Jump to content
Rolling Thunder Forums

game 93


gecko
 Share

Recommended Posts

At this moment I'm not certain what went on, but I've got a clue.

 

Generally Speaking:

 

Knowing that an unintentional "feature" (that is abusive) should have been addressed and a veteran is still using it; says something about a persons character.

 

But also it's not worth getting extremely distraught over that poor behavior...

Yet its understandably a detractor from wanting to continue the game, when others have no sense of fair play. Sooner or later there's a few left holding their ball without enough people to play with, and they're scratching their head wondering why. Or worse, they're proud of themselves, thinking "I won!". (egotists and narcissists)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Still Mickey, So the Puppy shit on the rug. Shouldn't you rub his nose in it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

hmmm not sure what the big deal is here...so you guys have to wait one more turn to hit one of my airbases? you guys should know by now if you are fighting someone you should be at war with the whole group. I understand that doesn't fit into your 4 against 1 philosophy. at this stage of the game there s no way to protect an airbase when 4 countries throw everything they have at it. 50 fighters and all the laa in the world cant stop you guys from destroying a 100 level airfield in one turn. and don't act like that isn't your intention as both Germany and Iceland have moved into range and Italy an Czech already are. the game is full of flaws including not being able to stop your air bases from being wiped out by super groups like yourselves so excuse a veteran player from using every trick to slow the inevitable by one turn.

would you rather have players drop the game when they are so over matched at some point? Algeria and myself chose to fight on knowing we have no chance to win so every one could have a good end game. our reward is to have our character attacked and called narcissists, really!?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, stuff it. We haven't FP'd Spain even though his morale was likely below zero near the end. We haven't DW'd on Syria/TJ as it wasn't our war, didn't know the morale situation and shouldn't have to do so, just to prevent cheap tricks. You were doing a good job preventing a base being destroyed by the right methods, destroying the bases of the attacking air forces, this is just a lame reverse prisoner dilemma method. YMMV (YMCV!).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pred, read it again, I didn't call you a Narcissists. That was a generalism for that particular mind-frame. Whether or not you apply specifically, is for you to decide... As for having an in-game ego, we've discussed that a couple times before and it didn't seem to bother you... Perhaps it was implied, but certainly not a direct insult! B)

 

People have different gaming ethics (or lack thereof due to it being a game). It doesn't mean they may lack ethics or have low morals in real life, and that should be recognized. People are allowed to take on a gaming personae; but being human along with writing being an imperfect form of communication, sometimes it's hard to distinguish between the two.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Ya I know you really didn't dw was because you didn't want to lower your morale/average morale. The reason I know this is you weren't happy when I dw on Iceland a long time ago for according to you no apparent reason.

 

Privacy Option YES Tech Period 59 Final Balance: _____
Nation: Iceland Game#93 Account Number: 7590
Fall Turn American Units Thursday, September 18, 2014
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
STATE OF THE NATION
National Morale Treasury Army NTS Naval NTS Air NTS Intel Sharing Scuttle Espionage Counter-Esp. Last Turn Processed
999 43849 1 3 4 ON 30% 0 10 14 days ago
Privacy Option YES Tech Period 60 Final Balance: _____
Nation: Iceland Game#93 Account Number: 7590
Fall Turn American Units Thursday, October 2, 2014
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
STATE OF THE NATION
National Morale Treasury Army NTS Naval NTS Air NTS Intel Sharing Scuttle Espionage Counter-Esp. Last Turn Processed
994 52168 1 3 4 ON 30% 0 10 14 days ago

 

 

Privacy Option YES Tech Period 61 Final Balance: _____
Nation: Iceland Game#93 Account Number: 7590
Fall Turn American Units Sunday, October 19, 2014
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
STATE OF THE NATION
National Morale Treasury Army NTS Naval NTS Air NTS Intel Sharing Scuttle Espionage Counter-Esp. Last Turn Processed
999 68024 1 3 4 ON 30% 0 10 17 days ago
And so on...
My first turn after you had broken the NAP and i DW'd on you:
Privacy Option YES Tech Period 42 Final Balance: _____
Nation: Iceland Game#93 Account Number: 7590
Winter Turn American Units Sunday, January 26, 2014
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
STATE OF THE NATION
National Morale Treasury Army NTS Naval NTS Air NTS Intel Sharing Scuttle Espionage Counter-Esp. Last Turn Processed
999 9592 1 3 4 ON 30% 0 4 14 days ago
The outcry was purely in-game/obfuscation as i was obviously already getting ready to come south at that point. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This game can't end soon enough

Perhaps you should start a thread to let the world know what you consider fair game play

No one complained when your group attacked us 4 against 1 with your airforces... Is that fair game play?

No one has complained that the two main alliances in Europe basically had a no fight agreement so both groups could concentrate on us the entire second half of the game. Is that fair game play?

I have played Vic 20 years you are the first person to ever say ceding something to a ta for whatever the reason is unfair game play.

It's not even like you guys even have alliances with my ta's preventing you from dw the very next turn.

My group is clearly on the losing end of this game and are being ganged up on all sides of the map. We have not complained once but have welcomed the challenge and put up the best fight possible. Like I said Algeria and myself decided to finish the game to keep it interesting for you guys.

If you want it to be a no resistance thing where you can systematically eliminate our militaries we will gladly drop, until then I will do whatever I can to protect morocco that the RULES ALLOW!

To me your whining just smacks of sour grapes that morocco has gotten the best of you the last 3 turns.

This will be my last public post to this game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pred, you certainly got the best of me the last two/three turns, for reasons on my side as well as your daring actions. Hence my complete non-understanding why, and disappointment that, you had to stoop to this.

 

Mickey out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow - I can't believe the belly aching over this. It's Victory 101 - always declare war on your enemies TA's. Just because you overlooked this or didn't DW on purpose (I don't know), doesn't mean you need to accuse Predator of dishonorable play. Even if he used a rule against you, and you wasted a turn trying to attack him, it is just 1 turn. That's it - one turn. Just DW on the rest of the alliance and go on nuking his bases. If the shoe was on the other foot, and you could slow down an enemie's advance 1 turn you wouldn't do it? I think every Victory player ever has probably ceded a provence to block an enemy at some point. And as Predator has mentioned our 5 (now 4) man alliance has been fighting every other active nation for over 30 turns. At one time it was 15 vs 5. Now I think we are down to "only" 8 or 10 vs 4. We are on the ropes and still the two most powerful alliances just sit there sharing common borders while they continue to blow us away. We obviouslly have no chance of winning but you guys would rather tag team a weak alliance then take on each other. We don't complain or call anyone dishonorable it is what it is, and completely within the rules.

 

- Andy aka Syria 93

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Point here was that, just like we promised we wouldnt FP on Spain, we (or at least i) didn't want to DW on two losing partners in the alliance. My morale has been 999 for 20 turns so it would have been no problem whatsoever to do so, but they seemed to be losing badly. We had a huge row about FP/DW around turn 30, only because someone's morale droppped below zero and others acted on it.

The problem for me (i really don't speak for the TA-group) is not this one CL, but the "anything, which is not specifically prohibited by the rules and is technically possible, goes" mind-set it is indicative of (as repeated by Pred). I don't fit in with this widespread 'veterans' mindset on ethics, which is why i shouldn't be playing as it grieves me and i don't have the time (my main problem atm) or mind-set to cope with it, which is why i really should quit Victory.
Btw, i fully agree with your point of the TA-triangle. We've had a player in our team virtually quit because another member wouldn't allow him to go to war with Rumania-Greece, making his position dead-in-the-water. This game would have been much more alive (and fun, imo) if this alliance would not have been so holy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow a three way war would have been fantastic, too bad we missed out on that opportunity. As for the FP with Spain, I think you would have regretted that as soon as Morocco ceded a provence to Spain to block your progress. It is never good to FP on someone that you are still at war with it's allies.

 

If Rumania and Greece win the game you have no one to blame but your alliance. I certainly tried my hardest to make them lose! :)

 

- Syria 93

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Amazing how people can conveniently forget or ignore how things played out the way they did. And forgive me for my own sense of morality and ethics, when I keep to my word. I was forced to drop my word of honor once, but apparently that wasn't enough for someone else.

 

Early on in the game, my alliance would have been utterly screwed if Rumania and Greece went to war with us. up to around turn 30+ it was similarly bad odds against my original 4 man TA. The Russians&Nordics, The Atlantic's, and the Mediterranean&Iberian... Vs. Central Europe. Shall we raise the word Fair again??? I'm not, I'm just countering the current sentiment.

 

In that situation Greece and Rumania agreed to a serious non aggression situation. Soooo, once it became inconvenient I should have said "screw it, I'm going to attack you now"? Sorry, I don't play that way. I seriously try to keep to my word.

 

Oh! (I've said this before) We tried to work with Spain back when the Atlantics and Nordics/Russians had a huge advantage on us with approximately 10 nations vs. <5. But instead Morocco and Algeria decided to pile on the rabbit, adding more enemies to the above list.

 

Funny how people manufacture the current situation into personal affronts and dishonorable manipulations.

 

Mickey, CL was not a horrific affront to you. Get over it.

 

Pred, give it a break, and stop with the "reverse dog house" routine. All you had to do was convey your position of using the CL as you did... without dragging up bullshit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After Greece and I had overrun Bulgaria I broke my alliance with Poland in 1 turn. Together with Yugoslavia we were going to attack his alliance the turn after.

They would not have survived because at the same time the Northern group had overrun Baltic States and was moving on them as well.

 

Poland pleaded us not to attack him. The group that Turkey belonged to (Lybia/Egypt/TJ/Syria/Tunisia) was destroying Iraq with Persia, Saudi and UAE to follow.

To delete a future threat we decided to keep the peace with Poland c.s. and invade Turkey to get Persia, Saudi and UAE on their feet again after which we would expect security from that side.

As also the Atlantics were attacking the Central European group we did not expect them to survive and the idea was that we would fight whoever would beat them after we would have secured the South/East.

 

The Turkish group evaporated, Syria and TJ changed teams and Persia, Saudi and UAE (with 2 new players) started to attack us rather than the ones who were gobbling up their countries.

We were on the brink of defeat and only Southern Russia joining us and a last minute peace deal with Persia c.s. kept us alive.

A three way war was never an option for us. The war against Syria c.s and Persia c.s. took ALL our efforts and we would not have had any chance to stop an attack from the European side.

Anyway I appreciate it very much that they kept their word when the situation had reversed. I also would never have broken it even if it means moving yourself in an unplayable situation.

The same with Persia c.s. Only after we got the green light from Persia that they had quit Southern Russia attacked them again even though it would have been very convenient for him to do that much earlier.

Last but not least I think that ceding a province to a TA is not really something to get excited about and it is good to see that Syria c.s. keep on fighting even though they have no chance anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...