Tweet
I wanted to wait for the full discussion on this during the likely vote, but I think it's best to weigh in now. From what I've heard and put together so far:
Germany has done nothing wrong. On the contrary, its actions are entirely logical, expectable, and appropriate given its situation. I think Germany clearly starts with the most difficult spot on the map. It has two creative civs on its X-axis borders that will likely be settling towards it, and then the Ottomans who will likely be pushing towards it to the south as Arabia will likely be first to get a settler out and will very likely grab the rest of Mesopotamia before the Ottomans: pushed in from all sides. For these reasons, Germany (and the Ottomans) had little option but aggressive military action early on in order to assure its ability to operate a functional and competitive civilization.
France, on the other hand, starts with the easiest T1 European start: it has a cultural trait, one to two peninsulas to backfill (plus African lands to the south), and really only one direct continental challenge unless the British get aggressive with their expansion. That France then decides to make a clear land grab into German and Ottoman lands with no military defenses is ridiculous. It is ridiculous in an IG sense as no ancient leader would have lasted long extending himself far into a highly contested region with no real military; it is ridiculous in an OOC sense as no player would expect that to work either. This is especially the case given France's IG needling and animosity-brewing with Germany. If France wishes to play "insult the Germans" with its IG character, expand into German lands, not produce a military, face a clearly barbaric and militaristic opponent so unarmed, and then claim rules have been broken after the Germans retaliate, it has itself violated the rules of common sense, as proof of such rule breaking has not been forthcoming save France's own stated interpretation of said rules.
France made a clear gamble based on a loose interpretation of the rules, and that gamble backfired quite expectedly. It would appear that Germany has played its hand to the best of its abilities and France has made a serious, clear blunder, and now for some reason this is resulting in Germany being put on the defensive and feeling the need to quit. This is not an acceptable state of affairs, especially if Germany were to leave.
Germany has done nothing wrong. On the contrary, its actions are entirely logical, expectable, and appropriate given its situation. I think Germany clearly starts with the most difficult spot on the map. It has two creative civs on its X-axis borders that will likely be settling towards it, and then the Ottomans who will likely be pushing towards it to the south as Arabia will likely be first to get a settler out and will very likely grab the rest of Mesopotamia before the Ottomans: pushed in from all sides. For these reasons, Germany (and the Ottomans) had little option but aggressive military action early on in order to assure its ability to operate a functional and competitive civilization.
France, on the other hand, starts with the easiest T1 European start: it has a cultural trait, one to two peninsulas to backfill (plus African lands to the south), and really only one direct continental challenge unless the British get aggressive with their expansion. That France then decides to make a clear land grab into German and Ottoman lands with no military defenses is ridiculous. It is ridiculous in an IG sense as no ancient leader would have lasted long extending himself far into a highly contested region with no real military; it is ridiculous in an OOC sense as no player would expect that to work either. This is especially the case given France's IG needling and animosity-brewing with Germany. If France wishes to play "insult the Germans" with its IG character, expand into German lands, not produce a military, face a clearly barbaric and militaristic opponent so unarmed, and then claim rules have been broken after the Germans retaliate, it has itself violated the rules of common sense, as proof of such rule breaking has not been forthcoming save France's own stated interpretation of said rules.
France made a clear gamble based on a loose interpretation of the rules, and that gamble backfired quite expectedly. It would appear that Germany has played its hand to the best of its abilities and France has made a serious, clear blunder, and now for some reason this is resulting in Germany being put on the defensive and feeling the need to quit. This is not an acceptable state of affairs, especially if Germany were to leave.
)
Comment