MP: BSoD (Newbie, LA, CBM 1.92) [Started!]

[mattyburn7]

I finally have time to chime in a bit. Couple thoughts/points

1) It sounds like everyone is about ready to concede. I know the writing is on the wall, but I'd like a few turns of fighting with Ermor to try to test some things and learn some things. If others want to turn AI that is fine, but I'll stick it out a bit longer.

2) I found it amusing how LL kept insisting I was the main threat based on research and 1 battle while it was painfully obvious that Ermor was conquering the world. Everytime I tried to point out that Ermor was the main threat I'd hear from LL and Shardphoenix about how easy it would be to beat Ermor. Well, we see how that turned ou.t

3) There was a somewhat long thread on the main forums page about NAPs. The consensus seems to be there is no consensus. Some players think its perfectly acceptable to move 20 stealthy armies into every province during a NAP, cancel, then spring a huge Alpha. Others would be appalled by that. My view tends to be the strictest form. No spies, so stealthy armies (only scouts allowed), no "offensive globals" (like UD) although I think dispels, etc. would be ok. Perhaps in future games, players should be encouraged to define the details of the NAP when they make them. I see lots of areas of potential conflicts.

4) I have enjoyed the game. Although I am going to hang in a little longer, my congrats to Rev on the win. my thanks to the subs who helped out. Holey, my thanks to you on a smart and beneficial NAP that we created early on. Parone: Thanks for hanging in for so long.

[Russian_Comrade]

Originally Posted by mattyburn7

I finally have time to chime in a bit. Couple thoughts/points

1) It sounds like everyone is about ready to concede. I know the writing is on the wall, but I'd like a few turns of fighting with Ermor to try to test some things and learn some things. If others want to turn AI that is fine, but I'll stick it out a bit longer.

Same thing. I'll fight until my armies will be destroyed.

Originally Posted by mattyburn7

2) I found it amusing how LL kept insisting I was the main threat based on research and 1 battle while it was painfully obvious that Ermor was conquering the world. Everytime I tried to point out that Ermor was the main threat I'd hear from LL and Shardphoenix about how easy it would be to beat Ermor. Well, we see how that turned ou.t

Actually, the same thing. I had a talk with LL and he managed to make me think the same way. Sorry.

Originally Posted by mattyburn7

3) There was a somewhat long thread on the main forums page about NAPs. The consensus seems to be there is no consensus. Some players think its perfectly acceptable to move 20 stealthy armies into every province during a NAP, cancel, then spring a huge Alpha. Others would be appalled by that. My view tends to be the strictest form. No spies, so stealthy armies (only scouts allowed), no "offensive globals" (like UD) although I think dispels, etc. would be ok. Perhaps in future games, players should be encouraged to define the details of the NAP when they make them. I see lots of areas of potential conflicts.

Again, I agree. Still, it is really difficult to engage in such discussions in fast games when you can't even have any response from some players.

Originally Posted by mattyburn7

4) I have enjoyed the game. Although I am going to hang in a little longer, my congrats to Rev on the win. my thanks to the subs who helped out. Holey, my thanks to you on a smart and beneficial NAP that we created early on. Parone: Thanks for hanging in for so long.

And again, I'm going to repeat those worlds.

[revenant2]

Originally Posted by mattyburn7

1) It sounds like everyone is about ready to concede. I know the writing is on the wall, but I'd like a few turns of fighting with Ermor to try to test some things and learn some things. If others want to turn AI that is fine, but I'll stick it out a bit longer.

Excellent. We have a few things we'd like to try out as well since you're one of the few nations (besides Marignon) that we haven't fought yet.

By the way, I'm giving notice to Atlantis that Bone Daddy's hordes will be attacking him this turn since it's obvious that an attack is imminent from him. However, we'll refrain from attacking if he still wants to be bound by the terms of the NAP.

[Russian_Comrade]

Originally Posted by revenant2

Excellent. We have a few things we'd like to try out as well since you're one of the few nations (besides Marignon) that we haven't fought yet.

By the way, I'm giving notice to Atlantis that Bone Daddy's hordes will be attacking him this turn since it's obvious that an attack is imminent from him. However, we'll refrain from attacking if he still wants to be bound by the terms of the NAP.

Well, you may attack me anytime, you already broken NAP with UD and while my forces are not in thier positions it is of little importance juset now.

Yes. The map definetly helped in this case. Of course it also created a situation for me where I could expand and get way ahead in research. So it worked for me in the early game and worked against me in the mid-game when I was best positioned to check (had access to spells that would have been devestating to chaff) you but had no way to get my armies near you.

No wrapping is bad bad bad. Normally you are going to have at least three nations working against LA Ermor in the early game, this time we had two. And players in corners have great advantadge. It is possible to limit the effects of that problems with very careful map design, but it is not a trivial.


About scouts and casus belli: if you are concerned about someones scouts you may talk to that player about it. To deaclare war if someone sent a scout or two to your territory is not a good thing.

Casting Utterdark is the same thing to say "World, I want to bugger you and I'm doing this rrrrright now." I can't understand how this may even possibly lie in the gray area, sorry.

[revenant2]

Originally Posted by Russian_Comrade

No wrapping is bad bad bad. Normally you are going to have at least three nations working against LA Ermor in the early game, this time we had two. And players in corners have great advantadge. It is possible to limit the effects of that problems with very careful map design, but it is not a trivial.

Another major factor was that we had a few people go AI earlier than they should have in my view, which didn't help the cause of the living. I'm sure Midgard and R'lyeh had legitimate reasons, but they could have really slowed me down if they were managed by a person. Even as an AI they each managed to wipe a large army -- and I'm still haven't taken Midgard's capitol yet.

[mattyburn7]

Yes. That drives me nuts when players go AI early. I can understand when you have no army left and no prospect for raising an army. I can also understand when the game is pretty much done (like this one is now) or if your personal life gets in the way. But we were begging Midgard and Pangaea(when Aderion was playing) to think about the threat of Ermor and they showed little interest...and of course when Midgard got invaded he bailed. R'lyeh also. I really respect Parone for hanging in. He probably prevented me from getting attacked.

Hell I'm in another game now where I was just down to my capital and it was seiged. The player seiging me got attacked by 2 other nations and now I'm able to break the siege and even grabbed a couple of provinces. I won't win, and yes I'd rather be competetive in the game, but I'll have a hell of a good time being a thorn in his side now, learning a few things and see how far I can get.

A lot of respect also for Russian. He could have bailed after Patala and R'lyeh did, but he didn't. Holey also kept at it.

Originally Posted by revenant2

Another major factor was that we had a few people go AI earlier than they should have in my view, which didn't help the cause of the living. I'm sure Midgard and R'lyeh had legitimate reasons, but they could have really slowed me down if they were managed by a person. Even as an AI they each managed to wipe a large army -- and I'm still haven't taken Midgard's capitol yet.

[revenant2]

Originally Posted by mattyburn7

2) I found it amusing how LL kept insisting I was the main threat based on research and 1 battle while it was painfully obvious that Ermor was conquering the world. Everytime I tried to point out that Ermor was the main threat I'd hear from LL and Shardphoenix about how easy it would be to beat Ermor. Well, we see how that turned ou.t

I think in the majority of the games those guys would have been right, but in a large map with borders, i.e., no wrapping, and no scoring, it gives additional time and protection for Ermor to grow in power to the point where a lot of those tactics become less effective.

Also, many of those tactics that were touted, e.g., Undead Mastery, are difficult to research and require a fair amount of preparation to setup, which most nations are going to be reluctant to pursue when they have other wars going on. If you can pull it off, then great, but it's not a magic bullet and there are always counters to the counters.

[revenant2]

Originally Posted by mattyburn7

I finally have time to chime in a bit. Couple thoughts/points

3) There was a somewhat long thread on the main forums page about NAPs. The consensus seems to be there is no consensus. Some players think its perfectly acceptable to move 20 stealthy armies into every province during a NAP, cancel, then spring a huge Alpha. Others would be appalled by that. My view tends to be the strictest form. No spies, so stealthy armies (only scouts allowed), no "offensive globals" (like UD) although I think dispels, etc. would be ok. Perhaps in future games, players should be encouraged to define the details of the NAP when they make them. I see lots of areas of potential conflicts.

I know this horse has been beaten to death, but I can't resist to get in one more kick:

To underscore one of your points, I totally agree that in a Machiavellian diplomatic game with no defined NAP that players are going to have varying ideas of what constitutes an agreement.

However, due to the depth of the game it might be difficult to hash out a comprehensive agreement without a lot of work and not without sounding very lawyer-like.

Unless someone in the community comes up with a precise definition of what constitutes a NAP (which is highly doubtful based on what Matty noticed) I think that anyone playing under this model will need to be accepting that these situations are going to occur and that NAPs are open to interpretation.

Personally, I think invasions, remote assassinations, and remote attacks, e.g., Fires from Afar, are gross violations of a NAP and reflect unhonorably upon the violator. However, if you're violating the NAP because your opponent is doing something hostile or even potentially hostile such as casting a destructive enchant, building up a possible invasion force on your border, or even sending in scouts, etc, then you have Causi Belli to launch your own attack. Everything else is fair game -- including anonymous actions, e.g., dispel, although if they find out and interpret your action as hostile then be prepared to face the consequences.

I'm mentioning this in case I play with any of you guys in the future so you know where I stand.

Scout infiltration might be a bit controversial, but even if they don't cause too much damage when found (and I have first hand experience they can depending on the layout of the forces -- play a game as MA Ermor with all their Nether Dart spam and chaff and you'll see) they are gathering valuable intelligence that serves primarily one purpose: to plan an attack. In some other games I've been in players will send a friendly message asking for permission to let them move scouts through their territory.

In this game, I didn't make a big deal about Atlantis's scouts since I wasn't eager to start a war with him at the time, although it spurred me to send in my own scouts. However, if the situation was different, I would have been justified to use it as a pretext to war.

Note: I don't think it's wrong to spy on people you have NAPs with -- just be prepared to handle the consequences if they are caught.

[mattyburn7]

Yes...and 1 continuation on my point #4. I tip my hat to Russian Comrade. This was your first MP game I believe. You were in a tight spot, especially with Patala going down so fast! You did well in a really hard position and I enjoyed your diplomacy and conversations! No worries about LL. He was very persistent! LOL.

[Russian_Comrade]

Originally Posted by mattyburn7

Yes...and 1 continuation on my point #4. I tip my hat to Russian Comrade. This was your first MP game I believe. You were in a tight spot, especially with Patala going down so fast! You did well in a really hard position and I enjoyed your diplomacy and conversations! No worries about LL. He was very persistent! LOL.

Thanks.
I wanted to have someone soft to me to rush him with highly-blessed troops. Unfortunately, there was Ermor.

Also, I'd like to have a 24h extension.