Accept our offer of integration into the Kingdom of Greater Italy, and most of those problems will be swept away...
I think that'd put me closer to the aforementioned faces...
Accept our offer of integration into the Kingdom of Greater Italy, and most of those problems will be swept away...
I think that'd put me closer to the aforementioned faces...
If you are comfortable with the way that you play, why do you keep misrepresenting events? We've all agreed that it's not against the spirit of the game to play as you do. I don't even consider it unethical in some other fashion - it's part of the game. So why do you keep trying to say things happened that didn't?
For example you said, I quote: "Turkey I never agreed to anything to stab." I have presented two agreements we had after the one in which I got Greece. That's three off the top of my head, two of which you abrogated. Why lie about what you did if you think it was a good strategy? In the same manner you said that Reis begged you for the Lepanto, but now you say that you always intended to attack me - why the lies?
What we've said is that your strategy is a poor one. The game is called Diplomacy because you need to negotiate agreements in order to win. You can't do it alone. Your strategy has alienated most diplomatic partners. There's a reason the title is Diplomacy and not "Hobbesian Diplomacy". You have a potential 6 diplomatic partners to start the game and 50% (or more) of them now distrust you. I distrust you so strongly that in future games I'd consider you a lost cause and believe not a word of what you say. Leaving now is the best thing you could do for Austria, as it opens the door a crack to other people trusting you - although I cannot trust Esemesas, either, as he utilized the exact same "It was a misunderstanding but now I'm honest!" line.
As to me being gullible - and what would your strategy have been? Russia was in no position to do anything in the south when you offered me assistance, so that meant trusting either you or Italy. I could have approached Italy and asked for an attack on you, except that at the time my hands were tied by being Suirantes junior diplomat. I told him he needed to secure the support of another country, and to send relevant correspondence, but it never happened. Once you were working with Italy, I was totally boned. The only potential ally was Russia, who was otherwise occupied at the time. So much for your great understanding of other countries' needs, you don't seem to comprehend that I had no option other than to accept your deals - but clearly I didn't trust you because I repeatedly supported Bulgaria and thereby prevented you from getting everything you wanted.
You claim that you are better than Reis, Tai, and me. Please explain this then:
Diplomacy I you lost, as three countries agreed to a tie, while you had 1 SC left, which means you did better than only France, who was eliminated.
Diplomacy II you lost: you were eliminated first, which means you were dead last.
Diplomacy III you lost: you lasted until the end, at least, although as the weakest country on the board with 3 SCs, though that's better than France, Italy, and Russia (eliminated).
In all three of those games one of the three of us was a winner. I think that's enough said on the topic.
Just wear it: your strategy is to offer agreements to countries, then abrogate them immediately, in an attempt to wrong-foot them. It works short term, but now you've turned all but one neighbor against you. Everyone should be very wary of accepting anything you offer, because you've stated that you consider no agreement to be binding, and that you will abrogate any treaty for an immediate gain. Our reply is that you achieved nothing - that with a more consistent strategy you'd now own Russia and part of Turkey and have more SCs than you do. It's undeniable that your method led to the formation of a three-power alliance against you. Why, if you think it's a good strategy, do you keep denying the real facts of it?
Chancellor Esemesas, this humble servant abjectly request you unstuff your inbox!
Rats bailing from the sinking ship?
Rats bailing from the sinking ship?
Rats bailing from the sinking ship?
Executer you are now becoming laughably absurd in your attempts to justify yourself. You're attempting to redefine both agreement and stab in order to wave away your actions. It's almost funny, but it's disturbing in another way - I wonder, if you were to be pulled over for speeding, would you debate the meaning of "exceed" in "exceeding the speed limit"?
Vainglory said:If you signed a contract to provide someone with services in exchange for money, then abrogated that contract, you wouldn't argue it wasn't legally binding, wasn't an agreement, because you never intended to keep it. You cannot redefine the meaning of agreement to suit yourself.
Vainglory said:What's more, it would be absurd if you really believed what you say. Your statement is that it is not a stab if you intend to deceive the other player. This would make stabbing impossible: it's not a stab if you have made your victim aware that you're going to do it, nor is it a stab if you're already in a conflict, and yet by your statement it's also not a stab if you plan to deceive the other player. Therefore there is no situation that is actually a stab.
Vainglory said:You're becoming increasingly ludicrous the longer you go on. I advise you to just be quiet. The reality is that you offered me something and I accepted the terms. That is an agreement - surely you don't need dictionary definitions quoted for you.
Vainglory said:What's more, even if we took your statement as true, it would not actually change anything. Despite it being stated repeatedly you still seem to think that people have a problem with you lying in order to gain advantage in the game. That is not the case. It's been said repeatedly, but you still don't seem to get it.
Vainglory said:It is not that we believe you shouldn't lie when playing this game. But if you want to win this game, you shouldn't lie with such frequency, to so many players, and neither should you act against the interests of so many players. What you do not seem to grasp, even now that it's staring you in the face, is how your method has entirely backfired. You failed to defeat any of your opponents, despite having decisive advantages - Tai's gambit failed, leaving him hopelessly exposed.He was entirely embroiled with Britain and Germany, unable to defend himself. Any competent player would have conquered Russia and taken at least 2 SCs, probably 3, and secured their eastern flank forever. Instead you decided to leave it to later, and now he's recovered some territory. After making desultory moves against Russia, you then secured an alliance against Turkey. This too should have been a walk-in: Russia was too distracted to help, so it was Turkey against Italy and Austria. Again, a competent player could have finished Turkey and moved on to new targets. Instead you opened yet another front. Whatever you say about misunderstandings with Italy, you don't keep an army in Tyrol in good faith. Even when you returned you didn't withdraw the army from Tyrol, or fall back from Greece. You ordered the attack into Venice yourself.
Vainglory said:Austria now sits on the home SCs of two countries, who obviously need to recover them as an immediate priority. They are thus natural allies. Turkey should be Austria's natural ally, with Italy sitting in two of her home SCs, but your bad faith was so flagrant that it is impossible to trust you. It's also not possible to trust Esemesas, since contrary to his claims of misunderstandings, he abrogated clearly agreed treaties. Your "strategy" is not a strategy at all. A strategy requires long-term coherent vision. You have just acted on a whim.
Vainglory said:Do you comprehend it yet? It is impossible for me to trust you, because you don't just break treaties when it suits strategic purposes, you'll break them for short term gains, even ones that are unsustainable. You are like a mad dog: just as likely to bite those that feed you as to bite anyone else. There is no way a long term agreement with you is sustainable, by your own description. Your actions were foolish. That now you lie about them and insist they were smart is grating, but it's not the central issue. Nobody cares that you lied about what you would do, per se, so you don't need to lie about the lies. Just admit what you did: you stabbed everyone around you bar Germany, and it backfired.
A Turkey / Austria alliance IS THE LEAST LIKELY ALLIANCE IN THE GAME.
I contest that, it certainly can work. It's the natural counter to a Russia + Italy where Russia screwed over the Turks in the division of stuff. Germany + Russia seems more unlikely, outside of limited cooperation in the North.
I contest that, it certainly can work. It's the natural counter to a Russia + Italy where Russia screwed over the Turks in the division of stuff. Germany + Russia seems more unlikely, outside of limited cooperation in the North.
Well, just as Austria-France would be a peculiar alliance. I think the Germany-Russia case is more, lack of common interests...there is certainly room for a campaign against England.
Now, while generally, I'd say Austria-Turkey is an incredibly unlikely alliance...I managed to be either side of that in Diplomacy I and in Diplomacy III (in which TE was Turkey!).
It can work, but it never an alliance for the long-term.
In Diplomacy III, as Bagricula points out, Austria and Turkey allied as a means of mutual defense against the monster Germany / UK alliance. Had we not allied, we would have been defeated easily.
It is the natural counter to a Russia / Italy alliance (although Austria / Germany is a more natural one for this scenario) ONLY if Austria AND Turkey are desparate.
It is hardly a beneficial alliance for a strong Austria or a strong Turkey. The positioning on the board mitigates against a successful Austria / Turkey alliance.
Germany / Russia is a brilliant opening alliance, as neither can hurt each other...but it is like the Austria / Italy relationship...destined to fracture at some point.
IMO, the best long-term alliances are:
Germany - Britain
or
France - Britain
or
Russia - Turkey
or
Russia - Italy
and the best of all is
Germany - Austria