30% Iron Civer Tournament

[sabrewolf]

actually, additionally to the 2 lost swordsmen, i had 2 further units redlined outside your city... aka. cannonfodder

and the abandoning cities, i already explained it in the tracker thread: i had no chance against 3 people allied against me. my iron source had been pillaged and there were 3 stacks of doom from 3 corners of my land.

so i had the choice of losing within 20 turns and giving you my nice cities or losing in 10 and pillaging my own lands. my policy is that liars and backstabbers don't deserve cheap cities


rommel: i just googled (subsection images) for "sword" and looked at some in more detail... there are probably better icons around...

[Paddy]

The Sabrewolf has been taken out

[Conqueror]

Originally posted by Paddy the Scot
The Sabrewolf has been taken out

Just read trough their tracker thread - some hot action and heated emotions in that game ! I wonder what happens next there Got to read those other threads once in a while too, it seems, to not miss out the action.

[Moonbars]

Sabre - Next time you'll know not to try and blackmail nations with whom you have agreed to "be friends with in the early game" You call me a liar and a backstabber - I am rubber, you are glue.. Anything you say bounces off me and STICKS TO YOU!!!! :-)

[Andydog]

hmm. Perhaps it's time to jot a few lines on that particular 'episode'..

The reason we banded together to take Sabrewolf out was because otherwise he have won the game. It's as simple as that.

He had iron when none of us did, a primo start position with nice surrounding land, he had the tech lead and a free city thanks to expansionist goodie huts. He scored a SGL and built the pyramids. He was first to Philosophy and used the free tech to go republic when we were all miles off any other form of government. He had more cites, but worst of all, he was using his power to bully.

It was clear that our only chance was to band together and attack him on 3 fronts. It was a tactical decision, nothing more. The agreement was that after the war we'd spilt the world into 3 such that all land and resources were fairly equal and we'd stay at peace for at least 20 turns before turning on each other. This would leave us all fairly even after the war and would make for an interesting middle age.

As we were nearing completion of our war preparations, Sabre went ahead and attacked France anyway. We then announced our alliance, he lost a good chunk of his stomping force against Moonbars' rabble, and so he then proceeded to kill himself off.

I think he could have held us off if he had decided to battle it out. I had bugger all forces, 3 arches, 2 cats and some other defensive bits and bobs, England and France didn't have a lot more. If he'd withdrawn and built up his defences in the time it took us to approach his cities, things could have been quite different.

I know it sucks to be on the end of a 3-way alliance, but that's the game. It was nothing personal - I'm playing with Sabre in a few other games and quite like the guy to be honest - but in this game we did what we had to do. I don't regard myself as a backstabber because I didn't have any agreements in place with Sabre. I did pillage his iron rather sneakily but then you need to be sneaky to win wars (I’m sure that a world leader or two had said that before! )

PBEM is all about human diplomacy. You can know the game inside out, thrash the AI on any level at will, but it’s a totally different kettle of fish against other humans…

That’s it. Time for a beer.

Aaaahhh… that’s better.

[Rommel2D]

Originally posted by Andydog
PBEM is all about human diplomacy. You can know the game inside out, thrash the AI on any level at will, but it’s a totally different kettle of fish against other humans…

I think you need to explain this theory to alexman.

[Aqualung71]

Originally posted by Rommel2D


I think you need to explain this theory to alexman.

Ouch.

But nevertheless stunning! I'm glad I won't make the final

[conmcb25]

Originally posted by Rommel2D
Ok, how about:
MFCamillus (pacific)
richthur (pacific)
Arnelos (eastern)
snoopy369 (central)
for the turn order in the replacement elimination mode game?

If no one objects, I'll start up the game and send it out later tonight or sometime tomorrow...

Did this game ever get off and running????

[Rommel2D]

Originally posted by conmcb25
Did this game ever get off and running????

It's off but it's not running anywhere. The turn was lost a few times and with richthur not posting in the tracker thread, I've been unable to determine where the problem is.

I'm booting him from the game. If you'd like to play, we can drop you in his place or start over depending on what the others would prefer...

[conmcb25]

Originally posted by Rommel2D

It's off but it's not running anywhere. The turn was lost a few times and with richthur not posting in the tracker thread, I've been unable to determine where the problem is.

I'm booting him from the game. If you'd like to play, we can drop you in his place or start over depending on what the others would prefer...

Sounds good to me it looks like the other tournament game I was in has died.

email is: conmcb25NOPSAM@bluemarble.net

Remove the NOPSAM of course.

Thanks

[Rommel2D]

Discussion continued from Game D :

Originally posted by alexman
I think you can post something here as long as you could have e-mailed the same information to each player individually.

This is what I had in mind with the etiquette/exploits. The optional embassy rules are meant to hinder tech alliances and slow the pace of discovery some. General discussion/rumors of conflict are for anyone willing to listen. Of course there's no guarantee any of the information is accurate or truthfull...

The gray area I've discovered is a matter of what level of cooperation constitutes an alliance which must be declared on the diplo screen. When propositioned for an alliance in one of my games, the agreement hinged on commiting troops to a future conflict. We ended up deciding we could agree to commit troops, but not with any specifics such as number, type, or location of, without a formal alliance declaration.

Is this clear and sensible? Would it perhaps be simpler and better to forbid any email/forum discussion of third party tribes until an alliance against them is accepted in the diplo screen?

[smellymummy]

Originally posted by Rommel2D
Is this clear and sensible? Would it perhaps be simpler and better to forbid any email/forum discussion of third party tribes until an alliance against them is accepted in the diplo screen?

no, i don't think so. if it's just discussion what is wrong about having it, in email or anywhere. besides without discussion, there wouldn't be much to lead players to an alliance right? unless we're supposed to act like the AI, player 1 gives player 2 one tech and 100 gold to declare war... instead of actually discussing and conspiring about a possible war first

[Moonbars]

The plotting and planning is the fun part..

[Rommel2D]

Maybe for the plotter, but what about the plottee?

[Moonbars]

he should be plotting as well!