I did not ask anyone to bash you. I will never join a side you play on because I think you are a dubious player.
Personally I don’t think this exchange is worth the time that I have already spent.
My first intent was to make the FP and DS aware that there could be neutrals trying for a win. There was quite a bit of talk about trying for a neutral victory on the FASUP group. So much so that I think there could be more than 5 players committed to a neutral victory on Turn 0. If that is true (IT MAY NOT BE) then I think that is BS way to play. I do have a non-neutral friend in the game.
As for my second post, I took it you told me to piss-off since I was not in the game. I made a veiled reference of what I thought of you as a player.
As far I know, you are not in charge of who posts about game 43.
I think everyone should make their own decisions about ALL players in the MEPBM community and not take any one’s person opinion of another.
There is old adage about the person that does protest the loudest…… and I think you win that award for today.
For someone that posts as much “stuff” as you do it might be prudent to grow a thicker skin.
I have no desire to communicate with you in any manner but if you feel the need to talk to me I suggest you do it via PM. I doubt others really care.
Obviously, the team of 5 neutrals is playing to win. It makes sense that others would be interested in joining them. The neutral team is one of their three options.
Similarly, a neutral alliance of 9 teams that builds up for 12 turns is nothing that the FP and DS want to face. These are the basic dynamics of this particular game.
With that said, one of the neutrals on the team of 5 (yes, there is the possibility that we made a mistake about who that was) made the mistake of telling us that he was independent. Our team is not going to enter any negotiations that are based on deception, which is why we’re where we are now,
I apologize for todays emotional tyrade. It just felt like I was being attacked. A bit under the gun if you will.
Yes but we are only five.
Pentadragonne
The neutral team plays to survive and by doing that we seek peaceful coexistence, at least with one alliance and all neutral nations.
For the time being each team is being weighed.
We all have our enemies. We all have friends as events dictate.
Diplomacy is never dead if both parties are willing.
Ideally, the DS would find it the most fun to have a true 3-way game, where everyone fights everyone on the fronts that we have. I played in a 3-way grudge game of that nature, and I had fun.
Unfortunately, the only the options open to us are likely to be those of diplomacy/build-up and war with both sides and “going down with a blaze of glory.” We would strongly prefer a true 3-way game, but we are currently discussing which of the others we would be most in favor of.
• So now, Athenian men, more than on my own behalf must I defend myself, as some may think, but on your behalf, so that you may not make a mistake concerning the gift of god by condemning me. For if you kill me, you will not easily find another such person at all, even if to say in a ludicrous way, attached on the city by the god, like on a large and well-bred horse, by its size and laziness both needing arousing by some gadfly; in this way the god seems to have fastened me on the city, some such one who arousing and persuading and reproaching each one of you I do not stop the whole day settling down all over. Thus such another will not easily come to you, men, but if you believe me, you will spare me; but perhaps you might possibly be offended, like the sleeping who are awakened, striking me, believing Anytus, you might easily kill, then the rest of your lives you might continue sleeping, unless the god caring for you should send you another.
-Socrates
It seems am some sort of deveiuos breaker of treaties from writing just one turns orders. Yet I am the player with 3 DS armies at 4112. Interesting to say the least. I have no characters in any Ds Held pc’s or even regions Unless of course they consider Rhun thiers already.
I must only guess that it is a treasonous act to cliam to be able to switch to thier side while they claim I must switch sides to thier side immediately after offering them an Non agrression pact with a One turn warning before even placing a character in thier region. What did they have to Fear by this offer I ask… There are 4 DS controlled regions surrounding me. I ask simply what would you do if you was the of my nation?
I am part of the Nuetral team. I dislike thier cheating by stealing the FP pdf. From what I have read they consider you the FP less expierenced and not a threat. I have had no commuication with the FP of middle earth yet I offer you this, Ever turn I am in the I offer you my pdf clearly showing Darkess capitol @ 3821 a MT no forifications and pinnaless ear capitol 3611 city/fort with no army on it.
The truth is simple here. The DS team must remove me from Rhun or the FP will take control of all of mordor. Becuase Niether Pinnaless Ear or Koxvelder can move south to Help they weak positon they have in the mordor region.
The truth always has a ring to it.
For the other nuetrals. There was some talk that I made a mistake in Rhun. From a logical sense of preservation of myself early on you have a valid point. But I did choose Rhun as my first choice! I will gladly share my pdf to any FP or Nuetral and that Truth will also be confirmed by my starting Gold… There DS team you have a bone I had 20k in gold at game start! LOL.
The reason I choose Rhun is so the Nuetrals who could choose to be DS or FP or choose nuetral team could do so Freely without threats from any side. I have stated and let SK player know to pass along any act of aggression towards any nuetral I would attack. The most likely team to do this was the DS to me or the N. Mirkwood Nuetral becuase they have more than on on each of our borders. Now That is why I choose Rhun and i am surrounded by 4 DS players to Fight for each of you 4 nuetrals who can choose a side chose the one you want to be on.This attack on my nation on turn one while it was unclear to them only shows their true colors. I will gladly forward that email to any Nuetral who wish to see the Complete dialog first hand for themselves.
Like I said before the truth has a certain ring to it. I am at War the entire game until a winner is declared or i am eliminated.
Contact me at Hlachero@ yahoo.com for my pdf’s and the truth from emails not the BS being posted here.
It seems am some sort of deveiuos breaker of treaties from writing just one turns orders. Yet I am the player with 3 DS armies at 4112. Interesting to say the least. I have no characters in any Ds Held pc’s or even regions Unless of course they consider Rhun thiers already.
I must only guess that it is a treasonous act to cliam to be able to switch to thier side while they claim I must switch sides to thier side immediately after offering them an Non agrression pact with a One turn warning before even placing a character in thier region. What did they have to Fear by this offer I ask… There are 4 DS controlled regions surrounding me. I ask simply what would you do if you was the of my nation?
I am part of the Nuetral team. I dislike thier cheating by stealing the FP pdf. From what I have read they consider you the FP less expierenced and not a threat. I have had no commuication with the FP of middle earth yet I offer you this, Ever turn I am in the I offer you my pdf clearly showing Darkess capitol @ 3821 a MT no forifications and pinnaless ear capitol 3611 city/fort with no army on it.
The truth is simple here. The DS team must remove me from Rhun or the FP will take control of all of mordor. Becuase Niether Pinnaless Ear or Koxvelder can move south to Help they weak positon they have in the mordor region.
The truth always has a ring to it.
For the other nuetrals. There was some talk that I made a mistake in Rhun. From a logical sense of preservation of myself early on you have a valid point. But I did choose Rhun as my first choice! I will gladly share my pdf to any FP or Nuetral and that Truth will also be confirmed by my starting Gold… There DS team you have a bone I had 20k in gold at game start! LOL.
The reason I choose Rhun is so the Nuetrals who could choose to be DS or FP or choose nuetral team could do so Freely without threats from any side. I have stated and let SK player know to pass along any act of aggression towards any nuetral I would attack. The most likely team to do this was the DS to me or the N. Mirkwood Nuetral becuase they have more than on on each of our borders. Now That is why I choose Rhun and i am surrounded by 4 DS players to Fight for each of you 4 nuetrals who can choose a side chose the one you want to be on.This attack on my nation on turn one while it was unclear to them only shows their true colors. I will gladly forward that email to any Nuetral who wish to see the Complete dialog first hand for themselves.
Like I said before the truth has a certain ring to it. I am at War the entire game until a winner is declared or i am eliminated.
Contact me at Hlachero@ yahoo.com for my pdf’s and the truth from emails not the BS being posted here.
Treasonous or breaker of treaties? No one on my team ever claimed you were that. That your team is populated with liars and bargainers in bad faith with whom we do (and did) not wish to deal for that reason? Absolutely.
The truth always does indeed have a ring to it, and your team of 5 (almost every word I have heard from it on this forum and in email) has always sounded much more like a buzzer.
OK, first of all, there are several untruths here:
No current DS player stole any PDFs. The player who found that information is no longer in the game, and we know nothing of FP positions outside of what is on our maps and what we have scouted, and we know nothing of their SNAs.
We do consider the FP a threat! A huge threat! They are one of our groups of enemies. They have the same number of nations that we do.
Had you come to us and negotiated for your ENTIRE TEAM last turn, we would have listened. I even asked you to do so, but you completely disregarded that E-mail. Instead, you told us that you were an independent neutral, when we had all four of them accounted for. Four other neutrals were upfront with us about being independent, and we believed you to be on the team of 5. We would have considered an offer that was based on a truce between our teams over all of Middle Earth, and you ignored my inquiry when I mentioned it. The deal you offered instead would provide safety to your nation, alone, while absolving you of any hostilities toward our isolated nations. A ONE-WAY deal with a single member of your team was not acceptable to us. A deal based on honesty, rather than deception would have been considered. I, myself, was a proponent of such a deal, at least, which is why I suggested it to you, but you chose to pass yourself off as an independent and offer a deal that only benefited your side.
I personally would have been strongly against any attack, had the neutral team not tried to deceive us. I would have been happy with a global nonaggression agreement between our two teams. I even suggested that LAST TURN. My teammates still may not have agreed with such a deal, but I at least attempted to discuss it with them, as well as you.
Personally, I’ve played in a variety of games with a variety of teammates. Either diplomacy or war is acceptable to me. In diplomacy, I do not practice deception, and I do not deal with those who do.
Thus far, my communications with the independent neutrals have been 100% honest. I’ve explained things from our perspective. Some of them don’t agree with what we’re doing, and some of them seem to at least understand our point of view.
You on the other hand, chose to deceive and try to make a one-way deal. Not one of my teammates was going to stand for that.
The Northern Conclave sends its greetings to nations of Middle Earth. We are a neutral nation, and we seek an audience. Our esteemed leader may be reached at niemanng@ohsu.edu
News gathered from the forum indicates two things. First, it’s not entirely clear who’s on the neutral team and who isn’t. As a result our nation does not wish to say one way or another which way it leans. Either you’ll think it’s the truth or a lie. It makes no difference at this juncture. What does make a difference is discorse which is why this message has been posted. The second point I’d like to address is in the form of a question. If the Vengers declared they were on the neutral team, but did not immediately accept a non-aggression pact with the DS, would the DS have attacked anyway?
I’ll be honest with you on this one. I was strongly in favor of a nonaggression pact with the entire neutral team, myself. Under such an agreement, in addition to us not attacking Bob, Jay (Ered Lomin) and Randy (Nomores) would not have attacked the NK. In return, Jay and Chesley (Wallarockians) would not have been attacked by the neutral team.
I will also admit that some of my teammates still were uneasy about allowing a future enemy to build up in our midst, and were not in favor of such an agreement. I pointed out to them that our most isolated nations would be given a much better chance to survive and build up, as well, so both sides would benefit.
I would have fought my point extremely hard had we discussed an agreement with your entire team, as my forces would be instrumental in any attack on the Vengers, and I would not have wanted to break any agreement that benefited all 13 of our nations.
The problem with Bob claiming independence was that his cover was pretty well blown from the beginning. We had already had productive talks with four neutrals who claimed independence. I think it would have been very smart for Gavin to have kept his identity concealed, because revealing himself revealed Erving as independent.
Once we’d had productive talks with 4 neutrals claiming independence, the awkwardness of our negotiations with Bob made a single-nation agreement with him unacceptable. I would not have negotiated anything other than an agreement involving all of you,
Unprovoked hostility on the part of DS forces against the Neutral Venger is what started it all.
Each player should have sovereign control on matters of local national security.
For a nation to ask permission to protect it’s own borders would be unheard of.
I am in a team of fellow peers not Dark Servants.
We stand before all odds in the name of humankind in Middle Earth. We are willing to cooperate with all reasonable races.
If the DS wanted a non-aggression pact with the neutral team, why didn’t they ask for one? There were postings for agreements with individual nations, but not the team. It would seem that a lack of communication existed between both parties, the consequence of which resulted in a pre-emptive strike against a neutral who may or may not be part of the neutral team. After all the neutrals you’re having “productive talks” with may be lying to you.
MEG is or was running one of those now. 25 players signed up, I think Clint split up the teams so your teammates were potluck. It was no communication outside of your team. In theory it should be a 3-way affair. I played it for a few turns and fought both N and DS as a FP. Nice idea though I would rather pick my teammates which may not be doable since you would need 8-8-9 teams.
The DS should not expect to know which nations are on the neutral team at the beginning of the game. You’re rationalle and justifications for a pre-emptive strike are flawed.
I agree with your above statement, but I think the smartest thing for all neutrals who want a neutral alliance is to not divulge their status either way. When the NK declares himself as on the team, the SK’s status is then known. Then three others declare themselves as independents quickly. We can definitely do subtraction… When the fifth declares independence, things get awkward.
If I were to play an independent neutral in this format, I would not divulge my status to the FP and DS, because I would not want to weaken the possibility of a neutral alliance. I could discuss whatever was possible to discuss without deception, as well. That would make decisions of the FP and DS much more difficult.
This is a new format, though, and everyone has a different idea about the best way to start things off. A lot of us made some mistakes.
The personalities of the players on the teams is a big factor, as well. Some people prefer diplomacy, others prefer war. You play the type of game that the group you’re in dictates.
As an interested party, I have to agree with the above.
While likely not meant that way, the early NK declaration threw off a lot of options.
Would I have been a member of a Nteam, my goal would have been first to take as many of the indep neuts possible, and second to ensure team’s survival by muddying up the who was who as long as possible. For, as an indep neutral, there is little or no fun in joinning a team who get pounded into oblivion. Thus Nteam’s survivability is also a factor for an indep neut to take into account should he considers joining it later on. For that purpose, I fully expected for the Nteam to lie, to plant misleading ideas on FP/DS minds, in the hope one hotheaded players would start taking actions against an indep neutral, thus pushing him away from the side… and planned in turn.
As it happened, things did not turned out that way, now the game is started and will roll and bounce another way.
