MP: MA CBM Game Greenstone Bandar Log Victor

[welltimat]

Originally Posted by Grijalva

Please don't try to steal my thunder by saying that this "alliance" was what brought me victory. The "alliance" was really just two NAP3s and one (yes one) joint war waged by me and Machacka. If the "alliance" was so important, then how come Machacka and Ctis couldn't benefit like I did?

Besides, trying to trivialize why I was successful (luck, placement etc) is immature and won't change the facts as they stand.

Dear Grijalva. I am not trying to trivialize. The current position is your skill by more than a half. However, the rest of the player are not helpless stupid noobs as well. The factors that i mentioned are quite important. Its kind of obvious. Given another map positions there could be completely different results.

My initial reply was actually to Ermor player, who said that there could not be so great leader and skilled player who could continue playing Bandar Log instead of you without drop in effectiveness. He was wrong. There could be.

Notice, i agree that your current position is the best (and that you have got to it using excellent strategies and skills).

BUT. I do not agree that you have won this game. Period. And i don't really care what others think about it. You control 25% of the land and even less percentage in other areas. That is obviously not enough to claim a victory. You can declare yourself winner, that would be only your problem as you could also declare yourself winner on turn 1.

Originally Posted by Grijalva

I know how you feel though, its endgame and you're just started to wage your successful little war, thinking "OMG, I'm doing so well in this war, it can't be over!" Well, it is, and it wouldn't be fun for you if you tried to take on Mictlan.

Dear Grijalva. Thank you for telling me how i am thinking. I do not overestimate my position. I am at best #4. For almost entire game my position was so low that i played stricly for fun. And yes, i had fun and gained a lot from this game. For me, this game was hilarious.

Originally Posted by Grijalva

I, for example, could have dropped Rudras-scs all over your turf and then had them merrily fly around raiding, whilst summoning new ones each turn. When you see the mechanics of it, you realize that is would just be a perpetual war of attrition. One that Abysia, even in late game, lacks the mobility for.

Yes, you can do this. My chances against you 1 vs 1 are low. However, that will help other nations to throw down your tyranny faster.

Originally Posted by Grijalva

Remember too, that I had already been at war with Mictlan, Ryleh and Ashdod (three game leaders) for many turns and had steadily gained income, provinces and gems during that period. Although they all gave me a really hard time

I remember that. You are very tough opponent.

Originally Posted by Grijalva

Im going to go ahead and say that this ship has sailed. I do appreciate everyones' good sportsmanship in agreeing on that though, as its not always easy.

As i already mentioned above, you can say whatever you want.

[Hoplosternum]

Welltimat - I wasn't blind to the threat you were likely to pose, especially as the main Blood Sacrificer (with Vanheim being fairly weak at this point). Which was why I checked our NAP was over. Just in case.

But I think you overestimate your chances. I don't think you have no chance. I can see the potential strategy. I just think it would be very very hard to pull off from here.

The trouble for you is that you only have Blood Hunters from your Capital and I already have 2 Demon Lords, 2 Ice Devils and an Arch Devil so you are not even going to clear up the Blood Uniques. (I could also summon one of the remaining each turn if I wished) Crucially I can summon Blood Hunters with slaves including ones that spam sacred bats. You can't. You may have some indie blood hunters, but apart from Blood sacrificing what can you do with the slaves? Blood has some great SC killer spells but does not help you so much against regular armies and mages. I can summon more and better Bloods than you and ultimately out blood hunt you. Plus my Fire Bless makes horrors or even the better Blood troop summons fairly easy for me to kill. And I have plenty of Life for a Lifer casters and the two banishment spells casters. I also have life for a life casting assassins. On current income I could summon 4 of those a turn. And as they make great Blood Hunters themselves I could ramp up my Blood economy easily. Unless you have been very lucky with blood indies I can always increase blood hunters faster than you.

I can put Burden of Time up every other turn with my current Death income - every turn with alchemy. That would keep down your numbers of mages as only the Demonbred are not old or borderline old. Sure you will have some boots for the better warlocks but what will save the rest and all your fire mages? How will you research? Or Blood sacrifice for long? Even if you dispel it each time I put it up it still effects for one turn. My mages are sadly rubbish, I can stand their loss as my Coatls, SCs and Demon summons will not be badly affected. And my research is complete.

Your plan relies on us all leaving you alone for many turns. You are way behind on research and you will need a lot of internal strength to resist raiding once you start your dom push. Probably a lot more forts to protect your temples from raiders. You'll need many many turns worth of blood slaves in the bank before you begin.

But if you don't join the war then we will know you are either in alliance with Bandar or building up for your own win attempt. I, Ashdod or R'leyh could all have offered a peace/alliance/joint win with Bandar at any point. I suspect if any significant power joins Bandar the game is won. Which is one reason I'd rather just give the game to him now. Otherwise he simply chooses who comes joint first and when.

Of course that person may have been you! And I am sorry if that was your hope and the potential ending of the game kills that hope. But I suspect that we (R'leyh, Ashdod & I) would all make better progress against you than Bandar so you would find yourself under severe pressure very quickly. Why fight Bandar when I can fight you? Bandar can't safely expand quickly against all three of us while we would batter you - at least initially - to see if you could take it. You have all those lovely territories now. I always had dozens of mages and hundreds if not thousands of troops close to your border and many uncommitted SCs. One thing is for sure we wouldn't just have gone on fighting while you stood behind us building up.

You putting up Arcane Nexus gets you piled on very quickly. And the AN/Astral corruption combo, even if not taken down, is not that deadly to me.

The problem is that all the scenarios would take many many turns to play out. We were already strategically stalemating and I think either Bandar gets the better of us or chooses one of us to join him in victory. He really wasn't losing to the three of us before he started to stale. The game has been fun but I have certainly begun to be burned out by the long turns with no real end in sight. Bandar seems to be in the same position. I can see you have a slight chance of victory. We all still do, especially if we all take down Bandar. But this would all take a long, long time. And after Bandar goes it probably won't leave a clear winner. If I thought you had a decent shot of victory I would hang in there but I think your chances are slim at best. And it will take a long long time to find out.

I wish there was some better way to end these big games. Sometimes the winner is clear but in a lot it seems the end game can be longer than is welcome.

[Hadrian_II]

is bandar now officially the winner, or has he to fight aby first?

Thanks for clearing that up welltimat, you are indeed entitled to your position. But I never declared myself winner at all, it was the majority opinion as I read it. And yes, I do think that being game leader by far in every respect (in the endgame) is a good reason to claim victory, but, again, I only accepted that position...never claimed it.

This whole endeavor has left a sour taste in my mouth. I don't care who is declared winner and never did. Of course I tried to win and was happy to accept that position when people thought it was right.

Welltimat, if you felt so strongly about this, why didn't you say something two turns ago? You waited until I had another stale or two and started complaining?

I propose to just put it to a vote: if you want find a sub after four stales in a row for Bandar and continue playing, say so. Or whatever; the game's a draw, Mictlan's the winner, I'm the winner, Abysias the winner, etc..vote for whatever you each think is the right outcome for this game...I'll abstain.

[Graeme Dice]

Well, if we are going to keep playing, then I`m going to declare peace with Bandar Log, and start attacking Abysia. Grijalva has been a much more effective diplomat than Welltimat

[Hoplosternum]

Originally Posted by Graeme Dice

Well, if we are going to keep playing, then I`m going to declare peace with Bandar Log, and start attacking Abysia. Grijalva has been a much more effective diplomat than Welltimat

Me too And I propose a three way pact to knock some sense into the players who want to continue

Look I do understand what Welltimat is saying. But I don't think every game has to be dragged out every time. It will take scores of hours for each one of the main players to carry this on in a war of attrition with Bandar. Which may not succeed and even if it does only proves that huge numbers (in gems/armies/mages/provinces) can overwhelm good play. Hmmm.

I don't think anyone is saying Bandar is unbeatable at this point. Just that the only likely single winner is Bandar within the next dozen or so turns. But we may have prevailed, especially if you and Vanheim help. Then the game would last many many turns beating him. Then dozens more as the victors would then have to fight each other. That is a huge investment.

And we are likely to get a less worthy winner at the end. Bandar has played a good game and there is no shame in losing to an alliance of all other main powers attacking him at once. No one else will be able to say the same. Simply that they played a part and got lucky or simply out lasted the rest.

I wish there was a different way to determine victory that people agreed on. Does everygame has to be played to the bitter bitter end as Welltimat seems to suggest here? Then it becomes a war of attrition both in game and with Dom 3 fatigue in real life. I especially don't like permanent subs in such situations. At least then when someone leaves they (and their power) should go

[welltimat]

Thats an interesting way of stopping the game. Alliance of players who dont want to play vs rest.

I guess if 3 top players don't want to continue you cant force them to. Now you can kiss each other and babble how great and unbeatable you were.

Next time should just do it at turn 2. Less time wasted.

[Graeme Dice]

Diplomacy is the key to winning large dominions games. If your idea of diplomacy is to insult the leading players to the point where they get fed up with you and decide to play kingmaker for somebody else, then you're not going to win many games.

[welltimat]

Considering you already quit the game and 'nominated' 'the winner' thats not a 'game diplomacy'. I don't quite understand where you've seen insults coming from me.

Basically, you don't want to play, and i can not do anything about it. But from my PoV that situation looks like "oh, i am powerful and unbeatable, and you are powerful and unbeatable, we won the game". whatever.

[welltimat]

To Hoplosternum:
I have never proposed to fight "to the bitter end". Establishing 100% world control would take too long - it can be decided way earlier. Lets say 50 or even 40 percent of the world control would be sufficient, usually after this everyone agrees. There could be other things going in the world except for the war with Bandar Log. After all there were still 7 players, with their own plans and strategies. Thats what annoys me most.