The Rottweiler Posted January 17, 2013 Report Share Posted January 17, 2013 If the players running Algeria or Tunisa are lurking on the Forum, please get in touch with me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted January 17, 2013 Report Share Posted January 17, 2013 Does someone want to comment on why Hungary is still employing the FP BPA tactic when I thought that nonsence had been laid to rest. I ment what I said before regarding this tactic. It seems to me that competing against a mindless computer is preferable to some than an active human. Unless someone can come up with some god like explanation then I am out of here. This is weird, as the player of Hungary has agreed to take over UAE instead of playing Hungary as of last week or two weeks ago, so there should be no one running HU anymore. Before i check with France, this is a new turn you received with activity not yet done a week ago? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted January 17, 2013 Report Share Posted January 17, 2013 Monty, the computer always tries to FP as a defensive action. On the bright side, he will never DW so it's a one-time action. Given you're not intrested in war with HU, this should not be a problem other than the one-time morale hit you get from the FP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marklen X Posted January 26, 2013 Report Share Posted January 26, 2013 Hey, Algeria has taken xCordoba! Does that mean I may get a fight some day, if I can ever break with Spain? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coothunter Posted January 31, 2013 Report Share Posted January 31, 2013 Does someone want to comment on why Hungary is still employing the FP BPA tactic when I thought that nonsence had been laid to rest. I ment what I said before regarding this tactic. It seems to me that competing against a mindless computer is preferable to some than an active human. Unless someone can come up with some god like explanation then I am out of here. Monty, that is what the entire Middle East TA did to me over and over. Things are more challenging, but you can still carry on. There is something satisfying when they attack you 3-on-1 AND employ the FP, BPA, DW tactic, and they still quit before you do. Now with a more competent TA to fight against, things will be tougher for me. But I'm still here! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predator Posted February 10, 2013 Report Share Posted February 10, 2013 looks like more dropped positions in iceland and britain just what this game needed...give people a little adversity and they don't want to play anymore...I don't understand why people like that even play this game... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monty Posted February 10, 2013 Report Share Posted February 10, 2013 I did state my position very clearly, the statesmanship has been lacking in this game. Some games are great, others are disasters. Our TA group was willing to continue if just one of us wanted to remain, we voted and as a group decided we did not wish to continue. From my own personal point of view it was the FP BPA DW that was the killer, Portugal was battered with it and then it was tried on me and GB. It may be in the rules of the game but not in the spirit. We all know Portugal trashed his treasury but I was running close to the bone many turns so the tactic worked once and failed twice, the fact it was being tried was what left a bitter taste and from a nation so far away it would never have been possible to fight a true war. It was an economic war hell bent on destroying nations to the point of dropping, I was not willing to spend hard earned cash to fund anothers fun. Game Over Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted February 10, 2013 Report Share Posted February 10, 2013 A shame that you feel this way. You noted your issue on the forum, Hungary stopped doing it (even stopped being played as a nation) but the computer pressed you for peace one last time as all computer nations do with everyone they are at war with. That was all there was to it. In other words, all players cooperated as soon as you spoke out and still you quit. Why even bother making us try to set things right if you quit after full cooperation anyway? I'm going to ask Russ if we can simply prevent any nations spending into a negative, as i find it very frustrating that nations first overspend and then stop participating in the game when they are found out. I really don't see a nett positive for this hugely divisive and aggravating option, especially as overspending on a turn doesn't give you a single dollar of extra treasury to spend in total (unless you go into the -999 spiral). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurassier Posted February 10, 2013 Report Share Posted February 10, 2013 A shame that you feel this way. You noted your issue on the forum, Hungary stopped doing it (even stopped being played as a nation) but the computer pressed you for peace one last time as all computer nations do with everyone they are at war with. That was all there was to it. In other words, all players cooperated as soon as you spoke out and still you quit. Why even bother making us try to set things right if you quit after full cooperation anyway? I'm going to ask Russ if we can simply prevent any nations spending into a negative, as i find it very frustrating that nations first overspend and then stop participating in the game when they are found out. I really don't see a nett positive for this hugely divisive and aggravating option, especially as overspending on a turn doesn't give you a single dollar of extra treasury to spend in total (unless you go into the -999 spiral). ,For what it is worth, it happened to me in Game 86? Where I was Denmark. I lasted until the end of the game. (with a terrible score I might add) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogue Leader Posted February 11, 2013 Report Share Posted February 11, 2013 A shame that you feel this way. You noted your issue on the forum, Hungary stopped doing it (even stopped being played as a nation) but the computer pressed you for peace one last time as all computer nations do with everyone they are at war with. That was all there was to it. In other words, all players cooperated as soon as you spoke out and still you quit. Why even bother making us try to set things right if you quit after full cooperation anyway? I'm going to ask Russ if we can simply prevent any nations spending into a negative, as i find it very frustrating that nations first overspend and then stop participating in the game when they are found out. I really don't see a nett positive for this hugely divisive and aggravating option, especially as overspending on a turn doesn't give you a single dollar of extra treasury to spend in total (unless you go into the -999 spiral). ,For what it is worth, it happened to me in Game 86? Where I was Denmark. I lasted until the end of the game. (with a terrible score I might add) You were the US in game 86 Mark. It was not 87 either as you were GB that one. I must say I was not impressed with Team Iceland. We fought 3 of it's players and barely got a battle out of them. Portugal had already dropped so I guess he doesn't really count. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marklen X Posted February 11, 2013 Report Share Posted February 11, 2013 A shame that you feel this way. You noted your issue on the forum, Hungary stopped doing it (even stopped being played as a nation) but the computer pressed you for peace one last time as all computer nations do with everyone they are at war with. That was all there was to it. In other words, all players cooperated as soon as you spoke out and still you quit. Why even bother making us try to set things right if you quit after full cooperation anyway? I'm going to ask Russ if we can simply prevent any nations spending into a negative, as i find it very frustrating that nations first overspend and then stop participating in the game when they are found out. I really don't see a nett positive for this hugely divisive and aggravating option, especially as overspending on a turn doesn't give you a single dollar of extra treasury to spend in total (unless you go into the -999 spiral). ,For what it is worth, it happened to me in Game 86? Where I was Denmark. I lasted until the end of the game. (with a terrible score I might add) You were the US in game 86 Mark. It was not 87 either as you were GB that one. I must say I was not impressed with Team Iceland. We fought 3 of it's players and barely got a battle out of them. Portugal had already dropped so I guess he doesn't really count. Yes I was the US, but Tim was Denmark. I am not Kuraiser. You have me confused, which seems odd, since I am so much taller and better looking than he. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogue Leader Posted February 11, 2013 Report Share Posted February 11, 2013 A shame that you feel this way. You noted your issue on the forum, Hungary stopped doing it (even stopped being played as a nation) but the computer pressed you for peace one last time as all computer nations do with everyone they are at war with. That was all there was to it. In other words, all players cooperated as soon as you spoke out and still you quit. Why even bother making us try to set things right if you quit after full cooperation anyway? I'm going to ask Russ if we can simply prevent any nations spending into a negative, as i find it very frustrating that nations first overspend and then stop participating in the game when they are found out. I really don't see a nett positive for this hugely divisive and aggravating option, especially as overspending on a turn doesn't give you a single dollar of extra treasury to spend in total (unless you go into the -999 spiral). ,For what it is worth, it happened to me in Game 86? Where I was Denmark. I lasted until the end of the game. (with a terrible score I might add) You were the US in game 86 Mark. It was not 87 either as you were GB that one. I must say I was not impressed with Team Iceland. We fought 3 of it's players and barely got a battle out of them. Portugal had already dropped so I guess he doesn't really count. Yes I was the US, but Tim was Denmark. I am not Kuraiser. You have me confused, which seems odd, since I am so much taller and better looking than he. I wasn't paying attention to the poster, my bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marklen X Posted February 16, 2013 Report Share Posted February 16, 2013 My my Rogue Leader. xGuadalajara? If I don't break with Spain soon he will be irrelevant. Guess I need to start on Algeria. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogue Leader Posted February 16, 2013 Report Share Posted February 16, 2013 My my Rogue Leader. xGuadalajara? If I don't break with Spain soon he will be irrelevant. Guess I need to start on Algeria. That was Tunisia taking xGuadalalajara. I'm still working my way north. Lots of hills. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodswalker Posted February 16, 2013 Report Share Posted February 16, 2013 Hello all active players. I represent Southern Russia. I have inherited wars against both the Scandanavian and eastern European alliances. If others share my enemies I welcome any and all diplomatic ovetures. 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.