Aggie vs ERIKK, ladder

Turn 196:

I declared war on ERIKK! And we made peace one turn later :D
It seems that PTW has a bug were the game crashes after telling me that ERIKK declared war on me. He didn't, but the only way to solve it was by me declaring war on ERIKK.

Real news: The Celts are dead. The Egyptians are knocking on the door of the Aztec's capital.

ERIKK and I agreed to dissagree. I say that I don't see another option for me. ERIKK says he will do anything to avoid a domination loss. The negotiations continue...
 
At least if he attacks you Aggie we will know not to trust ERIKK in future negotiations. ;)

(/jk - kinda)
 
bla bla bla from anarres.... :evil:

Though negotiations in turn 202....

Aggie promised not to attack the Romans and Arabs for two industrial techs which I turned down. I am not gonna do that. I will profit from my railroads instead and have aggie have to research nationalism first (I almost have RR, aggie is researching ToG at the moment).

The Aztecs are almost dead and the Arabs and me have a MPP. If he attacks the Arabs I will help the Arabs against aggie (if I wont, aggie will reach domination for sure). I did not MMP'd the Romans because that would be ruining the game by me (the Arabs are necessary for my survival IMO, the Roman territory not (aggie will not get domination by ONLY taking the Romans (I hope ;) )).

Aggie will get nationalism in time (before 216) so after the Romans are dead the game will be in a deadlock because I wont be able to attack aggie if he gets a MPP with the Arabs... So, a waiting game will start after 216. I will have to wait for aggie not to have that MPP and then attack. As I am the tech leader I am sure I will be able to MMP the Arabs all the time (I think).

I am in this stupid position because I wasn't thinking when I signed that peace treaty till 216. If this did not happen aggie would have had more troubles attacking those AI's... He might have gone for an assault on me though...

We will never know!
 
Yeah, I have to agree with Aggie. A treaty is a treaty. You can break it, but don't expect people to forget. ;)

'I wasn't thinking' is the worst excuse ever...
 
Ok ok ok!!!!!

Aggie and me both got so sick if this we agreed to a deal!

I will pay for my stupidity... :mad:

200 gold, ToG and Nat. (ToG aggie almost has (1 turn))

- peace deal lasts till 216
- no attacks from aggie on arabia and rome till 216
- I will MPP rome
- aggie can MPP arabia and rome if he wants to

We both know we will be burned by the audience for this:
me: "you should break deals when your survival depends on it!!!"
aggie: ÿou shoudl go for domination when you have the chance for it!!!"
 
It's better this way. I would have gone for domination, forcing ERIKK to go after me. It was a dead-lock indeed. Especially considering the misunderstanding from Monday. That was probably decisive for ERIKK to attack me. Something I would have found very cheap indeed. This dead-lock was no fun anymore :(

Glad that we worked this out ERIKK :love:
 
Turn 205: histograph
aggerikk205power.JPG


world-map:
aggieERIKK205map.JPG
 
Three days after our agreement, I'm convinced that I made a huge mistake there. I knew back then that ERIKK's position was better in peacefull times, but I'm just too nice a guy for this world :( . It might have been better to force ERIKK to break that peace treaty before 216.

No we both have MPP's with the two remaining AI's. So if one of us should attack another civ, immediately the MPP's are triggered. War doesn't seem to be an option for a long time.
 
There are some (risky) options I have figured out but I am convinced that the one who starts the war will be the one who ends up in a mess...

Anyway you have to set up an AI trap to get a (2 vs 2) world war if you want that...
 
Originally posted by ERIKK
Anyway you have to set up an AI trap to get a (2 vs 2) world war if you want that...
Click to expand...

Yup, I know. And I know that you know ;) That makes it more difficult.

I thought it would be a good idea to give some insight in what happened after our deal. And my feelings about it now.
 
Originally posted by ERIKK
Unbelieveable that Abu Bakr is happy with you!!!!
Click to expand...

It's nice to see a polite Abu Bakr. He was annoyed/furious ever since the Celtisch war.

The 'viewers' may wonder why ERIKK is at war with Rome.

Well, it was triggered as follows:

- I attack Rome.
- Rome counter-attacks: Arabia has to declare war (MPP with me)
- Rome then attacks Arabia. ERIKK declares war to Rome (MPP with Arabia)

I am not unhappy with that, but I tried to achieve the following:

- I attack Rome
- Rome counter-attacks: Arabia declares war to Rome
- Arabia attacks Rome: ERIKK declares war to Arabia (MPP with Rome)
- Arabia invades Persia.

You can't have them all. :p I knew that the 2nd option was less likely. Rome was first in the turn sequence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

G
Deity is brutal
Replies
9
Views
574
Gabethebabe
G
Fergei
[C3C] Civ3 - Casual multiplayer club?
Replies
2
Views
502
Fergei
Fergei
M
[BTS] Earth 18 civs - How to Win (Monarch-Emperor) : 4th game - Japan (Immortal :eek: ) - many calculations, I would appreciate replays from the pros
6 7 8
Replies
157
Views
9K
Harv
Harv
Fergei
Ideas for game modes in multiplayer
Replies
0
Views
580
Fergei
Fergei
M
  • Poll Poll
Poll: What's the strongest Civ for humans in 5.0 alpha
2
Replies
39
Views
4K
redrum68
redrum68
Back
Top Bottom