February 2nd, 2010, 10:29
Posts: 4,138
Threads: 54
Joined: Dec 2009
Fair enough
"You want to take my city of Troll%ng? Go ahead and try."
February 2nd, 2010, 10:52
Posts: 614
Threads: 2
Joined: Oct 2005
I just can't help but notice the change of tone from Speaker.
You fools don't know a single thing about playing CIV4 other than attacking us, when we are vulnerable  .
Speaker Wrote:Just because he might not fully understand the benefit doesn't mean that it's not there. 
Speaker Wrote:The second, is the team that has had two different leaders, and despite the fact that they have a dead neighbor and plenty of land, is really struggling on the graphs (Inca). And the third has a ton of land which it is now filling in, but only one cottage in his capital on turn 100 (Rome)
Mwin
February 2nd, 2010, 12:18
Posts: 6,471
Threads: 63
Joined: Sep 2006
Krill Wrote:This. If people don't have a reason to fear for their reputation, then their is no downside to breaking treaties once it is to their advantage. Obviously shades of grey are involved, but the gist of it is simple enough.
100% agree. I like Krill, we're even old clanmates of a sort, and I enjoy talking to him on TS. I even like his game admin rulings, even if I prefer a different system of running things.
On the other hand, I will never completely trust Krill to honor an early NAP in game ever again.
February 3rd, 2010, 19:32
Posts: 4,443
Threads: 45
Joined: Nov 2009
Does anyone feel bad for Jowy because the Ottomans seem to have no intention of helping him :-p?
February 3rd, 2010, 19:36
Posts: 23,489
Threads: 132
Joined: Jun 2009
sunrise089 Wrote:100% agree. I like Krill, we're even old clanmates of a sort, and I enjoy talking to him on TS. I even like his game admin rulings, even if I prefer a different system of running things.
On the other hand, I will never completely trust Krill to honor an early NAP in game ever again.
OT: Why? I never broke any NAPs with you. You shouldn't trust my negotiating, fair enough, but I never broke an NAP with you.
Current games (All): RtR: PB80 Civ 6: PBEM23
Ended games (Selection): BTS games: PB1, PB3, PBEM2, PBEM4, PBEM5B, PBEM50. RB mod games: PB5, PB15, PB27, PB37, PB42, PB46, PB71. FFH games: PBEMVII, PBEMXII. Civ 6: PBEM22 Games ded lurked: PB18
February 4th, 2010, 12:23
Posts: 5,639
Threads: 30
Joined: Apr 2009
Krill, or someone else who followed the recently-ended MTDG on CFC closer than I, any thoughts on slaze's abilities and style? He was one of the leaders of Cav, who certainly played a strong game, and might have ended up winning if the metagame hadn't gotten as ugly as it did. Other than that, I didn't follow the individuals on the other teams all that closely.
February 4th, 2010, 12:26
Posts: 13,563
Threads: 49
Joined: Oct 2009
Cyneheard Wrote:Krill, or someone else who followed the recently-ended MTDG on CFC closer than I, any thoughts on slaze's abilities and style? He was one of the leaders of Cav, who certainly played a strong game, and might have ended up winning if the metagame hadn't gotten as ugly as it did. Other than that, I didn't follow the individuals on the other teams all that closely. Is there a Sullla-style writeup of this game?
I have to run.
February 4th, 2010, 12:30
Posts: 23,489
Threads: 132
Joined: Jun 2009
Slaze played the turns, but all of the planning was done by Unconquered Sun (or at least, the grand strategy was).
I think he is competent at least, but not up to Speakers' level.
Current games (All): RtR: PB80 Civ 6: PBEM23
Ended games (Selection): BTS games: PB1, PB3, PBEM2, PBEM4, PBEM5B, PBEM50. RB mod games: PB5, PB15, PB27, PB37, PB42, PB46, PB71. FFH games: PBEMVII, PBEMXII. Civ 6: PBEM22 Games ded lurked: PB18
February 5th, 2010, 10:17
Posts: 15,367
Threads: 112
Joined: Apr 2007
Question for those of you somewhat objecting (rightfully so I think) to Morgan's post in Whosit's thread. Would the post have been acceptable had it simply been this:
"What in your opinion is the benefit to you for being involved in this war that makes it worth it to make such a long-range attack at great cost to you?"
In other words, asking the question without elaborating too much. I'm guessing the answer is yes but it's been so hotly debated lately that I'm curious what the concensus is on this case.
February 5th, 2010, 10:28
Posts: 13,563
Threads: 49
Joined: Oct 2009
scooter Wrote:Question for those of you somewhat objecting (rightfully so I think) to Morgan's post in Whosit's thread. Would the post have been acceptable had it simply been this:
"What in your opinion is the benefit to you for being involved in this war that makes it worth it to make such a long-range attack at great cost to you?"
In other words, asking the question without elaborating too much. I'm guessing the answer is yes but it's been so hotly debated lately that I'm curious what the concensus is on this case. I'm not sure I feel like restarting this discussion, but personally I think that is an ok question. My comment in Whosit's thread was more to deflect any potential spoiler value than to knock on Morgan.
I have to run.
|
