01-05-2004 07:47									#1
	Opponent Research: F-P of PAL Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

While chatting with our teammates in #c3cisdg, I came up with the bright idea to go back into the bowells of the PTW ISDG forum and look up any posts by F-P in threads pertaining to our then upcoming war with GCA and the fact that we had a NAP agreement with GCA that would technically be violated by the start of the conflict.

The reasoning for conducting such research is to attempt to get a window into F-P's willingness to violate such agreements or to use subterfuge while preparing a military strike against a neighboring team. With PAL's proximity to us in this game and F-P's leadership of that team, this could be important.

I now give you pertanant quotes...

quote: Originally posted by Fried-Psitalon ...... ::sigh:: Y'know, some folks here aren't involved in the PTWDG.... and we're getting a wee bit tired of constantly hearing about it. This is a different game, with vastly larger and more careful teams. Could we leave the DGs separate please?

Another slightly related topic... F-P:

quote: Originally posted by Fried-Psitalon +1 to the re-establishment of Elucidium. I think after the war with GCA is over, we might consider re-re-naming them, but for now, that will make our crusade that much more noble.

Another thread... this one a proposal by MrWIA to sign a peace treaty with GCA and make them a vassal state after we knocked them down some:

quote: Originally posted by Fried-Psitalon Etymology of the word Vassal State: A loose combination of the terms "Sneaky cheating" and "Come up and betray us and stab us in the back when we least expect and most suffer from it." We are in this game to win, just like everyone else. We could NEVER trust GCA not to rise against us, and we'd have to leave so many troops watching them that it wouldn't be worthwhile. Add to this the fact that I honestly don't think they'd lower themselves to that degree of humbling, and we have a bad idea. Secondly- bear in mind that if people on the other continent want to foment unrest on this one, GCA - not us or CFC - will be who they go to; in close matches, you support the underdog if you want to be ruinous for everyone involved. Lastly, bear in mind that if things go poorly for us and we grind to a standstill, and somehow our Medieval-Infantry-led Golden Age falls short (and we can't prove they're cheating) then right around this time, CFC should be in a good position to step up and take a swing at GCA as well; particularly with the coming of chivalry. Acceptable peace terms with GCA: none.

Another one, same thread:

quote: Originally posted by Fried-Psitalon That last point, to be frank, also stinks of unsportmansmanlike play in the least and cheating in the most so much that I would probably be forced to evaluate my position on the team were it to occur. I'm sorry, but I did not join this game to win by tactics the other teams would scream bloody murder about. GCA eliminated a civ. Grenny has been eliminated. Firaxis is going down. This game isn't about vassals, it's about last man standing. Enough is enough.

In response to MZ's proposed declaration of war text:

quote: Originally posted by Fried-Psitalon ::Waves his english teaching experience around:: Do we really want to go here? :P They won't dwell on the grammar that heavily, guys- they'll on the save that shows the Medieval Infantry marching. Send it already. :P Edit: PS- if you want to be insanely picky, take out either "Once again" or "We reiterate." Right now you're saying "We reiterate for the second time" or "We say for the third time" when in fact you only refer to the non-personal nature of this war once before, thereby meriting ONLY a "once again" OR a "we reiterate." Edit: PS 2 - you could also probably edit "We are not interested in negotiation or debate...." and take out "Debate." Debate suggests that there would be a two-sided discussion with argument on both sides, and if you aren't willing to negotiate the subject, this clearly indicates that a debate is impossible - because the fundamental nature OF a debate, after all, is negotiation - just usually without as much compromise and a bit more posturing, at least at first. Further, there is nothing to debate about the war - it is definitely going on, and we started it. You could debate the CAUSES or REASONS FOR the war, but not the war itself. So just take "Debates" out and leave it as negotiations, which sounds more professional anyhow. No need to throw in extra words, right? Okay, I'll stop now, I promise.

He also proposed his own version of the war declaration.

About us actually GIVING them a declaration before they saw the save:

quote: Originally posted by Fried-Psitalon Werv is right- someone between GCA and us saying "hey, looks like Apolyton gave you a swift kick" would be pretty embarassing. Hehe.

Sorry... he never commented in the "Public Release: Reason we went to war with GCA" thread. He also never commented directly on the issue of whether to break the NAP with GCA that I can find.

	01-05-2004 07:58									#2
	Remove this text

Interesting, but I am not sure as to how usefull it will be (context sensitive, different game, etc.) in making our determination as to ally or not. Doesn't hurt to know however.

	01-05-2004 08:39									#3
	Get a bigger avatar today!

* E_T nods

IIRC, F-P also posted something that he was looking forward to going head to head against Poly's heavy hitters.

IMHO, he is fully aware that this game is to eliminate 2 and that is how his team will work at going.

E_T