History of the World 8 - Organisation Thread (Pt2)

[OzzyKP]

Where did I or CS ever say that Russia didn't make a big contribution to the war? I know everything you guys are quoting here, of course the Soviets did the lions share of the fighting, I know that. But that is irrelevant to my point sorry.

Of course Russia had a lot of losses, they were being invaded. If the US was the main theater of the war then we'd have outrageous casualties as well. So I appreciate the Soviet contributions to the war, but ya know they were saving their own asses, so should we give them a medal for avoiding getting conquered?

The US was never really threatened with invasion but we still sent our people in to free others. And unlike the Russians after the war was over we didn't keep countries as vassals and screw them up in the process.

That is my point. Debating raw casualty numbers is not at issue here. I know a ridiculous percentage of the casualties came from Russia.

What is amazing though is Toni's position, that not only should we give less credit to the US because the Soviets fought more, but also blame the US for the Soviet's crimes after the war. ****, like always the US can't win. When we do something it is our fault, when others do something it is our fault, when we don't do something it is our fault, when others don't do something it is our fault too! Bah!

[Robert]

Indeed, Ozzy started this all saying that the USA unselfishly helped Europe. Most of the losses of Russia was because they were a part of the war. I think that battle for Stalingrad, in example, caused many casualities. But that wasn't a "Liberation" war for the USSR, but self defense.

I don't say that's nothing, and we shouldn't be happy with with what the Russians did, however, in the end the exchange from Hitler for Stalin wasn't so much better for most countries.

And I don't think that the allies are to blame for the 'division', which was just a normal solution since the Russian armies were occupying eastern europe and the allies occupied western europe. What should the allies have said? "Hey, dude Stalin, if you remove your forces form the east then we'll take it from you! Thanks for your help, don't call us, we call you"

Nah.

[Toni]

I started the whole think because I though Ozzy was very bold to say that the US is in it to help save others and rebuild them. Ozzy its all about big bussiness, the goal has been aways long term gains. Don't tell me they get involed because they feel bad about other ppl and really want to help them, it is show me the money thing here. Thats the main drive here. But there is nothing wrong with this, its a win win situation. Just don't tell me this is an act of chivalry.

[Toni]

I respect what the US did and has being doing for the last 100 years, but pls don't add more colour then its needed.

I give much credit to the US saving the western part!

But why do you think the US opened an western front in europe? It wasn't about rebuilding and helping it was about not to have russia take over the whole continent. The US was looking after its interests.

Let me help you, the whole point was to get in europe asap in order to stop the russians of taking the whole of europe. The tide on the eastern from was turning, so there was no stopping the red army. The whole rush towards Berlin was to try and out run the coming russians. The cold war didn't start in the early 50's it started during the WW2, no wonder Patton wanted to continue towards Moscow.

LOL I wonder seeing how thankful the western european countries are today and how much they love the US, i bet many us solders who gave their lifes for them are turning in their graves now.

[Robert]

That's what I said Toni, that there were some profits to gain for the USA. But that still doesn't change the fact that the acts of the USA in WWII were moral superior to any of the other inflicted nations. (Together with Canada of course).

[Glohithia]

About the time, "Can things please not just stay as they were"

Ok, that was fun, but I am fine with your suggestion CS. How can I argue with starting at the normal time for me, thanks for being so accommodating!

[Toni]

the USA in WWII were moral superior to any of the other inflicted nations.

I agree CS

[Toni]

Ok back to business so we are keeping the old time just, Kuno, Deity and u Cs have to adjust?

[Robert]

Think so.

[Pinchak]

I converted that email to 18:30 EST.

Can anyone from the states confirm?

Also, didn't see any input regarding my last post. If we just want to ignore the obvious for the sake of harmony then someone please state that as the case, so I am not mislead on how war works in a diplo game.

Based on the facts...

1. Levi pillaged roads in neutral territory.
2. Ozzy drops city right next to Levi's capital, dispite the fact that there was other undisputed city sites free.
3. Ozzy initiates actual war.
4. World comes down on Zulus for wanting to finish it.

#4 is what has me confused. I'm not defending Levi personally, and not in support of prior events, but #4 does not follow logic. If there is something I am not seeing here then i would like to know about it for my future strategy in this game.

[Glohithia]

Hi Pinchak, thanks for taking over the Zulu!

Im CDT and Im starting at 17:30, so you would start at 18:30 is you are EDT (you say EST, but Im assuming that is an error). If you dont observe Daylight Savings Time, then obviously subtract 1 hour from that.

About your posting, I tried to answer last night, a nice long, thought out response, but the wireless in my hotel room went out and I lost everything

Basically, Im thinking do what you will with your civ and army, whatever the situation dictates. If you take over the Zulu, they are yours to do as you see fit. I personally dont frown upon war, its the total opposite. War is what makes for every interesting session and all the great story lines. Its just that in this game, you should use your discretion and not go wild by totally destroying the opposition. The idea here is to keep all the players around and interested, so take a city or three but dont wipe out anybody. After all, everybody here is a mature adult and should be able to have an enjoyable game, even if they suffer a setback or two ( ).

The thing to keep in mind is that if you do attack, you leave yourself wide open to later attacks, by virtue of story line fodder so easy to use even I could make a good attempt at writing a post for war

So lets say, just for an example, that you decide to attack England and take a city or some such thing. England might sue for peace, but will most likely start to weave their web of alliances with promises and use greed to get other nations to come to their side against you. They certainly wouldnt just sit back and take it, right? Eventually, England and their alliance will attack and take back all that they lost and more. You could (and should) try to do the same to prevent that from happening, but you might find it harder to do because people will be wary of you or find you too powerful and think it would be better for you to fall a bit.

So that, in my opinion, is the deal. Attack or dont, its your choice. Just be prepared for the consequences and take responsibility for your actions (ie, dont get mad if it happens to you).

As far as #4 goes, Ill only speak for myself here. Levi had quit in the previous game (HOTW7) and then declared he was going to quit this game (HOTW8) about half way thru the 2nd session last friday. That in itself really blew. But instead of just leaving it at that, he also decided to do his best to set Ozzy (England) back before he quit for good. I had a problem with that because it seemed so vindictive and childish. It would have been different if he had intended to stay and this was part of the game. But that was not the case. It was a purely an attempt to ruin the game (or at least set Ozzy back a lot) by an immature person. You see, its so much easier to ruin anothers chance in the game when you dont have to worry about your own chance because you dont intend to play anymore. Levi should have just quit like a man End of rant.

[Beta]

I second Glohithia's post.

[Pinchak]

Thanks for the reply Glohithia.

Without beating around the bush, this is the true question...

Do the people who play this game base their decisions on how their nations would act objectively to the facts? Or are there "good ol' boy" unspoken alliances from the get go?

Based on the facts of what happened in game (not taking Levi's personal dislike for Ozzy into consideration) I would think nations would be in support of the Zulu.

Which is the more agressive action? Cutting roads in neutral land... or settling citys right next to anothers capital when you have open land closer to home, then declairing war? <--- Rhetorical question

Due to the obviousness of the answer, it comes as quite a shock that upon assuming control of the Zulu (no more personal vendettas) I get threatened by 3-4 different nations if i do not agree to peace for a war my nation didn't start.

All of this begs the question... As a "mature" group playing this game, are in-game decisions made objectively based solely on in-game events? Or are there unspoken alliances right off the bat?

I hate to say it Toni, but this question is directed to you more than anyone. Why would Germany, that doesn't share a boarder with the English or the Zulu, jump in on the side of England? At least the Inca have legitimate reasons (location and common religion).

The only reason I can think of is the "unspoken alliance" theory. I hope I'm wrong, because otherwise bringing outside of game relationships into the game is just as bad as Levi bringing his outside of game issues into the game.

[Pinchak]

Make no mistake, I will offer peace in accordence with my newly elected leader (unless Shaka makes a miracal comeback in the polls).

It doesn't make sense militarily for me to end the war now, but the alturnative is to get gang raped by several nations who, all things being equal, shouldn't be defending the English. (Maybe the Inca should).

This whole line of questioning goes beyond the immediate conflict between the Zulu and English. If people have unspoken alliances, I would like to know who they are, so i can plan accordingly.

[KunojiLym]

Well, in my experience, the decisions are a mixture of both ingame and outofgame considerations. I'd much prefer it if everything was ingame, but yeah, that's how it seems.