MP Game - "Throne Of Heavens", veterans and experienced players only (full)

[Stormbinder]

ROFL.

I knew cain could not resist posting in such thread.


To quantum/archae:

Other people? What other people are you talking about, please tell?


R'leh player have told you that your "alliance victory" crap have spolied the game for him. Maltrease is very polite guy who does not like controversy, but I think he feels the same.


In case you guys haven't noticed not me, not R'leh, not Marignon are not interested in continuing this game given the way things they are. You have turned the game from FFA to "team game", with your "team" having significantly more resourses than the rest of the nations combined. There is no much point of continuing playing such game. I hope you'll be able to enjoy such "victory".


That means that nobody other than archae/quantum with their "shared victory" wants to continue this game.

But what realy cracked me up is Archae braging of him beating me, after he himself beged quantum to agree to "shared victory" option, only because he was too afraid to deal with me himself. That statement really made my day.


Amyway, enough of this pissing contest. If you'll find 2 or 3 subs silly enough to enjoy playing such "team" game against team that have much more resourses than the rest of the nations combined, go ahead and do it. Other people are asking me to give them the slot of our game if it is finished. So hurry up.

[quantum_mechani]

As much as I hate to drag this out, you still have not addressed any of the points in my post. In addition, I've heard you say in the past that diplomacy was one of (if not the most) important parts of a long term dominions game. I would say by that measure you are losing fair and square- angering the two other major nations is not a great idea diplomatically. As for Ry'leh/ Magrignon, I would be fine with breaking up the alliance and continuing the game after Vanheim is gone, if they still fell like they can affect the outcome.

As for the WQs, I was quite sure I saw 2 different ones, I'm not accusing you of lieing, it does seem unlikly that you would not remember summoning one. So, I would not at all rule out that I was mistaken.

[Stormbinder]

quantum_mechani said:
As much as I hate to drag this out, you still have not addressed any of the points in my post. In addition, I've heard you say in the past that diplomacy was one of (if not the most) important parts of a long term dominions game. I would say by that measure you are losing fair and square- angering the two other major nations is not a great idea diplomatically. As for Ry'leh/ Magrignon, I would be fine with breaking up the alliance and continuing the game after Vanheim is gone, if they still fell like they can affect the outcome.

Quantum, you have not addressed any points of *my* letter, after I addressed all points made in *your* original letter. If you think you can ignore your opponents arguments but they must reply to yours, I suggest you think again.


Of course the dimplomacy is important part of Dom2 game. But it has nothing to do with "allied victory" that archae offered to you and you accepted. That changed the nature of the game from FFA to "team game", and you know it. I never done anything like that in my games. And please stop trying to come up with things like "semi-allied victory", it is laughable. You told me yourself that Arcahe offered you "to share the victory in the game with him", and you thought it is a "nice option" that you accepted. You never intended to fight him after you would beat me. You just wanted the game to be over as soon as you can. Well, you got you wish. Enjoy it if you can.

Oh, and you have de-facto directly accursed me of lieing, with your insistance that you have seen 2 WQ under my control, which you have even named. Just after I specificaly told that I don't have two WQs, never had, and haven't even resummoned the one I have, since it was never killed by you or anybody else. How about adressing *this* point for a change, huh?

[archaeolept]

storm, why won't you address the fact that me and quantum have abandoned any suggestion of an allied victory, since it seems to have blown a fuse in your brain?

there is no allied victory. deal w/ it.

unless your problem is that there exists any alliance against you (which I am pretty sure is your real beef). however, I really don't think military alliances are against the rules of this game

[quantum_mechani]

Stormbinder said:

You never intended to fight him after you would beat me. You just wanted the game to be over as soon as you can.

Well, thanks for telling me what I'm thinking. The truth is that me and Arch had talked about it from the start (we never decided either way), and I am willing to continue the game afterward, especially if Ry'leh and Marignon are still having fun with it.

Let me boil it down:

You feel Arch and I are being unfair, not by allying, but by keeping the alliance after you are gone, correct?

The ending the game part was always optional and conditioal on the feelings of all remaining players.

Anyway, if everything is as hopeless as you say, your empire would be gone by then. So it really has no impact on you other than a nice way to lose but be able to say "I only lost due to unfair tactics".

[Stormbinder]

archaeolept said:
storm, why won't you address the fact that me and quantum have abandoned any suggestion of an allied victory, since it seems to have blown a fuse in your brain?

there is no allied victory. deal w/ it.

unless your problem is that there exists any alliance against you (which I am pretty sure is your real beef). however, I really don't think military alliances are against the rules of this game

To archae : Yeah, right. You should drop that "allied victory" crap that you came up with when I strongly objected to it to both you and quantum 3 turns ago, telling you what I think about it. Instead you completely ignored it, laughing and basicly telling me to take a hike, that it is not agaisnt the rules, etc.

Well, guess what? Take a hike.

After 3 or 4 turns of your "allied victory" war with 20-30+ battles per turn only on my part, and with your nation overruning the entire NE part of the southern continent as a direct result of your "allied victory" plan, it's a bit too late for that now, don't you think? You would never archieved anything close to the gains that you got if not for your "victory partner", and you know it very well. Besides even if I would be willing to continue, and pretend to believe you, what exactly would be changed?? Absolutely nothing. After what was said here in this thread, you and QM would do *exactly* what you were planing to do, just for the heck of it, but this time you simply would not tell about it in public. Don't think people are stupid Archae. That only makes yourself look stupid.

[archaeolept]

how is our allying against you illegal or unfair? we were both pissed at you and decided to attack. the victory conditions were completely irrelevant to us; hence, why we have no problem dropping them.

you're just a wuss. look at yourself in the mirror. All you are doing is desperately searching for some lame excuse to blame your loss on - we've all heard you brag about how you win so often (LOL!), but it should be clear to all how you achieve this...

[Stormbinder]

archaeolept said:
how is our allying against you illegal or unfair? we were both pissed at you and decided to attack. the victory conditions were completely irrelevant to us; hence, why we have no problem dropping them.

you're just a wuss. look at yourself in the mirror. All you are doing is desperately searching for some lame excuse to blame your loss on - we've all heard you brag about how you win so often (LOL!), but it should be clear to all how you achieve this...

Heh. Silly rabbit. Next time try to form your "joint victory" coalition from the begining with all nations except one, if "victory conditions are irrelivent" to you. That way you'll be able to win all your games. And btw that's the only way you will be able to win against good opponents.

Accursing me of being weak player after I refused a100% assured victory twice in this game, simply because I though it is not a sportsmanship-like, and after you later went so far as to form "joint victory" coalition in what supposed to be FFA game, just because you were too afraid to deal with me yourself is very funny.




EDIT: LOL, nm my suggestion about your future games archae. Based upon your words here that I've missed first time, you are already doing just that, and perhaps you have done that in your past games as well:

archaeolept said:
i'm so glad you feel qualified to speak for him [Marrignon]. however, the truth is that the original victory alliance was between him and me.

So how many "victory alliances" have you formed in this game arache? What a joke.

[archaeolept]

Maltrease is very polite guy who does not like controversy, but I think he feels the same.

lol, i'm so glad you feel qualified to speak for him. however, the truth is that the original victory alliance was between him and me. He left to side w/ you in order to keep the game more balanced, since none of us, besides you, thinks victory alliances mean much.

Anyways, as we've said many times: there is no allied victory w/ me and quant any more, so you have no leg to stand on.

malt isn't that interested in continuing because he's basically out of the game. He's been begging to be taken out for turns

as to izaqyos, i'm not sure what his current position is. certainly i don't trust you to provide it.

Frankly Storm, your prevarications and confabulations border on the pathological.

There is no more tentative agreement for an allied victory in order to avoid a tedious endgame. That is finished. So play your move - and if you feel incapable of it, at least make the attempt to find a sub. Otherwise you are just a little ****.

[quantum_mechani]

This is spinning way out of control. Caine said earlier that I had no reason to be upset with Storm before joining the game, and that's true. Infact, I still am not interested in a conflict over this. I'm merely attempting to end this game in a way that most of the remaining players can agree with. What you say about my comments about the end game are true, but nothing was ever set in stone about what exactly would happen when Storm was gone. Strangely enough, our brief 3 turn war was actually one of the more interesting parts of the game to me (because of my general dislike of the late game, this was only my second expirience I have had fighting a war in it, so I got to use/see tactics that I had not previously).

What I can't understand is how Storm's quitting was tied to whether there would be any kind of alliance victory. The issues seem totally separate, after all, Storm's empire would be gone before it ever became an issue.