The Glory of Manifestos

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Arnelos
So... GoW:

Stop the whining already and just fight the fair fight. If you win, you'll get far more bragging rights than you could have ever possibly received from defeating RP Team 2-on-1 with your UU's and GA's. There would have been no glory in that victory.

So just put on a stiff upper lip and deal with it. You've taken every hit you've received in this game far too personally.

Hey Arnelos, at least GoW and ND have had the balls to openly take on the most poweful team in this game. We are simply upholding the legitimacy of our actions, not whining. Unlike RP we didn't sit back until hell broke loose in front of us, we're taking action NOW despite the odds now heavily favored against us.

[History Guy]

Arnelos, don't worry, it's Master Zen's head on the block, not ours.

[Arrian]

There are many things short of war one can do in this game which can be hostile: How would GS have felt if Vox in its last act gifted northern Estonia to Lego right before GS was about to take it? How would GS have felt if another nation sent enough ships to blockade any and all GS ports without actually touching your borders? How would GS feel if another nation landed a huge stack of troops in a tile in your continent just outside your borders?

Simple. We had no NAPs at the time. If another team had accepted Voxian cities, we would have declared war and waltzed right in. That's a no-brainer.

The ships comment... You mean our lookouts up north? Whatever, that's just good sense on our part - we're watching for a GoW invasion.

Huge stacks of troops? We're AT WAR with ND! And now GoW, apparently. We're going to need those troops.

-Arrian

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Shiber
It is my opinion that Nathan is both wrong and right.
Nathan is wrong to harp on the concept of a 'disproportionate share of land'. After all, we are all playing a game where players are divided into teams and strive to have fun and to achieve victory, and the likeliest method of victory in PBEMs of this nature is by conquering two thirds of the world - doubtlessly, a "disproportionate" share of land for one civ to control, but this is why it's called victory.
However, Nathan is right to suggest that GoW and ND couldn't have possibly expected GS to sit idly while GoW and ND divided amongst themselves a continent that is more than three times larger than Stormia (according to tile count).

Shiber, just to make it clear, my use of "disproportionate" was in a comparative sense, not in a moral sense. I agree that given a sufficient opportunity, any civ can be expected to grab more than "its share" of land, and since that's one of the paths to victory, it can hardly be considered morally wrong. But expecting other civs to sit idly by while that happens is another matter entirely.

[DeepO]

Originally posted by Master Zen
There are many things short of war one can do in this game which can be hostile: How would GS have felt if Vox in its last act gifted northern Estonia to Lego right before GS was about to take it?

This is one of those cases I just can't help myself, and have to respond

MZ, with all respect, but after you practised that argument in a PM to us (with the difference that you substituted Lego for GoW), and were given our answer before, you still repeat it? I thought GoW was more creative

If any nation would have accepted a Voxian city in our way, we would have made a very simple decision.
A. they have a NAP with us: We must fall back, and accept that they have diplomatically screwed us. GS will remember, and when the NAP has passed, will do what we have to.
B. They have no NAP with us: We take the city, and declare war.

There is no comparison to the Vox war: we had no NAP with nobody (well, we had one with Vox, before the war broke out). It was even funnier when you asked about what would have happened if GoW would have taken a Voxian city at the edge of falling: we were at war at the time.

DeepO

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Arnelos


And there, ladies and gentlemen, is why I started that thread to begin with. I knew someone like Master Zen would be unable to resist the temptation to make a post just like the one he made. The fact that I actually agree with much of what he said (and even dared to say so) is irrelevant. GS did care.

The whole point of the thread was accomplished when Gathering Storm got the message I wanted sent, not from RP Team (understandbly an unreliable source), but straight from the horse's mouth at Glory of War.

Small bit of comfort huh Arnelos? To smugly assume you know me enough that I fell into your so-called trap in the other thread must be some relief to the fact RP is crumbling around you...



I still don't see why we've fallen inoto a trap of our own words. We made a post simply stating the reasons we were now on a colllission course with GS. If anything it was GS who started whining about the NAP ( I suggest you re-read the first page). In fact, I NEVER EVEN MENTIONED THE NAP in my post since it was secret, since GS brought up the NAP issue that's one more clause they explicitly broke (although irrelevant since the NAP was moot in the first place)

[Darekill]

Well what counts as a hostil act can always be disputet. I remember a time whre even the fair trade of let's say some iron too a poor suddendly ironless nation would have been considered hostile....

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by History Guy
Arnelos, don't worry, it's Master Zen's head on the block, not ours.

says a guy from a team who has lost about 50% of their powergraph in 3 turns....

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Darekill
Well what counts as a hostil act can always be disputet. I remember a time whre even the fair trade of let's say some iron too a poor suddendly ironless nation would have been considered hostile....

If anything GS invented the definition of hostile acts being anything against their war effort, being in-game or not....

now can you give me a straight face while saying your actions were not hostile?

[Arrian]

Yeah, it's irrelevant alright, MZ, since GoW broke the NAP already. Mentioning a secret NAP after it's already been broken is no transgression.

-Arrian

[DeepO]

Originally posted by Darekill
Well what counts as a hostil act can always be disputet. I remember a time whre even the fair trade of let's say some iron too a poor suddendly ironless nation would have been considered hostile....

Touché, Darekill. But at least we openly discussed what was hostile before the trade could go through. And it didn't exactly helped us in a diplomatic sense, all it did was to prevent iron from being traded.

Funny thing, BTW, that our past enemies now are our friends

DeepO

[Arnelos]

Originally posted by Master Zen
despite the odds now heavily favored against us.

Originally posted by Master Zen

Quote:

Originally posted by History Guy Arnelos, don't worry, it's Master Zen's head on the block, not ours.

says a guy from a team who has lost about 50% of their powergraph in 3 turns....

So which one is it?

[History Guy]

Heh, MZ, while we'll be rebuilt after this cruel war is over, China is not expected to survive.

And hey! You'll have to answer our questions at the war crimes trials! Butchering 10,000 civilians at Bilbao... Uggg...wouldn't want to be in your shoes, old man.

[Arrian]

Nice try, Darekill. But the analogy doesn't work.

In a surprise naval landing, Gathering Storm forces have succeeded in capturing Vox Controli's sole supply of iron. We ask that any nation considering trading Iron to the Voxians keep in mind their tendencies toward treachery. If they survive, you may someday find yourselves facing pikes and swords made from your own iron. We also ask that you keep in mind that providing military aid to our enemies cannot possibly be good for long-term relations with Gathering Storm. If you do give consideration to a Voxian request for iron, please think carefully about whether any short-term profits Vox might offer are really worth that long-term cost.

It was a warning, nothing more. A warning about the possibility of being double-crossed, and a warning that GS would be pissed.

now can you give me a straight face while saying your actions were not hostile?

Yep, sure can.

-Arrian

[Aggie]

I wasn't going to post again in this thread, and this is probably the last. But I must correct s some of Arnelos's mistakes.
1) Our troops were spooked when they saw bilboa/toledo in GS hands.
Wrong, we simply were trying to find a peaceful solution to this action as we were trying to ascertain whether or not past agreements were violatred by this action. At the time we were uncertain.
2) We attack Rp because of past actions. Partially true but for many, me included, this was not the reason. The reason was that ND has been the best ally a nation can expect. They have helped not just to the letter of the agreements between us, but have helped all the way to the intent of the agreements and beyond. How could we honorably side against such a loyal friend. Unfortunately for RP and GS we could not.
3) My objections personally to the GS/RP actions are such;
To the gifting of the cities, I am unhappy but that can be done.
To the switching of cities(an act we new about) to move troops. I can only call it an exploit and against the spirit of the game. I would like such actions banned. But remember others can do such things and most likely will. You have opened pandora's box and will never be able to contain what you have unleased.
Aggie(Consul of War for GOW)

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Arrian
Nice try, Darekill. But the analogy doesn't work.



It was a warning, nothing more. A warning about the possibility of being double-crossed, and a warning that GS would be pissed.

-Arrian

When the RoP was denied, I explicitly informed nye via chat that we would not see that in a good light, that we considered it most unfriendly and likely to lead to friction and non-collaboration in the future.

You were warned. You chose to ignore it.

[DeepO]

... and we don't suspected GoW to be very friendly after us taking Bilbao and Toledo... we would be pissed, so they have that same right too. Which doesn't mean you should try to drag us down with you, you broke a treaty (hell, you broke every GS-GoW treaty we ever had!), we did not.

DeepO

[Arrian]

I can only call it an exploit and against the spirit of the game. I would like such actions banned. But remember others can do such things and most likely will. You have opened pandora's box and will never be able to contain what you have unleased.

I think it's certainly something worthy of discussing. There is an argument to be made about the spirit of the game. Since it's already been used (Voxodus & in the great Bobian war) in this game, I suspect you're right about Pandora's Box - for this game. It should probably be discussed for PTWDemoII and any future games, though.

-Arrian

[History Guy]

MZ better watch out. I just bought a new turkey gibbet for Pamplona, and we are expanding it as the Grand Execution Weapon! Ahahahaha!

Dr. Pinch
Lord High Executioner

[Arrian]

You were warned. You chose to ignore it

Yep, we were warned. We knew you were going to break the NAP, it was just a matter of when.

We even offered a mutual cancellation of the NAP, if memory serves. But you ignored that. As we suspected you might.

The NAP was no longer in your interests. It wasn't really in ours either, but we weren't going to break it (yes, I know, you think we already did. Fine, we disagree on that).

-Arrian

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Aggie
2) We attack Rp because of past actions. Partially true but for many, me included, this was not the reason. The reason was that ND has been the best ally a nation can expect. They have helped not just to the letter of the agreements between us, but have helped all the way to the intent of the agreements and beyond. How could we honorably side against such a loyal friend. Unfortunately for RP and GS we could not.

I think this is the point RP has always failed to grasp. ND has treated GoW probably better than any other team has treated another in this demo game, since before I joined and to this very day. How we could even conceivably join RP against a friend which has trusted us, shared its concerns with us in such a way is folly despite how crazy and hard to belive our splitting of the continent could have been.

I just hope ND considers GoW just half as highly as we consider them. To have allies like that is truly a rare thing, we have pledged our mutual support in this matter and I speak for GoW when I say that our team is willing to fight for the death for the survival of its ally just as much as we will fight for the death of our own.

[DeepO]

That's not what you told us in chat! Or have you forgotten your (official) reason that you wanted GS involved in the gang-rape?

DeepO

[GhengisFarb™]

Deleted.

[Arrian]

High praise.

Diplomacy trumped geography (clearly, it would have been easier for RP & GoW to split ND than for GoW & ND to split RP... hell, I remember thinking up ways of coming to ND's aid!). And I think that's pretty cool. Good for you guys. We're gonna do our best to defeat you, of course

-Arrian

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Arrian


I think it's certainly something worthy of discussing. There is an argument to be made about the spirit of the game. Since it's already been used (Voxodus & in the great Bobian war) in this game, I suspect you're right about Pandora's Box - for this game. It should probably be discussed for PTWDemoII and any future games, though.

-Arrian

The fact of the matter is that every new turn presents a new circumnstance for us to consider. A game of this magintude an dthis advance has never been attempted and we still have A LOT to learn. Can anybody have guessed this was going to happen say 20 turns ago? Not me!

That is why I consider doing things legal, no matter if they were cruel, to be more important than it sounds, simply for the sake of precedence, because we might just end up by PTWDG IV to never give a damn about any agreement, in-game or out with this being an all-out slug-fest from the start.

That's why Zargon's UN initiative was so good. Could have added a huge dimension to the game. Too bad it never got off the ground but hopefully something similar will be done eventually in PTWDG II. Like I said, it's not about convincing the opponent that he did wrong, but rather convincing a neutral (or so) world body. Without this, dipolomacy is pretty irrelevant, and diplomacy is frankly the reason I love this demo game.

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx


Cheers.

Thanks for informing me that all my hard work was seen as nothing but Garbage in the eyes of GS. I for one thought that I had offered very respectable offers for all that were involved in those negotiations. Both before and after the gifting of cities. Before, I was looking for a compromise to what both GS and ND insisted on. It was not even given a second look before the gifting of cities. After, I sought a RoP, nothing more. This was scoffed at by claiming GS wished to advantage neither GoW nor RP in the war, despite the fact you had a RoP with RP in place.

So, my time as your ambassador was garbage in your eyes. Fine. You could have saved me allot of trouble and time if you had informed me of that long ago.

It's not anything personal, but count the tiles that your offers would have left us with and the tiles that your offers would have left GoW and ND with. Your offers were for GS to sit idly by or intervene on your behalf while you and ND went from being smaller than us to being dramatically bigger. How does that constitute "respectable" offers? Why would we accept such offers if we could find a viable alternative?

The real key to diplomacy is to consider the needs and desires of the other side. What needs and desires of GS were your offers designed to fulfill? I don't know whether the failure was yours personally, or whether it was something forced on you by your team, but either way, your team's almost total disregard for our interests doomed your efforts to failure. Just to make it clear, I do not mean this as a personal attack, but rather to help clarify the situation and perhaps help you in future diplomatic negotiations.

Nathan

[GhengisFarb™]

Deleted.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Master Zen
The fact of the matter is that every new turn presents a new circumnstance for us to consider. A game of this magintude an dthis advance has never been attempted and we still have A LOT to learn.

Holy crap! I've been so involved with GoW, I'm starting to subconsciously make typos in d-case!!

[GhengisFarb™]

Deleted.

[Arrian]

Ghengis - I doubt that was the offer. But if I were in GoW's shoes, I wouldn't have accepted anything short of 2/3 of ND, since RP already had more land, and GoW's Riders would probably have to do the heavy lifting. RP, I assume, didn't see it that way.

-Arrian