The Glory of Manifestos

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Arrian
Nice try, Darekill. But the analogy doesn't work.



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

-Arrian

When the RoP was denied, I explicitly informed nye via chat that we would not see that in a good light, that we considered it most unfriendly and likely to lead to friction and non-collaboration in the future.

You were warned. You chose to ignore it.

[DeepO]

... and we don't suspected GoW to be very friendly after us taking Bilbao and Toledo... we would be pissed, so they have that same right too. Which doesn't mean you should try to drag us down with you, you broke a treaty (hell, you broke every GS-GoW treaty we ever had!), we did not.

DeepO

[Arrian]

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.

I think it's certainly something worthy of discussing. There is an argument to be made about the spirit of the game. Since it's already been used (Voxodus & in the great Bobian war) in this game, I suspect you're right about Pandora's Box - for this game. It should probably be discussed for PTWDemoII and any future games, though.

-Arrian

[History Guy]

MZ better watch out. I just bought a new turkey gibbet for Pamplona, and we are expanding it as the Grand Execution Weapon! Ahahahaha!

Dr. Pinch
Lord High Executioner

[Arrian]

You were warned. You chose to ignore it

Yep, we were warned. We knew you were going to break the NAP, it was just a matter of when.

We even offered a mutual cancellation of the NAP, if memory serves. But you ignored that. As we suspected you might.

The NAP was no longer in your interests. It wasn't really in ours either, but we weren't going to break it (yes, I know, you think we already did. Fine, we disagree on that).

-Arrian

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Aggie
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.

I think this is the point RP has always failed to grasp. ND has treated GoW probably better than any other team has treated another in this demo game, since before I joined and to this very day. How we could even conceivably join RP against a friend which has trusted us, shared its concerns with us in such a way is folly despite how crazy and hard to belive our splitting of the continent could have been.

I just hope ND considers GoW just half as highly as we consider them. To have allies like that is truly a rare thing, we have pledged our mutual support in this matter and I speak for GoW when I say that our team is willing to fight for the death for the survival of its ally just as much as we will fight for the death of our own.

[DeepO]

That's not what you told us in chat! Or have you forgotten your (official) reason that you wanted GS involved in the gang-rape?

DeepO

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

Deleted.

[Arrian]

High praise.

Diplomacy trumped geography (clearly, it would have been easier for RP & GoW to split ND than for GoW & ND to split RP... hell, I remember thinking up ways of coming to ND's aid!). And I think that's pretty cool. Good for you guys. We're gonna do our best to defeat you, of course

-Arrian

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Arrian


I think it's certainly something worthy of discussing. There is an argument to be made about the spirit of the game. Since it's already been used (Voxodus & in the great Bobian war) in this game, I suspect you're right about Pandora's Box - for this game. It should probably be discussed for PTWDemoII and any future games, though.

-Arrian

The fact of the matter is that every new turn presents a new circumnstance for us to consider. A game of this magintude an dthis advance has never been attempted and we still have A LOT to learn. Can anybody have guessed this was going to happen say 20 turns ago? Not me!

That is why I consider doing things legal, no matter if they were cruel, to be more important than it sounds, simply for the sake of precedence, because we might just end up by PTWDG IV to never give a damn about any agreement, in-game or out with this being an all-out slug-fest from the start.

That's why Zargon's UN initiative was so good. Could have added a huge dimension to the game. Too bad it never got off the ground but hopefully something similar will be done eventually in PTWDG II. Like I said, it's not about convincing the opponent that he did wrong, but rather convincing a neutral (or so) world body. Without this, dipolomacy is pretty irrelevant, and diplomacy is frankly the reason I love this demo game.

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx


Cheers.

Thanks for informing me that all my hard work was seen as nothing but Garbage in the eyes of GS. I for one thought that I had offered very respectable offers for all that were involved in those negotiations. Both before and after the gifting of cities. Before, I was looking for a compromise to what both GS and ND insisted on. It was not even given a second look before the gifting of cities. After, I sought a RoP, nothing more. This was scoffed at by claiming GS wished to advantage neither GoW nor RP in the war, despite the fact you had a RoP with RP in place.

So, my time as your ambassador was garbage in your eyes. Fine. You could have saved me allot of trouble and time if you had informed me of that long ago.

It's not anything personal, but count the tiles that your offers would have left us with and the tiles that your offers would have left GoW and ND with. Your offers were for GS to sit idly by or intervene on your behalf while you and ND went from being smaller than us to being dramatically bigger. How does that constitute "respectable" offers? Why would we accept such offers if we could find a viable alternative?

The real key to diplomacy is to consider the needs and desires of the other side. What needs and desires of GS were your offers designed to fulfill? I don't know whether the failure was yours personally, or whether it was something forced on you by your team, but either way, your team's almost total disregard for our interests doomed your efforts to failure. Just to make it clear, I do not mean this as a personal attack, but rather to help clarify the situation and perhaps help you in future diplomatic negotiations.

Nathan

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

Deleted.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Master Zen
The fact of the matter is that every new turn presents a new circumnstance for us to consider. A game of this magintude an dthis advance has never been attempted and we still have A LOT to learn.

Holy crap! I've been so involved with GoW, I'm starting to subconsciously make typos in d-case!!

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

Deleted.

[Arrian]

Ghengis - I doubt that was the offer. But if I were in GoW's shoes, I wouldn't have accepted anything short of 2/3 of ND, since RP already had more land, and GoW's Riders would probably have to do the heavy lifting. RP, I assume, didn't see it that way.

-Arrian