The Glory of Manifestos

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Arnelos
So... GoW:

Stop the whining already and just fight the fair fight. If you win, you'll get far more bragging rights than you could have ever possibly received from defeating RP Team 2-on-1 with your UU's and GA's. There would have been no glory in that victory.

So just put on a stiff upper lip and deal with it. You've taken every hit you've received in this game far too personally.

Hey Arnelos, at least GoW and ND have had the balls to openly take on the most poweful team in this game. We are simply upholding the legitimacy of our actions, not whining. Unlike RP we didn't sit back until hell broke loose in front of us, we're taking action NOW despite the odds now heavily favored against us.

[History Guy]

Arnelos, don't worry, it's Master Zen's head on the block, not ours.

[Arrian]

There are many things short of war one can do in this game which can be hostile: How would GS have felt if Vox in its last act gifted northern Estonia to Lego right before GS was about to take it? How would GS have felt if another nation sent enough ships to blockade any and all GS ports without actually touching your borders? How would GS feel if another nation landed a huge stack of troops in a tile in your continent just outside your borders?

Simple. We had no NAPs at the time. If another team had accepted Voxian cities, we would have declared war and waltzed right in. That's a no-brainer.

The ships comment... You mean our lookouts up north? Whatever, that's just good sense on our part - we're watching for a GoW invasion.

Huge stacks of troops? We're AT WAR with ND! And now GoW, apparently. We're going to need those troops.

-Arrian

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Shiber
It is my opinion that Nathan is both wrong and right.
Nathan is wrong to harp on the concept of a 'disproportionate share of land'. After all, we are all playing a game where players are divided into teams and strive to have fun and to achieve victory, and the likeliest method of victory in PBEMs of this nature is by conquering two thirds of the world - doubtlessly, a "disproportionate" share of land for one civ to control, but this is why it's called victory.
However, Nathan is right to suggest that GoW and ND couldn't have possibly expected GS to sit idly while GoW and ND divided amongst themselves a continent that is more than three times larger than Stormia (according to tile count).

Shiber, just to make it clear, my use of "disproportionate" was in a comparative sense, not in a moral sense. I agree that given a sufficient opportunity, any civ can be expected to grab more than "its share" of land, and since that's one of the paths to victory, it can hardly be considered morally wrong. But expecting other civs to sit idly by while that happens is another matter entirely.

[DeepO]

Originally posted by Master Zen
There are many things short of war one can do in this game which can be hostile: How would GS have felt if Vox in its last act gifted northern Estonia to Lego right before GS was about to take it?

This is one of those cases I just can't help myself, and have to respond

MZ, with all respect, but after you practised that argument in a PM to us (with the difference that you substituted Lego for GoW), and were given our answer before, you still repeat it? I thought GoW was more creative

If any nation would have accepted a Voxian city in our way, we would have made a very simple decision.
A. they have a NAP with us: We must fall back, and accept that they have diplomatically screwed us. GS will remember, and when the NAP has passed, will do what we have to.
B. They have no NAP with us: We take the city, and declare war.

There is no comparison to the Vox war: we had no NAP with nobody (well, we had one with Vox, before the war broke out). It was even funnier when you asked about what would have happened if GoW would have taken a Voxian city at the edge of falling: we were at war at the time.

DeepO

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Arnelos


And there, ladies and gentlemen, is why I started that thread to begin with. I knew someone like Master Zen would be unable to resist the temptation to make a post just like the one he made. The fact that I actually agree with much of what he said (and even dared to say so) is irrelevant. GS did care.

The whole point of the thread was accomplished when Gathering Storm got the message I wanted sent, not from RP Team (understandbly an unreliable source), but straight from the horse's mouth at Glory of War.

Small bit of comfort huh Arnelos? To smugly assume you know me enough that I fell into your so-called trap in the other thread must be some relief to the fact RP is crumbling around you...



I still don't see why we've fallen inoto a trap of our own words. We made a post simply stating the reasons we were now on a colllission course with GS. If anything it was GS who started whining about the NAP ( I suggest you re-read the first page). In fact, I NEVER EVEN MENTIONED THE NAP in my post since it was secret, since GS brought up the NAP issue that's one more clause they explicitly broke (although irrelevant since the NAP was moot in the first place)

[Darekill]

Well what counts as a hostil act can always be disputet. I remember a time whre even the fair trade of let's say some iron too a poor suddendly ironless nation would have been considered hostile....

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by History Guy
Arnelos, don't worry, it's Master Zen's head on the block, not ours.

says a guy from a team who has lost about 50% of their powergraph in 3 turns....

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Darekill
Well what counts as a hostil act can always be disputet. I remember a time whre even the fair trade of let's say some iron too a poor suddendly ironless nation would have been considered hostile....

If anything GS invented the definition of hostile acts being anything against their war effort, being in-game or not....

now can you give me a straight face while saying your actions were not hostile?

[Arrian]

Yeah, it's irrelevant alright, MZ, since GoW broke the NAP already. Mentioning a secret NAP after it's already been broken is no transgression.

-Arrian

[DeepO]

Originally posted by Darekill
Well what counts as a hostil act can always be disputet. I remember a time whre even the fair trade of let's say some iron too a poor suddendly ironless nation would have been considered hostile....

Touché, Darekill. But at least we openly discussed what was hostile before the trade could go through. And it didn't exactly helped us in a diplomatic sense, all it did was to prevent iron from being traded.

Funny thing, BTW, that our past enemies now are our friends

DeepO

[Arnelos]

Originally posted by Master Zen
despite the odds now heavily favored against us.

Originally posted by Master Zen

Originally posted by History Guy
Arnelos, don't worry, it's Master Zen's head on the block, not ours.

says a guy from a team who has lost about 50% of their powergraph in 3 turns....

So which one is it?

[History Guy]

Heh, MZ, while we'll be rebuilt after this cruel war is over, China is not expected to survive.

And hey! You'll have to answer our questions at the war crimes trials! Butchering 10,000 civilians at Bilbao... Uggg...wouldn't want to be in your shoes, old man.

[Arrian]

Nice try, Darekill. But the analogy doesn't work.

In a surprise naval landing, Gathering Storm forces have succeeded in capturing Vox Controli's sole supply of iron. We ask that any nation considering trading Iron to the Voxians keep in mind their tendencies toward treachery. If they survive, you may someday find yourselves facing pikes and swords made from your own iron. We also ask that you keep in mind that providing military aid to our enemies cannot possibly be good for long-term relations with Gathering Storm. If you do give consideration to a Voxian request for iron, please think carefully about whether any short-term profits Vox might offer are really worth that long-term cost.

It was a warning, nothing more. A warning about the possibility of being double-crossed, and a warning that GS would be pissed.

now can you give me a straight face while saying your actions were not hostile?

Yep, sure can.

-Arrian

[Aggie]

I wasn't going to post again in this thread, and this is probably the last. But I must correct s some of Arnelos's mistakes.
1) Our troops were spooked when they saw bilboa/toledo in GS hands.
Wrong, we simply were trying to find a peaceful solution to this action as we were trying to ascertain whether or not past agreements were violatred by this action. At the time we were uncertain.
2) We attack Rp because of past actions. Partially true but for many, me included, this was not the reason. The reason was that ND has been the best ally a nation can expect. They have helped not just to the letter of the agreements between us, but have helped all the way to the intent of the agreements and beyond. How could we honorably side against such a loyal friend. Unfortunately for RP and GS we could not.
3) My objections personally to the GS/RP actions are such;
To the gifting of the cities, I am unhappy but that can be done.
To the switching of cities(an act we new about) to move troops. I can only call it an exploit and against the spirit of the game. I would like such actions banned. But remember others can do such things and most likely will. You have opened pandora's box and will never be able to contain what you have unleased.
Aggie(Consul of War for GOW)