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

[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 ****.

[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.

[Cohen]

Why the hell the poor Maltrease is in this struggle beetween you three ... ?

If I see any of his post here, I could understand, but why he's in the middle here without having said anything here. If he's said something in private, probably he wants to keep it private.

For what I know, is damn common that the 2nd and 3rd nation coalizes against the 1st power on the chart (graphs). Even if they project a join alliance, well, this will result in the game outcome and the players will lose some distrust.
In my opinion, for what I've understood, because I'm out of this game since long time, probably will happen a Mictlan/Pangea war when Van is finished off, and depending on Marignon and Ryleh strenght they could act as ally to make the balance going left or right.

The advice I could tell you, for how is frustrating, is to keep playing til the Last, because you said "No Quitter", it's your game and your rule, even if it's a battle lost and of the series "Against the Odds" (a wargaming magazine that usually includes a wargame where 1 side is badly outnumbered).

[quantum_mechani]

Stormbinder said:

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.

I wish you could get it though your head that the possible joint victory was more of coutesy from Arch than anything else. I had assumed that after the war Arch would come out clearly domenent, and further fighting would be pointless. However, if this is not the case, and the other players are interested in trying to take down Arch at that point, I would be happy to break the alliance stay on board. And, as I said before, whatever happens after your empire is gone is irelevent to whether you are quitting.

[Cainehill]

Stormbinder said:
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.

Personally, I expect you refused the 'assured victory' because you have a Messiah / God complex (rather appropriate given the game), and because you never thought that you could lose. I'd think you've been listening to Boron and Cohen too much, with their "Stormie's the most experienced Dominions player" bit, except you've always been that way.

You whine about how for 3 or 4 turns they've whomped your ***. How is that different from if they both simply decided to eradicate the only player more obnoxious in his diplomacy than Cohen? It wouldn't require, in any shape or fashion, a joint victory alliance - but then, I think you've been smoking too many joints, really, and maybe Reefer Madness is right and you have become totally disassociated from reality.

Hey! I'm not insulting you - after all, reality sucks, who wouldn't want to be able to ignore it and live in a dream world?

And of course - you ignore all the bits of what has been posted (by the players) that don't fit your "reality" - like the way you pissed off major nations in the game. ( And don't forget, Stormie, I'm pretty sure Quantum Mechanic at least didn't have anything against you prior to this game. Oh, unless he's Norfleet, that is. ) Screwing up diplomatically isn't a good way to win wars.

But, you like to lie in your diplomatic Messages, and you like to bully in them - telling people to accept borders that are unacceptable (for them) or you'll crush them. And you like to lie, period, but no sense in pointing out the threads that I demonstrated this in the past. So I have no doubt but that you _did_ have two WQs, personally.

Still haven't explained the math of someone having "10 times as many SCs" as you though - you claim you only had 1 WQ instead of 2; fine. THat still left you with what, 7 SCs to his 12 or 14? Dude, did you get your education in Florida?

And Last but not least - you're still quitting a game that you're a major player in, after all your whining and squealing about other people quitting. You're not even finding a substitute.

Sad, Pathetic, Lame behavior all in all. Not that I'm saying that you're any of these things (others can make up their own minds) but that your behavior is.

As expected.