 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
UnOrthOdOx
|
 |
Hello....
Jun 2002
time: 22:29
|
|
* UnOrthOdOx attempts to speak without losing his temper again.
quote:
Just to be clear ... as the message does not seem to be getting through
GoW has failed to keep a single agreement with GS. Every single one has been broken. |
I admit I don't know the full history here. However, this is not true.
When no one else would deal with you, we bought Feudalism.
Now, you can argue we 'broke' the Non-disclosure agreement here. But, let's analyze that agreement:
We make a deal, GoW goes out at lightening speed and secures deals with everyone else, THEN you add in a PM 'oh, BTW we would also like an NDA'. We could have handled it better at this point I admit. Had I been your diplomat at the time I would have simply told you it was too late for that and we had already blabbed it around.
Now, I kow you also claim we broke the no-trade. I have looked back and can find no evidence that we did. So, we must disagree here.
If there is one thing GoW has excelled at, it is tech whoring. You just made it easy on us in this case. While you were using your superior Civ knowledge to deduce that since it would cost someone X beakers to research it themselves it must be worth Y gold to be sold, GoW whored it at impossibly dirt cheap prices, before the Non-disclosure that was NEVER a part of the original deal, in nothing more than an attempt to get it for free.
quote:
GoW entered into one last agreement with GS with the intent to twist the agreement to their advantage. We would be welcome to send troops to kill RP and then we could bugger off. |
For the last time:
We didn't need your help. We wanted you here at the end of the war to keep a balance of power on Bob. We were willing to basically GIFT you some cities temporarily so that you would come.
Why did we need you here?
Well, Ansars are cheaper than Riders, ND would have a bigger army, and ours would be farther from our core. What better time for ND to attempt a backstab? Im not saying they would, just that we were trying to cover our own ass due to the illogical agreement you are so fond of pointing out. In return we were promised you help in the future.
quote:
GoW attempted to twist an NAP into things which it is not, such as an RoP. |
Not exactly again.
After you accepted Bilbao, I specifically told you in chat that GoW would be happy to allow you to accept the cities you had been pining over during the earlier negotiations, which boiled down to a stretch of coast. We were even willing to specifically THREATEN those cities in hopes RP would gift them to you. I also told you that if you attempted to block our path we would see that as an act of aggression. Though I never specifically stated as such, I figured you would get the hint this meant also a violation of our NAP. You still decided to accept cities that were not on this list and use them to attempt to block our progress while hiding behind the NAP.
And you speak of attempting to twist deals into ones own favor?
quote:
GoW is seriously shocked when the patience in GS for GoW and their 'tricks' has been exhausted and we tell them where to get off when they make demands in a... less than diplomatic tone. |
Personally, I was shocked you ceased to speak to me. Nothing more. Though I know not of when I was less than diplomatic in tone. Can you elaborate? Or are you talking about all this cat fighting after war was decided upon?
Last edited by UnOrthOdOx on 06-08-2003 at 19:15
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Shiber
|
 |
Haifa, Israel
Jul 2002
time: 07:29
|
|
I cannot blame GoW for tech whoring.
True, it did make us mad because we ended up paying the most for Feudalism (the full research cost), while GoW got the tech for some gold and recovered part, all or more than they paid by whoring it around, and some civs even got the tech for free.
But we recognized that we were out-witted by GoW, and that we have no real case against GoW whoring our Feudalism around.
I'm not sure about the whole part about us asking for an NDA after the deal was secured. IIRC the deal wasn't officially ratified until we agreed on the no-trade period, and by accepting the no-trade clause, you did the right thing. However, you violated that clause, or so we can say, when you liberally interpreted the meaning of 'GoW cannot trade away Feudalism until 10 turns pass after they have received it from GS' as 'Other civs can't receive Feudalism from GoW until 10 turns pass after GoW has received it from GS'. You sent Feudalism to ND, accepted, one turn before the NDA expired. ND comes before GoW in the turn order, so they'd receive Feudalism on the turn that the NDA expires, but before GoW gets its turn.
So basically the accepted trade proposal was sent 9 turns after the technology was received by GoW, and received by ND and completed 10 turns after the trade between GS and GoW was made. Or to be more specific, 10 GS turns after the trade was made, but not yet 10 GoW turns.
IMHO, anyone who sides with GoW's logic is missing the point: turns, as in "game years", are bogus and irrelevant. This concept has merely been inserted into the game to make it more human-friendly, to borrow concepts from reality into a game where time flows in an absurd manner (in the real world, everything happens simultaneously). But what matters is individual turns, and if a team must obey a clause that says that they cannot trade away something for 10 turns, it means that this team cannot send a trade until 10 of ITS turns have passed.
Of course, a lot of ambiguity lies in here, and GoW can certainly evade these accusations and claim that its interpretation is the correct one (though I doubt that many would agree; plus, I don't recall that any other team has ever exploited this ambiguity before GoW, though only Trip can tell for sure). But IMHO, GS may still claim that GoW broke a deal (though we haven't in fact mentioned this to anyone until the recent arguments broke out).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DeepO
|
 |
supporting Candle'Bre
Jan 2002
time: 06:29
|
|
UnO, that was the question that lead to our discovery: because we're first, do we have to wait 11 turns on a 10 turn NDA, or 10?
BTW, we stopped discussing this once we found out the broken NDA on Feud, but I think the consensus was that if you receive it on turn 100, you can trade it on at turn 110. This has meant you didn't trade it for 10 turns (starting with 100), even if you were able to. In that case, it doesn't matter who is the team in question, GS would be the same as Lego (being last in turn order, IIRC).
DeepO
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Shiber
|
|
Haifa, Israel
Jul 2002
time: 07:29
|
|
On the contrary, you could go around and say that GS will always receive techs a turn after the NDAs on them expire, so if for example GoW received Chivalry from ND and at the end of the NDA, whored it off to RP and GS, RP would receive Chivalry first and be able to take advantage of it first, and this could mean serious trouble for GS if it were at war with RP, and therefore it is also a disadvantage.
On the other hand, if Lego was whoring off Gunpowder, then GS would be the first team to have the advantage of Musketmen, and again, this would be crucial during war.
Being first can be an advantage one time, and a disadvantage the next time.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DeepO
|
|
supporting Candle'Bre
Jan 2002
time: 06:29
|
|
UnO, that's not how we have been going about NDAs, and it doesn't apply to any other deal either. If we sign a 20 turn NAP after turn 100 was already played, we won't attack before turn 121 has passed. If we sign one before turn 100 is played, we won't attack before turn 120 has passed. It doesn't make any difference whatsoever when we play the turn, the only difference is that we move first. This makes it possible that we trade a tech to e.g. you, before Lego would be able to do so, as Lego comes after you. That is the only advantage there is to starting early that I see, in no way any deal will be advantaged for us.
And Panzer: it wasn't a big deal. Nor were the doctored screenshots, the broken NAP, the invasion after promising not to or the 'mistake' with the NDA on CoL. But we now finally realize who we are dealing with, name me one deal with us you didn't break.
Oh, and by no possible count can you believe it was a 10 turns fulfilled on the NDA, it was either 8 or 9, depending on how you count. If you say it was a genuine mistake, and you weren't counting, I can understand (well, it is at least an excuse albeit not a good one). But you can't tell that for you, 10 turns have passed.
DeepO
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:29.
Apolyton Time is 00:29. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
06-08-2003 18:24
avatars are back!
Attachment: 
|
