Originally posted by nook7When you helped him in NE, you had an agreement in which you had a strong chance to win and you knew either you, he or Sweden would not win. You were the one to grow slowest so you were the odd man out. You knew that was a possibility when you made that agreement. At least, that's what I understand was the agreement. I wasn't privy to the details.
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)
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaI am not trying to join your mega alliance who are doing everything they can to make sure others win. I am trying to convince people who have little chance of victory to think of their own welfare and ambition.
It's got to be one of two. You're either making a bid for joining the winning alliance or you are desperate enough to throw venom around and see if it sticks.
Which one is it?
I was released from service by Ryuozji a long time ago. I looked at the alternative possibility and realized there were way too many on the other side for me to have a hope of winning if I switched. As the number of clans on the opposing side grew and grew those odds got even worse for everyone but Uesegi and Ikko Ikki. I chose to stick with a smaller team and have a 50% or greater chance of victory if diplomacy worked, instead of like a 10% or less if it did not. Probably less as I was would not be one of the stronger of the big boys' many minions as well as lacking a history with them.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungYou are mostly correct.
When you helped him in NE, you had an agreement in which you had a strong chance to win and you knew either you, he or Sweden would not win. You were the one to grow slowest so you were the odd man out. You knew that was a possibility when you made that agreement. At least, that's what I understand was the agreement. I wasn't privy to the details.
l also knew that Sweden was (is) his blood relative while l am an unknown. And this meant the chances of me being in a win were slim.
l also knew that when he was getting very strong l could attack him and at least slow his win and let others get back into it (which is what your little alliance is trying to do in this game)
However,
As we were allied and working together, and as he had played well, l honoured our alliance (despite receiving information that he had backstabbed me and knowing l would not win - (like you in MW))
this is what a true ally does - so if you guys stop your senseless and in No1's case hypocritical attitude we can finish this.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungIt's the second option, then.
I am not trying to join your mega alliance who are doing everything they can to make sure others win. I am trying to convince people who have little chance of victory to think of their own welfare and ambition.
I was released from service by Ryuozji a long time ago. I looked at the alternative possibility and realized there were way too many on the ...[text shortened]... ave a 50% or greater chance of victory if diplomacy worked, instead of like a 10% if it did not.
By the way, you're deluding yourself if you believe in such percentages.
Originally posted by nook7After mmw, I realized that being so easily irritated was a poor idea, and that no1 is a fantastic ally. I thought the other RHPers would realize the same. I also saw that he was capable of victory if he finds good allies, as shown in NE.
lol
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....
Originally posted by nook7I know no1 well enough to know that he's mature enough not to favor a blood relative in a board game.
You are mostly correct.
l also knew that Sweden was (is) his blood relative while l am an unknown. And this meant the chances of me being in a win were slim.
l also knew that when he was getting very strong l could attack him and at least slow his win and let others get back into it (which is what your little alliance is trying to do in this game)
H ...[text shortened]... so if you guys stop your senseless and in No1's case hypocritical attitude we can finish this.
My alliance is not trying to backstab each other, which you are suggesting you could have done in NE.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungl am not doubting his ability in gamer as l have seen it first hand on 3 occasions (one as an all game ally , one as a part ally and now as an opponent)
After mmw, I realized that being so easily irritated was a poor idea, and that no1 is a fantastic ally. I thought the other RHPers would realize the same. I also saw that he was capable of victory if he finds good allies, as shown in NE.
l am not irritated in the least by No1, l find his comments mostly close to the mark and normally clever in their wit.
What l am referring to is th disparaging remarks that turn others agianst him.
In this game we were allied but communicated little for a long time. Once his ambitions became clear he chose to oppose me not the other way. It is his diplomacy not his military strategy that has cost him this game.
1 edit
Originally posted by nook7Right! There's still plenty of time for diplomacy to work though. You're counting on others letting themselves be used for your benefit; it's possible they might listen to reason still, though your charm seems to be extremely powerful to the point of convincing others to help you win instead of them in a board game. It's impressive.
l am not doubting his ability in gamer as l have seen it first hand on 3 occasions (one as an all game ally , one as a part ally and now as an opponent)
l am not irritated in the least by No1, l find his comments mostly close to the mark and normally clever in their wit.
What l am referring to is th disparaging remarks that turn others agianst him.
In t ...[text shortened]... me not the other way. It is his diplomacy not his military strategy that has cost him this game.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungSpeaking of emotional and timid players (or is it emotionally timid? hmmmm....), I can't wait for you to get the story of how your role model deals with his own inability to see past his agitations.
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.
By the way, your baiting tactics need considerable work.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungWell thanks for the sort of compliment :-)
Right! There's still plenty of time for diplomacy to work though. You're counting on others letting themselves be used for your benefit; it's possible they might listen to reason still, though your charm seems to be extremely powerful to the point of convincing others to help you win instead of them in a board game. It's impressive.
l am thinking it is a little more than charm that gets others to join with me in against you guys in thi.
(l am noticing my deteriorating spelling damn!!!! must check more!)
btw what you are talking about is definetly back stabbing as you are suggesting one or more of our vassals / alllies should betray our alliances etc - this is what was asked of me in NE by others to which l declined as it went against the spirit of alliance.
Originally posted by eagles54Cant blame him for trying , but he has been tainted with No1's brush in this game.
Speaking of emotional and timid players (or is it emotionally timid? hmmmm....), I can't wait for you to get the story of how your role model deals with his own inability to see past his agitations.
By the way, your baiting tactics need considerable work.
Originally posted by nook7Your vassals/allies would be justified in backstabbing you as you are using them for your benefit and not theirs.
Well thanks for the sort of compliment :-)
l am thinking it is a little more than charm that gets others to join with me in against you guys in thi.
(l am noticing my deteriorating spelling damn!!!! must check more!)
btw what you are talking about is definetly back stabbing as you are suggesting one or more of our vassals / alllies should betray our a ...[text shortened]... t was asked of me in NE by others to which l declined as it went against the spirit of alliance.