1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThat is not true, all my vassals have grown and continue to do so, they are under no threat from anyone else and have an oppurtunity to be involved in victory.
Your vassals/allies would be justified in backstabbing you as you are using them for your benefit and not theirs.
Yes l benefit from having them but is is completely untrue to say they do not.
This is a very Current American admin attitude you guys hold. It also does you a disservice as it is very shallow.
Aaaaaagh - spelling
Originally posted by PalynkaI can reason out the percentages. Let's say Asakura or Takeda switch sides. I bet Uesegi or Ikko Ikki would lose a lot of fiefdoms, knocking down his income tremendously and giving him a war on two fronts. With a close ally having realized that we know what we're talking about, I bet another would join our cause, hurting the Uesegi/Ikko side more. We'd probably win in this case, and of 5 people, 3 would win.
How would you know if you were? That's part of the meaning of being deluded.
The proof is in the pudding.
Therefore, if diplomacy works, 50% or greater chance of victory. It's similar for the less than 10% if I switched.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungYou forget the time it takes to do this. Once anyone cancels their alliance l would know and have that turn to turn everything against them. They would be dead before you could blink and your alliance would still lose.
I can reason out the percentages. Let's say Asakura or Takeda switch sides. I bet Uesegi or Ikko Ikki would lose a lot of fiefdoms, knocking down his income tremendously and giving him a war on two fronts. With a close ally having realized that we know what we're talking about, I bet another would join our cause, hurting the Uesegi/Ikko side more. We' ...[text shortened]... y works, 50% or greater chance of victory. It's similar for the less than 10% if I switched.
Originally posted by Palynka3 people can win. We are (that is, I am) at war with 7 with Ikko and Takeda clearly on the other side as well. Banding together that many people means that most of them are intended to be expendible. They have little chance of victory, except for the top 2 or 3 of them who have a slim chance of sharing in it. It's pretty obvious.
And you know about their benefits...how?
Originally posted by AThousandYoungLet's say I am Takeda, which I am, and that I agree with your scenario or your percentages, that I do not.
I can reason out the percentages. Let's say Asakura or Takeda switch sides. I bet Uesegi or Ikko Ikki would lose a lot of fiefdoms, knocking down his income tremendously and giving him a war on two fronts. With a close ally having realized that we know what we're talking about, I bet another would join our cause, hurting the Uesegi/Ikko side more. We' ...[text shortened]... y works, 50% or greater chance of victory. It's similar for the less than 10% if I switched.
I hold in my hands the decision of switching sides, while you have to wait and pray that me or Asakura switch sides. Which one of us is in the better position?
The logical conclusion is simple. In all scenarios, I have a better chance to be on the winning coalition than you.
And I'm the foolish one?
Originally posted by nook7Remember this?
You forget the time it takes to do this. Once anyone cancels their alliance l would know and have that turn to turn everything against them. They would be dead before you could blink and your alliance would still lose.
ATY: If anyone turns against you you can't kill both them and us both first!
Uesegi: True ATY, however one of you will die first.
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=48163&page=73
You can't kill everyone first, Monk.
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaYou're in a better position than I am. You're in a weaker position if you stay loyal to those who accept your help knowing you will probably not share in the victory than if you were to switch sides.
Let's say I am Takeda, which I am, and that I agree with your scenario or your percentages, that I do not.
I hold in my hands the decision of switching sides, while you have to wait and pray that me or Asakura switch sides. Which one of us is in the better position?
The logical conclusion is simple. In all scenarios, I have a better chance to be on the winning coalition than you.
And I'm the foolish one?
I really don't understand those who are ok with being in a huge alliance. I've never in any game been in favor of giant alliances because I wouldn't want to call someone an ally knowing that I and my other allies intended them not to win (EDIT - except early in mmw I was spying on no1, which I now regret). I constantly speak out when my allies try to use people. You guys seem just fine with it though. It's very odd.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungNot everyone first, Otomo, but whoever breaks alliance dies first - l have many friends and dont need to fight all at once like your alliance.
Remember this?
ATY: If anyone turns against you you can't kill both them and us both first!
Uesegi: True ATY, however one of you will die first.
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=48163&page=73
You can't kill everyone first, Monk.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungWhoever breaks alliances etc i being used 100% by your alliance in the hope of slowing us down. They are expendable to you. You do not care about them as you have a full alliance. These same people have helped us to get to a position of strength, we need them to contonue to grow as they need us to continue to support them against you and your lot.
You're in a better position than I am. You're in a weaker position if you stay loyal to those who accept your help knowing you will probably not share in the victory than if you were to switch sides.
I really don't understand those who are ok with being in a huge alliance. I've never in any game been in favor of giant alliances because I wouldn't w ...[text shortened]... t when my allies try to use people. You guys seem just fine with it though. It's very odd.
The most selfish attitude is yours as we offer mutual growth - you offer certain death.
3 edits
Originally posted by nook7No, they wouldn't be expendible to me. They'd have their shot at the gold like all of us. In fact, I would be the low man on the totem pole due to my lack of land, but being low man out of 4 is still better than being the fifth man (or woman) out of 9.
Whoever breaks alliances etc i being used 100% by your alliance in the hope of slowing us down. They are expendable to you. You do not care about them as you have a full alliance. These same people have helped us to get to a position of strength, we need them to contonue to grow as they need us to continue to support them against you and your lot.
The most selfish attitude is yours as we offer mutual growth - you offer certain death.
You offer mutual growth? I offer a shot at the crown, which, after all, is what it takes to win the game - not mutual growth with little chance of victory.
How can so many players not want to win? I don't get it.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungIn your position (l would hope l wouldnt be in it) l might have the same approach as you - however l know that what you suggest is folly for any who listen.
No, they wouldn't be expendible to me. They'd have their shot at the gold like all of us. In fact, I would be the low man on the totem pole due to my lack of land, but being low man out of 4 is still better than being the fifth man (or woman) out of 9.
You offer mutual growth? I offer a shot at the crown, which, after all, is what it takes to win t ...[text shortened]... th with little chance of victory.
How can so many players not want to win? I don't get it.
l play these games to win, but l also play them as l enjoy them (e.g NE and DL l was/am on the winning side (but not necessarily part of the victory coalition.
Others might not have such lofty ambitions as you ATY but that if reality - there are bit players and major players.
1 edit
Originally posted by nook7Others might not have such lofty ambitions as you ATY but that if reality - there are bit players and major players.
In your position (l would hope l wouldnt be in it) l might have the same approach as you - however l know that what you suggest is folly for any who listen.
l play these games to win, but l also play them as l enjoy them (e.g NE and DL l was/am on the winning side (but not necessarily part of the victory coalition.
Others might not have such lofty ambitions as you ATY but that if reality - there are bit players and major players.
Like I said - they're insignificant; at least, they are while on your side. That's the way you want it, right?