Aussie Group MP Games (may include Americans and other ring-ins)

[trev]

Working tomorrow, may be able to play midafternoonish or a bit earlier but unsure.
Frank, even if I fail, your development will be slowed, so you cannot win either, a reasonable outcome for someone who has attacked me twice for no reason.

[trev]

Finished work early, but need to do some shopping etc, I will make myself available from about 2pm for civ4 play

[deity]

I can play from now on... will be here at 2pm

[vilemerchant]

Wow. Very eventful and heated session, the way it should be IMO!

[deity]

OK, I now understand the points being made.

At the time of Trev's strategic move to vassal to me I had no idea about how it all works.

You might say I'm a good player but I'm not a good war player in Civ4. In Civ2 I was very good at war. In Civ4 I love the whole expanse of the game to SS as the preferred outcome IMHO, sprinkled with the odd war. Civ killing became the bain of Civ2 and most players quit when I annhilated them in one turn - including Frank in HOTW4. You know I love diplo and in my opinion HOTW5 is the perfect game, the way I now play all my civ games.

With Civ4 I've played no AI games. I'm using ignorance as an excuse on that count.

When I attacked Frank I had no idea that game etiquette dictated that I should NOT launch a surprise attack on someone's injured stack.

I've had a think about this and I must say that I still disagree with this as etiquette.

If you make it a rule then that's another matter.

In fact I'm incredibly surprised that Toni, Vile and Frank all said that what I did was way uncool; particularly since the week before Frank, Vile and Marcus all declared war on Trev when Alex was subbing for the first 40 mins.

Trev did not complain too much, even though he was annoyed; but Toni did complain in a previous game when his civ was run by AI for an hour and was multiple attacked.

I'm confused.

My response to all these circumstances is that no rules were broken; if people don't show they suffer the consequences; if someone makes a clever strategic move, like Trev and I did, you don't resort to out of game attacks on someone's integrity.

Game strategy rarely upsets me. Attacks on my personal reputation do upset me. I'm sorry if I got a bit terse with some of you.

This is a great group. I'm a useless warrer. I play it as I see it, including taking advise from my allies. But I take the responsibility.

I tried to offer Frank peace but in the diplo screen he was extremely rude and basically threatened that the rest of the game would be never ending war. I think this is incredibly boring - my opinion.

I refused to chase after Frank's cities hoping that peace would unfold. Then with Frank's successive attacks it's obvious that war is forever.

[vilemerchant]

Thanks for the detailed post Deity. Let me first say that I never meant that what you did was in any way against the rules or hugely underhanded, I just thought it was a pretty lame way for Frank to lose a war that he'd just WON. As Frank later said, there was no glory in it. You're right tho it was certainly a smart play - you were able to completely destroy he's experienced victorious army with absolutely no risk to your own forces. Frank said that had he known he was at war with you he would have retreated his stack. Perhaps it could have been better if you had of declared and then given Frank the opportunity to move first? Having said that I'm certainly no angel in this game (or any game), having stolen 3 or 4 workers on the first turn of my latest war on Trev, aswell as the often mentioned atrocity of attacking Alex while he was controlling a civ 20 times my size and with a power graph that was off the chart :P

[Toni]

Trev did not complain too much, even though he was annoyed; but Toni did complain in a previous game when his civ was run by AI for an hour and was multiple attacked.

Not sure what u mean by this Deity. A totally weak argument

The difference was that trev lost 1-2 city which size was 2-3. And I that old game u mention come on be realistic i lost 60% of my cities and plus they were my biggest ones. My only reason for complaing then was that ppl only attacked me because i was gone, using the weak AI to their advantage. This last game Alex or Trev this attack was comming to them. And i did not see any AI playing Trevs civ for an 1hr.

No now I'm the confused one

Hmm i guess there is no reason for Trev to complain too much when he has 25 cities and losses 2-3 small ones

LOL

[Toni]

Anyway great game thats what i think, it was about time that we had a good war game. Again thank you Frank and Trev for this total action.

It would be nice if someone can post some statistics of lost units and etc..

Can't wait to continue it on Sunday !!!

[Frank Johnson]

Well this is my take on it...

Had the situation been reversed, and Trev's sudden vassalship to deity put my forces in a lucky position to strike at say, some weakly guarded cities of deity's...and I used that opportunity to strike, I know the calls of "I didn't know we'd be at war if I accepted Trev.", would have started coming. But basicly I was thinking I'd get an ultimatum, or a deamand or a peace offer, instead Trev adeptly ordered Deity to stack attack with his infantry against my out teched and hurt stack.

Deity basically jumped into a war in which he had no part of interest, which up to that point was an interesting battle. Afterwards, it was no longer so, really the game had no point short of a huge world war to settle things once and for all. Tossing a cheap shot like that then expecting me to accept it and let others cruise to space race stuff is definately rose colored glasses territroy. You may find total war boring, but everyone else finds total peace boring.

I agree with the statement that the game was "already messed up" prior to this, not so much because of the whole sub attack episode, but due to a hugely over sized map, and some players which couldn't handle barbs at the start who should have been countering certain powers in the game, but in the end weren't able to. One could argue that the game was over as soon as the settling of the old world was done, because of the dominance of certain positions.

[deity]

Originally posted by Toni


Not sure what u mean by this Deity. A totally weak argument

The difference was that trev lost 1-2 city which size was 2-3. And I that old game u mention come on be realistic i lost 60% of my cities and plus they were my biggest ones. My only reason for complaing then was that ppl only attacked me because i was gone, using the weak AI to their advantage. This last game Alex or Trev this attack was comming to them. And i did not see any AI playing Trevs civ for an 1hr.

No now I'm the confused one

Hmm i guess there is no reason for Trev to complain too much when he has 25 cities and losses 2-3 small ones

LOL

Sorry, you miss my point...

My point is that I've been consistently saying we play on regardless of any strategies or advantages used by players. These are just 3 examples.

We shouldn't attack our out of game reputations because of such disputes. The disputes should be analagous to in-game events only.

[deity]

Originally posted by Frank Johnson
Well this is my take on it...

Had the situation been reversed, and Trev's sudden vassalship to deity put my forces in a lucky position to strike at say, some weakly guarded cities of deity's...and I used that opportunity to strike, I know the calls of "I didn't know we'd be at war if I accepted Trev.", would have started coming. But basicly I was thinking I'd get an ultimatum, or a deamand or a peace offer, instead Trev adeptly ordered Deity to stack attack with his infantry against my out teched and hurt stack.

I can asure you that I would have (eventually) accepted the situation without attacking someone's integrity.

None the less I learnt a few things thanks to you and Trev.

I really want a good vibe between the real life players and a bit of trust. You acccused me of something in the last big game but I really expect you to trust me by now. We've played together over 6 years now and I don't think I've accused you of anything untoward?

[deity]

Originally posted by Frank Johnson
But basicly I was thinking I'd get an ultimatum, or a deamand or a peace offer, instead Trev adeptly ordered Deity to stack attack with his infantry against my out teched and hurt stack.

I think this was brilliant strategy on Trev's part.

He clearly thinks it is in the bounds og game etiquette.

[Toni]

No harm done, I’m having a blast that last game. I have witnessed some awesome battles between the warring parties

Show me some statistics or screen shots i demand now

[Toni]

He clearly thinks it is in the bounds og game etiquette

RULES OF WAR

Wounded or Sick Troops
In essence: If they're wounded or sick, HELP THEM! The first Geneva Convention addresses the issue of injured or otherwise debilitated troops, and takes the humanitarian stance that as soon as a soldier is no longer able to fight, that person ceases to be a target. And beyond that, there is a call to action: Regardless of which side the wounded individual was fighting for, medical attention must be given. This includes actively administering treatment and allowing the Red Cross to administer treatment



Trev & Deity check out the The Hague laws and Geneva Conventions

[Frank Johnson]

Uh, yeah, I'd be brilliant if I could summon a stack of advanced troops any time I lost, but I cant?

I can asure you that I would have (eventually) accepted the situation without attacking someone's integrity.

Deity, when I invaded you in the last game you didn't take it that well....and everyone started offering stacks to help you....

Do I see a pattern? I mean I kept playing but geez...

If every game is gonna be OMG everyone stop Frank cause he knows how to fight....that gets old for me real quick too.