MP Asia Twist - Wraithlord Wins! - Page 45

archaeolept · #**441** August 15th, 2009, 12:26 PM

Aethyr - routing an SC is a classic cheap way to deal with them. I strongly advise against using something like that as support to a bunch of otherwise fairly unimportant scrub troops. He escaped that same fate previously when you threw up that insta-castle; now his luck has run out.

Wraithlord: having not paid any attention to victory conditions, I was a bit shocked to see (two turns back) that this game only has a 7 vp victory condition. I had completely forgotten about this, although I must have known at one time. Ok, so I'm stupid

It seems a bit sad for such an epic game to rest upon teleporting on someone's poorly defended vp, but I don't really see a good way to modify the conditions. Perhaps that one has to have the walls on an 8th breached before trying for the 7th?

Slobby · #**442** August 15th, 2009, 08:45 PM

gg all was fun

Aethyr · #**443** August 15th, 2009, 11:35 PM

Bye Slobby..

@ Arch, yeah pretty dumb move on my part to leave myself vunerable that way, the rit. of returing made me less cautious than I should have been.

archaeolept · #**444** August 16th, 2009, 01:04 AM

yeah, I figured that's why you felt secure.

Aethyr · #**445** August 16th, 2009, 01:09 AM

live and learn...or in my case, die & learn would be more appropriate I guess.

WraithLord · #**446** August 16th, 2009, 04:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archaeolept

A good fight by Slobby - ended somewhat unexpectedly, due to jotunheim teleporting in on his last remaining provinces. Almost sorry I didn't get to fight his super speed hero - something like 250 movement after he casts quickness. Higher than I've ever seen

I would say that jumping in and taking neutral/eriu territories right in the middle of the fight, provinces that had previously been held by me even, is a very borderline interpretation of a NAP. Anonymous remote spells are perhaps a legitimate grey area, but contested lands in the middle of a military campaign? I take it that if barbarians or caelum grabs one of Jot's territories it is thus equally non-aggressive for me to help myself to them.

Technically, this is not in violation of NAP. However I do agree that this is in the gray area and is not something I'd normally do. The reason I made an exception is that you are very close to winning the game. You have remaining two VPs under siege and will likely take them soon. I need a leverage on Eriu's VP in order to stand a chance. I have waited at least on turn to see if you'll take these provinces back. When I saw you are not doing so I made my move.

You want to do the same on Caelum/Neutral provinces?- Sure, Just wait a turn to see if I take them back like I did before taking said provinces.

WraithLord · #**447** August 16th, 2009, 04:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archaeolept

...
Wraithlord: having not paid any attention to victory conditions, I was a bit shocked to see (two turns back) that this game only has a 7 vp victory condition. I had completely forgotten about this, although I must have known at one time. Ok, so I'm stupid

It seems a bit sad for such an epic game to rest upon teleporting on someone's poorly defended vp, but I don't really see a good way to modify the conditions. Perhaps that one has to have the walls on an 8th breached before trying for the 7th?

Heh, there I was thinking you had it all planned ahead

Yes, I agree 7 VP is low for this game, or in large scale game for that matter IMHO. I think 9 is a more appropriate number.
We are both two VPs short of victory and both very close to get them. I'd say it's quite likely we either take the last VP at exactly the same turn or one of us is a turn short.
Pretty lame considering the awesomeness of the game so far.
Perhaps we can just call it a draw and end it there b/c there's no way to technically change the victory conditions now?

PashaDawg · #**448** August 16th, 2009, 09:39 PM

Hello:

A player has requested an extension until Thursday, which I granted.

Thanks.

Pasha

PashaDawg · #**449** August 16th, 2009, 09:42 PM

Thanks for playing Slobby! You lasted a lot longer than me!

archaeolept · #**450** August 19th, 2009, 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WraithLord

Technically, this is not in violation of NAP. However I do agree that this is in the gray area and is not something I'd normally do. The reason I made an exception is that you are very close to winning the game. You have remaining two VPs under siege and will likely take them soon. I need a leverage on Eriu's VP in order to stand a chance.

this is quite understandable, and I don't even disagree with the appeal to force majeure. Yet if you can decide to interpret NAPs as you wish due to the situation (as well you should), how can I maintain any confidence that you might not decide upon similar, further, interpretations as these turns progress? If my having one fewer VP than you, but having broken walls on another (and having a tart besieging 300 TC troops in another cap, as you had one unit besieging another VP) serves as justification for getting "needed leverage", how much stronger will be the justifications for other acts forthcoming?

I do not wish for the other game players to point and whisper as I pass, a poor cuckold and chump, good only for the derision of the multitude.

perhaps i should probe those territories w/ some scouts, merely in order to determine whether you have decided you were in error and vacated the disputed lands. or should we just dispense w/ the niceties next turn, and set to brawl?