Tower of the Elephant - Newbie-Intermediate 10/10 - Ongoing

[Sigil Runestone]

Please be advised that Ragnarok-x of Marverni has seen fit to attack me before the diplomatic delay of our NAP3 had ended. Plan your dealings accordingly.

[Ragnarok-X]

Wow now i have to post my crap again, out of the PM.

recap. Its the border between Maverni and Lanka. i have a fort, he doesnt. I have 40 guys in my fort, he has 250 guys in his province, building strength over like 4 ? or 5 turns. I send him a message, declaring im ending the NAP due to the buildup in forces on his border and asking for a explanation to maybe get back on the NAP.

He messages back, telling me he finds my reasoning dubious, but the war being my call (i.e. he doesnt care).
I attack him and kill his army.

I find nothing wrong with this.

Now Sigil, please dont argue about this like you did in the PM. what i did was more than approbiate. You had a chance to explain yourself or move your 250 guy army away, but you didnt.

[Sigil Runestone]

Wow, you are quite obsessive on that whole "OMG, you aren't going to beg me not to attack you?" issue, aren't you? Strange, in a game where we are supposed to eliminate our opponents, you are shocked that I don't act surprised about ending a NAP? Regardless, my point, as is obvious above and also in the PM's (which you are so carefully ignoring) is that Ragnarok-X chose to attack prior to the end of the diplomatic delay of ending a NAP3 and others should now plan accordingly. Of course, since you seem to want to twist my discussion with you via PM, I think it's fair to simply declare you outright untrustworthy even outside Machivellian diplomacy. PM's saved and available if anybody really wants them.

Sigil

[Ragnarok-X]

Post them PMs. I have no nothing to hide. While it may seem i attacked one turn early, i dont think thats true. What i think however is that you are a sore loser. I have been in like 20 games and i have yet to break a treaty. Make of that what you will.

[Sigil Runestone]

Originally Posted by Ragnarok-X

Post them PMs. I have no nothing to hide. While it may seem i attacked one turn early, i dont think thats true. What i think however is that you are a sore loser. I have been in like 20 games and i have yet to break a treaty. Make of that what you will.

I believe you have confused "sore loser" with "not amused with Treaty-Breakers", as I could have bailed back when Fomoria handed me my MonkeyButt on a platter with parsley, but that's not really my style.

As requested: (Starts on the bottom, works up)

*******

Im gonna make this really short. I still think my timing was perfectly fine. If it wasnt, anything besides trading is not binding at all.

Regarding your assasins. I had astral window open and knew about assassins, or rather, seducers. It would not have changed a thing.

laters


Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigil Runestone
1. I believe I have committed enough hours to this game to express my feelings, thank you.
2. re-read my message. I specifically included the turn you declared in the three turns I listed. If both counting and reading are difficult for you, this world will be a challenging place.
3. Yup. Just don't mind that I'm happy to share your reputation with others. Consequences of own actions and all that.
4. You are a strange duck. This is the second time you have expressed surprise that I simply acknowledged your intent for war, when we are playing a game who's premise is that a bunch of players will attempt to kill each other off. Not sure about your obsession with my response, but I'm not offering my couch time to find out.
5. A single turn would not have changed the outcome of the gargoyle attacks, no. But the main army conflict? Most likely. For one, my scripting was not completed due to the toils of RL getting in the way of finishing the previous turn. More importantly, the 6 assasins in your lands waiting for the honorable turn to strike would likely have changed your line-up a tidge.

On the plus side, my time committment for micro'ing has just lessened, so thank you for that.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ragnarok-X
1. Chill
2. re-read my message. i specificly said "including this turn"
3. even if 2. doesnt count
"Diplomacy: Machiavelli"
4. i gave you a chance to explain yourself but all you did was message me with "whatever".
5. would the single turn have changed anything ? i dont think so.

long story short, im kinda sorry, but you should have known better.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigil Runestone
Were you intentionally being a dick, or can you not count? You declared end of nap3 on turn 58. That should mean turn 58,59,60 must pass before conflict occurs on 61. See how I counted out three turns passing? That's the whole nap3 part of the deal.

[mattyburn7]

Originally Posted by Ragnarok-X

Hm, so Niefel is going down ?

Time to look into the future. I think its time to forge some new alliances, i for one am pretty sure who did get the most out of the war vs Niefel. And it wasnt me

I don't know who got the most out of Niefel, but I do know who got the most out of Tir Na and now Lanka and is turning into the largest power by far.

[dark7element]

Can I please get a 24 hour extension on this turn? I've just lost someone close to me and I've been in shock for the past day. I don't want to quit this game altogether, I've really enjoyed it and it is something to help me get my mind off things. Thank you for understanding.

[Tiavals]

Sure. Postponed the game by 30h.

[Sigil Runestone]

Originally Posted by dark7element

Can I please get a 24 hour extension on this turn? I've just lost someone close to me and I've been in shock for the past day. I don't want to quit this game altogether, I've really enjoyed it and it is something to help me get my mind off things. Thank you for understanding.

That sucks, dark7element. Godspeed to your grieving.

Sigil

[Ragnarok-X]

Postponed by another 2 days on top of the 30 hours ? Why ?