Iron and Blood - Game Thread

[GamezRule]

http://forums.civfanatics.com/group.php?groupid=457

The Accord has been made public. All members have been booted.

 

[kiwitt]

The world recognises that L'Accord has now dissolved and released its conference discussion minutes to diplomats from all over the world. As to what happens with this wealth of information remains to be seen.

GM: L'Accord Alliance is now no more and will be removed from all stats

 

[bestrfcplayer]

Well, guess we don't need a war any more.........

 

[BSmith1068]

duh...

 

[Red_Spy]

Some of that stuff surprised me.

 

[GamezRule]

Well, yeah, we were evil. But we supported each other, and that was the main thing. That means that the west half actively supported the east after the Afghanistan debacle, and the east half pretended to support the west half, while secretly plotting against it.

 

[Red_Spy]

Well honestly I suspected some info in it. But it seems you more defended yourselves, instead of seeking land like claims were made about that.

 

[GamezRule]

See what I mean? I would also like to note that Swazilands thread about an espionage attempt against him from California predates anything going towards the UNA.

 

[kiwitt]

GM: Take discussion here please.

 

[choxorn]

Well, yeah, we were evil. But we supported each other, and that was the main thing. That means that the west half actively supported the east after the Afghanistan debacle, and the east half pretended to support the west half, while secretly plotting against it.

In all fairnesss to the East half, they've only been plotting against you for a couple of updates, as far as we know, at least.

 

[GamezRule]

And what is to say they won't turn against you if you let them get away with it?

 

[Joecoolyo]

A surprising turn of events, I did not see this coming.

What the Grand Kingdom of Xi'an would like to know is how this effects certain things:

Due to the dissolution of the Accord, will the stability hits in anyway change?

Does this effect the ability of the Accord's allies to declare war, since, well, their defensive pact no longer exists?

 

[kiwitt]

GM: 1) Stability hits remain - yes. 2) Each player can still have alliances that are only known between the players and me.

 

[kiwitt]

GM: Initial 48 hour Declaration of War Phase is now over

Existing conflicts
France versus U.S.S.R.
Swaziland versus U.S.S.R.
Medina versus U.S.S.R.
Spain versus U.S.S.R.
Greece versus U.S.S.R.

Any allies/vassals of U.S.S.R. may still now declare war on France, Swaziland, Medina, Spain or Greece in the next 48-hour response phase

New Declarations of War
Librulstan versus France and Swaziland
C.S.A. versus France and Swaziland
Texas versus France and Swaziland
California versus France and Swaziland
Gran Columbia versus France and Swaziland
Xi'an versus France and Swaziland
Germany versus France and Swaziland
Siam versus France and Swaziland
Libya versus France and Swaziland
Australia versus France and Swaziland
Southern Han versus France and Swaziland
U.S.S.R. versus France and Swaziland*

* Note: Already at war

Any allies/vassals* of France and Swaziland may still declare war in the next 48-hour response phase

* Note: As Medina is still currently an ally of France and Swaziland in the existing war with U.S.S.R., started while still part of The Accord, it is recognised to be able to declare war on the aggressor nations listed above.

NOTE: As always the option of negotiating separate peace agreements and retracting DoWs, remains open to any and all nations until orders lock at the weekend - 8:00am Sunday NZT.

 

[BSmith1068]

I don't think the stability hits should change at all. ATK's betrayal happend while they were members of the Accord, and the dissolving of the alliance was a direct result of that betrayal.
If the Accord had disolved prior to their DoW then there shouldn't be the stability hit, but it disolved BECAUSE of it.

It should also change nothing for the stated reasons of the stability hit either. A nations people are not all of a sudden going to be content because of a diplomatic technicality post fact.

It's kinda like saying that ATK is no longer responsible for letting the horse out of the barn because the next day the barn burned down. It doesn't make sense.

 

[Double A]

Hold on a second.

If our collaborative governments were scared of France and Swaziland making a kergillion dollars every minute, wouldn't that mean our people would be just as scared (if not more)?

Also... if the horse was left in the barn the day it was burning down, wouldn't that mean the horse would die in the barn instead of being a minor inconvenience romping around the farmyard?

 

[Tecknojock]

^This. Our peoples should have seen this war brewing from a mile a way. Its been a UNA/Accord cold war from the beginning.

 

[hoplitejoe]

Ignore

 

[Joecoolyo]

It's kinda like saying that ATK is no longer responsible for letting the horse out of the barn because the next day the barn burned down. It doesn't make sense.

That would work, if the Accord was dissolved next turn.

But since it was dissolved this turn, Double A's scenario is what happened. Basically the horse escaped a burning barn, rather than being let out of it, and then it being burned down.

 

[hoplitejoe]

Even in this "time freeze" we need to keep an idea of cause and effect or else everything just gets stupid.