Last turn I told Nakor the bad news.
He replied:
Obviously he wants to create a divide between Seven and I. He does bring up a good point though. I've been working with Seven mostly under the assumption that we'd just end the game after Nakor was dead. Neither of us really want to attack each other, and we have a NAP until turn 250. That's ages away.
I think in this war I'm going to make as much of an attempt to help Seven as I can but, he's going to be doing the lion's work. Gunpowder came in at end of turn, but Nakor is researching rifling as we speak. I'm betting he gets rifling before we attack. Thus, I will be mostly useless with my zerks, cats and pikes. I should be able to defend alright, but I'm not very confident about taking cities.
So, maybe I can simply declare, make a small move and continue with teching. If Nakor slows Seven down enough (would have to be a lot) maybe I catch up? Maybe I get ahead? I'm not real confident of that. Seven has been ahead and pretty much in control of this game from before I took over for Athlete. The snowball is already started.
I was thinking we could call the game as a shared victory as an alliance but my competitive spirit kind of itches at that. Seven and I discussed it and when he put forth that idea as an agreement I said I'm okay with it and I'll be happy to accept it in the end, but it feels, a bit like a cop out. Too much of a grey area. As a result we never signed any agreement explicitly stating a shared victory, my hedging, and went with a 250 turn NAP.
I was reading PBEM 10 lurker thread, and this very discussion was taking place. I have to agree that shared victory is something of non-starter. Usually you find allies to help you win. No one starts on a team. Eventually someone has to win. Now if Seven and I are the only two left after Nakor dies, and we have that NAP. DO we simply play out the game? Race to a spaceship for the sake of picking a victor, or do we simply call the game, victor undecided but Seven and I the last civs standing.
In the end we can basically say whatever we want since we're the ones playing. Lurkers can decide for themselves as well that Seven is leagues ahead of me and if this were extrapolated past Nakor's death I'd fall distinctly behind.
Lurkers? Opinions on game theory competition and which would be the more "moral" path? I am a bit interested. If you were me would you agree to shared victory or play it out and force Seven to beat you? Or even just call the game and accept 2nd place?
Quote:Hey Nakor,
Recent world events have made it favorable to end our NAP. The NAP has been in effect for 11-12 turns so far and with the 5 turn notice carry it past the 15 turn minimum. Currently, the turn you just sent is 176, so let us consider our NAP over in 5 turns. Thus ending at the end of turn 180. If any hostilities were desired, they could begin on turn 181.
Sincerely,
Lewwyn
He replied:
Quote:Hey Lewwyn,
That suits nicely with the end of my NAP with Seven. Both will end T180 now.
I hope you have a plan for after my demise....
Cheers,
Nakor
Obviously he wants to create a divide between Seven and I. He does bring up a good point though. I've been working with Seven mostly under the assumption that we'd just end the game after Nakor was dead. Neither of us really want to attack each other, and we have a NAP until turn 250. That's ages away.
I think in this war I'm going to make as much of an attempt to help Seven as I can but, he's going to be doing the lion's work. Gunpowder came in at end of turn, but Nakor is researching rifling as we speak. I'm betting he gets rifling before we attack. Thus, I will be mostly useless with my zerks, cats and pikes. I should be able to defend alright, but I'm not very confident about taking cities.
So, maybe I can simply declare, make a small move and continue with teching. If Nakor slows Seven down enough (would have to be a lot) maybe I catch up? Maybe I get ahead? I'm not real confident of that. Seven has been ahead and pretty much in control of this game from before I took over for Athlete. The snowball is already started.
I was thinking we could call the game as a shared victory as an alliance but my competitive spirit kind of itches at that. Seven and I discussed it and when he put forth that idea as an agreement I said I'm okay with it and I'll be happy to accept it in the end, but it feels, a bit like a cop out. Too much of a grey area. As a result we never signed any agreement explicitly stating a shared victory, my hedging, and went with a 250 turn NAP.
I was reading PBEM 10 lurker thread, and this very discussion was taking place. I have to agree that shared victory is something of non-starter. Usually you find allies to help you win. No one starts on a team. Eventually someone has to win. Now if Seven and I are the only two left after Nakor dies, and we have that NAP. DO we simply play out the game? Race to a spaceship for the sake of picking a victor, or do we simply call the game, victor undecided but Seven and I the last civs standing.
In the end we can basically say whatever we want since we're the ones playing. Lurkers can decide for themselves as well that Seven is leagues ahead of me and if this were extrapolated past Nakor's death I'd fall distinctly behind.
Lurkers? Opinions on game theory competition and which would be the more "moral" path? I am a bit interested. If you were me would you agree to shared victory or play it out and force Seven to beat you? Or even just call the game and accept 2nd place?
“The wind went mute and the trees in the forest stood still. It was time for the last tale.”