GoW- Diplomacy comments #2

[notyoueither]

Actually, with 4 pike, 3 MI, and 3 knights... Toledo is not safe against 14 riders. Add a few more pike, and allow time for the GW to be completed, and then it should be better.

[Theseus]

Whoa... the RP / MZ chat.

I have a - possibly - epic idea:

The Grand Alliance and Showdon

* We enlist GoW as our second vassal.

* We wipe out ND.

* We get everyone healthy (us the most so), and coordinate a 3-prong attack on Lego and Vox. Riders and Conquistadors and Knights, oh my.

* We raze all of Lego and Vox.

* We set up a 3-way showdown on their empty lands. Each team gets one Caravel or Galleon's worth of units.

[Harovan]

I would rather bite my balls off than to ally with GoW.

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
I would rather bite my balls off than to ally with GoW.

Can I use this for my sig?

[Shiber]

Once the game is over, I encourage you to do so.

[Theseus]

ROTFLMAO

That'll be a great document to post in public when it's all over... "Famous Quotes from Gathering Storm."

[alva]

Better start on the yoga exercises then

[DeepO]

Re: last message: GF asks what we would have done in case they would have taken Elipolis: simple answer them on that. "We would of course have taken Elipolis if you would have accepted it... we had no NAP preventing us otherwise. In case we would have had a NAP, we would be pissed beyond believe, but stayed outside of your cultural borders for sure..."

As to the rest: they have a point of course. Not that I care, if they want to self destruct by attacking us, let them. Once we deal with the troops in RPs territory, we have plenty of time left to invade their core.

DeepO

[notyoueither]

The point has been discussed before. If we declared war on RP and beat GoW to cities, they could not complain. Fact is we gained those cities through another, totally legitimate means, diplomacy. They have nothing to complain about, and they know it.

They are bluffing.

[asleepathewheel]

Will they consider the handing over of NM tempoarily the final straw?

Perhaps we should tell them that we are taking it for a turn for tactical purposes against ND, a civ that declared war on us. Depending on where the horde is right now, we are not prepared to deal with it yet in Toledo. In two or three turns, yes. Now, no.

[nbarclay]

There is one glaring flaw in GoW's analogy with Vox. GoW isn't even at war with RP in-game yet! So while admittedly, we have interfered with their opportunities to attack RP, we have not interfered in a war they were already fighting and had already shed blood in.

[Arrian]

The last message is bull****, but of course I understand their frustration.

Fact is, however, that we have a NAP, whereas during the Voxian war we did not. If GoW had accepted a city during that war, we would simply have taken it, no problemo. After all, we had to dispatch their 2 little horsies, and we were at war in-game.

I think they're gonna break the NAP.

By the way, I seem to recall a public forum post by a GoW member that said something like this:

1) does GoW take advantage of loopholes in agreements? Yes
2) does GoW set out to write in those loopholes? No.

Well, fellas, this here seems to be a loophole. Perhaps they should have thought more about signing a NAP w/o some other, more inclusive, agreement.

Fact is, we have taken no aggressive action vs. GoW. They can whine all they want, but that's a fact.

Question is, will they decide to break the treaty? I have little doubt they will.

-Arrian

[DeepO]

In case they break the NAP, we should post something public about it. Otherwise we're the bad guys again.

One thing I'm curious about: It is very explicitly written in the agreement that this treaty is secret. However, would they have told ND already? They have to explain why they don't attack us.

I know it is repeating previous arguments, but I think we should point out the Voxian analogy flaw to them. By now, they have realized that we will protect RP and their gang rape has turned into a 2 vs 2 war. They know we won't back down, nor reconsider if they simply hand over 3 of RP's cities like we asked for before this thing started. We won't get them friendly again, but if we now break contact, it is done... if we keep on talking to them, we have a chance of them not attacking us.

DeepO

[Shiber]

Originally posted by notyoueither
The point has been discussed before. If we declared war on RP and beat GoW to cities, they could not complain. Fact is we gained those cities through another, totally legitimate means, diplomacy. They have nothing to complain about, and they know it.

They are bluffing.

Don't be so quick to assume that your logic applies to them.
We already know that they can convince themselves that some very illogical things are logical ("We have an MPP but we don't have a NAP", or as Nathan put it: "We have four rocks but we don't have two rocks").

[Harovan]

Shiber is right. Given their slant logic, they might be sincerely upset (better: frustrated), that shows through this message. If we answer at all (which we should, out of pure politeness), it should be only one sentence, like "How is gaining cities by diplomatical means worse than taking them in a war?"