I Would Be Sovereign - Newbie-intermediate game 8/8 - WINNER IMMACULATE(Mictlan)

[Tiavals]

Originally Posted by Immaculate

I'll be away from Sunday afternoon until Wednesday, can i get an extension for that time?

Sure, provided I remember to slow the hosting in a while.

[Ragnarok-X]

I would require a minor extension, 6 hours back. Just got home from playing PaintBall and wont be home tomorrow in time for the turn (12 AM now).
sorry again.

[Tiavals]

Originally Posted by Ragnarok-X

I would require a minor extension, 6 hours back. Just got home from playing PaintBall and wont be home tomorrow in time for the turn (12 AM now).
sorry again.

I postponed it just in case, although the regular hosting won't be tomorrow in any case, I believe. At the moment it says friday for me.

[Lumix19]

From Pythium to Everyone

I've already sent a message to all of you concerning this matter in-game but I thought I should post it here too. Pythium is breaking the NAP(3) between Pythium and Mictlan. After three turns starting from next turn (which is turn 23) Pythium's forces will be able to attack Mictlan without loss of honor. I hope this is correct.

[Immaculate]

@Lumix19:
How is that without loss of honor? A three on one is completely without honor. And honestly not fun.

Let me address this issue plainly and speak openly,

When you engage in a three on one,

1. you are robbing yourselves of much of the fun of the game. This is suppose to be a game of skill (amongst other things) and there is little skill involved in attacking a nation's rear while it is engaged elsewhere. You are likely to face mostly province defense and not the mind of the player controlling the target nation. If you want to fight PD then you should play a single-player offline game.
   
   You rob yourself of much of the enjoyment.
   
   .
   
2. secondly, the player playing the targeted empire faces an impossible struggle. At this stage in the game i (the target empire) am still viable though obviously not in any position to compete for leadership since i am already engaged in a two-on-one). I cannot hope to successfully fight a three on one. No matter how well I play I cannot hope to be victorious. It simply isn’t fun for me to play in a game where my skill and decisions will have no outcome on the result.
   
   You rob the target of much of the enjoyment of the game.

I hope I don’t sound whiney- I don’t mean to. I just mean to outline my thoughts on this sort of play-style.

And for those of you who say its what I had it coming to me for not performing diplomacy better, you are right also and I won’t argue against that but at the same time, consider that Pythium is breaking a NAP to engage in this pile-up.

For Pythium and Midgard’s neighbors, consider that they are engaged in war with Mictlan currently and will make very quick gains because I cannot defend against them while also maintaining pressure on Patala. They will be strengthened disproportionally and will gain a dominant position in this game very quickly if you do not act to strike at their borders now. Join with Mictlan in turning these nations and showing them that they are not the only ones who can force an opponent to fight a multi-front war.

[dojango]

There's nothing inherently wrong with participating in a 3 v. 1. I seem to recall once being attacked by Atlantis, Marignon and Tien Chi while playing Patala in one game...

The main disadvantage, of course, is that a late-comer nation will usually receive the least amount of the spoils, and is the most likely to lose his gains to the other two once the war is over. In the situation I recall, Tien Chi and Atlantis then ganged up on Marignon, depriving him of his share of Patala. So it was probably a mistake for Marignon to join in the coalition, but he wouldn't have known that betrayal was coming going into the war (especially because the logical move would have been for Tien Chi and Marignon to gang up on Atlantis, who was by far and away the strongest power in that game).

The general rule of thumb is that you don't want to help strengthen someone who's stronger than you. Without knowing the details in this situation, I can't tell if anyone is making that cardinal mistake, but keep in mind that it is often better to let your strongest neighbor get bogged down in a long war than it is to help him to an easy victory.

[Ragnarok-X]

Logical decision for Pythium would be to attack Midgard with their shifter armies in the field...

[Immaculate]

Oh well... issue is sort of mute anyway- i misclicked my jaguar warriors stack and sent them in unblessed and without mage support.

But you are right Dojango. And if someone is going down fast then its best to get a piece of the pie before they are gone anyway.

[Lumix19]

Originally Posted by Immaculate

@Lumix19:
How is that without loss of honor? A three on one is completely without honor. And honestly not fun.

Let me address this issue plainly and speak openly,

When you engage in a three on one,

1. you are robbing yourselves of much of the fun of the game. This is suppose to be a game of skill (amongst other things) and there is little skill involved in attacking a nation's rear while it is engaged elsewhere. You are likely to face mostly province defense and not the mind of the player controlling the target nation. If you want to fight PD then you should play a single-player offline game.
   
   You rob yourself of much of the enjoyment.
   
   .
   
2. secondly, the player playing the targeted empire faces an impossible struggle. At this stage in the game i (the target empire) am still viable though obviously not in any position to compete for leadership since i am already engaged in a two-on-one). I cannot hope to successfully fight a three on one. No matter how well I play I cannot hope to be victorious. It simply isn’t fun for me to play in a game where my skill and decisions will have no outcome on the result.
   
   You rob the target of much of the enjoyment of the game.

I hope I don’t sound whiney- I don’t mean to. I just mean to outline my thoughts on this sort of play-style.

And for those of you who say its what I had it coming to me for not performing diplomacy better, you are right also and I won’t argue against that but at the same time, consider that Pythium is breaking a NAP to engage in this pile-up.

For Pythium and Midgard’s neighbors, consider that they are engaged in war with Mictlan currently and will make very quick gains because I cannot defend against them while also maintaining pressure on Patala. They will be strengthened disproportionally and will gain a dominant position in this game very quickly if you do not act to strike at their borders now. Join with Mictlan in turning these nations and showing them that they are not the only ones who can force an opponent to fight a multi-front war.

Participating in this war, I admit, is not what I would prefer to do but I don't want Midgard taking all you're territories and then becoming too powerful to stop, I felt it was in my best interests to give you notice of the dissolution of the NAP and then snag some territory with you distracted. Absolutely no honor in that decision, I know and I'm sorry, but this is a good way to expand.

By the way, I would have attacked Midgard but I don't border him and I didn't want to incite a war with Bogarus or Ulm

[Tiavals]

I would guess Midgard has it's own neighbors that may attack it while his armies are on the field.

As for Pythium, I think I(Bogarus) don't have a NAP with him, so it would be most unwise for him to move against Mictlan, since I don't have to give any warning to attack.
On the other hand, for a total sum of 1500 gold, I'm willing to sign a NAP with Pythium right away.

It's obviously to the interest of most of us players that Mictlan won't fall yet, since it'll shift the balance of power quite a bit.