Originally posted by PhlabibitHey, I've played games of Monopoly that make this look like a picnic. Try bridge, now that can get seriously vicious.
What was the question again? I saw it, and I don't remember it being so important.
Also, this is a game. I hope you guys are not getting all gerked around over it. I thought playing Monopoly was bad!
P-
I agree, game over. This has just been about baiting.
Originally posted by no1marauderNow, this can't go unanswered. Which allies have I screwed over and every week too? Aren't they getting tired of it?
What are you: a parrot??? How many times are you going to say the same moronic statement? I gave an answer as much of an answer as anyone is going to give in a forum read by his opponents. You've never answered a single question regarding your conduct in this game. Everyone knows you screw your allies; it can be seen each week when we open a resultfile.
Originally posted by buffalobillPoland: 2 turns ago. Norway: every turn for 9.
Now, this can't go unanswered. Which allies have I screwed over and every week too? Aren't they getting tired of it?
I guess not. Some people apparently think that because you've been allowed to gain the most gold provinces without fighting a single major battle (before last turn) that you're certain to win and want to kiss your posterior as much as possible. Some are afraid of you, I suppose.
Originally posted by buffalobillI wasn't talking about your arguing with no1. I was just making a joke. Though it generally is a waste of time to argue with him. Everyone has to learn the hard way, I guess. I learned arguing with him when he lead the CC.
I agree, enough words said. Trouble is, No1 now gets the final word. What the heck.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungHow's the original Hungarian fleet BTW? I have some unfinished bizness with them; will they be around this season?
I wasn't talking about your arguing with no1. I was just making a joke. Though it generally is a waste of time to argue with him. Everyone has to learn the hard way, I guess. I learned arguing with him when he lead the CC.
Originally posted by no1marauderThank you ATY.
Poland: 2 turns ago. Norway: every turn for 9.
I guess not. Some people apparently think that because you've been allowed to gain the most gold provinces without fighting a single major battle (before last turn) that you're certain to win and want to kiss your posterior as much as possible. Some are afraid of you, I suppose.
Now, No1 what have I supposedly done to Norway and Poland? I think you will find it's purely conjecture on your side.
1 edit
Originally posted by buffalobillSince I've unequivocally won 6 of them and 2 of the other 3 were strategic wins (the side that barely held the field was wiped out the next turn), I've been pretty successful at it. The only exception was Wallachia last turn which was a calculated risk as most of them were. Clausewitz says the purpose of war is to destroy the enemy's armies; you can't do that without fighting battles.
Bully for you. What does Clausewitz say about seeking battle? And who's first in your rankings? We play the game as it unveils before us.
EDIT: Direct annihilation of the enemy's forces must always be the dominant consideration.
Carl Von Clausewitz
1 edit
Originally posted by buffalobillNo conjecture at all.
Thank you ATY.
Now, No1 what have I supposedly done to Norway and Poland? I think you will find it's purely conjecture on your side.
1) Norway - you've stood and watched them fight Denmark for 9 turns without fighting a single battle to assist them.
2) Poland - on the turn after Poland diverted a major percentage of their army to save your Bavarian buddy from defeat outside Venice, you suddenly made peace with the Teutons, leaving Poland vulnerable to attack. The Teutons attacked and took two provinces.
Well??
Having been accused of being no1's paid friend, I've gone back over the exchange of the last few pages with an eye to assessing things afresh.
And no matter how hard I look at it, I keep coming to the same conclusion: I tend to support no1 in debates because he can construct arguments so much better than most other people.
Equating a question about future plans (are you coming out of Venice) with a question about past actions (not assisting Norway) is just silly. It's blindingly obvious why no1 isn't going to answer that one - and he's said he won't.
If the other question isn't going to be answered, just say so buffalobill and let's move on. Otherwise, answer it.
Originally posted by no1marauderNorway has had one major fight with the Danes which was this last turn. He knows and accepts the terms of our arrangement. If you have a problem with this, I suggest you discuss it with him. But I know you have tried, and that he's ignored you for the blowhard you are.
No conjecture at all.
1) Norway - you've stood and watched them fight Denmark for 9 turns without fighting a single battle to assist them.
2) Poland - on the turn after Poland diverted a major percentage of their army to save your Bavarian buddy from defeat outside Venice, you suddenly made peace with the Teutons, leaving Poland vulnerable to attack. The Teutons attacked and took two provinces.
Well??
I made alliance with the the Teutons and Poles on the same turn. This was to protect my eastern frontiers. I was not party to any other arrangements they had with anyone else. Strange as it may seem to you, we are individual players.