Mickey Posted January 17, 2014 Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 Let's see the groups of Rumania/Greece , Italy/ Czech/ Poland/ Germany/france , all the islands and USA , Canada Essentially all these countries either stopped fighting each other or agreed not to fight each other to ban together to fight the Scandinavian and/or African groups... And now we are complaining about not having opponents!? Priceless... Bull Pred... we banded together we no one and had a straight 4:4 match-up against the Scandinavians (assuming Central Russia was full-time fighting SR instead of Poland) and Italy was and is busy clearing his homeland). If the Atlantics had succeeded in driving Spain off the mainland with 5:1 and then made that remark, you would have a point, but to throw that at one side of a 4:4 match-up when the other side massively quits while in a solid position is not really contributing to finding an interesting setup for an entertaining second half of the game. There seems to be no point to the remark other than to drag someone down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predator Posted January 18, 2014 Report Share Posted January 18, 2014 No I was simply stating that all those countries were working towards the same goal because they saw the Scandinavian and African groups becoming too powerful.. My point was when so many countries "join together against a common threat" and defeat the enemy it creates a vacuum... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thors Posted January 18, 2014 Report Share Posted January 18, 2014 Again, your perception is warped. Big ego's tend to do that. Either you see things the way you want to see them; or you're just bullshitting to stir things up. Although I did like the Huckleberry comment. That got a smile out of me. Damn good movie reference! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sun Tzu Posted January 19, 2014 Report Share Posted January 19, 2014 Hmmm.... We are having plenty of opponents ! Syria, Morocco, Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Persia, UAE and hopefully TJ all joined together against a "common threat" No complaints here. What does suck is players or groups dropping out the moment they think they can not win anymore. Maybe a flat fee throughout the game irrespective of the number of turn sheets submitted could help people to stay on or an uplift which you get refunded when you finish the game or if you get totally defeated (to be defined) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predator Posted January 19, 2014 Report Share Posted January 19, 2014 We have not banded with Persia, UAE, or Saudi. My group is actively fighting all three...Syria owns a good portion of Persia, Jordan is fighting in Saudi... And well UAE seems lost in the desert somewhere It does suck when large groups drop just because they can't win the game... It ruined game 91....I was hoping that would change when Russ did away with free games for winning... What happened to playing for the enjoyment of the game!? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sun Tzu Posted January 19, 2014 Report Share Posted January 19, 2014 This is very strange but it would explain why I have not seen any TJ or Saudi (ground) forces yet. To me it seems like a very well concerted effort of the lot of you to try to take me down. The first thought would be that they sacrifice themselves for the benefit of your group but then why would TJ and Saudi keep fighting ? For the rest I can see no purpose in their behaviour. With the Persian force terminated the remaining UAE forces in Southern Turkey could attack the Syrians this turn to show their impartiality though ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted January 20, 2014 Report Share Posted January 20, 2014 So, around turn 31/32 we had the foillowing wars (not counting periphery action or nations that hardly had any impact, sorry Keith ): Centrals+Iceland <-> Vikings (4:4) SAM <-> Atlantics (3:4) Sy/TJ <-> SA/UAE/Per <-> SR/Rum/Gre (triangle of love) Is this about correct? Looks like we found an great equilibrium where everyone had an exciting war, Pred. The agreement of Atlantics and Centrals to not fight each other was a requirment for the match-up above to materialize. Of course now we have this: Centrals+Iceland <-> ... (5:0) SAM <-> Atlantics (3:???) Sy/TJ <-> SA/UAE/Per <-> SR/Rum/Gre (triangle of love) I think i will ask Italy and CZ to go invade Algeria so the Atlantics can afford to send USA, Canada and Lowlands to fight Iceland, Germany and Poland... howzat? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brogan Posted January 26, 2014 Report Share Posted January 26, 2014 There are no forces in Greece or Rumania, if you want to make the game interesting attack them. Plenty of nice production waiting to get cherry picked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted January 26, 2014 Report Share Posted January 26, 2014 Hmm... Rumania is a bit out of the way for me... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predator Posted February 2, 2014 Report Share Posted February 2, 2014 Hmm... Rumania is a bit out of the way for me... I thought morocco was too but maybe the war declaration states otherwise!? all patrols be advised: you have a green light on all Icelandic ships military or otherwise Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted February 2, 2014 Report Share Posted February 2, 2014 I thought morocco was too but maybe the war declaration states otherwise!? Hmm... Rumania is a bit out of the way for me... all patrols be advised: you have a green light on all Icelandic ships military or otherwise I just saved you the morale to DW on me since you've been trying to break the NAP with me for several turns. I only took you to the logical follow-up after YOU broke our NAP. Whatever reason that was for, now you won't have to worry about it anymore for sure, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted February 2, 2014 Report Share Posted February 2, 2014 No I was simply stating that all those countries were working towards the same goal because they saw the Scandinavian and African groups becoming too powerful.. My point was when so many countries "join together against a common threat" and defeat the enemy it creates a vacuum... If only we had defeated the enemy... given the geographics they would have likely lasted most of, or all of, the game. Anyway... it is now turn 42. I have given myself to turn 45 to find a direction and until turn 50 to actually go in that direction. Actually i already know the direction, it's just a question of what distance... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predator Posted February 2, 2014 Report Share Posted February 2, 2014 Well whatever you decide I am ready... Have been preparing since the atlantics landed in Portugal . I broke with you because I saw you ta with part of a group I am at war with and didn't want ceded territory to Iceland to block my path... Just politics ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sven Drake Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 This is very strange but it would explain why I have not seen any TJ or Saudi (ground) forces yet. To me it seems like a very well concerted effort of the lot of you to try to take me down. The first thought would be that they sacrifice themselves for the benefit of your group but then why would TJ and Saudi keep fighting ? For the rest I can see no purpose in their behaviour. With the Persian force terminated the remaining UAE forces in Southern Turkey could attack the Syrians this turn to show their impartiality though ! Trust me, Sun Tzu, I am still very much in the fight! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 Well whatever you decide I am ready... Have been preparing since the atlantics landed in Portugal . I broke with you because I saw you ta with part of a group I am at war with and didn't want ceded territory to Iceland to block my path... Just politics ... Although i already told you i don't play that way, your just breaking the NAP wouldn't have helped you there anyway, just made it more predictable. To be sure no CL-trick was played, you would need war. So... there you have it! War, but at a moment of my choosing, in a turn that i gained more than 50 morale from conquests so the morale hit didn't affect me. So... who's next? 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.