MP Game - "Throne Of Heavens", veterans and experienced players only (full)

[Stormbinder]

Cohen said:
Why the hell the poor Maltrease is in this struggle beetween you three ... ?

If I see any of his post here, I could understand, but why he's in the middle here without having said anything here. If he's said something in private, probably he wants to keep it private.

For what I know, is damn common that the 2nd and 3rd nation coalizes against the 1st power on the chart (graphs). Even if they project a join alliance, well, this will result in the game outcome and the players will lose some distrust.
In my opinion, for what I've understood, because I'm out of this game since long time, probably will happen a Mictlan/Pangea war when Van is finished off, and depending on Marignon and Ryleh strenght they could act as ally to make the balance going left or right.

The advice I could tell you, for how is frustrating, is to keep playing til the Last, because you said "No Quitter", it's your game and your rule, even if it's a battle lost and of the series "Against the Odds" (a wargaming magazine that usually includes a wargame where 1 side is badly outnumbered).

You are missing the point Cohen. First I was not the top nation, Mictlan was. As I wrote above several times, he had *much* better army, *many* more SCs, higher gem income and better reseach. I only had small lead in gold income and province number. He also have not been in any serious war since the begining of the game. In fact all he ever done in this game was to swallow first your sub than you when you have returned from your trip. Nothing else, just siting on his arse, farming bloodslaves.


Second - quantum and archae had no intentions fo duke it out between themselves whatsoever. They decided to form "joint victory" coalition instead. They have said that themslef to me very clearly.


From quantum's own mouth: "I'm afraid I have some bad news. Mictlan has offered me a very nice joint victory option, so I'm afraid I'm giving notice on our None-Agression treaty".


When I complained about this "joint victory" crap and told him that this is supposed to be FFA game, he refused to change their plan and that: "Honestly a large fator is the increased micro the longer the game goes on".

When I complained about it to Arache, his response was almost exactly the same. And he also told me that he is doing it largly because he " just hates that part of the endgame".



If quantum and archae hated the dom2's endgames so much, why not just find the subs for you like other people did, instead of turning the game from FFA to "join voctory" crap??? Simply because you wanted to "win" the game so badly? That's a very lame attitude, to say at least.

[Cainehill]

Remember, Stormliar wrote in the very first post in thread:

Only serious Dom2 players may apply. That means those ... who [are] generally determined to stick to the end, no matter if it is sweet one or bitter one. If due to some RL emergency you will have to abandon the game, you promise to try to give other fellow players as advanced warning as possible and you will do your best to find a human sub for your nation. The goal is to avoid AWOL players as well as AI nations in this game.

Hey, Stormie? What's your RL (Real Life) emergency that's causing you to quit the game? What happened to "as advanced warning as possible and doing your best to find a human sub"?

I haven't heard any RL emergency. I haven't heard any efforts to get a human sub.

And I don't see _ANY_ rule saying the game was FFA, no allied victories. Just like in other games you've lied, claiming that the rules were specifically tailored to keep Norfleet out, when there was _NO_ rule that in any way excluded him.

You lie like a salesman selling flies.

[Stormbinder]

Cainehill said:

Personally, I expect you refused the 'assured victory' because...

Personally I expect you to have no idea what you are talkign about, because you was never a part of this game. Unlike yourslef, Archae, along with other players, had seen things quite clearly, and that's the only reason why he backed down from Zap's threat to throw the game in my favor, after much urging from me. Archae was very pissed and he have complained everywhere about what he called Zap's "blackmail".



Of course you probably suspected as much yourself, since you happly took your part in bashing Zap when he was thinking of quiting, not on the merit but just because he was on your personal "hate list", like Cohen, Baron, myself, others. But as an self-admited addicted flamer you just could not walk past this thread when you saw some familiar faces here.

Sorry Cain, no cigars for you here. I know what you are. Go back to your troll's cave.

[Cohen]

Well, Cainehill manage to put me in the middle everytime.
I never said that Storm is one of the most experienced players here ... I don't know even many of the players that walk around there so I can't exactly tell anything about.

For Diplo, well ... to everyone their point of view.
And in every game, different diplo.
Full stop.

[Stormbinder]

Cohen said:
Well, Cainehill manage to put me in the middle everytime.

LOL. Are you surprised? That's good old Cain for you. I was only surprised that he didn't pop up earlier. He was probably distracted by new 2 forums format, poor guy.

[quantum_mechani]

This is spinning way out of control. Caine said earlier that I had no reason to be upset with Storm before joining the game, and that's true. Infact, I still am not interested in a conflict over this. I'm merely attempting to end this game in a way that most of the remaining players can agree with. What you say about my comments about the end game are true, but nothing was ever set in stone about what exactly would happen when Storm was gone. Strangely enough, our brief 3 turn war was actually one of the more interesting parts of the game to me (because of my general dislike of the late game, this was only my second expirience I have had fighting a war in it, so I got to use/see tactics that I had not previously).

What I can't understand is how Storm's quitting was tied to whether there would be any kind of alliance victory. The issues seem totally separate, after all, Storm's empire would be gone before it ever became an issue.

[Stormbinder]

quantum_mechani said:
This is spinning way out of control. Caine said earlier that I had no reason to be upset with Storm before joining the game, and that's true. Infact, I still am not interested in a conflict over this.

*shrug* I am not interested in the conflict myself. The purpose of my original message was to express my feelings over direction of the game have taken at the end, and why I am bowing out of it. In fact, in my original message I said that your and Miclan nations played well and become 2 out of 3 the major nations in this game at the end.

What you say about my comments about the end game are true, but nothing was ever set in stone about what exactly would happen when Storm was gone.

Sorry quantum, but if you admit that what I said about your comments are true (and it is true), than that's exactly what they meant. "Joint victory" agreement that Mictlan had offered to you, which, as you both said, was largly motivated by your strong mutual dislike for the endgames, leaved only one road open. The road our game took during these Last 5 turns.

Strangely enough, our brief 3 turn war was actually one of the more interesting parts of the game to me (because of my general dislike of the late game, this was only my second expirience I have had fighting a war in it, so I got to use/see tactics that I had not previously).

Well, I am glad you seem to change your opinion about endgames. Personally I think endgames are a lot of fun, especialy in a game such as our, which had several very strong nations at the end, and few minor one. All with very large resourses, very different armies and very different battle tactics. Honestly I was looking forward toward very interesting endgame.

All I can say is that I wish you would come to this conclusion about endgames earlier and would refuse the "shortcut" that Mictlan had offered to you.

What I can't understand is how Storm's quitting was tied to whether there would be any kind of alliance victory. The issues seem totally separate, after all, Storm's empire would be gone before it ever became an issue.

It is quite an opposite. These issues are very tightly connected, since the only reason why my empire would be gone was your "joint victory" agreement.

Heh, funny thing is that archae even had guts to ask me "why I would not try to break your alliance diplomatically?" What a joke. How could one possibly break an alliance where both partners decided that they will share the victory in the game after they crash all opposition? And why would somebody want to waste 20-30 more turns with 20-40 battles per turn, as I had during Last 3 or 4 turns, disregarding the fact that the game he would be playing will no longer be FFA but "team game" instead, simply because 2 players decided that it will be so mostly because they both didn't like endgames at the time when they forged their agreement?

Frankly it does not make any sense to me.


Anyway, if you or Arcahe will find subs for all missing players (it looks like you need to find subs for my Vanheim, R'lyeh, and probably Marignon), I'll gladly send to somebody my two passwords for this game. But I can't honestly ask somebody to sub for Vanheim because I would not imagine somebody would want to play Vanheim, or any other in-game nations except your two, in the "team game" where 1 pre-set team has much more resourses than the rest of the nations combined. And also because the game I would be recruiting for will be no longer FFA game that it was supposed to be.


But who knows, maybe somebody will be interested, perhaps for pure educational or for masohistic purposes. I'll reset new 6000 hours timer one more time if you want me to.

[WraithLord]

I think it's prefectly reasonable for two nations to ally against another for whatever reason.
I don't have a problem with Pan & Mictlan alliance.
My problem is that by deciding on an allied victory in our FFA game they turned the tables for other players.
If Pan & Mictlan want to wipe Van, R'lyeh and Marignon and then settle it out between then I consider it perfectly acceptable.
So long as there's one winner to the game not two.
It's a subtle but important difference.

Anyway, this conflict is blown way out of proportions.
After reading the opinions of the involved players and better
understanding the situation and especially that there isn't going to be an allied victory I am all for continuing the game.

Yes, my position isn't strong and I will most probably not win the game.
So what?! as long as the game is fair I will continue to enjoy it till I'm blown off the face of the map .

So if you guys are willing to settle your differences, by all means let's continue the game!

[Maltrease]

As usual in these situations the truth lies somewhere in-between the strong sided positions people take.

It always disappoints me to see so much negative energy being created and directed to our forum. Negative energy is best used to fuel armies of the undead, feeding the coming Armagedon, or at the very least used to heatup that frozen pizza.

As for the game, the Marigon council had spent over 63 turns (before I took over the empire) preparing for the destruction of Mictan. My stewardship would not be complete if I didn't claim victory over Mictan, or at least prove to the council the error of their ways. Our mages have FAITH that they are invincible to armies made from purple blood.

So the mighty and invincible nation of Marigon is prepared to continue the game if the fates lead us in that direction. If the game does die, only 7 of our 30 priest will weap terribly more than the other 23 feel is appropriate.

BTW - I claim victory over Mictan.

[Stormbinder]

izaqyos said:
My problem is that by deciding on an allied victory in our FFA game they turned the tables for other players.

I agree, that's exactly my problem as well. And the curent situation on the ground is the direct result of their "joint victory agreement". As the nation on the recieving end of it, I can qurantee that there is no way Mictlan would gain the territory that he gained since the begining of hostilites if not for their "joint victory agreement". Even more, if not for thier joint voctory agreement my own actions would be very different. For example - I would never attack Mictlan myself 4 turns ago, even after he withdrew from NAT. The only reason why I did it was thier "joint victory" plan that Pan have informed me about and Archae promptly confirmed, when they both withdrew from NAT treaties. At that point I knew I had nothing to lose since Mictlan would attack me anyway, as soon as he will finish positioning his sneaky troops over my territory, as he did with Machaka. So I decided that I might as well do something about it while I still can, instead of siting on my arse and waiting for the axe to fall.

I don't think that the map editing that somebody have suggested earlier is a good option either. First of all - it is a huge pain in the butt. Second - what about units/artifacts/armies, etc.? Third - I don't know about you, but I don't keep any old turns around on my comp. There will be no end of arguments about what was what and who was where if we try to "rewind" the game to the time when this "joint voctory" crap was introduced. At least I can honesty say that this proposol do not seem to be very viable to me, all things considering.