Originally posted by PalynkaI have a chance of winning. If I succeed diplomatically, I can still win.
You know nothing of what went on in the 'northern' regions to make any claims about the northern nations.
And it's hypocrite. You accuse us of being allied with someone while having no chance of winning, while you yourself are allied with the opposing faction and have no chance of winning.
That alone should tell you that there are other motivations for alliances beyond the prospect of being on the winning coalition.
Originally posted by no1marauderYou, just like the other "warrior" who disrespects those of us who have not played the game as you see fit, are not nearly as clever as you believe. I think the phrase that pertains here is "Too smart by half." Yes, that's the One.
If certain people were trying to win, it would be harder for you and nook. But since they seem to be only playing to help you win, it's a lot easier for you. BFD.
Here's an interesting tidbit to chew on for you and those unfortunate enough to have allied with you: it's your own action that is the catalyst, that gave me the unwavering motivation, the focus, the drive to see your destruction, in the manner that was most likely to bear that bloody result. Let me ask you O Brave, Honorable Samurai, do you remember your response to me back when I joined the fray in the very first days of campaigning, and I wrote you, extending the hand of cooperation and goodwill for continuing the path laid down by your own flesh and blood? Do you?
I think your mates would be interested in hearing about it as they peer down the wrong end of Masamune steel...
3 edits
Originally posted by eagles54Did no1's abrasive personality cause all this like it did in mmw? I knew I should have been more diplomatically active 😞
You, just like the other "warrior" who disrespects those of us who have not played the game as you[/i] see fit, are not nearly as clever as you believe. I think the phrase that pertains here is "Too smart by half." Yes, that's the One.
Here's an interesting tidbit to chew on for you and those unfortunate enough to have allied with you: it's your[/i ld be interested in hearing about it as they peer down the wrong end of Masamune steel...
2 edits
Originally posted by nook7He won the NE game. He's very good when he doesn't annoy too many potential allies.
ATY, when you sided with the devil you lost any chance of winning.
The (false) Lord of the Ryuzoji has dragged you down to share in the wrath which is coming.
I dragged him into this, not the other way around. Hosokawa attacked me, remember?
I can still win if people allow their good sense to trump their temper tantrums. Even when I succumbed to his anticharm in mmw, I never lost sight of the win. What caused me to not win was my lack of trust in my allies, who had little interest in my welfare and had a long track record of betrayal and abuse of allies by the time I gave up on them. If I had more faith in the Horde and Bavaria we would have won that game, not you. Unfortunately they weren't trustworthy.
I know no1 is trustworthy. I know you are too in some ways, though you seem to have the same bad habit Bavaria did in mmw of using weaker allies for your own benefit and not theirs.
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaYep. One or two successes diplomatically means I have a strong chance of winning, as will those who change sides. If things continue on their present course one of your allies will probably share in the victory, but what about the rest? You've made it quite clear that the only reason some of your allies are alive is that they don't have ambition and therefore are not a threat to you. You've been very open about how you'll crush anyone who dares disobey, though your ability to do so is questionable if they made their move intelligently.
Really? Higher than the chances of those allied with Uesugi and the Monks?
Either way, your critique of such allies flies back in your face.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungl know - l helped him win NE (a fact he conviently seems to forget)
He won the NE game. He's very good when he doesn't annoy too many potential allies.
I dragged him into this, not the other way around. Hosokawa attacked me, remember?
l wasn't referring to the Hosokawa as that war did not involve me. l understand your role there.
l am referring to the constant verbal attacks on me and my vassals and allies that have alienated your alliance to every other nation in the game. This has been the most eefective method yet of getting 0 support. Some nations may have listened to him if he hadnt been insulting them the whole time.
As in game strategist he is top notch. As an overall commander in drawing support and forging strong bonds ect etc he has failed dismally (in this game) Which quality do you think is more important in an overall success? (note rhetorical question)
Originally posted by nook7Depends on the psychology of the other players. If it's full of intelligent players with cool heads his logical approach is an advantage. If it's full of emotional and timid players who just want to make e-mail friends, it's a disadvantage.
l know - l helped him win NE (a fact he conviently seems to forget)
l wasn't referring to the Hosokawa as that war did not involve me. l understand your role there.
l am referring to the constant verbal attacks on me and my vassals and allies that have alienated your alliance to every other nation in the game. This has been the most eefective method yet ...[text shortened]... Which quality do you think is more important in an overall success? (note rhetorical question)
Originally posted by AThousandYounglol
Depends on the psychology of the other players. If it's full of intelligent players with cool heads his logical approach is an advantage. If it's full of emotional and timid players who just want to make e-mail friends, it's a disadvantage.
Very cutting ATY!
You yourself earlier mentioned his MD style approach which hurt him in that game. His similar approach in this one is having the same result. You would think a new approach was in order....