(January 31st, 2014, 21:52)Cheater Hater Wrote: Wait, we can actually try for peace without being seen as completely scummy by our other players? If it was an actual (game-enforced) defensive pact, could we sign peace in this position? It seems like our power is higher than our (current) allies, so we wouldn't be doomed in that respect, though I would want to confirm a long NAP before even thinking about signing peace (which means we would need to get Rome to communicate with us, which seems impossible).
Well, I think a lot of that would depend on how peace was obtained. This is from a group chat (DT receives this chat to their group email, but so far has declined to actively participate, citing their poor English)
So DMOC seems totally on board with trying to obtain peace if possible. DT are already pretty pissed about DMOC's attack failing, and they'd probably see us as scummy no matter how things turn out at this point.
(January 31st, 2014, 21:55)NobleHelium Wrote: There are no in-game restrictions to signing peace after declaring on defensive pacts, other than AIs generally refusing to talk to you shortly after a war starting.

So what actually happened? How did we lose this fight? Well, in all our mp war experience and wisdom, DMOC, Teddy and I all failed to consider what might happen if Rome attacked out with their units


I'm still moving units down to maintain our attack schedule in case we decide to continue as planned. On T131, Rome has 4 praets and 4 axes in Arretium. We have 3 axes we can promote to shock to make them top defenders, and then we'll have 7 cats to use in the attack. That means that if Rome does not reinforce the city, and attacks with everything, then they will be able to hit (and probably kill) 5 cats, leaving us with 2 cats and 13 axes to use against them. Seems to me like it is still feasible, but a lot less attractive then before...