Diplomacy with the Deutsche Küche

This post is complete non-sense. I do not want to start a new discussion, but I have to say this. And it became obvious that the Brotherhood tried to stall us right at the first diplomatic negotiations. Even if there were disagreements withing the team, from the perspective of the Eagles, you acted strange and that's why it didn't work.

WE were hnest when we said, an alliance between our teams would be the strongest option, but you guys lied to us. So much for Lanzelots usually honest playstyle.

And secondly, there was - again . the bug that Kueche never suffered war weariness from our attacks. And already after our very first attack, when we took like 4-5 cities thes should have suffered from it. But in reallity they always had war happiness.

Very easily this could be counted as cheating...

 

from your point of view it may be nonsense, but from your arguments... there are none. you are quoting points, and mention totally different points???

the "strange diplo" is a fact on one hand, but even more kind of a myth within the Eagles team on the other hand.

Spoiler :

-it is a fact because our diplo situation *was* strange because our team had deep internal problems at that time.
-it is a myth because the time when you call it strange, yours was.
just try the no-hard-feelings-approach please. but to put it as simple as that: now that the threads are open it is just clear that the Anarchos lied to you about pretty much everything, and you bought the nonsense. more or less the first question after you learnt their "story" was that you (it was either you or Cyc, i don´t remember) called us deal-breakers, and what we had to say to our defense. now, how would *you* have felt and reacted, after just being NAP-raped, when this is the first thing you are asked by someone who cannot know the truth and could be neutral? if you go ok with that, fine. at least i did not and found *that* strange. maybe not right in diplo, but now that everything is open, clearly right from our victim status.
there were people who understood better, to name one, Cotta. read his totally neutral comments in the Küche thread. someone there even asks if ?Cyc? (don´t remember for sure who was mentioned) really thinks he should act like a judge over a situation he does not know anything about, and all he has is a very dubious information of only one side.

if you answer, heck yes, that was what we had to know and ask, then i say in opposition: if diplo means in order not to be strange, that i had to wash my dirty laundry to the face of the new to-be ally, then *i* choose him not to become my ally. which happened, anyway.

the cheating reproach is ridiculous, as the Küche did not "use" it but the software had a bug?!?! really, si tacuisses...

now, if you decided to post *that* statement from me, then really WHY did you not post the one you and i exchanged via PN????

templar_x

 

i do not understand what you are trying to prove to me.

you can read what happened. neither i, nor the Knights team i at least at this point still was a member of, "lied to you". there was a team decision to negotiate this alliance with you. when you and me came extremely close to a deal, or at least that is what you and i remember from our talks, according to our PNs.

if you dislike that Lanzelot acted against this team decision, so did we. how much more "honesty" do you like than the total dissolvement of the Knights team over this issue, and me personally fighting over and over with my forum friend Lanzelot over this? it was the Eagles team who decided against that deal... ...so again i do not understand your reasoning... i am sure Memento, Ivan, myself... would have stood to that deal if you had agreed to it.

t_x

 

Calis, don't worry about trying to talk sense to Temp. It's obvious that TKB wasn't smart enough to listen to Lanzelot about important decisions they needed to make. They would much rather hear the sound of their own voices. Such a shame.

 

I donnot think that either Küche or the Eagles did take the words of anarchy as granted. But the strategic situation was that the Brotherhoods was technoligically ahead due to rushing philo and republic. Then they refused the republic the anarchy needed so desperatly. This situation required some intervention to restore some balance of power.

 

Thank you. I will stop this here. It won't lead to anything.

 

I agree with what you've said about the Anarchy. And it is known the KBH stiffed Anarchy for Republic, claiming they received advanced knowledge that Anarchy was plotting war against them (we never heard how they got this knowledge). And it's too bad the intervention couldn't prop up the Anarchy better than it did.

 

Yeah, secrecy is what we need here. I never did agree with you private emails for team politics.

 

From Küches point of view there was the risk to help anarchy too much. When they did not use republic in order to allow a surprise attack against the unprepered Brotherhoods things became extremly critical. I hate such uncertainty. And as republic can earn back the costs of revolution fast the choice of anarchy was hardly understandable.

 

I can't let it be.

Ok, here you are right. I did not really talk about what I quoted. And maybe non-sense is the wrong wordeing. I already mentioned that the way (the wording) you use to describe our game, is insulting.

Furthermore, we did not bye anything. Neither your nor Anarchies story. We did not care much. We got together with Anarchy, because they did better negotiations. And actually it seems both of you weren't "innocent".

And the last point that we weren't able to defend against a tiny invasion force. This invasion force was a very lucky invasion force, with only minor losses while it destroyed most of our units.

I am not sure. Costal blocking is also a game feature/bug, but that was taken care of by using amphibious archers/longbowmen.

Furthermore this was an additional aspect in the outcome of the war. What do you think, how much gold it had cost us, we had to put into lux. Actually it was a 40% ratio. I do not find it half as ridiculous as you pretend it to be.

And finally another insult with your latin phrase...

The answer lies in your question. It's private.

 

this means, you are telling me via PN that you can understand my feedback/criticism, and in the public you dismiss it?

cool! the show must go on!

t_x

ps: i did not say that claiming an unfair aspect of the WW-PBEM-bug was ridiculous, but the reproach that it was "cheating". how on earth should the Küche have cheated "using" that, when nobody even know about it?

 

You got me here. I will check these writings again. I am not trying to hide anything.

BTW, I just read through the diplo Eagles-Brotherhood thread. I learned that your sometimes harsh wording is just your way. So maybe I should not have been so thin-skinned about it. Are all Austrians like this?

And it interesting how your guys attitute towards us declined steadily throughout the game. An dI now think that we were not innocent about it. (At least when it came to later negotiations).

I said, it could be interpreted as. And as for your second sentence...everybody knew that right after our first strike they should have suffered war weariness.

 

You meant this one here:

Yes, here I did not reply to your PM and you were "unhappy" about it. And yes, you were right to be. I was pi**ed by the situation myself at that time.

 

That was the Eagles point of view also. And I agreed, but I feel we should have used more moderation, instead of all or none. And I agree about understanding Anarchys strategy of balancing unit costs against growing as a nation.

 

no, i meant the one from only a couple of days ago. we pm'ed a few explanations to each other that are unknown to the others here, which i believe included that we understand each others points better now. here on the forum it did not sound like that necessarily. but it is fine to me.
t_x

 

i have not seen myself as a "Raubein" until now. but yes, i think i prefer to say things rather clear. great that you learn to like it

on a contrary, people in Vienna (there is no typical Austrian, as there is no typical German) are typically staying extremely friendly towards your face, and call you names when you are not around. this is called "Viennese politeness"! or they just use "Granteln", which is a misanthropic way of dealing with everything, may it be good or bad.

as i said over at the civforum, i do not mind anyone reading what i said, nor reading what others said about myself. everyone should know how to take it. i can read it and either relate to it or not; learn something from it or not. if nothing else, one can learn how different things can be seen!

and after all, even if they were released now, one should never forget that those were internal threads. they were not meant to be diplomatic. hence, many things that can be read now appeared very interesting and "unfiltered" to me.

t_x

 

Yeah, you are right. now I know what you mean. But when I read your evaluation about our game AGAIN, my anger heated up AGAIN. Sorry for that AGAIN. Us usually my anger is gone almost as fast as it comes up.

 

then it is good that it takes you a couple of hours before you can reach Vienna, so you can calm down on the way