MP Game - Artifact Game - running 48hr qh

archaeolept · #1 March 9th, 2006, 12:06 PM

ehh, i haven't w/drawn. my plan is to hide my forces in my castles, let QM take all of my lands, and wait for each castle to be eventually beseiged. Possibly everyone gets so bored they stop playing, in which case I emerge and conquer the world.

Morkilus · #2 March 9th, 2006, 02:59 PM

I'm done with it as far as having fun is concerned. If anyone wants me to continue playing, I will though, out of principle. I'm not trying to blame anyone, but it looks like the game is ruined anyway.

Quote:

archaeolept said:
ehh, i haven't w/drawn. my plan is to hide my forces in my castles, let QM take all of my lands, and wait for each castle to be eventually beseiged. Possibly everyone gets so bored they stop playing, in which case I emerge and conquer the world.

I feel no need to play when somebody uses meta-strategies like this. I'd rather play against the AI, at least then I can take a turn more than once every two days, and quit playing without feeling like a heel.

archaeolept · #3 March 9th, 2006, 04:55 PM

lol - how is what QM and IH done not a "meta-strategy"? Mine is purely in response to theirs - Quantum has been pretty clear for a while, heck, even before the real war started, that IH would be almost impossible to stop - Quant, by making himself subservient to a player he freely acknowledged was close to unstoppable, and IH for encouraging and welcoming this "strategy", were responsible for the death of this game. Clearly, such actions are bull****. I'm perfectly capable of fighting against a larger coalition, as I've been doing, but when there is a secret compact that, whatever the "intentions" basically throws the game to the acknowledged (by the other major power and experienced player) leader, then I've got to ask what the point is in playing such a futile exercise?

My strategy is the only one that seems to me valid for the current circumstances. I did not ask for the game to be halted - IH did that on his own initiative w/out any discussion w/ his fellow players. I'm happy to continue playing, but my strategy is my own. why I should play in such a rigged game, and then also be forced not to follow my own strategy in the matter; well, that's absurd.

clearly the only way to upset a game throwing is to try and make the one throwing the game reconsider his options -in this case, by allowing him to grab enough of my territory that he would then be capable of defeating IH straight out.

Quote:

I worked really hard in this game

did nothing, grew, and waited until there was an absurd preponderance of force. that's hard work? ha.

Ironhawk · #4 March 9th, 2006, 06:21 PM

Quote:

archaeolept said:
lol - how is what QM and IH done not a "meta-strategy"?

No, its not. What IH has done is to work diplomatically for the win from turn 1. And now you see your chance for victory disappearing because all my diplomatic work has paid off. Well, I am sorry that all your hard work has been in vain, arch. But the truth is that the game developed into a King Maker situation and I beat you to it. Fair and square. You lose. If you cannot see that through your own self-righteousness then that is your problem.

But - you are in luck! I have grown tired of pandering to your ridiculous collusion arguments and decided to bow out of this game. Enjoy your victory!!! Big time congrats on the win!!!!

archaeolept · #5 March 10th, 2006, 12:20 AM

lol pandering. I've had to endure your sputtering B.S., self-serving distortions, and outright lies all game - fine, if you can't deal w/ looking for a fair ie. interesting fight. But no way in hell does my strategy have to follow how you would want it to be. Clearly, w/ quantum acting as if he were sworn to subservience, the best way to break your "unholy alliance" is to offer quantum enough to tempt him into going solely for the win - ie. by leaving my territories undefended. Then the possibility remains that, following a great armageddon war, i might be able to squeak up the middle, however unlikely that may be.

That's why you want to bow out - the threat of actually having to fight for something after all. I haven't withdrawn - feel free to win if you can.

Ironhawk · #6 March 10th, 2006, 02:30 AM

I can't believe you are so sore because I stole the win from you via diplomacy. Why can't you see how poor of a sport you're being?

archaeolept · #7 March 10th, 2006, 02:35 AM

what the [censored] - i'm pissed at the [censored] you've spewed all game towards me. I already offered to decline any win earlier in discussion w/ quant, if he were willing to not throw the game to you. I don't give a [censored] about winning; i do give a [censored] about playing well, and playing fair, and not having to listen to your crap.