 |
| |
|
|
asleepathewheel
|
|
listening too long to one song
Mar 2002
time: 00:27
|
|
What we must figure out before anything else, I think, is:
Do we want war with GoW in the near future. Near future probably meaning this turn or the next.
I think we want war, to free up our army that otherwise would be stuck in Toledo.
We need to come up with a dtrategy depending on what we want out of gow. And we have to figure that out before a response or a chat.
Do we want peace? Well, then pleasant chat would be the best. Do we want war? A short curt message telling them to bugger off would be the best. Even if we want peace, it might be out of reach now. So what is the best alternative to frame us with relation to Lego? Because I think that's almost where we are, setting up the stage so lego won't come over invited or uninvited.
War or Peace.
Peace or war.
I vote war
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DeepO
|
 |
supporting Candle'Bre
Jan 2002
time: 06:27
|
|
I think GoW's decision on declaring war or not is going to depend on how ND does in Zaragosa / Pamplona. If ND achieves victory there, they will have an easier time declaring war, as they will anticipate that we have to split forces over two fronts. If RP is able to withold ND this turn, GoW probably is going to keep out of our cities, as otherwise the risk to them is too big: we would run over them. This really is a crucial turn (this and the next), I think most teams involved know it.
As to chatting: I'm not against it, as it would be a man-to-man thing. However, it is very risky, and as long as GS hasn't made up its mind of how we want to handle GoW, it's not easy to keep options open.
For me, I wouldn't mind a war with GoW, however I would love it if it could came after our next wave lands, and we have more troops in RP territory. Next turn, we will probably have enough to handle the 14 riders, but not to split troops over both ND and GoW. But... the longer this gets stretched, the longer we have to defend 2 fronts, I would want GoW to attack us before the 30-turn NAP is over, ideally in let's say 4 turns. Which will be very difficult to achieve: either they do it now, or they won't do it.
DeepO
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
vulture
|
 |
Leeds, UK
Jun 2001
time: 05:27
|
|
It's breaking an agreement, and besides, they can't attack Toledo until turn 132, which is certainly a turn we can trade Chivalry on anyway.
On the NDA, I'm inclined to regard the turn we receive the tech as turn 1 - no NDA means we can trade the tech immediately that we get it, a 1 turn NDA means that we have to wait one turn (we receive it on turn 100, and sell it on turn 101, but can't on turn 100 because of the NDA). Hence if we receive a tech on turn x, and the NDA is for n turns, we can sell or gift the tech on turn x + n. In this case, we received the tech on turn 121, and the NDA is for 10 turns, so we can do what we like with it on turn 131, namely the next turn that arrives.
We might want to keep it for one more turn just to make it absolutely obvious that we haven't broken the NDA, no matter how you count the turns, unless there is an absolutely pressing need for RP to upgrade their horses in turn 131 rather than 132.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
vulture
|
|
Leeds, UK
Jun 2001
time: 05:27
|
|
I don't think they guessed that we are moving RP troops back home with the Inchon thing though. By the sounds of it, they think we were using it to move our own troops around, although if you study the turn order that doesn't work (or does it - if we offered it as a trade for 1 gold, accepted, it wouldn't change hands until RPs turn AIUI, so we could use it to move our troops around). Can't think what they'd imagine the point of it was though. Perhaps they are just worried that we have found some cunning exploit to move our troops en masse to Bob using teleporting, rather than merely having a lot of galleys.
EDIT: put in here to avoid spamming up the board with three messages from me in a row... Just for the record, I think that GoW are right that our actions helping RP and hindering them violate the NAP, especially after we made a point about it being the spirit rather than the wording that was important. But that is in the past now, so I'm not going to carp on about it, and am certainly not going to say anything to this effect in the public forum (or in private PMs or emails either, obviously). Now lets get ready to kick some Rider butt 
Last edited by vulture on 29-07-2003 at 15:17
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Aeson
|
 |
orangesoda
Nov 2001
time: 22:27
|
|
I don't agree with the NAP violation on our part at all.
When we signed the NAP, GoW hadn't clued us in on their invasion. We hadn't clued GoW in on our invasion plans either. We aren't required to help GoW, or even facilitate them in their campaign. They aren't required to reciprocate.
Saying we broke the NAP by taking RP cities and not allowing an ROP is like saying they broke the NAP by threatening RP in the first place. We had plans too, ones which actions by GoW caused us to throw out the window. A NAP wouldn't have given us the right to demand they withdraw their troops because we wanted to conquer territory they were threatening. It doesn't give GoW similar rights.
We just beat them to the cities pure and simple. Sure those cities block GoW from RP, and we knew that going in. We knew that it would anger GoW, but we didn't sign on to be GoW's lapdogs and do their bidding any more than GoW signed on to be ours. GoW's part in denying us territory on Bob certainly didn't agree with us, and it wasn't a violation of the NAP was it? They had to have known we wouldn't like it (especially after we told them flat out a few times).
Hurricane keeps GoW from 4 move Galleys, which is (or will be) hindering their war efforts, and it's not a violation of the NAP that we hold it from them. It's ours, like Toledo and Bilbao are. GoW not attacking ND with their Riders hinders our war effort, and them having Riders near our cities does too, but we don't have the right to demand they attack ND or leave the vicinity of our territory, just that they don't violate our actual borders.
The purpose of a NAP is to help protect what is ours and theirs... not to determine what becomes ours or theirs (outside us taking theirs or them taking ours). That's the spirit of a NAP. GoW is trying to stretch that to protecting what they want to eventually have, while not considering what we want at all.
The spirit of an alliance we would have broke, but we never signed on for an alliance.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DeepO
|
|
supporting Candle'Bre
Jan 2002
time: 06:27
|
|
I totally agree with Aeson's last post, so won't write my version of it. Let this be my vote on the situation 
Then some other things:
- We need to prepare something public in our defense, and we better prepare it now, because it is obvious GoW is going public. They are already preparing justifications towards us.
- Inchon couldn't have been a tactic we used to move 'vast numbers of GS troops around', unless one thing happened: we let cats capture, and take them back from RP later on. You can't teleport troops to any other city then your capital. So, my guess is that they are guessing at the reasons, or only know part of why we did it. Once they say this in public, we have to refute it.
- However, it seems very likely that there is a rat in either RP's or our team. I don't believe for a minute there is one in ours, although it is always possible that one of the inactive members decides to spice the game up. Which means we have to ask RP about this... there are too many indications of someone spilling information to just ignore it. No reason to become paranoid because of Inchon, but this is not the first case...
- As to the good cop - bad cop routine: partially agree. However, I believe UnO is much more stable then the rest of the team, and in general means well. Re: his quote about "what's about to follow": he does not agree with GoW breaking the NAP, as he sees it as a pure breaking on GoW's side, even if he keeps the official "GS has been hostile" line. Also, I think he has at least some idea of how powerful we are, and what it will do to their pretty army.
DeepO
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:27.
Apolyton Time is 00:27. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
28-07-2003 22:53
).
|