Originally posted by no1marauderHe took Venice didn't he? A 32 gold province. And you had 11 turns to prepare for it. Who's incompetent?
I've had no stooges willing to let themselves be destroyed to allow me to win. Whenever you've had to face my forces on anywhere near equality, you've been smashed. You're militarily incompetent; it's quite amazing it took you 11 turns to take Venice during which time you managed to win not a single province anywhere. Yes, your strategy was utterly brill ...[text shortened]... g Bavaria win I'm sure he'll just be waitingfor his eventual, inevitable betrayal.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungDo you set down your name in the scroll of youth, that are written down old with all the characters of age? Have you not a moist eye, a dry hand, a yellow cheek, a white beard, a decreasing leg, an increasing belly? Is not your voice broken, your wind short, your chin double, your wit single, and every part about you blasted with antiquity? And will you yet call yourself Young?
Thou froward fen-sucked flirt-gill!!!!!
Originally posted by KnightWulfeHe didn't SAY he had gained anything. This is not a 2-person game. He was saying that if it WAS he would thrash you.
Ya know, it is not even worth agruing it with you. You will see it your way and there is no other way you will see it.
You have won a few battles, we have both taken losses, but you have not gained a damn thing in our war. You have lost. You had to flee from Venice to save your skin. You had to expand into a weak area to even expand. Yes yes...your plan has worked out so much better than mine.
Seeing as how that's a totally hypothetical scenario, we'll never be able to verify the statement. But it's an interesting argument.
*rattles empty popcorn bucket and wonders why the service in Venice has gotten so poor lately*
Originally posted by orfeoI 100% agree that if I were to play a game that was one on one, using the strategy that I did, yes....I would get my arse kicked. But, I would not play a one on one game like I did this one. This is a 23 person game. The rules and strategies are a lot different.
He didn't SAY he had gained anything. This is not a 2-person game. He was saying that if it WAS he would thrash you.
Seeing as how that's a totally hypothetical scenario, we'll never be able to verify the statement. But it's an interesting argument.
*rattles empty popcorn bucket and wonders why the service in Venice has gotten so poor lately*
1 edit
Originally posted by KnightWulfeAlso agreed. But I think no1's point is that he can't understand why some of the other 22 persons are helping you more than they are helping themselves.
I 100% agree that if I were to play a game that was one on one, using the strategy that I did, yes....I would get my arse kicked. But, I would not play a one on one game like I did this one. This is a 23 person game. The rules and strategies are a lot different.
1 edit
Originally posted by orfeoAnd that is the diplomacy part that makes a difference. If you look at the current map, The aid I received from Hungary getting the foot in the door - will be allowing him to make his gains now. It is that whole give and take system. It just so happened with Hungary that the first part of our agreement was me doing the taking. He will be doing his own taking now with my assistance.
Also agreed. But I think no1's point is that he can't understand why some of the other 22 persons are helping you more than they are helping themselves.
EDIT: Hungary is just an example. I am not going into a full discertation until the game is over. I will, however, be happy to discuss all the ins and outs that I have been using with you at a later time.
Originally posted by KnightWulfeAnd what exactly will Hungary be able to do about it if you change your mind?
And that is the diplomacy part that makes a difference. If you look at the current map, The aid I received from Hungary getting the foot in the door - will be allowing him to make his gains now. It is that whole give and take system. It just so happened with Hungary that the first part of our agreement was me doing the taking. He will be doing his own ta ...[text shortened]... wever, be happy to discuss all the ins and outs that I have been using with you at a later time.
I'm not expecting you to answer that explicitly, but you get the point. If all the taking happens first, there needs to be a decent incentive for you to then do some giving. If it's purely out of a sense of 'fairness' then you're potentially hindering yourself from winning the game.
Originally posted by orfeoTHat is very true, but he and I have felt confident in our alliance for a long time and there has been no reason to distrust. If you look at the current map, he has 1800CS of troops in my most valuble city and I am not worried....despite the blithering that no1 thinks Hungary should stab me in the back.
And what exactly will Hungary be able to do about it if you change your mind?
I'm not expecting you to answer that explicitly, but you get the point. If all the taking happens first, there needs to be a decent incentive for you to then do some giving. If it's purely out of a sense of 'fairness' then you're potentially hindering yourself from winning the game.
For all of no1's talk of honesty this and he does not lie that....he certainly thinks that everyone else should stab each other in the back for gain and that he would do it in their position.... Kind of a contradiction, if ya ask me. Of course, most of it has been directed at me, so it is just likely that he is bitter.
Originally posted by KnightWulfeOr, he's employing a tactic.
THat is very true, but he and I have felt confident in our alliance for a long time and there has been no reason to distrust. If you look at the current map, he has 1800CS of troops in my most valuble city and I am not worried....despite the blithering that no1 thinks Hungary should stab me in the back.
For all of no1's talk of honesty this and he does ...[text shortened]... ask me. Of course, most of it has been directed at me, so it is just likely that he is bitter.
Originally posted by orfeoNo; being good to people means people will get your back when you need them. Being bad to people means they will give you hell while you're already at war on two fronts. I'm not stupid.
And what exactly will Hungary be able to do about it if you change your mind?
I'm not expecting you to answer that explicitly, but you get the point. If all the taking happens first, there needs to be a decent incentive for you to then do some giving. If it's purely out of a sense of 'fairness' then you're potentially hindering yourself from winning the game.
Originally posted by buffalobillActually it took 3 nations to take Venice; Bavaria had well less than half the CS of the attacking forces. Look at a turnfile sometime. And than Hungary defended it for him and has gained nothing for it.
He took Venice didn't he? A 32 gold province. And you had 11 turns to prepare for it. Who's incompetent?
Originally posted by KnightWulfeHungary won't get jack, just like Poland and Arles got jack. You'll still need others to assist you even against Sicily and unlike Poland they won't do it for nothing.
And that is the diplomacy part that makes a difference. If you look at the current map, The aid I received from Hungary getting the foot in the door - will be allowing him to make his gains now. It is that whole give and take system. It just so happened with Hungary that the first part of our agreement was me doing the taking. He will be doing his own ta ...[text shortened]... wever, be happy to discuss all the ins and outs that I have been using with you at a later time.
Originally posted by KnightWulfeWhat a hypocrite!! How much help did Poland get?? Yet he's still willing to lose his good infantry rather than have you lose a single Peasant Rabble. Hungary hasn't gained a single thing from his alliance with you (no extra provinces since Turn 7). And because he had a coast that I could strike at, he's had to bear the brunt of the fighting losing a lot of troops, ships and production. He's been a fool to help you win the game while he's gained zero.
THat is very true, but he and I have felt confident in our alliance for a long time and there has been no reason to distrust. If you look at the current map, he has 1800CS of troops in my most valuble city and I am not worried....despite the blithering that no1 thinks Hungary should stab me in the back.
For all of no1's talk of honesty this and he does ...[text shortened]... ask me. Of course, most of it has been directed at me, so it is just likely that he is bitter.