(April 26th, 2020, 06:18)JR4 Wrote: As I didn't expect Cornflakes to attack the big Aztec army moving in on his capital, our Great Artist was a turn too late to the party and that left a big chunk of our army exposed. I was rather worried about Superdeath stabbing us (as we attacked him earlier) but didn't see your attack coming. Perhaps trying to cut as many roads/railroads as possible would be best.
I did not expect that either, especially after I replied agreeably to his Iron ~ Iron deal the preceding turn. I presume that his premature attack did allow you to cut down his stack much more easily, and more importantly allowed you to duck for cover in your new city of Tenochtitlan where my 2-movers could not reach you. Your Great Artist was another point of concern and annoyance, so great work there. :
So I talked myself into attacking out of obligation to Cornflakes (though a dubious commitment at that point) plus I was still high from my recent lopsided victories against Cairo (22-0 win) and wetbandit (95-15) and (6-0), both with no chance of retaliation. As long as I could attack first on open land with the amount of Artys, Cavs and Infantry I had, there was no stack that scared me.
Cutting roads (and stealing your workers) was my way of trying to hold you off until Gr8 Unconformity could come out of revolt, but would have required doing the same for Superdeath. If not for a comedy of
moves during against the French those two turns, I may have remained competitive in that area. But you still had that damned Artist so who knows?JR4 Wrote:
Quote:I always saw us as natural allies as we in principle could work together on bringing down Cornflakes or Mr. Cairo. We had several mutually beneficial trades and our little sea was non-militarized until almost the end of the game too. So, out of curiosity, why did you stab us? I mean, having at least one ally has some value, right?
Don't think that your good will and demilitarization towards me went unnoticed. I chalked it up to each of us realizing that battles needed to be won on land, and that we could postpone navy for awhile. I didn't even participate in the naval build up between Mr. Cairo and SD in my northern waters.
The real answer to the question is probably 3-fold:
--Allegiance to the near-ghost of my oldest friend and ally.
--Confidence in my super stack, and eagerness to use it in situations where I could hit first.
--My response to your chosen target for conquest.
I'll elaborate on that last one, as I am sure it's bears the most weight. I did not agree with the time that you and wetbandit put into Cornflakes for minimal gain, as Cairo and Superdeath would have been better campaigns to remove emerging competition. SD was still several techs behind the pack (I even had him outpaced on a few different paths) and looked to be on nothing but research builds for a long stretch of time. Plus no Tanks or Artys when just about everyone else had them.
And then Mr. Cairo for obvious reasons, my personal one being that I could not get either you or wetbandit to act on your respective war declarations against him -- even after I burned one of his cities.
Looking back, I don't think I took the proper time to re-evaluate the options of warring with you once you took the Incan capital. I was temporarily #2 in military after relieving you of that city, so I ended up feeling justified in my game plan despite the burned bridge. But yes, losing our long term trades did bust my economy, especially when Superdeath immediately laid waste my last viable trade route with him. I hope you can take comfort in my quick demise during the following turns, and my return to obscurity for the remainder of the game. No hard feelings, I hope, and good game!
