RBP2 Lurker Discussion Thread - No Players!

[novice]

Greetings Slaze,

No matter how much I want to sugar coat it, it will lead to the same
thing...I've basically betrayed you.

We don't have an existing NAP now that I can tell and our peace treaty
has worn off and you never specified I couldn't use the gifted units
against you. Regardless I'm sure this will be a tough one to swallow
unless you've somehow found out it was coming. It's nothing personal,
but I've had it in for the Inca for a while now...anyways.

When you log in next you'll see I've moved a nice stack up to your
border in pretty much the same spot as before. Let's see how take 2
goes!

Best of luck to you!

Athlete
The Rebel Alliance

That's pretty low.

[Twinkletoes89]

/crosspost with novice

Jesus christ - I know he's being 'honest' but he really could have worded it so so much better! That's cold and makes him sound like a real nasty piece of work. I'm disappointed

[darrelljs]

Chain of events:

1. Inca tells India they will fight until Paris is restored her rightful name.

2. Inca and Ottomans decide to betray India; Inca gives Ottomans their army to do so.

3. Ottomans post the plan in a public forum.

4. Properly warned, India gives the Ottomans a NAP, allowing the Ottomans to resume action against Inca.

Morale of the story? Don't mess with the ghosts of Byzantium .

Darrell

[SleepingMoogle]

Oh dear.. heads will roll one way or the other.

[Bobchillingworth]

Damn Athlete, that is some stone-cold shit.



At least he has the balls to tell Slaze upfront that he's about to pull the dick move to end all dick moves.

[Kristian95]

I don't know whether I am the strange one here, but I really find all this gifting of cities when people are about the get eliminated pretty low! I think it is a sign of pretty poor sportsmanship.

[Twinkletoes89]

I agree Kristian - I think that is a problem brought about with the extra games now running, as *some* people are happy to just cut and run rather than fight it out to the end.

I personally think you learn as much from defeat as you can from victory, so to cut and run is disappointing, and giving cities away just to stick two fingers up to those who have beaten you is low. You should show respect to your victors and let them take their deserved spoils of victory whilst making it as difficult and as bloody as possibly for them.

Ironically, I think that denying some cities to slaze might actually be doing him a favour economically and give him less of a distance to pull his forces back to repel athlete.

If Whosit just sits tight and swallows whatever price of peace Korea demand (if its possible), he could take back a few cities if he gets lucky and Athlete makes gamins this time, though relying on Athlete's military skills is not a very safe bet!

[m4gill4]

I find it hard to resist the urge to preach against the gifting away of cities in the player's threads, so I'm going to do it here.

edit: I was beaten to the punch by Kristian95! I guess that means I'm not alone in this

I don't like it. It's dishonorable, and it goes strongly against the RB spirit of overcoming the odds using skill, which is what made this PB game in particular interesting in the first place.

Rome cripples Korea: Rome gloats, Korea hunkers down and perseveres.
Korea cripples Rome: Korea doesn't gloat, Rome gives up, even conspiring to burn his own cities out of spite.

I understand the time commitment of running an empire in a Pitboss game which has little/no hope of winning the game may be undesirable, but I would hope that during future games that will be taken into account by the players at the start so that the now predictable pattern of military losses=gift away all your cities doesn't ossify into a permanent pitboss game mechanic.

I mean everyone knows the Chicago Cubs are awful and they're sure to lose but we at least expect them to stay on the field until the end!

[Krill]

I agree Kristian - I think that is a problem brought about with the extra games now running, as *some* people are happy to just cut and run rather than fight it out to the end.

I personally think you learn as much from defeat as you can from victory, so to cut and run is disappointing, and giving cities away just to stick two fingers up to those who have beaten you is low. You should show respect to your victors and let them take their deserved spoils of victory whilst making it as difficult and as bloody as possibly for them.

Ironically, I think that denying some cities to slaze might actually be doing him a favour economically and give him less of a distance to pull his forces back to repel athlete.

If Whosit just sits tight and swallows whatever price of peace Korea demand (if its possible), he could take back a few cities if he gets lucky and Athlete makes gamins this time, though relying on Athlete's military skills is not a very safe bet!

It works both ways - you stop your opponent from suffering WW at it's most crippling for those extra turns, and with those cities on another continent (making it easier to defend as Slaze needs to build a navy to kill him), Whosit could hurt Slaze for a long time, just by existing, when he needs to slave to fend off Athlete.

Difference between Korea and Rome is Korea got left with something to work with, but Rome is toast and running on empty.

[Twinkletoes89]

I agree m4gill4, and I would hope that if there was ever a PB4, there would be a rule made that noone can gift cities to another civ unless they are liberated or part of a peace treaty.

Of course it has a loophole where (using this game) Nakor could DoW Whosit and claim the cities as the price for peace, but that would be such an egregious exploit that surely the game admin/other players would forbid it from occurring.