Axiis Wrote:Hey now, I didn't say that at all. What I was saying was that Jowy's actions haven't put him in a significantly better position to win, and indeed may have cost him a better position in terms of civ development. Jowy should try his best to win, but I don't see it happening.
OK then, to cut a long story short...
Spullla posted before the war how they wanted to absorb Jowys' lands around about knights. Now, we can only speculate on what would have happened had Spullla not been invaded, but I'm pretty sure that Jowy would not have had pikes, maybe at most a few cats and ancient era units. I don;t think AK would have been in a much better position either, certainly not in the same league as Spullla.
So, in the alternate timeline, Jowy would have been left facing a tech, military, and economically superior foe, 1v1. They would likely not have gotten out of that alive, or even in a position to win the game. Spullla would have been too far in front, and even if a CoW was formed then, Spullla would be in a stronger position than they are now.
Yes, the current situation favours Whosit, Slave and AK much more than the alternate timeline, but Jowy, not knowing what Spullla had in store for him, decided to play it safe and try to control the situation while he still had some ability to do so. Which I think is pretty reasonable. Is he likely to win? No, but anyone starting next to Spullla are screwed compared to starting next to anyone else. I think he made a decent choice trying to deal with Spullla early, but he should have dealt with them much earlier IMO. So should Dantski - he could have gotten out 2 Skirms and choked Spullla into the ground from turn 20. That would have much better than the current situation.
For comparison purposes: look at regoarrarrs' argument for the dogpile on the Incans. I don't see anyone complaining that the dogpile there was a bad idea.