Originally posted by KnightWulfeFirst sentence: "doing"
My original point was that you cannot KNOW what every unit on the map is doing. You can only make guesstimations as to their intent. Some are very likely guesstimations.
That is a point that is not stupid. I think it is obvious, but, then again, there are many things that are obvious that people miss.
Second sentence: "intent"
Hardly the same thing.
Originally posted by no1marauderOh, I had it figured long before now. What made it interesting is that the news was coming from you, the one who was trumpeting the merits of that alliance and how it was soooo much better than the alliance you call "the Heathers"... obviously, it wasn't.
Try actually looking at the map and units and you MIGHT have figured that out by now, Princess Dimwit.
Oh well, time to crack the diplomacy books again, eh?
Originally posted by GottschalkIt was worth 221 pages to get to this. At least 5 other people agree with me.
I've been in the game since turn two. So, technically new? Sure.
As for the message thread, I read the whole thing the first day I was told about RHP. Took me hours. Some of it was laugh-out-loud funny. Especially about the "let's all gang up on the non-RHP'ers" thing.
Mine is a case of "if you can't be beat by them, be asked to join them," I s ...[text shortened]... of six realms all in search of a little elbow Roum.
A bargain at $1.99 a week...
Originally posted by no1marauderI think it's called "pissing off too many people at once".
All fixed; MY MISTAKE. Let's see it will take ALL the Heathers plus Poland (which was nice enough to put their troops in the front ranks so the Bavarians wouldn't take any losses), the Horde, Aragon letting our enemies pass though they STILL haven't won a province in the last month and who am I forgetting? to FINALLY defeat Italy. Good job, gals! ATY sti ...[text shortened]... hasn't gained any ground, but he is now defending Bavaria's claim to Venice. Nice strategy.
The fact that I no longer control Asia Minor makes me eminently qualified to make that statement.
1 edit
Originally posted by orfeoI agree 100%.
First sentence: "doing"
Second sentence: "intent"
Hardly the same thing.
But because you see an army move into a province next to yours does not mean that the intent is to attack you. Every single province here is ajacent to at least 2 provinces.
Primary example - Some time ago, Aragon told me he wanted to take Burgundy so that he could move into Bourbon, Champaign and Paris. This seemed likely as we were allied at the time. So I said I was not concerned and he took the Province. However, as he had made prior DIPLOMATIC choices, he broke alliance with me and attacked Alsace instead with the aid of Sicily, Venice and Castile.
In this situation the obvious was the move to Burgundy.
The apparent intent, to me, was to invade France.
The actual intent was to deceive me and invade Alsace.
Hence, the point I have been trying to make for multiple pages.... You cannot KNOW the intent of a fleet or army simply because it moved to a particular location.
Yes, this is a WARGAME....but it is a DIPLOMATIC Wargame
Originally posted by SuzianneToo bad no.1 has pissed you Heathers off soooooo much you don't realize you guys are all screwing each other over at every turn. Oh, the treachery... and ATY called us the 'bad guys'. Shame, shame, shame….
I think it's called "pissing off too many people at once".
The fact that I no longer control Asia Minor makes me eminently qualified to make that statement.
King!
Originally posted by KnightWulfeAnd no1's point, which I thought was obvious, was that he was not interested in what people claimed their intent was. He was discussing where units actually went, ie what they did.
I agree 100%.
But because you see an army move into a province next to yours does not mean that the intent is to attack you. Every single province here is ajacent to at least 2 provinces.
Primary example - Some time ago, Aragon told me he wanted to take Burgundy so that he could move into Bourbon, Champaign and Paris. This seemed likely as we were ...[text shortened]... You cannot KNOW the intent of a fleet or army simply because it moved to a particular location.
Having been allowed to see the turn files for a couple of moves, and the general maps for the whole game, I've faintly astonished that anyone would continue to suggest that Poland did anything other than commit suicide for its allies. I doubt that's what Poland intended, but at the end of the game, who's going to give a pair of fetid dingo's kidneys what Poland intended.
Originally posted by PhlabibitSpoken like a true student of the arrogance that is Venice. Or perhaps a bad propaganda machine. Funny, I don't see anyone screwing anyone over. At least not on OUR side. What you two have been spouting the last few turns is just not true, since......
Too bad no.1 has pissed you Heathers off soooooo much you don't realize you guys are all screwing each other over at every turn. Oh, the treachery... and ATY called us the 'bad guys'. Shame, shame, shame….
King!
There is SOOOO much that you guys just aren't aware of.
And the Italian definition of treachery must be "when our allies discover just how badly we've been lying to them and take action against us for it". Nothing like that has happened among the "Heathers"...
And last I checked, the effort against you Italians is not just us "Heathers".
Originally posted by orfeoorfeo,
And no1's point, which I thought was obvious, was that he was not interested in what people claimed their intent was. He was discussing where units actually went, ie what they did.
Having been allowed to see the turn files for a couple of moves, and the general maps for the whole game, I've faintly astonished that anyone would continue to suggest that Pola ...[text shortened]... the game, who's going to give a pair of fetid dingo's kidneys what Poland intended.
I know what no1 is saying. However, this game is not strictly based on the movement of units. The addition of diplomacy can make the INTENT of something as much a force as the actual movement of a unit. Keeping one's word or lying through one's teeth can vary the intent and the doing to diametrically opposed actions.
If we were just moving pieces on a map and there was not diplomacy, this game would not be nearly the game it is and would have gone MUCH differently. I certainly would have played it differently.
Again - the INTENT of the mongol troops that moved into Lithuania was to aid him against the Teutons....or so he thought. The actual INTENT was to crush Lithuania swiftly....The Horde succeeded in his ruse. The simple DOING of moving his troops into Lithuanian lands was not enough to determine why they were there. He thought they were there to help, but they weren't.
Originally posted by orfeoAre you a paid hack shilling for Venice? You sound just like him.
And no1's point, which I thought was obvious, was that he was not interested in what people claimed their intent was. He was discussing where units actually went, ie what they did.
Having been allowed to see the turn files for a couple of moves, and the general maps for the whole game, I've faintly astonished that anyone would continue to suggest that Pola ...[text shortened]... the game, who's going to give a pair of fetid dingo's kidneys what Poland intended.
More likely is that you try to curry favor in another game, methinks...
Interesting your particular language concerning Poland. The exact same thing happened to the Mamlukes, as I predicted at the outset. As KW implied, the difference is the original intent. Venice intended to sacrifice the Mamlukes from the beginning and the sheep fell for it. Poland's end came through no fault of KW's... their own actions (and inactions) sealed their doom.
Astonished? Why, when the Mamlukes committed seppuku also? I don't see you railing against *that* injustice...
Originally posted by SuzianneI missed where any Heather ships have sent troops to help you... what turn was that?
Spoken like a true student of the arrogance that is Venice. Or perhaps a bad propaganda machine. Funny, I don't see anyone screwing anyone over. At least not on OUR side. What you two have been spouting the last few turns is just not true, since......
There is SOOOO much that you guys just aren't aware of.
And the Italian definition of treachery m ...[text shortened]... s"...
And last I checked, the effort against you Italians is not just us "Heathers".
No.1's posts have been the most honest, though cutting... while you Heathers spin circles, lies, and avoid every fact that shows a couple of you are getting very sweet results while other regions take heavy loses to aid a small portion of your alliance.
Doge will explain it much better than I can, but you won’t buy that since you are sooooo blind to what is really going on.
King!