Tweet
I probably should have learned by now not to argue with thoughtless aggressive people, who refuse to see reason, but....
One of Eurisko's main points was that my primary civ was supposedly Babylon. For example,
But ISeeAll assigned civs in Post #31):
He has also made a big to-do about the Hittites supporting Babylon. There was a time when we had 6 players and needed ONE player to double-up. I agreed to do it, with the intention to play them as independently as possible until a 7th player could join. However, we soon found ourselves with only 4 players, and THREE players doubling up. I felt that times had changed and we needed a new rule, or agreement.
Response by Eurisko:
I thought this was pretty vague (What happens if only one player objects? Eurisko dictates the result?). My interpretation was that you can make deals as long as the 2nd civ (at least) is acting normally, not as a servant of the primary civ. And that is how I have played Babylon.
Eurisko has been confused, thinking that Babylon was my primary civ, but I am sure he would find some reason to whine anyway.
It seems unnecessary, but I made the point that allying against an aggressor is a reasonable strategy for anyone, including Hattas. I have played that way in all my PBEMs [Seeds #1, Hammer, Boney, now Seeds #2] as have all the other players until now AFAIK (though a few were not very active). I do not insist that others play this way, but I insist on my right to do so, if I choose.
I thought that Straybow agreed, based on the email I quoted above (entitled "I see your point"), but even if he does not, I still stand by that point.
I never complained that Assyria started a war. That is part of the game. I complained that it was a sneak attack, which was one of our first disputed statements. But in separate posts, Eurisko wrote:
one very confused puppy.
@Dario: I cannot remember if you sneaked against me in the Boney game (I think not). I do remember that one of my allies wanted to sneak against you, and I persuaded them not to. So, I can only remember 2 sneak attacks in my games, by Eurisko and Didanu "the Mad". But it's very clear who was hysterical in both cases.
One of Eurisko's main points was that my primary civ was supposedly Babylon. For example,
Post #133) 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.
However, I certainly do demand that a new player be found for the Hittites.
Next are Hittites, and Peaster is on the list.
Peaster may also want to take Babylon.
Peaster may also want to take Babylon.
#131) Do we want a rule about diplomacy between two civs controlled by one player ? For example, no deals allowed between Hittites and Babylon? IMO this would prevent minor abuses and give Straybow an even chance.
#132) And I think deals between two nations controlled by the same player should be allowed, but they should be posted openly so that others may, if necessary, object.
Eurisko has been confused, thinking that Babylon was my primary civ, but I am sure he would find some reason to whine anyway.
It seems unnecessary, but I made the point that allying against an aggressor is a reasonable strategy for anyone, including Hattas. I have played that way in all my PBEMs [Seeds #1, Hammer, Boney, now Seeds #2] as have all the other players until now AFAIK (though a few were not very active). I do not insist that others play this way, but I insist on my right to do so, if I choose.
I thought that Straybow agreed, based on the email I quoted above (entitled "I see your point"), but even if he does not, I still stand by that point.
I never complained that Assyria started a war. That is part of the game. I complained that it was a sneak attack, which was one of our first disputed statements. But in separate posts, Eurisko wrote:
#209) And "sneak attack" is highly inaccurate.
#217) 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.
#222) However, next time you should include that "absolutely no war" rule...
#217) 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.
#222) However, next time you should include that "absolutely no war" rule...
@Dario: I cannot remember if you sneaked against me in the Boney game (I think not). I do remember that one of my allies wanted to sneak against you, and I persuaded them not to. So, I can only remember 2 sneak attacks in my games, by Eurisko and Didanu "the Mad". But it's very clear who was hysterical in both cases.
Comment