Alien Seed - second thread

[FlameFlash]

Moderator: flameflashpoly@mac.com

[dancemasseuse]

Gavin:
your comment that 500 gold was cheaper than the settler. actually circumstances can show that is not always true. I took a city and disbanded it to steal the city/settler. cost to me at this time, zero. so if you slave it no money is lost from my treasury. If I pay you 500 gold then yes I have money lost from my treasury. Basically the settler was a freebee from conquest. no loss. Even though it is worth more which is your argument, losing 500 from my treasury is not in my best interests. since you did not want it I have left with it.
You also need to remember with some of the comments you have made to other players that they have circumstances like yours too. They changed all their production to military and moved large armies towards your old predecessor. Those armies eat up a lot of production each turn. So just because your the new player and want peace, you need to keep this in mind too. Why should they just take all these units back home, sit them down and eat at their production each turn and then as the game progresses they will become obsolete and maybe disband them to aid the production. Plus why leave you with one of the largest city size empires just because the other guy did it? Remember I am not arguing with you, just trying to show you there are two sides to your argument.
We would have all rather been building mills, factories and other buildings and PW. So while we do understand your want to bring peace, you need to look at their side too. I have enough units to take them back and stake out my area with pickets so I do not mind. Others though have a substantial investment. And you are asking them to walk away with nothing, but a production drain and obsolete units soon. Again I am only trying to show you an opposing view. any argument you may have I will agree with your points too, but these points are valid and no other argument will invalidate them anymore than they invalidate yours. It is a case of both points are valid, but we have to recognize that each needs to do what is in their best interest even when we disagree.

Turn 148 to thebirdman

[Maquiladora]

Assyrians - (maquiladora at blueyonder dott uk) please post it like this so i dont get spam.

[TheBirdMan]

Turn to Paul.

[Paul]

Turn 149 to gumpold

[Paul]

Originally posted by Maquiladora
Assyrians - (maquiladora at blueyonder dott uk) please post it like this so i dont get spam.

Shouldn't that be .co.uk? I have updated the first post. Let me know if I made any mistakes.

[Maquiladora]

Yeah it should Paul sorry. Just trying to avoid the spam bots.

[gumpold]

Thanks for updating the first page.

The Canadians do not recognize any Welsh claim to the former Roman cities along our border. Since the Welsh have forced the Roman military out of the area, anarchy has gripped the region.

To help protect these stateless people the Canadian military has moved in to depose the (Welsh backed) Warlord who controled one of the cities and help restore order and the rule of law.

[Gavin the Great]

dancemasseuse:
"your comment that 500 gold was cheaper than the settler. actually circumstances can show that is not always true. I took a city and disbanded it to steal the city/settler. cost to me at this time, zero. so if you slave it no money is lost from my treasury. If I pay you 500 gold then yes I have money lost from my treasury. Basically the settler was a freebee from conquest. no loss. Even though it is worth more which is your argument, losing 500 from my treasury is not in my best interests. since you did not want it I have left with it."

the settler you get from disbanding a city is not really free. he didnt pop up from nowhere, you had to sacrifice your city to get him. it was an exchange, settler for city. and if you wanna count a cities value in gold it is a lot more than 500. take into account the worth of buildings it can hold and the ability to generate gold, production and food for your empire. so there acctually is a cost for the settler - the city.

if you gave me 500 gold it would logically disappear from your treasury and go to mine. it would be a short term benefit for me though coz a relatively small amount like 500 is used up pretty fast.

on the other hand giving away an important unit like the settler would be less beneficial for you and more beneficial for me than in the previous case. you would have one less unit to expand your empire, which is an important thing. if u wanted to build another city you would have to spent extra production for another settler. how can this be no loss for you? my benefit from it is that a slave works for me just like a normal worker but for less food and no pay. this way i can safe more gold over a long time.

what we get is that you lost some of your production in form of a settler and i have a long term benefit from the slave in form of tile working for less pay and food.


"You also need to remember with some of the comments you have made to other players that they have circumstances like yours too. They changed all their production to military and moved large armies towards your old predecessor. Those armies eat up a lot of production each turn. So just because your the new player and want peace, you need to keep this in mind too. Why should they just take all these units back home, sit them down and eat at their production each turn and then as the game progresses they will become obsolete and maybe disband them to aid the production."

ok, i am very sorry for the production you have lost during war but you need to remember that i dont take without giving. i asked all players to state their demands and terms for the peace treaty to repay the war damage and so far i have fulfilled the demands of most nations(except peace loving canada who naively attacks me without wanting to discuss the terms for peace).

"Plus why leave you with one of the largest city size empires just because the other guy did it?"

the thing with the conquered cities has been sorted with the romans ages ago and it annoys me that everybody else still has a problem with it. as well as in all other cases i havent demanded the right to keep the cities and give nothing for it just coz my predecessor took them over. i acctually tried to "buy them" from the romans, giving something in exchange. the romans wanted the gallia cities back and wanted me to rename all conquered cities - thats what it did! so whats the problem?


"Remember I am not arguing with you, just trying to show you there are two sides to your argument.
We would have all rather been building mills, factories and other buildings and PW. So while we do understand your want to bring peace, you need to look at their side too. I have enough units to take them back and stake out my area with pickets so I do not mind. Others though have a substantial investment. And you are asking them to walk away with nothing, but a production drain and obsolete units soon. Again I am only trying to show you an opposing view. any argument you may have I will agree with your points too, but these points are valid and no other argument will invalidate them anymore than they invalidate yours. It is a case of both points are valid, but we have to recognize that each needs to do what is in their best interest even when we disagree. "

this is not a thing about two opposing points of view, it is your ignorance towards my efforts to bring peace back. it is acctually pretty disappointing to see that you havent recognized that i offered everyone valuable things to repay the damage. for example i disbanded a lot of samurai for the assyrians. believe me it is no pleasure to trash a whole bunch of good units like this but a deal is a deal. what you say instead is that im the one who claims the rights for such a big piece of land without giving anything for it. this way no diplomacy is possible my friend. i took something so i give something. but you somhow dont see that.


gumpold:
"The Canadians do not recognize any Welsh claim to the former Roman cities along our border."

oh god, someone kill me now..... THE WELSH AND THE ROMANS HAVE SORTED THIS ISSUE AND THERE WILL BE PIECE BETWEEN BOTH NATIONS!!! i dont understand how you can judge about a region that never belonged to you! you aided the romans in a quest to reconquer this land but there is no need for it anymore coz now it officialy and rightfully belongs to the welsh which the romans agree on!


"Since the Welsh have forced the Roman military out of the area, anarchy has gripped the region."

my government is theocracy.

"To help protect these stateless people the Canadian military has moved in to depose the (Welsh backed) Warlord who controled one of the cities and help restore order and the rule of law."

you just killed the population of a whole city, destroyed units that were on "stand down" and destroyed an important trade route and caravan. the people of Melasurej thank you for your help and protection, oh peace loving ruler.

once again my friend: the last king of wales started the war. i wanna end it! how am i a threat for the others when i try to achieve peace, offer gifts to repay war damamge, set my units on "stand down", disband special war units and cease building more military units?!?!?!

PLEASE STATE YOUR TERMS FOR PEACE!

[Gavin the Great]

The Welsh city of Aeraseac fell prey to the stubborn canadians!

establishing peace would be beneficial for the welsh as well as the canadians. war will harm us both. i give you my word that i dont intend to harm you or anyone else. keep attacking me though and you gonna regret it. that is your last chance, state your terms for peace or say goodbye to canada.

Native Americans, Assyrians, Romans, English and Dutch! Witness that i try with all my effort to achieve peace with Canada! However if the canadians continue to attack Wales i will defend my country!

[Gavin the Great]

149 to maq

[Maquiladora]

Native Americans, Assyrians, Romans, English and Dutch! Witness that i try with all my effort to achieve peace with Canada! However if the canadians continue to attack Wales i will defend my country!

Besides, any nation that shows the same unncessary aggression as the previous Welsh leader will end up the same way.

Turn 149 to Don.

[Max Webster]

Originally posted by Paul
I have updated the first post. Let me know if I made any mistakes.

Yeah Paul the orc account is no more, my new address is:
don.everitt@sympatico.ca

Turn 149 passed on

btw... Max Webster/Don is the English, the good guys.

[FlameFlash]

Originally posted by Max Webster

btw... Max Webster/Don is the English, the good guys.

Really enjoying this new aspect of role-playing, Gavin. Many thanks.

[dancemasseuse]

I will try to say this as diplomatic as I can, but I do feel insulted and belittled. Gavin, almost ever response you have given each person who has disagreed with you went beyond "negotiations" Explaining a difference is one thing, but the belittling comments such as below are not appreciated.

"this is not a thing about two opposing points of view, it is your ignorance towards my efforts to bring peace back."

My "ignorance" is not in question here. I said I understand your view and was trying to show you another that some may have, so you call me ignorant. Since I mentioned there were 2 arguments then I did in fact have the knowledge, that means I was not ingorant.


"it is acctually pretty disappointing to see that you havent recognized that i offered everyone valuable things to repay the damage."

I will let my mother and father talk to me about being disappointed in me, but you need to know me better before you insult me again.

"for example i disbanded a lot of samurai for the assyrians. believe me it is no pleasure to trash a whole bunch of good units like this but a deal is a deal. what you say instead is that im the one who claims the rights for such a big piece of land without giving anything for it. this way no diplomacy is possible my friend. i took something so i give something. but you somhow dont see that."

Again saying I did not see what you just pointed out again, when I clearly stated that others may look at it differently, was my only point.

Basically remember I settled with you or at least "I" think we did. So stop your beef with me here. I really did only try and see if you might understand others reluctance to settle. So again just because the points you made again are valid, does not mean the other points are any less valid. Please do not try and give me another lecture on how your point is right and any one who disagrees with you is "ignorant", "dissapointing", or "oh god, kill me now...".
I agreed with you in the first place and settled. I just also understand others reluctance to do so for the reasons stated.
Ken