. They could field much larger armies than I could if they wanted to as a result, and Abysia, in fact, does. He was my only hope for fighting off Sauromatia who had his army all over the place, but well, he seemed to have other ideas. His choice.
4)
Gem Income
While my gem income is only slightly worse than Abysia's (which means that our gem income is totally abysmal, I've only found 2 provinces with sites that give gems outside my capital with my many searches), it is way lower than that of Sauromatia's.
Re: Host delay?
Threaded Mode