Betrayal at Metallica

[Paddy]

Snoop, no retort

your sig line is C3CDG? Let's Rumble

do you not like getting rumbled?

[Moonbars]

It looks to me like both sides feel betrayed. Hence this thread should really be put to an end to stop it upsetting any more feelings on either side.

[PLATO]

snoop's just upset that the bard's treachery was detected and not able to come to fruition. That is understandable. The bards sacrificed much of the game to try to put the Horde in a position where we would be vulnerable to their secret army. But alas, the miscalculation was that they forgot that we are Horde. Faithful to those that are faithful to us...and swift and terrible with our retribution to those that betray us.

That brings us to the present and I will say this: I have enjoyed getting to know all those on the bards team. They all seem like really decent people...but this is Civ and for the bards(the civ) I care not(an important distinction, I believe).

Therefore I ask that all stop with any thought of personal insults and remember that we are friends playing a very competitive game.

so.....

GAME ON!

[Daddy-O]

on a personal note.

Knock it off. I'm guilty of a great big in game flowers unlimited to the Horde and Chris. Sorry.

Guys take it easy. I have heard of people getting 'filth' hate emails over this. That's crazy and would be enough for me to leave Apolyton. It's just a game of Civ3 not WW3; besides we still have Civ4 to play together.

[Moonbars]

i'm with Skrobism on this one. I'd really like to see an end to this behaviour.

[Aqualung71]

All I can say is that I have read all the posts in this thread with great interest. None of these goings-on compare to the blatantly cold and calculating way that 3 nations agreed to wipe us from the face of the earth as soon as they met in-game (or even earlier? ) for no other reason than simply....we existed.

Yet we are still here, and we are stronger than ever.

So beware

[Daddy-O]

What doesn't kill you will make you stronger.

[snoopy369]

I've answered you a few times, Paddy. There was no betrayal on our part, and you know it, and that's why you won't post your reasons here.

Aqua, you know well why we went to war with you - the same reason most nations in RL go to war. Geographical proximity; pre-emptive war against a likely aggressor, particularly one who would gain a great advantage in the near future (Immortals); and finally, because our then-allies strongly wished it.

We made no alliance pre-game, Aqua. We met BOH right away, and made an alliance with them that only many turns into the game turned anti-DR. Perhaps Paddy had it in his mind to wipe you out before the game started; we decided it only because we were worried about your potential for destroying us, and for doing so *now*. At minimum, with being in an aggressive war with you, we'd be fighting in your cities and not in ours - notice that, untilth betrayal, nobody had threatened our cities meaningfully, and your only aggressive act was easily put down. You took the persians, and as a result accepted that you were likely going to be targetted early on, due to your great early-game UU ... almost as bad as taking the Celts. Had we been even as far away as Babylon, and certainly AM or BOH's locations, we'd have never attacked you in the first place, and quite possibly - probably, even - been allies against some third nation.

[Beta]

Re: Betrayal at Metallica

Originally posted by snoopy369
.... that we would be allies until the end of the game - "i want to foster long term trust and friendship", and even "but were human and can roleplay over the mechanics - and so do we and if so we would hope for a mutual victory" (later modified to the possibility of determining winner peacefully),...

Regardless of all the other goings on, this causes me considerable concern. As a captain of one of the teams in this game, and as one who was and is dead set against the idea of a 'shared' victory, I am disappointed to hear that either of you were thinking this. For all the many and vaild reasons stated elsewhere, if any team or teams are thinking about the idea of a shared victory, let's get it out on the table now. I for one would no longer be interested in playing. IMO, the ending of the PTWDG was both a great disappointment, and inherently unfair to those who were not aware of the 'rules' we were playing under.

For those of you not familiar with this debate, please check the PTWDG or PTWDG2 forums for some of the debate. I think Big Free had the most succint post on the subject. I will track it down and post or link it here.

Just to clarify - all teams are playing this game to win - by themselves - as a single civ. If anyone else is operating under another set of rules, please speak p now and save everyone else the time and effort.

(and yes - this is something I feel strongly about. )

[Kloreep]

I'd like to second what Beta said. For me, that very nearly ruined the game and my opinions of many people. Not even because of the shared victory thing, but because the other teams did not see it as a valid option - as Beta said, playing under different rules.

[Beta]

Here is BF's post:

You have to see that if two teams, unbeknownst to the other teams, have decided to "share" victory from the outset, then it would be very likely that the "team" of teams would win.

Now, if everyone was aware that "shared" victories were allowed then teams would just join with other teams till you had either 1v1 or 1v1v1 depending on the number of Civs in the game.

If everyone plays with the idea that only one team can be the winner it will change every teams philosophy versus allowing "shared" victories.

This compares to a 'we kill each other last' agreement. Which is different in that you do have to prepare for the eventuality, and it may drastically alter who you take to the final two with you. Whether you care for the show or not, "Survivor" is not a bad analogy, other than of course, you don't have the other teams sitting on the sidelines to make the final vote as to who wins; but it is similar in that you want to take someone with you think you can eventually 'beat'. That is the fundamental difference.

[Krill]

yeah, I feel the same. If Orm feels the same way about shared victory as I, and it is allowed in game, we may be forced to retire from the game and raze all of our cities, as there would be no one else to take over from us.

[Ljube]

No need for all this fuss about shared victories.

Shared victory is out of question. The overwhelming majority of the Horde members voted against shared victories. I will be the first to leave this demo game if shared victories are so much as suggested in our team.

[Moonbars]

Re: Re: Betrayal at Metallica

Originally posted by Beta


(and yes - this is something I feel strongly about. )

Hum, a very odd position for somebody whose team has been a secret member of a 3v1 alliance against my team. If it came from another player's team, then fair enough - and I actually agree with the sentiment, but for Babylon players to raise this is frankly obsurd.

Couldn't handle a 1v1, didn't fancy a 2v1, quite liked a 3v1 (but not enough to actually declare it publicy, or join in with the fighting), and now not happy with a 2v2 with 2 neutrals (well, neutral except when they feel like making a profit)

You are tempted to leave the DG? think how DR players must feel.

When we joined the game, we looked for who to trade with, and who to attack with our immortals. The chances are, those trading partners develop into the team you fight last, if you survive long enough. I am not sure what alternative you are suggesting?

[Krill]

Moonbars, that is how some DGs play out. If BOH had continued to attack us, I am sure we would have died eventually. If we had been attacked by the babs, I would not really have given a damn.

It's only a game, and going out to a pile on is something that I would not give a damn about. But then again, I would prefer to lose with style at the first or second hurdle, rather than carry on to the end of the game and declare joint victory.