Seeds of Greatness: Game #2

[Straybow]

Minos the Great was feeling sick, but he's well enough today to play his turn now.

Minoan Skirms encounter a band of Hittite Horsemen. We politely declined their invitation to make diplomatic contact without directly contacting the Silver Throne, and the uppity captain declared war upon Minoa!

We shall refrain from teaching the captain his place with the spear and bow. Perhaps the great Mursilis would like to set the disposition of his kingdom, and correct his Horsemen, himself.

[Peaster]

Babylonian scouts waiting patiently for the haughty Assyrians to clear paths were ambushed. Innocent citizens were slaughtered in Babylon and Kish. Babylonians everywhere are disgusted [In addition to the RL disgust I feel for this kind of play]. We call on all known nations to rise up against these violent lying upstarts, and to inform all other nations of the threat they will soon face themselves.

Wise King Mursilus has been pleased with Babylon and continually irritated with Sargon. He answers the call gladly. We will avenge our southern brethren! [I suppose there is no need to declare war, since Eurisko did not bother to cancel the war started by his AI last turn.]

Straybow of Minos - I attempted to cancel our AI war, but your unit would not cooperate. So I have raised Hittite attitiude, and you may try again on your turn. Or we can use a civ2dip barter.

Hittites: Village raided
Babs: Hut = Writing

The proposal about civs controlled by a single player might have made sense before the game started. But to wait until the Hittites and Babylonians make contact, and the Assyrians start a war - now those civs can't cooperate ? I don't buy it.

[Straybow]

It could also make negotiations between Bab and Egypt (for example) problemmatic. It certainly couldn't be confidential.

I was hoping we could wait to recruit one or two more players before anything like this started. C'est le vie.

[Eurisko]

Originally posted by Peaster
1) Babylonian scouts waiting patiently for the haughty Assyrians to clear paths were ambushed. Innocent citizens were slaughtered in Babylon and Kish. Babylonians everywhere are disgusted [In addition to the RL disgust I feel for this kind of play]. We call on all known nations to rise up against these violent lying upstarts, and to inform all other nations of the threat they will soon face themselves.

2) Wise King Mursilus has been pleased with Babylon and continually irritated with Sargon. He answers the call gladly. We will avenge our southern brethren! [I suppose there is no need to declare war, since Eurisko did not bother to cancel the war started by his AI last turn.]

3) The proposal about civs controlled by a single player might have made sense before the game started. But to wait until the Hittites and Babylonians make contact, and the Assyrians start a war - now those civs can't cooperate ? I don't buy it.

1) Oh please. You brought this on your self.

You asked for the borders of my empire, and I gladly described them to you.

I even warned you about the consequences of not respecting said claims:

"While Assyria will expand, this is the core region which we would not like to see foreign scouts in.

So, as we have respected Babylonian, Persian, Egyptian and Hittite territorial integrity, we expect others to respect our inner borders as well."

"Scouting within those borders is regarded as highly hostile activity, and founding cities and the like would be even worse. The integrity of Assyrian border defenses depends on the geography of the borders we have given you, so this will be enforced for the protection of all Assyrian citizens."

You could not possibly have founded the city of Babylon before I spoke those words in 3290 BC, as my skirmishers had spotted the stack you presumably used to found the city in such a position that they could not have done so until 3280 BC, when I had already warned you about the dire consequences of such a move.

Then you tried that cheap shot at undermining Assyrian border claims in 3280-3270 BC, when you posted the following:

"The Babylonians now understand your south-eastern claims, but we can not completely accept them. For we believe Ashur is closer to Ur than to Nineveh, and that this situation is reversed with a Babylonian city. A simple straight line border doesn't seem possible. Babylon suggests a private meeting (eg email) to seek an agreement."

Good one, trying to force concessions by founding a city for the sole purpose of making a rather ridiculous comparison. The differences between Ashur and Babylon are so great, I don't even know where to begin.

1. Ashur popped out of a hut. It was, so to say, accidential. Babylon was founded with the very purpose to serve as a way to force territorial concessions from Assyria.

2. Ashur was an established city of size 2. Babylon, again, was freshly founded because it was required in the negotiations for land.

3. Ashur is close to other Assyrian cities. The next one is less than 5 squares away. What about Babylon? Nothing. Unless you founded other cities in the desert, Babylon was not even close to other Babylonian cities. As a matter of fact, the distance between Kish and Babylon was 19 squares. This again shows how Babylon was not a real city, but much more of a military outpost.

4. Ashur is on grassland. Babylon is on a river, giving it a 50% defense bonus. Now, if you had moved just one square to the north, you would have had another special resource square. And ZOCs did not force you to remain on that river square, either. No, only the defense bonus was important. I wonder why. Hmmm...

Either way, I wonder why it would even cross your mind to play the victim.

You simply barged into foreign territory (something not even I did, as I don't even have spotted any Hittite or core Babylonian cities), and then, when asked to recognize the borders of a nation, instead opted to found a military outpost within them instead. Why you would expect anything but war is, quite frankly, beyond me.

Oh, and don't expect me to play on with two of my neighbours being controlled by the same player when I am at war with one of them.

I demand that the 3240 BC turn be replayed once we have found someone for Hattas (not Babylon), and I mean someone neutral, ie someone asked to play them by a third party.

Because as it stands, the Hittite declaration of war is, at the very best, extremely dodgy. War? For what? Scouting conflicts in neutral territory, where nobody has a claim and the players block each other anyway, making the fault distribution 50/50? I hardly think so. We have had no other disputes with the Hittites (well, I don't consider blocking a river for two turns a dispute, really, so I'd say we had absolutely no disputes), so this declaration of war seems rather "random". Not random, mind you, but "random".

Either way, we should be looking for a Hittite player.

[Peaster]

Eurisko: Not sure what planet you're from. Is it normal there to refuse diplomacy, sneak attack, blame the other guy and try to have your opponents replaced?

You've announced your intention to take over the world, and attacked the first civilization to get in your way, with no attempt to deal first. What kind of reaction did you expect from the other Kings? Take a look at Game#1, where Assyria also attacked without just cause, and then faced an alliance of six angry Kings.

In Game#2 you are lucky to control Egypt for now. And I don't expect much from Dario either, since you guys seem to be old friends, probably cooperating from the start.

If we are going to continue, it is your turn, or Dario can Ctrl-N, since you are late. I don't care much to continue, since I don't expect this game to be very enjoyable anymore. But I will play out of politeness, if there are reasonable players left who want to go on.

[Bostero]

Originally posted by Peaster
And I don't expect much from Dario either, since you guys seem to be old friends, probably cooperating from the start.

well steve, according to the rules i can't talk about nothing until we have get in contact with the civ. so from the begining it's not possible. is that a rule right or i thought it was?

you can expect too much from me, because i know to separate the water and the oil, i mean, real life and game business.

anyways, Eurisko to play!

[Eurisko]

Originally posted by Peaster
1) Eurisko: Not sure what planet you're from. Is it normal there to refuse diplomacy, sneak attack, blame the other guy and try to have your opponents replaced?

2) You've announced your intention to take over the world, and attacked the first civilization to get in your way, with no attempt to deal first. What kind of reaction did you expect from the other Kings? Take a look at Game#1, where Assyria also attacked without just cause, and then faced an alliance of six angry Kings.

3) In Game#2 you are lucky to control Egypt for now. And I don't expect much from Dario either, since you guys seem to be old friends, probably cooperating from the start.

4) If we are going to continue, it is your turn, or Dario can Ctrl-N, since you are late. I don't care much to continue, since I don't expect this game to be very enjoyable anymore. But I will play out of politeness, if there are reasonable players left who want to go on.

1) Aha, refused diplomacy? We were negotiating in case you did not notice, but while we were doing so you just had to go ahead and found Babylon to have another bargaining chip. I made my postition very unambiguously clear when we started the negotiations, but somehow you believed I was just making empty threats, which turned out to be a rather tragic error in judgement.

I do not, have not and will not ever refuse honest diplomacy, but cheap tricks are very much a death sentence in my eyes. I knew I would have to put Babylon in its place when you first mentioned the city of Babylon.

For future reference: If you are honestly interested in diplomacy, do not make military maneuvers in front of the other side's nose and aggravate them.

And since "sneak attacks" are not banned per se, I can very much employ them as I please. It's not against the rules. Is it against the etiquette? Perhaps, but I do certainly not see myself at fault here for reasons I have elaborated on at length here. The blame question is entirely subjective.

But the very last point is beyond ridiculous. Do I try to have my opponents replaced? Absolutely not. My opponents are the Babylonians, and I would not want anybody but you playing them, now that I have declared war.

However, I certainly do demand that a new player be found for the Hittites.

It is very painfully obvious that you are incapable of playing both civs at the same time in a neutral manner. Remember: You do not have a claim or the right to play both civs at the same time. You are only playing the Hittites because those lack a separate player, and for no other reason. And you can only play them until a player voices discomfort with you playing both civs. I do now. I want the Hittites to be controlled by a separate person who can make decisions which regard the fortune of Babylon in a neutral manner. And I refuse to play on until this has been resolved.

2) I have announced my intent to take over the world?

Well I'll be damned, I could have sworn that I read something about this in the rules:

14. An alliance cannot claim victory - only a single player can win.

Yeah.

And how players manage problems is entirely up to them. Weaklings need to negotiate, nations with huge armies can strongarm others aside. Deal with it. I am surely not going to limit the options I have to solve problems just to please every last treehugger.

And what I expected other kings to say? Well, actually I did not put much thought in that, for various reasons. But let's see what they actually did say, since an entire turn has passed since my declaration of war:

Hittites: Played by Peaster -> Declared war.
Babylonians: -
Assyrians: -
Egypt: Played by me -> Neutral.
Greeks: Played by Dario -> Neutral.
Persians: Played by Dario -> Neutral.
Minoans: Played by Straybow -> Neutral.

Well look at that! I'll be damned! The ONLY civ to declare war on me is the other one you control! How surprising!

Looks like Assyria is facing only two angry kings this time. Hmm, maybe diplomacy and human behavior are not simple things one can calculate with formulas, after all? Oh, and I have to correct my previous sentence. Technically, I am facing only one angry king who just happens to have two crowns and scepters.

3) Hahahahaha oh wow. Oh sweet Jesus, you just did not go there. Hahahahaha oh my god. You are riding the care-train a bit too hard there, Steve, might want to get off at the next stop, "Rationality Station".

Unlike others, I can keep what's within PBEMs confined to the engine and separate from the outside world. So rest assured that Assyria and Persia have not made any secret deals. In this PBEM Dario and Eurisko do not exist, at least to me, only Sargon and Cyrus do. Oh, and neither Assyria nor I were responsible for 9/11, in case that's the next item on your list of paranoid accusations.

And I am not lucky to be playing Egypt. I volunteered to play it until ISeeAll returns. Assyria has absolutely no benefit from my playing of Egypt (unless you consider my knowledge of the geography of the entirely barren north African desert, which I could easily look up anyway), since I can, you know, actually keep neutrality between the two civilizations.

As a matter of fact, I pondered trading techs between Assyria and Egypt, but then decided against it, because it certainly would affect the way others view my playing of Assyria. I certainly would not have people smear my future victories by claiming that solely the fact that I played two civs was responsible for them. You seem to care very little about that.

4) No, we are not going to continue. Not until the Hittites, and if you want the Egyptians, have separate players. At least I will not play my turn until this has been arranged.

I am late? Yes, I know. This is in part caused by the fact that you, although you seem to be able to play and post on a daily basis, let an entire day pass before replying to my previous post announcing that I demand a separate player for the Hittites. But sure, I guess I am the one using underhanded methods here.

If you skip my turn, this game is dead to me. And If two further civs have no player, then you can kiss this game goodbye.

Not that it would matter to you much, anyway, I guess, since this game is "no longer enjoyable."

Oh boo hoo, poor baby. So your grand plan of "messing with bigger civs despite having nothing to back you up and then crying very fiercely and desperately when reality strikes you hard" did not work out. The Assyrians turned out to be anything but treehuggers and now you will actually have to, the horror, the horror, put some effort into defending your borders instead of playing as if everyone were just cronies you can push around and use for your purposes. The realization that other civilizations want to win instead of supporting your civ in its ascendance to glory seems to have occurred a bit too late to you.

Maybe there are reasonable (Or should I say, easily malleable?) players left who want to continue, but I sure as hell will not unless the Hittites have a separate player.

Sure, kick me then. See if I care, and watch the game die very painfully without anybody playing Assyria and Egypt. Or, as a matter of fact, just play those two as well. A quadruple-empire with the sheer military might of Assyria and Egypt might just give you the safety you need for your preferred game of sandbox civ with no wars, just talking and building.

By the way, this is the first sneak attack you have been subjected to, isn't it? Your rather irrational and hysterical reaction seems to indicate that.

Originally posted by Bostero you can expect too much from me, because i know to separate the water and the oil, i mean, real life and game business.

anyways, Eurisko to play!

And as I said, I am not going to play so long as my enemy has the unfair advantage of controlling 2 nations which border me at the same time.

If this is how you win wars, with cheap moves entirely outside of the game engine, such as skipping a player's turn or assuming control of multiple civs without being able to differentiate between them and intertwining their fortunes and goals, then I have nothing left to say.

[Peaster]

IMO you are allowed to play aggressively, but you must accept the consequences. It is perfectly normal for the others to band against you if you are the largest, most violent and least diplomatic. Diplomacy is more than just announcing ambitious borders.

BTW - My primary civ was the Hittites, not Babylon. Eurisko has nothing to say about how I play them.

FYI - Straybow agreed privately to join the alliance against Assyria, though he did not expect to be able play a major role. I hope I am not revealing a secret, but the game seems dead anyway, and Eurisko has gotten a little too annoying.

"I do not expect too much from Dario" meant "I do not expect him to join the alliance" as I would expect many players to do. I don't really know where Dario stands, but his cryptic posts seem slightly pro-Assyria, and his brief emails seemed uncooperative towards Babylon.

@Dario: You are correct about the contact rule. I had to remind Eurisko a couple of times about other rules, and didn't know if you two were observing them at all. Glad to hear you were.

[Eurisko]

Originally posted by Peaster
1) IMO you are allowed to play aggressively, but you must accept the consequences. It is perfectly normal for the others to band against you if you are the largest, most violent and least diplomatic. Diplomacy is more than just announcing ambitious borders.

2) BTW - My primary civ was the Hittites, not Babylon. Eurisko has nothing to say about how I play them.

3) FYI - Straybow agreed privately to join the alliance against Assyria, though he did not expect to be able play a major role. I hope I am not revealing a secret, but the game seems dead anyway, and Eurisko has gotten a little too annoying.

4) "I do not expect too much from Dario" meant "I do not expect him to join the alliance" as I would expect many players to do. I don't really know where Dario stands, but his cryptic posts seem slightly pro-Assyria, and his brief emails seemed uncooperative towards Babylon.

@Dario: You are correct about the contact rule. I had to remind Eurisko a couple of times about other rules, and didn't know if you two were observing them at all. Glad to hear you were.

1) Don't worry, I have been around long enough to pick up a bit on how to conduct diplomacy, and especially also when to conduct it. And I still don't see how I am the least diplomatic one here. Who sought out all other civilizations and had established contact with them before the ragtag skirmishers of other kingdoms had even managed to leave the city walls? Yes, I did. I only broke off negotiations because, as I have already explained in long paragraphs, you were maneuvering behind my back and basically just trying to buy time. Those tactics don't work on me.

Oh, and so much for this, I guess:

"ISeeAll: I am OK with Hittites+Babylon. I will play them as non-allied, and probably even avoid deals. RobRoy (or Platypus, etc) can have one of them if they come back."

Nice non-alliance and avoiding deals there.

2) You may refer to me in the first person. Oh, and were they?

1. Robroy was playing the Hittites at the beginning of this PBEM, before he left. You were playing Assyria.

2. In the predecessor to this thread, there is nothing that would even remotely imply that your main civ were the Hittites. You play as the Egyptians, lay claim to the Assyrians, but not a word about the Hittites, who were still played by Robroy.

3. "ISeeAll: I am OK with Hittites+Babylon. I will play them as non-allied, and probably even avoid deals. RobRoy (or Platypus, etc) can have one of them if they come back."

By all means, you were playing the Babylonians as much as the Hittites. Giving up on Babylon now to play the Hittites very much seems like abandoning the sinking ship and not doing anything to solve the problem here.

3) I don't see how, with all due respect, I would have to worry about the Minoans joining an alliance with the Babylonians and Hittites (or rather only Hittites, since they can't be allied to Babylon right now) would be a secret that needs to be guarded. I don't expect Minos' hordes to blitz into the Assyrian capital. At least not for another 150 turns or so. I will ignore that last remark.

4) Aha, so this alliance must be real because of what you expect? Well, let's face it. The alliance just is not happening, because not many people can be arsed to care about the plight of a minor kingdom. Quite frankly, I don't see how anyone can expect this raid on Babylon to result in Ancient World War One. Nobody cares, that's just the harsh truth. International law isn't working right now, I doubt that it worked in 3200 BC.

However, self-righteously basing your abuse of power over both civilizations on the rather odd misconception that your views on how diplomacy should play out are objectively correct and hence justify your actions is rather odd.

And of course again the slight hint of paranoia there. Pro-Assyrian? How so? And he was "uncooperative" towards Babylon? Why? Did he not bend over backwards to accomodate for all the needs that that pathetic little kingdom so self-righteously claims?

Ahhh whatever, although I strongly object to the very shady way you force cooperation between Babylon and Hattas, I will play on just to put you in your place.

And to show that I am above such actions, I will refrain from tapping Egypt's considerable economic and scientific power as Assyria.

Tell me if you want to play on, if so I will post my turn tomorrow.

[Peaster]

That post was no more accurate than the others, but I'm tired of correcting your errors, so you are welcome to keep your latest illusions. I'm fed up with all the BS, first from RobRoy and now from you. As I said, I can no longer realisticly expect this game to be enjoyable, and I am not interested in playing on. If Straybow or Dario want to play on, they should speak up now, or I'm gone.

[Bostero]

in those years playing Pbems, i have concluded that having a decent game is almost utopic to get..........

i'm up to continue, but THIS matter must be solved between you Peaster and Eurisko.
i do know that whatever thing i suggest, will be taken as pro-eurisko or pro-peaster, and eventually, refused by one of you.

[Eurisko]

Originally posted by Peaster
That post was no more accurate than the others, but I'm tired of correcting your errors, so you are welcome to keep your latest illusions. I'm fed up with all the BS, first from RobRoy and now from you. As I said, I can no longer realisticly expect this game to be enjoyable, and I am not interested in playing on. If Straybow or Dario want to play on, they should speak up now, or I'm gone.

Indeed it was not more accurate. I don't see why it would need to be, as they all have been quite accurate enough.

And neither do I see how you have "corrected" my so-called errors with your rather lean posts which are devoid of any real content other than paraphrasings of your previous claims.

Also, you do seem to have it rather hard. "BS", first from Robroy, now from me. It appears that the whole world is conspiring against you.

Anyway, no need for you to quit, because I do. I mean, if your perception of an enjoyable game is everyone just building up ad infinitum without any wars ever erupting then I won't particularly miss this game. However, next time you should include that "absolutely no war" rule of yours in the first post so others can avoid wasting their time on that PBEM.

[Straybow]

Originally posted by Eurisko
And what I expected other kings to say? Well, actually I did not put much thought in that, for various reasons. But let's see what they actually did say, since an entire turn has passed since my declaration of war:

Hittites: Played by Peaster -> Declared war.
Babylonians: -
Assyrians: -
Egypt: Played by me -> Neutral.
Greeks: Played by Dario -> Neutral.
Persians: Played by Dario -> Neutral.
Minoans: Played by Straybow -> Neutral.

Just for the record, Minoa only made contact with Hittites this turn, and they are my only contact. Can't exactly declare war on somebody we don't know exists for events which we know nothing of.

[Eurisko]

Originally posted by Straybow

Originally posted by Eurisko
And what I expected other kings to say? Well, actually I did not put much thought in that, for various reasons. But let's see what they actually did say, since an entire turn has passed since my declaration of war:

Hittites: Played by Peaster -> Declared war.
Babylonians: -
Assyrians: -
Egypt: Played by me -> Neutral.
Greeks: Played by Dario -> Neutral.
Persians: Played by Dario -> Neutral.
Minoans: Played by Straybow -> Neutral.

Just for the record, Minoa only made contact with Hittites this turn, and they are my only contact. Can't exactly declare war on somebody we don't know exists for events which we know nothing of.

I am aware of that.

And yet:

"FYI - Straybow agreed privately to join the alliance against Assyria, though he did not expect to be able play a major role."

Aha.

[Peaster]

I asked Straybow to join with me and he replied

"Sure, why not.

We who are about to die salute you, Lord Peaster."

That sounds like a "yes" to me. I understood that he would not be able to fight for some time, and we did not discuss when he would declare war. I am a little surprised Straybow does not mention this conversation. Do you deny it, Straybow?