You're right JSS. The goal isn't to collect as many acres as possible.
gg.
Printable View
You're right JSS. The goal isn't to collect as many acres as possible.
gg.
The main difference of course being in all of the other examples the two sides discussed things and eventually came to a resolution through negotiation or appropriate retribution is planned when in a position to exact it.Quote:
Originally Posted by citadela01
@JS
I cold have maybe make an effort to make it concise and focused, garnish it with plenty quotes and rebuke it with examples but tbh it aint worth the effort it takes me to express it. Bottom line is simple, Cats did nothing that would justify 2v1 against them.
They stepped on lot of toes and after owners of those toes tried to pay them back and got their ass handed to them they resorted to doubling them up. Case closed.
Since when refusal to diplo merrits doubling up on someone ?Quote:
Originally Posted by flogger
Since 1998Quote:
Originally Posted by citadela01
Note BIO won the age that the actions occurred that I'm upset with.Quote:
Originally Posted by citadela01
Implying that's the entire content of your message.Quote:
You're right JSS. The goal isn't to collect as many acres as possible.
If you're not interested in the social contract that exists within the game, then you are not going to by other elements of that social contract.Quote:
Originally Posted by citadela01
No. Refusal to diplo merits goin medival on their asses on your own, isnt that what Bio is and Pulse was ? FSU kd ? Or you dont have what it takes to handle it yourself so you resorted to wearing them in hostile and lined them up for Inso.Quote:
Originally Posted by flogger
Ofc you at least TRIED to war them in 1v1 battle before calling in the cavalary ?
I know the answer to all those questions btw ...
This is logical falacity and can be used to justify absolutelly anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by John Snowstorm
ie I want yr9 NAP, whats your price ? Your not interensted ... well we cant have that ... let me introduce you to some of my frinds ...
We've never had 1v1 battled that never end with a 75% NW cap. With a 50% cap generally kingdoms can't really hit the other much. This is the first age with an absolutely absurd rule change.Quote:
Originally Posted by citadela01
Anytime any significantly smaller kingdom has refused to ceasefire a larger kingdom (usually it was shells in recent memory), allies were always called in to end it.
Palem, would you so niceley educate me on what the goal of this game is if its not to acumulate acres? If it is not the point then delete the top charts. No more Most powerful kingdoms no more largest Kingdoms. Why is Hel of Dim forest so popular and remembered. NOONE remembers the warring kingdoms that are ghettos. Brute force was a great warring kingdom and won the triple crown. If they would stayed small noone would of known them either. FIX THE GAME if acres isnt GOAL.
This is just silly, you gona pull parallels between Cats and shell some1 used to bounce a bank or something ? You grabbin for straws here.Quote:
Originally Posted by flogger
If if your goals of crowning prevented you from doing something about it last age you could have dealt with it in this one. Acres are not carved in stone and you could have either make sure to be in their range or prolong recent retal war until they are in declare range. You are simply hiding behind game mechanics to justify your actions.
Further more you took part in mutual gc robbin with them this age, which aknowledges it as acceptable in my eyes and puts you at the same level with them, and removes any moral high grounds with which you could possibly justify doubling them.
Nobody said its justified, it simply is.Quote:
Originally Posted by citadela01
You don't want to be reasonable? don't expect the reaction you get to be reasonable.
Any sense of "justice" that lies among the top is simply each kd keeping themselves from facing a large disadvantage in future ages of trying to acquire as many acres as possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by John Snowstorm
Let's say Simians deal breaks with Abs and manages to effectively screw them and wins a crown off it. Well that's good for this age, but in future ages they're screwed if they ever want to dream of crowing again. It's not the prospect of being scummy players that keeps people from breaking the "social rules", it's the consequences that they'll have to face later which will work against them that they don't do it. If you can find a 'grey area' in the "social rules" of the game (i.e. Don't hit into hostiles, but what's a hostile?), or maybe even an undiscovered area, people won't hesitate to take advantage and gain as very much from it as they can.
Or, let's get even more creative...
Let's say BiO and Simians make a deal
"This age, Both kds will grow to 150k, at which point, BiO will farm out 75k(or more?) acres to Simians to ensure their crown efforts. Next age, the deal will swap in favor of BiO"
(A deal which is perfectly legal by the game rules mind you)
Well then the next age they won't have that advantage, because Abs will start mutually feeding friendly kds (or building up multi kds or something) and find a way swing it in their favor, and then if BiO and Simians AREN'T mutually feeding each other, they're at an unmatchable disadvantage.
The same logic applies for most of the "just" social rules that the top like to follow. You saw the same thing unfold with launching banks with gbp. Ultimately everyone agreed not to do it, not because it wasn't fair, or an abuse of game mechanics (arguably), but because it put too much of a burden of kds that didn't do it.
Everything is secondary to getting more acres. Whether you like to believe that or not.
They were perfectly reasonable.Quote:
Originally Posted by John Snowstorm
While their actions were stupid, annoying and aggrivated lot of people they were not outside the gray zone. Other top KD's dont respect pre-hostile periods or armies out after relations are closed (even when they are not sometimes) as I have shown earlier by examples.
Shady dealings go down all the time and are essintial part of top play. Read sent notice in inbox, serve multiple notices, use intel farms or friends, send dragons thru ingame CF's, vulture kd's goin oow etc etc ... nobody gives a **** on what is "fair" and everything that isnt EXACTLY agreed upon in mutual agreement goes.
And no ... nobody has the godgiven right to nap/cf with someone just because they want it. Its up to everyone to find a price for nap's they want or to fight it out if they cant.
So the fact the Cats got doubled up openly second time this age (if we count bio fundin Inso dragon first time which is also unnacepttabgle) is pure bs. KD's who felt wronged by the Cats had plenty oportunities to settle the score, they either got their asses handed to them or chicked out of the 1v1 conflict and in the end took upon mutual effort.