Sparafucile Posted October 3, 2011 Report Share Posted October 3, 2011 But there is also something called reputation. And there is always a next game. Amen to that, Reputation is Everything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparafucile Posted October 3, 2011 Report Share Posted October 3, 2011 Of course they've never threatened me to get what they want. Of course not, Reputation is Everything, after all we might be in a future game together! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparafucile Posted October 3, 2011 Report Share Posted October 3, 2011 They had to save my ass...and all the pretty girls at xPrague That's what friends are for It's a Hobby! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparafucile Posted October 3, 2011 Report Share Posted October 3, 2011 Guys, It's a game. No reason to kill eachother IRL over some DW... Von Manstein indeed, but i know some people that are really really upset with what happened. and there is only so much you can do in this game. in the end, communication is the key. if someone never plays the game again due to what has happened, who wins in the end? Oh come on, we can tell all kinds of stories what happened earlier in this game, while you guys could just walk over countries who stepped out immediately with easy wins we got stuck in burning resources, time and money and not progressing a single province for ages. And no sooner were we just able to tip the balance our way with some teaming up or we found Northern Russian armored divisions waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay out of their territory It's been fun with you guys, finally a worthy opponent, don't go blaming any losses now on Italy capturing his long over due piece of Western Europe, hell he must have had his piece of the frustration pie trying to capture Switzerland (oh he still wasn't able to ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Spongebob Posted October 3, 2011 Report Share Posted October 3, 2011 I am intreegued (yes i know i cant spell) but can someone condense what all the fuss is about into a Spongebyte that a Sponge can understand. I was Denmark in this game after all and still have a curiosity as to what is going on. Anyone care to educate the sponge? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Becher Posted October 3, 2011 Report Share Posted October 3, 2011 I am intreegued (yes i know i cant spell) but can someone condense what all the fuss is about into a Spongebyte that a Sponge can understand. I was Denmark in this game after all and still have a curiosity as to what is going on. Anyone care to educate the sponge? short version Those who killed you claim the exclusive right to kill others and are whining now a spag-eater is spoiling their Grande Bouffe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inspector Gadget Posted October 3, 2011 Report Share Posted October 3, 2011 I realize it's not my business, so I'll understand if there is no reply, but I am intrigued. I've been following the back and forth accusations and counter accusations and wanted to seek a clarification for all of us that have been following this. Did Italy ever specifically agree to the proposal and or demands (depending on who's telling the story) that Lowlands set forth? Or, did Italy only agree to consider it, take it under advisement, etc the 'proposal'? It may seem to some like such a question would be considered splitting hairs, but to some players, unless an offer is clearly accepted/agreed to, there is no agreement to be broken later on and thus either party is free to act at their discretion with or without giving notice if they choose. Some may argue that it would have been the 'gentlemanly' thing to do to inform and or warn the soon to be target of the void nature of the prior discussions, but it is by no means a requirement in many players minds. If the proposal was not clearly agreed to by both players, then it sounds like at least one person may have made certain assumptions about the status of the proposal. Assumptions like that can be a shaky, or even a dangerous thing to stake your nations future on as we are now seeing. Any clarification then on what was 'officially' agreed to/finalized or not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Spongebob Posted October 3, 2011 Report Share Posted October 3, 2011 I realize it's not my business, so I'll understand if there is no reply, but I am intrigued. I've been following the back and forth accusations and counter accusations and wanted to seek a clarification for all of us that have been following this. Did Italy ever specifically agree to the proposal and or demands (depending on who's telling the story) that Lowlands set forth? Or, did Italy only agree to consider it, take it under advisement, etc the 'proposal'? It may seem to some like such a question would be considered splitting hairs, but to some players, unless an offer is clearly accepted/agreed to, there is no agreement to be broken later on and thus either party is free to act at their discretion with or without giving notice if they choose. Some may argue that it would have been the 'gentlemanly' thing to do to inform and or warn the soon to be target of the void nature of the prior discussions, but it is by no means a requirement in many players minds. If the proposal was not clearly agreed to by both players, then it sounds like at least one person may have made certain assumptions about the status of the proposal. Assumptions like that can be a shaky, or even a dangerous thing to stake your nations future on as we are now seeing. Any clarification then on what was 'officially' agreed to/finalized or not? Can someone throw this lawyer out, I said I wanted and Spongelike explanation. - Becher made it simple so I thank you and wish Italy all the success he deserves and kicks those scandinavian vermin out of mainland Europe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inspector Gadget Posted October 3, 2011 Report Share Posted October 3, 2011 I realize it's not my business, so I'll understand if there is no reply, but I am intrigued. I've been following the back and forth accusations and counter accusations and wanted to seek a clarification for all of us that have been following this. Did Italy ever specifically agree to the proposal and or demands (depending on who's telling the story) that Lowlands set forth? Or, did Italy only agree to consider it, take it under advisement, etc the 'proposal'? It may seem to some like such a question would be considered splitting hairs, but to some players, unless an offer is clearly accepted/agreed to, there is no agreement to be broken later on and thus either party is free to act at their discretion with or without giving notice if they choose. Some may argue that it would have been the 'gentlemanly' thing to do to inform and or warn the soon to be target of the void nature of the prior discussions, but it is by no means a requirement in many players minds. If the proposal was not clearly agreed to by both players, then it sounds like at least one person may have made certain assumptions about the status of the proposal. Assumptions like that can be a shaky, or even a dangerous thing to stake your nations future on as we are now seeing. Any clarification then on what was 'officially' agreed to/finalized or not? Can someone throw this lawyer out, I said I wanted and Spongelike explanation. - Becher made it simple so I thank you and wish Italy all the success he deserves and kicks those scandinavian vermin out of mainland Europe. Obviously you couldn't tell, but I was not directing my post to you Sponge. It was obvious that Becher had already answered your question pretty clearly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke of York Posted October 3, 2011 Report Share Posted October 3, 2011 Any clarification then on what was 'officially' agreed to/finalized or not? Pretty much everything is out already so here it goes: We are happy to see Italy is doing so well, but of course we can not allow you to take all of France. We fully appreciate your need for the oil and coal from Nancy, Belfort and Strasbourg. I have played italy twice so I know by now you must be desperate for these resources. We are happy to leave these provinces to you, under the condition we can take metz, sedan, troyes, paris, rouen and the provinces north of that line. With that I create a save zone, just incase you might change your mind about going south instead of north. If required I am happy to donate some coal now and than to your upcoming battles. Am I right to assume it will be against Spain and Canada? As alternative of course we can fight over all these fuel and coal provinces, with the result we both will probably end up loosing a lot of troops and you will run out of fuel. So Keith I hope we can come to some understanding and that you can see our point of view. I need an answer by tomorrow (tuesday 2nd) so i can call back the troops.... thats cool Metz was as far as I was going anyway. still recovering from the fight with France. That was all AFAIK. This was 3 turns ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted October 3, 2011 Report Share Posted October 3, 2011 Inspector, is your question even relevant? As outsider i look at the thread and i see Dageraad's maps... they show a war-line between yellow and blue. I also interpret the same colours to mean that Italy is a TA of GB, who is at war with the blue alliance as per Dageraad's own summary of the involved parties. I am therfore very surprised to hear blue complaining about being at war with the other yellow country, regardless of what Italy said or did.You cannot expect the TA of an enemy to hold to any deal other than that motivated by self-preservation, lest his TA feels really, and far more justifiably, betrayed. But maybe i take TA's too seriously; if any TA of mine ever made a pact with my enemies to not attack them, and meant it, THAT would make me put someone on a 'list... Edit: Just read Ondali's reply. I fully agree that the offer done was fair and not threatening at all. I just would NEVER trust Italy further than i could hold him. If you're at war with his TA, any deal he makes would be, and was, only as good and as long as HE felt it expedient. Humbug of his reasoning about threats aside, he'd be betraying his TA by a long-lasting peace with blue while GB was at war with blue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dageraad Posted October 3, 2011 Report Share Posted October 3, 2011 Inspector, is your question even relevant? As outsider i look at the thread and i see Dageraad's maps... they show a war-line between yellow and blue. I also interpret the same colours to mean that Italy is a TA of GB, who is at war with the blue alliance as per Dageraad's own summary of the involved parties. I am therfore very surprised to hear blue complaining about being at war with the other yellow country, regardless of what Italy said or did.You cannot expect the TA of an enemy to hold to any deal other than that motivated by self-preservation, lest his TA feels really, and far more justifiably, betrayed. But maybe i take TA's too seriously; if any TA of mine ever made a pact with my enemies to not attack them, and meant it, THAT would make me put someone on a 'list... Well, it is a little bit more complicated than that, as Italy is not TA's with Great Britain (Ireland still is, AFAIK) and I have a working agreement with Ireland. He won't attack Iceland and I will stay out of the Irish sea. As you are not in this game I am willing to send you all of my turn results with Iceland so you can testify that I am keeping my part of that bargain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted October 3, 2011 Report Share Posted October 3, 2011 I'm happy to believe you on your word. Also from the look of the map, it seems like there's a HUGE african (and M-East) bloc that is geared towards the balkan / underbelly of Europe (where else would they go, all countries to Spain and Moscow?) which to me would suggest that the remaining 40 turns see Green in MUCH greater trouble with beige/brown that the blue group... the ' balanced war' may be gone into a shifting quicksand but i'd put my money on much more blue being present in turn 73 than green/yellow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dageraad Posted October 4, 2011 Report Share Posted October 4, 2011 I'm happy to believe you on your word. Also from the look of the map, it seems like there's a HUGE african (and M-East) bloc that is geared towards the balkan / underbelly of Europe (where else would they go, all countries to Spain and Moscow?) which to me would suggest that the remaining 40 turns see Green in MUCH greater trouble with beige/brown that the blue group... the ' balanced war' may be gone into a shifting quicksand but i'd put my money on much more blue being present in turn 73 than green/yellow. I agree that the whole of the 'balanced war' thing is a bit of myth, as it never was completely balanced. But some things cancel eachother out: green had a much thouger opponent to start with. But on the front lines, that was cancelled out by the sea Iceland and Norway had to cross to reach the central European front. And the minor problem of a yellow speedbump. We were fiinally reaching the point were all countries involved had huger armies lined up for a decisive confrontation: Lowlandic-Icelandic-Norwegian-Baltic and Northern Russian vs. Austrian- Yugoslavian- Czech-Hungarian and Greek armies. Like a great game of chess, with Great Britain as a thorn in our side. And then someone kicked over the board. But that board was already lying on the floor. I agree that green has more long-term trouble than blue. But not in the short run. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erich von Manstein Posted October 4, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 4, 2011 Guys, It's a game. No reason to kill eachother IRL over some DW... Von Manstein I always wonder why you and Yugo didn't go west. Italy sure does have a good thing with his eastern front secured. They had to save my ass...and all the pretty girls at xPrague That's what friends are for Marketa... :wub: :wub: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.