|
|
|
 |

February 13th, 2007, 03:20 PM
|
 |
Major
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Bern, Switzerland
Posts: 1,109
Thanks: 14
Thanked 17 Times in 14 Posts
|
|
Re: Update
the leadership over man has turned to the AI, it is just too bad to have to fight 3 nations at the same.
|

February 13th, 2007, 07:03 PM
|
 |
First Lieutenant
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: East Norriton, PA
Posts: 744
Thanks: 3
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
|
|
Re: Update
Maybe you shouldn't have attacked me in the first place? I think you were a little agressive.
|

February 13th, 2007, 08:07 PM
|
 |
Major
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Bern, Switzerland
Posts: 1,109
Thanks: 14
Thanked 17 Times in 14 Posts
|
|
Re: Update
well, i noticed that you are just bordering me, and so you would attack me sometimes, and i thought my chances would be better if i struck first. But as you are heavy armoured and fireproof, i had no chance.
|

February 13th, 2007, 09:41 PM
|
First Lieutenant
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 651
Thanks: 1
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: Update
Watching the game, I have this comment:
FAJ - what's the approved method of declaring a war? The game's obviously about being the last god standing...given the difficulty of winning a war with an evenly matched opponent (due to reinforcement speed, PD and the knowledge the defender has of the opposing force, which is much more static due to aforementioned reinforcement issues) it doesn't seem prudent to give them overly much time to prepare. And attacking always will leave you vulnerable to other nations taking advantage of the opening that you present, but I don't see how you can fault him for taking the iniative there, especially since the conflict was inevitable if you didn't have any other bordering nations.
Breaking a treaty might be grounds for complaint, but even then that's more due to trying to taint the aggressor's relations with other nations to hurt them in the long run.
|

February 13th, 2007, 10:12 PM
|
 |
First Lieutenant
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: East Norriton, PA
Posts: 744
Thanks: 3
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
|
|
Re: Update
I didn't fault his action. (?)
He didn't declare anything wrong, he refused a NAP and put troops on my boarder. I didn't need to be spoonfed his intent.
I was only commenting on how he ended up being attacked by my ally while he attacked me, so he brought it upon himself. It wasn't a conspiracy against him, he made a valid choice and it didn't pay off. He is right, that i would have had to attack him eventually, but i think he was wrong to take the pre-emptive strike (for his own sake).
He would have gotten stronger than me using fire fend and other (anti-armor) spells over time, where as my armies would not really change. Over time he would have become stronger than me, but he chose to make his move early, before I grew at all.
I don't expect people to declare war by the way. That just something I do because being an oppurtunist is not a fun thing for me. Winning at all costs is really not the reason I play the game.
|

February 14th, 2007, 07:02 PM
|
First Lieutenant
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 651
Thanks: 1
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: Update
I agree with your sentiments about not necessarily playing to win at all costs, FAJ.
|

February 16th, 2007, 06:14 PM
|
Major
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,122
Thanks: 5
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
|
|
Re: Update
Seems like Owindea is loosing intrest of the game. Guess it is the turns taking more and more of a commitment. Could be that she has stuff to do and want to easen the burden.
Anyhow, she has asked me to sub for her until further notice.
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is On
|
|
|
|
|