The Second Coalition, continuation thread

[ChrisiusMaximus]

OK OOC now

I dont really follow, Gunnar Wittlich, why are you razing your own towns ?

Marseille was bad enough but now Valence, what kind of idiot strategy is that ?

After the fuss made earlier in the game over Paddy razing some towns you both choose to raze your own, it makes no sense and for me makes this game unworthy of playing.

I have not spoken to Paddy over this as Im just rushing to go to work, but I sense in his posts not just roleplay but frustration at this game, I can understand this as it was the same when I saw that Marseille had gone.

I see no problem with Prussia choosing a side to bat for, but I am not happy about this city razing issue and remember this OOC im not roleplaying Im serious, your strategy if one can call it that is totally against the spirit of the game and you should be ashamed!!

As for a story whats the point, I cant imagine wanting to write a story about this never mind any one bothering to read it, Then the Turks burnt Marseille and ran away, then the next day the Austrians burnt Valence and ran away..............................................

Sounds as S H I T as this game is getting !

[bongo]

5 razed cities so far

I guess the game will stop of natural causes unless we issue a 'no razing' doctrine....


(I can't decide wether a wasteland europe would be cool or not. While it is annoying to watch cities disappear, it certainly gives a nice 'acopalyctic' touch...)

[Shogun Gunner]

Paddy, I will thank you for editing your previous messages. I couldn't make out the Australian insults, but I got the general idea. Despite your messages, I attempted to respond with a message - with friendly banter. I hope you read it that way.

Chrisius - if I performed any "idiot strategies" it was building every city improvement possible before building any military units. I find myself outnumbered on every front.

You ask why I razed the city? Did you take a look at that army you have marching up the river valley against me? Obviously I don't have the troops to hold the city. Since the city was French in origin and I don't want Spain and/or England to have a base of operations near me. I put the torch to it. Why exactly does this offend you? Perhaps I should have gifted it to ya. I don't have the right to abandon a city?

This is a game, and it should be fun for everyone. Since it obviously is not fun for some, let's decide as a group what's the best thing to do.

In every single event and communication I have tried to contribute to making this game fun. I've posted messages that are first person perspectives of Austrian government officials, I've posted maps and military after action reports. I've enjoyed reading the messages and laughing with everyone thinking that everyone was enjoying this as much as me. How this went wrong is a mystery to me.

[Wittlich]

I concur. If we make a ban on razing of cities - cities that are hopelessly out numbered and due to fall to enemy forces, this is only one viable choice - raze the city. If this last-ditch strategic effort is banned, then why even continue this game?

[ChrisiusMaximus]

Shogun and Wittlich you have double standards, you both commented earlier that we should not Raze cities, but you seem to want a different set of rules for yourselves. If this game had the possibility to build settlers then maybe your right to the "last ditch strategic effort", would be okay, as it is I have no way to make gains in this game as you want to raze any city I might perchance capture. It sucks totally!!

Yes it is just a game and yes it should be fun, but Ive invested many hours into this game building a strong army with the intention of making gains in war if war came, how is this possible now with your strategy ?

We all agreed some way back in this game no Razing, and that meant no Razing at all, it did not mean that you can raze your own cities if you want to, when it suits you !

No matter how you dress it up you have both gone back on an agreement you earlier had made, which is all the worse as you Shogun were the loudest condemner of Paddy's actions earlier against Prussia.

The only solution I see to this is a replay of turns, not back to Marseille thats gone now, but Gunner you should replay and leave your city standing. If you so did not want a Spanish army in your lands, then why did you declare war on me, MPP was the cause but I told you not to kill my unit stuck in your land but you went ahead and did it any way.

I find this to be cowardly, and if you cant honestly see, as you state in your last post you cant see how this has gone wrong, then read this post again !!

The Bongo question is not a problem for me, we all have the right to choose who we war with and who we make peace with, though its not nice if you make an agreement with one person, then do the complete opposite.

I dont want to waste my time marching my troops up to cities only to find a pile of rubble when I next play, Shogun, Wittlich can you understand that ?

[Wittlich]

Ah Chrisus....you have misunderstood my earlier response to the razing of cities. Sultan Wittlich of the Ottoman Empire thinks that razing cities in an outrage (playing within my character in the game). Now that the question has been put to a vote as far as actually changing the rules of the game at this late juncture...My last comment was out of character (ie, Wittlich speaking, not Sultan Wittlich of the Ottomans).

As far as agreements made and agreements broken...it's the name of the game gentlemen. Each of us will choose which direction to take (or not take), or even change direction if it insures our personal survival within the game. It's only human nature.

Quite frankly, before Shogun and my alliance, this game was rather stale after Napoleon's demise...and I actually thought that we were going to start another game...but the game kept dragging on, and on, and on...So Shogun and I decided to breathe some life back into the game. Yes, Chrisius and Paddy hopelessly outnumber us, but it the spirit of the game, we are fighting for our survival (hense our draconian strategies).

Chrisius, historically, what did Russia do when Napoleon tried to invade Russia? What did the Russians do again when Hitler tried to do the same thing years later? They abandoned their cities and made sure that the invading forces had nothing to use as shelter or supplies. Was Napoleon and Hitler upset by this? You bet'cha...but then again, war is hell afterall.

I really believe that people are starting to take this game just a bit too personal...

[ChrisiusMaximus]

Like I said Wittlich, I think if we could build settlers your tactic would not be a problem, but as it is there is absolutely no point trying to fight and win a war when there is nothing to win!!

I already said that in my last post, obviously you did not understand that.

In an epic game if we were at war and you razed your towns I would at least have the opportunity to build new bases, with my own settlers.

This way its not worth my time and effort just to see piles of rubble every time I painstakingly get my troops to a viable target!!

Playing the game your way is pointless to me, its a total waste of my time.

frankly Wittlich you are evading the issue here, every post since this morning has been OOC by all of us and I can tell the difference between OOC and Roleplay thanks.

I draw your attention again to the fact that we all agreed earlier in this game that we should not raze cities, specifically as we can not build settlers!!

OOC or not you have done what you said you would not, which is against the spirit of this game. I did not mind so much with Marseille as I smacked your units about after you had moved, so at least I knew they would not cause havoc in Spain.

Im glad you spiced up the game, as you are correct in that it needed something to make it so, but if you raze every city when an enemy army closes on it then what is the point ?

Not only for me, how do you expect to survive as you put it without any cities ? like I said earlier idiot strategy.

Epic game with settlers yes no problem, but in this scenario then it becomes pointless bothering to try and make gains if you are going to keep razing your towns.

Iron Jackson has not razed his towns when your troops have approached, so why should it be okay for you two to do so ? to me it seems that you want things both ways, one rule for us and another for yourselves, and I say that is ungentlemanly and unfair.

Im sorry if you think Im taking this too personally, all I really want is a fair game, not a personal clash. Ive really enjoyed this game to date, but this tactic of yours spoils the whole thing for me !

I am happy to retire and for you to find another player who does not mind playing with you all in the fashion that you have adopted. I can pass my password to any replacement you might find, I certainly dont want to continue wasting my time if I stand no chance of gaining anything from my efforts, and I assure you I would not sink to your tactics if the shoe were on the other foot!

Regards Chris

[Wittlich]

Chisius. Whatever. You can find another player for the Ottoman Empire. For me, this game is no longer any fun with individuals crying about this being unfair or that being unfair.

You win Chrisius. I'm tired of your whinning. This is my final post on this game. It was fun while it lasted.

[ChrisiusMaximus]

Another cheap shot eh Wittlich, gee thanks

[Shogun Gunner]

Chrisius, thanks for continuing to point out that my strategy is an "idiot strategy". What am I supposed to respond with? "Takes one to know one" Give it a break, pal.

I could not agree more with what Wittlich wrote above. Everything "in dispute" is clearly within the appropriate guidelines of playing a multiplayer game. It's part of the game strategy. Sure, I was bemoaning the razing of Prussian cities because it was in my interest to preserve Prussian cities. The Austrians were outraged because we are both "germanic" and I was seeking to ally with Prussia. Even though Paddy razed the cities -- and that action severely hampered my strategy at the time -- I never threatened to quit over it.

You are upset because your HUGE army forced the issue in Southern France and holds the initiative? I abandoned a city because I was out-maneouvered -- without you firing a shot. I thought that was sign of a great military strategist, but you seem disappointed. I don't comprehend that.

If I abandon each one of my cities, you would have knocked me out of the game. That isn't you winning and exhibiting superior strategy and accomplishment? If Czar Iron Jackson had abandoned a Russian city during my attack, that would be fine with me. One less city producing those dangerous Cossacks.

So let me recap.
Paddy called me a whole bunch of names, then deleted the comments. Why? He lost fiften Household Cav and/or I abandoned a city. Perhaps it was due to Prussia joining our side and not his.

You have called me a coward and my strategy an "idiot strategy". Why? Because your army is so commanding that I had to flee or be destroyed...just as the Ottomans in Marseilles. This show of strength and accomplishment disappoints you and makes you mad at us.

In another PBEM thread, I quickly took your side to encourage others to respect each other when you didn't like the choice of word used against you. But here you feel very comfortable to use less than complimentary words to describe me.

I won't replay my turn in this game. You expect us to act like some kind of AI opponent. You want us to hold still so you can hit us -- and when things don't go your way, you want to restart.

Well, the game seems lost at this point anyway, so there's no point in quitting. If someone can propose a way to salvage this game, I'm listening.

[ChrisiusMaximus]

Shogun I dont want you to stand still while I hit you I want you to at least fight!!!, not run away!!! And I think both of you should stop hiding behind your roleplay characters and begin to sensibly debate this issue. Unless you both stop this incessant ducking and diving we will never progress!!!!!!!

Yes I say idiot strategy!!! I was not directly calling you an idiot, merely the strategy, I see no simiarity with this and the other thread you mention. In that instance I was directly labelled so how do you draw the comparison.

I will try one last time to draw your attention to the issue I have, I can not build settlers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Therefore if you keep razing your towns in this game it is a piontless exercise for me to painstakingly move my army to your towns. Taking towns is a prime objective in this game of civ is it not !!

Shogun my force is slow moving, you can see it coming you could have attempted to reinforce or outflank or at least fight to the last man!!

It is also cowardly to do this, again the strategy Shogun not you personally, you both bemoan making things personal yet try to make out things I say to be personal. Where I come from thats called beating about the bush and twisting the words of others.

I dont feel either of you are interested in playing this game fairly, and that either of you are wanting to compromise at all here, you are both attempting to dodge the issue and are only succeeding in making this more rather than less personal.

I have chosen the strategy of fielding large strong armies, who will never be of any use to me if you have things your way. You wish to war in the east and be left alone in the west, so you would like me to sit here in Spain while you wipe out the others then you can focus on sorting me out, I figure this out and decide to act sooner rather than later and you dont like it so you decide to cut off your own nose to spite me. To me thats is an idiot strategy in this game.

If we played on I would continue to attack your towns and you want to maintain the right to keep razing your towns, pretty soon you would have no towns left all for the prize of making sure I dont gain anything.

You are refusing to see things from my perspective here.

And lastly I point out to you you both declared earlier in this game you would not raze towns, that was you who typed that not some other personality of yours, to my mind we had a Gentlemans agreement which you have broken. If you seriously can not see my grievance then we have hit a brick wall.

Its a shame, this game was great and I thank you all for sharing this with me, but Im not playing further unless we all agree to stand by the earlier made no razing agreement!!! Do I really have to trawl through the other thread to copy paste what you once said ?

Finally as for Paddy, yes he did get annoyed with things, we have spoken and as you know he edited his posts. Its a human reaction nothing more. I will never edit my posts here as they have not insulted anyone, they have consistantly tried to draw your focus to my grievance, which you seem to choose to ignore and belittle.

Hey Wittlich Im not crying, Im simply annoyed that you went back on your word. As I said earlier I would not have stooped to this tactic myself if you were bearing down on me, not in a game without settlers which was once your concensus too

[bongo]

I guess we have to distinguish between Rules and 'rules'.

Have to admit that I don't know if the 'no-razing' doctrine was meant as an *official* rule for this game, or just an RP-rule to spice things up a bit. Either way, I don't think we should let it ruin the game.

Of all my PBEMs and demogame this is the one I view as least serious. It also happens to be the one I view as most fun. *Because* of the backstabbing, RPing and general trash-talking. It will continue until one of us reaches a victory condition, or we simply end the game.

[Paddy]

or wipe out all my bloody HouseHold Cav

[bongo]

PAYBACK TIME

[Paddy]

ha - what for

for you attacking me twice now


once as an allie

and now when we had a pact of neutrality

you are a hypocrite



why not have the courage to declare war and meet me in the field

instead a nice ambush with your Austrian matey