Fallacy - Middle Era (Started!) - Page 35

Xietor · #**341** April 22nd, 2008, 07:37 PM

Vanheim is dead. Eriu is just having some issues breaching the walls of his last castle-a mountain fortress with 600 defense.

Though vanheim's dominion is most annoying, so i hope eriu throws more firbolgs to the task! Of course the Mighty Agarthians could crumble the walls down!

Xox · #**342** April 22nd, 2008, 08:33 PM

Pan is not fighting off Shin invaders , Shin is evicting ruthless pan invaders from my lands.

And the world is indeed by no means at peace while pan beseiges Jotunheim's (my) capitol.

Such deception!

How quickly the animals learn the use of deceit, betrayel, and propoganda.

But of course noone had to teach Pan the worst vices of civilisation. They excel at them and have so from the beginning.

Way back before we were at war Pangea (Hadrian_II) bombarded me with 20-40 "rain of toads" before he even notified me our 3 turn nap was terminated.

Impressive use of that spell, and it did do a good job of wrecking my economy before we even went to war (officially).

However.... Everyone be aware that Hadrian does not honor his non aggression treaties.

XOX of Jotunheim ( also embodied in various other mercenary giants employed here and there thoughout the world).

Tichy · #**343** April 22nd, 2008, 09:25 PM

Eriu is workin' on it. Got another bundle of good guys on the way to claw at those walls.

Reay · #**344** April 22nd, 2008, 09:41 PM

The Bakemono have been trying to evict the forest beings from the Giant's lands. However, now the billion berserk bloodied booby army have turned golden it is making it even harder to keep up with the swarm. He just keeps replacing them with more crazy women.

I have no plans currently to invade the forest beings lands and I am just trying to keep the Giants alive at the moment.

Why can't we all just get along? Girls.. giants are more manly than Pans. Look at those rippling giant muscles. Fur just gets in the way.

As for breaking the NAP, I know some people require NAP's to have a no anonymous ritual clause. I do not, since aggression whether it is anonymous or not is still aggression for me. I guess it just means we have to be clearer whenever we make NAPs.

Xietor · #**345** April 22nd, 2008, 09:58 PM

Yes, that very issue just reared its head in my other mp game-Epic Heroes II. For amusement one can read Lolomo's(caelum) post which is close to the end. And Admiralzhao's reply(ermor).

heheheh.

Redfrog · #**346** April 23rd, 2008, 06:10 AM

Greetings everyone ! Caelum is trading Air and Fire gems for S&N gems.

Hadrian_II · #**347** April 23rd, 2008, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Xox said:
Way back before we were at war Pangea (Hadrian_II) bombarded me with 20-40 "rain of toads" before he even notified me our 3 turn nap was terminated.

Impressive use of that spell, and it did do a good job of wrecking my economy before we even went to war (officially).

However.... Everyone be aware that Hadrian does not honor his non aggression treaties.

The glorious nation of Pangaea is appaled by the malificent lies of the dark and evil Empire of Jotunheim. Pangaea invaded Jotunheim on a humanitarian mission as even the cold grip of the Lich oppressing the Giant was not able to supress all opposition in his lands. When the Demons of Shinuyama would not have rescued their evil allies, then the reinvigorating presence of Pangaea would have have been able to rebuild the economy of the oppressed lands. Scouts report, that unrest in the Jotun capital is still way to high to support unit recruitments.

Hadrian-II of Pangaea

OOC: im now playing dom3 since it is out, and i have never ever broken a NAP. You on the other hand tryed to get an advantage by attacking me one turn before the 3 Turn grace period was off.

Rain of Toad is an anonymous ritual and therefore casting it cant be a violation of a NAP as no one did it. NAPs that include a ban of anonymous rituals or sneaking in troops are metagaming and i consider that quite lame.

Offcourse i did cast the rituals, so i did not whine in the forum when you really broke our nap.

and btw. calling other players liers because they are not metagamers like you are is rude.

Xox · #**348** April 24th, 2008, 01:06 PM

woo, where in the heck does the fevered imagination of anyone connect anonymous rituals to metagaming?

Hey, it's all in good fun, no worries. I take none of this personal, and i hope you do not either. You got me good, but..... it was a violation of the nap!!!

Attacking someone during a nap treaty is breaking a nap. Just because it is an anonymous ritual does not mean it is not an attack or not breaking your treaty of non aggression.

Trying to hide behind the anonymous part of it does not change the fact that an attack is breaking the treaty. And with that many attacks, then telling me you were terminating the nap and giving me the three turn warning after already delivering 20-40 of the continuing attacks it was really not anonymous anyways.

Naming you a treaty breaker is my right, calling me rude for doing so, is just evasion.

Hadrian_II · #**349** April 24th, 2008, 04:06 PM

Quote:

Xox said:
woo, where in the heck does the fevered imagination of anyone connect anonymous rituals to metagaming?

When it rains frogs in your capital, you cant say if the frogs were sent by pangaea or anyone else.

Quote:

Xox said:
Hey, it's all in good fun, no worries. I take none of this personal, and i hope you do not either. You got me good, but..... it was a violation of the nap!!!

Nope, anonymous rituals cant break a nap, as they are anonymous. Also stealthy preaching, sneaking armies or to position huge armies on a border are not breaks of a nap. Even equipping vane venom charms on your scouts and sending them into the enemy capital is not a break of a nap (at least not until they are caught, and even then it is not a break of the nap but when someone would do that to me i would ignore the nap and attack the offender anyway).

Quote:

Xox said:
Attacking someone during a nap treaty is breaking a nap. Just because it is an anonymous ritual does not mean it is not an attack or not breaking your treaty of non aggression.

An anonymous ritual is not an attack, or it is an attack but not by you, so it cant break a nap.

Quote:

Xox said:
Naming you a treaty breaker is my right, calling me rude for doing so, is just evasion.

If in your opinion i have broken a pact, then you had another pact with me than i had with you.

A NAP is just an early game tool to make a deal with a player that both will attack some one else at first. Later on a nap gives you the chance to put your troops in position before the war starts (And your troops where in place as you invaded me with a huge army in the start of the war, if i really would have broken the nap you would not had that chance and the whole war would have been fought on your teritorry).

Tichy · #**350** April 24th, 2008, 04:26 PM

Hadrian: Judging from the ongoing discussions on this board, you have an odd notion of what an NAP is...What you're describing here seems to be breaking an NAP surreptitiously and trying to get away with it. No player with good reason to believe that you'd hit them with anonymous rituals would consider an NAP with you to still be in effect. Of course if you can keep it ambiguous enough -- like using rituals that your nation isn't known to possess, etc., you can probably get away with it for a while, but aggression is aggression. And you don't even seem to be trying to play the grey area here...

My guess is that players who know this is your attitude about them simply won't forge them with you anymore. Unless of course this is in-character banter about a Fallacy-specific conflict that I shouldn't be kibbitzing about.