The Whore of Babylon Speaks - GoW Official Statement

[Rhothaerill]

Actually as far as I'm concerned, if GoW and ND were to go to war I'd support that. You guys could nuke each other into oblivion and Vox would be the winner by virtue of being the only civ left standing.

[Master Zen]

And that's exactly why we won't do it

[Darekill]

No way. We might be not clever but we are not so stupid by far.
(note to myself: change the coordinates of the nuke aimed at Killdaria)

[Master Zen]

You'd nuke Killdaria? Your own former city?

[Darekill]

course i'd do if it's not mine anymore no one shall have it

[Master Zen]

I'll trade it to ya for Stonedina...

[vondrack]

Originally posted by Master Zen And to those who say a shared victory is cheesy, well, in demo games we frequently do things which are impossible in SP. Multiple-team exchanges, artillery trading, even city trading, info sharing etc. Why is sharing victory any different? There's no rule that says it can't be done. There's also no rule that says a game can't be over without an in-game victory. Both the PTW and C3C ISDG ended without an in-game victory being met. No one complained so why are they complaining now?

Well, as much as I left this game behind and no longer care... I cannot agree with what you're saying here, MZ. Lego has never considered an alliance victory allowed in this game - and I'd say it was the same with GS.

True, there was no written rule about it... so, I guess nobody can question your shared victory. If you and ND enjoy it, well, have it your way... but I guess I'm with those that have something about cheese in their minds. The reason why you and ND diplomatically "outplayed" teams that did not consider shared victory a possibility was that you were simply playing by different rules in this regard.

Were Lego and GS aware of that an alliance victory was an option, I am sure the game would have developed in a different way. A "war to end all wars" between GoW+ND and GS+Lego (or some other 2v2 war) could be something to remember. Instead...

I am not saying this because of Lego, actually - we lost in a fight that was as fair as a 2v1 fight can be. That war might have developed little differently if there was no secret shared victory pact between you and ND, but we would have probably still be killed, so no complaints here.

I am saying this because I can imagine GS must feel royally screwed and cheated now. I know I would. Judging from their posts, I guess GS were not naive and knew it was very likely they would be the next target. Following us out of the game before you and ND would duke it out for the grand prize, well, it would have been cruel but I could take that. But this?

A "shared" victory. Bleh.

To be honest, no matter who claims a shared victory in this game, I myself was most impressed by what GS accomplished. Such a strip of land and... As much as I have never become fond of their "diplomatic ways", GS pulled some unbelievable rabbits out of their small, crappy hat. Do not fool yourself, MZ... it was GS killing us, not you. Sure they couldn't have done it alone, without someone tying part of our army. But they had to face almost all our navy and what limited airforce we had - yet they were able to break through. Were it not for GS tanks, your beaten forces would still be stuck in the mud at Fort Stanwix.

My hat is off to you, GS.

[Hot_Enamel]

GS was certainly most impressive.

But elite knowledge of the game mechanics, does not guarantee you a win.

Demo games seem to be won by diplomatic achievements & starting position far more regulary that military/economic might.

Sure.. give credit to GS for what they built out of nothing. But GoW, (& especially MZ) deserve at the least the same for our/his diplomatic foresight and ability to "fly under the radar".



A joint victory is a cheese. But I agree with MZ, the victor will be whoever strikes first. How does this prove anything other than who is the worst backstabber.



Within GoW I did suggest a few options.
Another 1v1 PBEM
A non-nuclear "war game".

But we may discuss this with ND after the GS war is finished.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by vondrack

Well, as much as I left this game behind and no longer care... I cannot agree with what you're saying here, MZ. Lego has never considered an alliance victory allowed in this game - and I'd say it was the same with GS.

True, there was no written rule about it... so, I guess nobody can question your shared victory. If you and ND enjoy it, well, have it your way... but I guess I'm with those that have something about cheese in their minds. The reason why you and ND diplomatically "outplayed" teams that did not consider shared victory a possibility was that you were simply playing by different rules in this regard.

I'd like to ask you, what exactly is the difference between our agreement with ND regarding victory and just a regular alliance to defeat GS and then duke it out among us two. Lego would still be gone. GS would still be on their way out too. What if we never made public our shared victory and after defeated GS we simply decided to call it quits? No difference Vondrack, and the game mechanics do not change at all. So no, there were not different rules moreso since we did not start this game with the idea that we would share victory as the pact was not done until quite late in the game.

Were Lego and GS aware of that an alliance victory was an option, I am sure the game would have developed in a different way. A "war to end all wars" between GoW+ND and GS+Lego (or some other 2v2 war) could be something to remember. Instead...

Because, like I said, Lego and GS were the only powers which could afford to think of winning by themselves. GoW and ND could not. Furthermore it is not our fault that you did not consider this possibility because your geopolitical situation did not warrant it. Ultimately the way this game ends was not in your hands to decide, and in some way, wasn't in ours either. Tell me Vondrack, would you have seriously ever contemplated a shared victory with GS given your position in the world? I seriously doubt it.

I repeat. The ISDG ended without an in-game victory. It did not end in a "war to end all wars" either between Poly and GWT. It just ended. Did I hear complaints? Nope.

I am not saying this because of Lego, actually - we lost in a fight that was as fair as a 2v1 fight can be. That war might have developed little differently if there was no secret shared victory pact between you and ND, but we would have probably still be killed, so no complaints here.

I am saying this because I can imagine GS must feel royally screwed and cheated now. I know I would. Judging from their posts, I guess GS were not naive and knew it was very likely they would be the next target. Following us out of the game before you and ND would duke it out for the grand prize, well, it would have been cruel but I could take that. But this?

A "shared" victory. Bleh.

Jesus christ, what is the friggin difference that it makes for both Lego and GS that GoW/ND share the victory if both of you would have been defeated regardless??? What's the difference if GoW and ND merely pacted a traditional alliance to defeat GS right now and then decided to duke it out?. How would Lego or GS's reputation or legacy or history or whatever change? You would still be a defeated team and join the ranks of whoever the unlucky loser of a GoW vs ND war was.

To be honest, no matter who claims a shared victory in this game, I myself was most impressed by what GS accomplished. Such a strip of land and... As much as I have never become fond of their "diplomatic ways", GS pulled some unbelievable rabbits out of their small, crappy hat. Do not fool yourself, MZ... it was GS killing us, not you. Sure they couldn't have done it alone, without someone tying part of our army. But they had to face almost all our navy and what limited airforce we had - yet they were able to break through. Were it not for GS tanks, your beaten forces would still be stuck in the mud at Fort Stanwix.

My hat is off to you, GS.

My hat is off as well. GS fought brilliantly and flawlessly in the Lego War and I will be the first to say that without breaking through at Sandonorico (or whatever its called) as well as managing to attack Stanwix, GoW couldn't have been able to win by itself.

However, you make it seem that things would have been different if GoW was in the west and GS in the east. GS would have still had only 2 possible cities to attack and their marine force could not have taken either of them. A trick like the one pulled with the transports would have been impossible since there would have been no undefended cities to land in. In the west, my dear Vondrack, you would have faced an even larger navy, which was based on carriers which would have laid waste to your battleships much quicker. It is unlikely that you would have achieved the last-minute naval victory in the gulf against us because you wouldn't have had so many full strength battleships to send in the first place. No battle, no way to block the ports, we'd have faced 5 possible landing sites of which we only needed to take one to win. Game over. You lose.

If anything you got lucky by facing the threat you were more prepared to face on both sides. You fought the navy you could better handle. You attacked the stack which had the weaker defense (if GS had landed in the east you would have faced Mech Infs as well as 60, not 40 tanks).

Sorry for sounding like a ***** but I just smell sore loserism.

-MZ

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Hot_Enamel
A joint victory is a cheese. But I agree with MZ, the victor will be whoever strikes first. How does this prove anything other than who is the worst backstabber.

And that would be us!

[ZargonX]

Sorry for sounding like a ***** but I just smell sore loserism.

Uh, not to be critical again, MZ, but you are engaged in a bit of a bout of sore winner-ism.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by ZargonX


Uh, not to be critical again, MZ, but you are engaged in a bit of a bout of sore winner-ism.

Maybe they cancel each other out then.

I wouldn't have opened my mouth if people didn't criticize the way my team and ND chose to win. If you don't agree with it, fine, that's your problem, but don't expect me not to defend our choices just as forcefully as I have every right to do so.

[ZargonX]

I wouldn't have opened my mouth if people didn't criticize the way my team and ND chose to win. If you don't agree with it, fine, that's your problem, but don't expect me not to defend our choices just as forcefully as I have every right to do so.

I'm not criticizing any of that. I'm just pointing out that you are insisting that you could've beaten Lego solo, and that's just trash talk coming about 4 months too late

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by ZargonX


I'm not criticizing any of that. I'm just pointing out that you are insisting that you could've beaten Lego solo, and that's just trash talk coming about 4 months too late

I never said that. I not even remotely implied it.

And I quote myself:

My hat is off as well. GS fought brilliantly and flawlessly in the Lego War and I will be the first to say that without breaking through at Sandonorico (or whatever its called) as well as managing to attack Stanwix, GoW couldn't have been able to win by itself.

[vondrack]

Originally posted by Master Zen
I'd like to ask you, what exactly is the difference between our agreement with ND regarding victory and just a regular alliance to defeat GS and then duke it out among us two. Lego would still be gone. GS would still be on their way out too.

I am sure you do know what the difference exactly is. You can commit to war (speaking about both wars here, you+GS vs. us and you+ND vs. GS) in a very different way, if you know you're never going to fight the only neighbour sharing a land border with you - simply because you and him are going to win together. Neither you, nor him need to care about the (im)balance of power, about gaining or losing relative strenght (as compared to the other member of the pact), because there is never going to be a war these relative strenghts would matter.

That is the difference.

It would have not changed the result (and perhaps not even the course) of the Lego War. But I seriously doubt the rest of the game would be the same, too.

The pact signed between you and ND decided the outcome of this game before GS sank our first sentry ironclad. Anybody could have done that (if considering a shared victory an option) and nobody else could have done that (if considering a shared victory not an option).

Tell me Vondrack, would you have seriously ever contemplated a shared victory with GS given your position in the world? I seriously doubt it.

Of course I would, I am not crazy. No team can win a game like PtWDG against an alliance of two other teams (assuming the teams are generally of comparable strenghts).

I repeat. The ISDG ended without an in-game victory. It did not end in a "war to end all wars" either between Poly and GWT. It just ended. Did I hear complaints? Nope.

I wonder what did these two games have in common... can't think of much. ISDG did not end because of two teams proclaiming a shared victory - and as far as I can remember, there was a team we pretty much considered the winner. A single team.

However, you make it seem that things would have been different if GoW was in the west and GS in the east.

That was not my intention. My remark was inspired by your post where you talked about how it would be your bombers levelling our cities if GS failed in the west - I do not seem to be able to find that post now...

If you or both of you were in the west, things would have been different, that's for sure. Probably not the outcome, though. But it's not how it happened.

Sorry for sounding like a ***** but I just smell sore loserism.

Yes, that'll be it.

I love you, too, MZ.