Forum Communication only contest

[Wookie Panz]

GN - IL
I believe our mutual defense pact runs through turn 25.  Would you care to extend it?  How about another ten turns?

[Titus]

turn 40 works for me Mighty DA

[Diws]

turn 40 works for me Mighty DA

It is agreed and the blood blackens on the signed treaty as it dries.

[IMPERIAL_TARK]

DA - IL   Hail, Quicksilver.  Our NAP has expired.  Do you wish to renew?  Perhaps to T35?

DA - WA  Hail, Fire Lord - our NAP expires after next turn.  Do you wish to renew?

cordially as is possible with our nature,  

Svart Alfar

Lord of the Drow,
I would be amenable to a NAP or a Mutual Defense Pact through T30 (of course you should be aware that I've already been viciously attacked without cause by the lowly Druids who despite their supposed peace loving nature are razing cities to the ground and killing all men, women, and children for no good reason. So if you say yes to the Mutual Defense Pact then you would be joining in the war and free to crush the Druid as you feel called.

Lord Quicksilver

[IMPERIAL_TARK]

The whole purpose of a diplomacy game is to utilize other kingdoms so you do not stand alone when war comes.  That is why you see so many NAPs, alliances, and Mutual Defense Pacts in this game.  That is the "lesson" you should be taking from this game and not complaining about things.  If you did not want to fight 3-1, 4-1, 5-1, etc. then you should not pick a fight with a kingdom that has wisely surrounded itself with allies and defense partners.

If you wish to sign a NAP pact through T30 (effective immediately before this current turn processes), you could teleport your groups out of Arcania without combat and no harm done and spend your time wisely crafting new diplomatic deals in the meantime so you don't find yourself once again going to war by yourself against a well-connected opponent.  But I would act quickly as you can see that many of my "friends" are licking their chops at gaining hunks of Oakendell or blasting your army groups in to little pieces. But if war is what you really want, well, be careful what you wish for.

I was so incensed by the first paragraph written above that I completely overlooked the second.

Because the turn has already processed I realize your offer expired by its own terms  So instead of a counter-offer let me propose my own offer:

If you will:
1) Publicly release your Mutual Defense Partners from any obligation to assist you;
2) Publicly tell your Allies you don't require their assistance; and
3) Agree to face me one versus one;

I will:
1) Do my utmost to give you a challenging mano-a-mano battle.  [You have control of two regions to my one, have easily outproduced me for 24 turns, and have more Alamaze experience.]  Should be fun! Right?



There is no timeframe in which to accept my offer; this offer will never expire.  At any point if you wake up and realize that 3 v 1 ruins the fun for your fellow players in our small gaming community, then simply accept my offer and take the high road.

If I wanted to fight one on one, I would play in a Duel or a Titan game. This is a diplomacy game; there are going to be player blocks for mutual protection/benefit. I created a network of allies and partners for a purpose. If you did not, that is on you. You've done nothing but whine and complain and now you've engaged in a campaign of wanton destruction for no real purpose. You also seem bent on suggesting people are somehow throwing the game by helping others. And now you have the audacity to want to set yourself above the rules in an established game by trying to demand that we change them just cause you don't like how things have gone and don't want to face the music of a 3-1 or 4-1. You are some piece of work. I will have no more communications with you, you have gone so far off the reservation in making this some kind of personal vendetta when I'm trying to playing within the rules and trying to role-play IC, and you've made the game completely un fun (at least for me). And THAT is why the player base is so small; people can handle losing fair and square (you didn't see Windstar complaining), but its the crybabies, whiners, and "if I don't get my way I'll throw a tantrum" that turn people off. So feel free to keep spewing you're crap.

[IMPERIAL_TARK]

Friends of the IL Kingdom,

1DU Army Group is at WM led by a Marshall approx. 20 brigades with a P7 and 2 P5s
2DU Army Group is at QM led by a Lord Commander approx. 11 brigades with a 2 P7s and a P5
3DU Army is at RK led by a Commander approx. 8 brigades with a P7 and 2 P5s

Dome spells are always welcome since the DU is a mindless beast just terrorizing innocents and wantonly destroying life. One can't help but wonder when the Druid gods will strike down this vile puppetmaster for acting in a way so clearly inconsistent with the goals and virtues of the Druidic people.

You are welcome to move to other IL PCs in Arcania or E. Steppes to protect them or take PCs in Oakendell since all his forces are here leaving Oakendell wide open. If someone has the location of the DU hidden capital, I will pay well for that information (other than to the DU). While you don't need to broadcast your plans, I certainly would love to hear your success stories after the fact.

[IMPERIAL_TARK]

GN - IL
I believe our mutual defense pact runs through turn 25.  Would you care to extend it?  How about another ten turns?

Great Grand Gnome King,
Let's make it through T30 for now, if that is acceptable. Perhaps, orders permitting, also make some trades to benefit our kingdoms?
Lord Quicksilver, Lord of Illusions, Demon Slayer, Protectorate for all that is Good and Virtuous

[Wookie Panz]

GN - IL
I believe our mutual defense pact runs through turn 25.  Would you care to extend it?  How about another ten turns?

Great Grand Gnome King,
Let's make it through T30 for now, if that is acceptable.  Perhaps, orders permitting, also make some trades to benefit our kingdoms?
Lord Quicksilver, Lord of Illusions, Demon Slayer,  Protectorate for all that is Good and Virtuous

Turn 30 works for now and I'm processing your other information.

[Draugr]

2 TOTs gain no bonus

[WARMASTER]

If I wanted to fight one on one, I would play in a Duel or a Titan game.  This is a diplomacy game; there are going to be player blocks for mutual protection/benefit.  I created a network of allies and partners for a purpose.  If you did not, that is on you.  You've done nothing but whine and complain and now you've engaged in a campaign of wanton destruction for no real purpose.  You also seem bent on suggesting people are somehow throwing the game by helping others. And now you have the audacity to want to set yourself above the rules in an established game by trying to demand that we change them just cause you don't like how things have gone and don't want to face the music of a 3-1 or 4-1.  You are some piece of work. I will have no more communications with you, you have gone so far off the reservation in making this some kind of personal vendetta when I'm trying to playing within the rules and trying to role-play IC, and you've made the game completely un fun (at least for me).  And THAT is why the player base is so small; people can handle losing fair and square (you didn't see Windstar complaining), but its the crybabies, whiners, and "if I don't get my way I'll throw a tantrum" that turn people off.  So feel free to keep spewing you're crap.

More nonsense!

If you look back in the Forums for years you will see more people complaining about 3 v 1 and other gang-ups than about anything I have done this game, i.e. attack another kingdom.  In fact, if I understand the mechanics correctly we were limited to only 2 allies and 2 enemies in an attempt to limit the incentives to play the way you do.

From your nonsensical bullshit about claiming you were free to take my village early in this contest because a different player mistakenly said you could have it all the way up to your attacking the DE simply because he thought you were impacting his city.  All of your nonsense is not roleplaying but rationalizations for actions you intended to take anyhow.  My question is whether you moved your emissaries into the Eastern Steppes before your turn 20 NAP expired?  A violation of a NAP?  I guess it depends upon your rationalization.

And it pleases me to no end to see you write about your "completely un fun game" as that is exactly how I felt the moment the three of you in the South made a three player pact to attack any player who had the audacity to attack one of your regions in a war game!

You read over and over in the Forums about players not liking mega-alliances, gang-ups, 3 v 1, etc.  THAT is why our player base plays very few full diplomacy games.

Tantrums?:  You showed such faux anger over being called a liar.  You took such umbrage when I retook my own starting village.  Then you complained about being attacked by a single player.  And when I made it clear I detest 3 v 1 or worse alliances you said you don't care one bit - actually insulted me as being incapable of negotiating!

I didn't suggest anyone was throwing the game.  The NE suggested your allies shouldn't be content with second place since you were first to control two regions.  Then the SA confirmed that in diplomacy games people WILL stand by and let someone else win.  I, on the other hand, don't care one bit about whether your allies let you win.  What I care about is if you and two or more allies attack a single kingdom.  While nobody has yet, you have made it abundantly clear that not only are your okay with this conduct but you expect it.  That attitude is what pisses me off!

I never wanted to set myself above the rules.  This is another red herring in your fallacious arguments.  If I can convince even one of your allies to not assist you because you became the aggressor in our game, then I only need fight 2 v 1 -- and, this, I am good with.  Anything in Forum Only Communication indicate that we MUST role play?  Of course not.

I also never demanded that we change the rules.  Where do you make this stuff up from?  There is not a single "rule" I have advocated needs to be changed.  I only advocate that we as players need to change.

I also never said to set myself above the rules.  I suggested an offer that I expected you to completely reject.  This is exactly the same offer you made me!  Again, you just make stuff up.

Also, there does not need to be "player blocks."  You apparently like this dynamic, others do not.

Finally, I haven't "done nothing but whine and complain."  I attacked your kingdom.  It would have been the AN, but things changed.  Any of the three of you would have made acceptable targets for me.

Respond or not as you choose.  I never cared what you wrote anyways.