1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

SANCTA Embassy & Intelligence

Discussion in 'Team Kazakhstan' started by Kaleb, Feb 12, 2009.

  1. cav scout

    cav scout The Continuum

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2008
    Messages:
    2,608
    CAV is the same distance from TKY as us. We both move next to the city this turn. Then next turn we bombard defenses down to zero and they attack. Detailed screens of everyone's forces are in the CAV embassy thread.
     
  2. mikotian

    mikotian Warlord

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2008
    Messages:
    211
    Location:
    Chicago
    Ok sounds good. We let Cav attack then. Their forces should be enough to reduce the city right?
     
  3. cav scout

    cav scout The Continuum

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2008
    Messages:
    2,608
    Yes Sommers, their is a SANCTAclaus :D

    SANCTA has just offered us ALL of their cities for peace! :eek:

    Shall we accept? ...and then attack CAV? :lol:
     
  4. damnrunner

    damnrunner Emperor

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2005
    Messages:
    1,986
    wtf - that is a sore loser move.

    But if we refuse - They will potentially will do the same offer to Cav or just stop playing.

    I think we have to accept.

    But then that can cause some trouble going forward as well. For one every team would gang up on the new Kaz super state (an with reason too since it would be totally unfair that we got it).

    Also our economy would crash like crazy.

    We would probably have to re gift a good # of the cities to Saturn to keep economy alive and to gain an ally.
     
  5. damnrunner

    damnrunner Emperor

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2005
    Messages:
    1,986
    Also if we take it we need to back stab Cav to kill their stack. It is very lame but it will buy us time to regroup.
     
  6. damnrunner

    damnrunner Emperor

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2005
    Messages:
    1,986
    This is frustrating - the point is to win the game and this is our best chance to do it. But it is very unfair. It would really be best if Sancta gave empire away to Saturn. Would be more balanced.

    If we accept their is also a good chance that the other teams just quit and the game ends that way. But I guess that still counts as a "win" for Kazakhstan.
     
  7. donsig

    donsig Low level intermediary

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2001
    Messages:
    12,894
    Location:
    Rochester, NY
    If this is legit we should accept the offer. After we have the cities we can post in the UN and ask the other teams if they want to continue. We don't have to attack Team Cav after taking the cities. There are many options if we all want to continue the game. We can gift some of the cities to our allies (and even Saturn) and try to make this a somewhat even game to continue.

    In any event I say take the cities. If the game is gonna end now at least this way SANCTA is out.
     
  8. Sommerswerd

    Sommerswerd I never yielded

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2007
    Messages:
    17,424
    Location:
    Wakanda Forever
    I agree with Donsig. They want the game to be over. This is their way of sticking it to Cavalieros.

    I also agree with Damnrunner that if we dont accept they will make the same offer to Cavalieros, which = We lose.

    If we really really want to keep playing this game to the bitter end, we could always gift some of the cities to our allies to keep the game balanced... right? However, I am not convinced that getting all of SANCTAs cities will put us that far ahead of Cavalieros. We should take the cities and see. We can always let Cavalieros come to us to request we gift cities later.

    The point is... SANCTA surrenders!!! :D That's GREAT! :D That means we won the War! Rejoice! Let the back slapping begin! :woohoo: Let's not be SORE Winners :(, by demanding that they stay in the game to watch us systematically burn their entire empire to the ground. I mean honestly, how many of us stay in the game when the AI is obviously going to destroy our nation? You quit and start a new game right?

    We should just graciously accept their surrender and all of their cities.

    This was the WHOLE POINT of the War right? For US to get SANCTAs lands so that we would have 'balance of power' with Cavalieros. Also, We don't necessarily have to fight Cavalieros right away. We could tell them that the "CavKaz" should now destroy Saturn and MS.

    Even if we did want to fight Cavalieros now, all we would need to do is switch to Nationhood and Slavery and just slave/draft a horde of cannons, rifles and Cavalry. We could even withold Military Tradition from Cavalieros so they would not have Cavalry.

    Great job, War Marshall Cavscout!:goodjob:

    Oh and :xmassign: AND :newyear: everybody. It was an honor and a privilege "serving" with you;)... Still wrapping presents... Ho, Ho, Ho!
     
  9. Kaleb

    Kaleb Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,451
    Location:
    London
    I think a redistribution of cities to other teams is the fairest thing to do. Perhaps it's also worth discussing a re-alignment of alliances, e.g. Saturn and Kaz vs Cav and MS?? and then a breathing space of a few turns including a DMZ and then anything goes?

    SANCTA can whine all they want about how they were playing by the rules no proof etc but I just don't buy it. The hiding the tech priority thing was a small point but it just illustrated to me how their attitude was towards the game, ie if there is a way to manipulate game mechanics to your advantage, then use it.

    HAHA! :D
     
  10. Lord Parkin

    Lord Parkin aka emperor

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2004
    Messages:
    6,374
    Location:
    New Zealand
    Who was that talking about plans for backstabbing on a tech agreement? ;)

    Very interesting and entertaining thread, I'm enjoying reading through. :)
     
  11. Sommerswerd

    Sommerswerd I never yielded

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2007
    Messages:
    17,424
    Location:
    Wakanda Forever
    Talking about backstabbing in a private forum and ACTUALLY reneging on a deal are very very very different IMHO.:) Plus, you forget that the "backstabbing" talk that you accuse me of is actually intended to honor and respect a prior tech sharing-agreement...;)
     
  12. Lord Parkin

    Lord Parkin aka emperor

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2004
    Messages:
    6,374
    Location:
    New Zealand
    So, if the rest of your team happens to agree to go through with a "backstab plot", you're at fault for discussing it. But if your team doesn't end up going through with the plot, you're not at fault for bringing it up? Come on now. ;)

    Let's face it - pretty much everyone schemes and plots against the other teams to some degree in these games. It's only natural, and makes things more fun. But we should realise that none of us are as clean and innocent as we might think we are, and likewise none of us are as evil and disloyal as others might think we are. Just because a team never happened to go through with a betrayal in the past doesn't mean they won't betray you the next time, and just because a team went through with a betrayal in one game under very extreme circumstances doesn't mean they can't be your most loyal ally in another.

    Also, once again I stress: keep in mind that if we went through with the deal to give your alliance a powerful military tech, we would effectively be backstabbing SANCTA too. Whichever decision we made, we would be backstabbing someone. Who would you choose to side with, if you were in our position? The loyal ally, or the somewhat pretentious mega-alliance?
     
  13. Sommerswerd

    Sommerswerd I never yielded

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2007
    Messages:
    17,424
    Location:
    Wakanda Forever
    No,:nono: IMO, you are never at fault for discussing it or bringing it up. The fault comes for ACTUALLY breaking the deal, not suggesting it, not discussing it... See the distinction?;)

    Also... Looking at Saturn's discussion about breaking the deal, you can see that at least initially, "the rest of the team" did not agree as you suggest. At least plako & Joshua368 seemed to be quite against breaking the deal. So to the extent that they changed their mind, they had to be convinced by the people who came up with the idea to reneg on the deal.

    That also says alot IMO... that some people on the team pointed out their distaste for deal-breaking, and people did not back off, they still went on trying to convince others that deal-breaking was a good idea. It is also different for an experienced team captain to suggest deal-breaking, because they have much more influence.

    Another thing... It sort of seems like a contradiction to say that Kaz should have been "generous" while simultaneously saying that Saturn could not stick to the prior deal we made because it was no longer as advantageous... The whole point of trusting people when you make deals is the expectation that people will follow through regardless of whether they get a better deal later. Otherwise you would only make deals that give you an immediate advantage because there is no trust. If Kaz was following the rule you suggest, ie. the only deals you make/respect are ones that give immediate advantage... How could we gift Saturn anything? Generosity requires trust.
     
  14. Lord Parkin

    Lord Parkin aka emperor

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2004
    Messages:
    6,374
    Location:
    New Zealand
    Everyone has different opinions on how to play the game, and how to prioritize their loyalties. Apparently if my back is against the wall, and my choice is either to remain loyal to a deal which will sabotage and doom an only ally and friend - or to remain loyal to my ally and break a tech deal with a mega-alliance who has often treated us with disdain and arrogance... I will side with my ally.

    Neither of the choices are appealing, and it would have been nice to avoid the situation altogether. However, having been in the situation, I still stand firmly behind my decision. I will not betray a close ally and friend for the sake of an arrogant and ridiculously advanced megapower. That's just the way I am. It's a thing called loyalty. I would rather betray a tech deal with a pretentious mega-power, than betray and doom an only ally.

    Keep in mind that for you it was only a tech you lost, which your mega-alliance could easily research and trade around later. If we had betrayed our allies at that point in time, we may have caused them heavy military losses and possibly cost them the game.

    It's distasteful to have to go back on a deal, but it's downright despicable to betray your ally. You can judge me all you want, but the fact is: What this whole saga shows that when I'm put on the spot between a rock and a hard place, I will never betray my loyalty to my allies. When extreme circumstances arise, amazingly enough, I would rather betray my rivals than my allies! Is that a bad thing? I'm sure those reading can decide for themselves.
     

Share This Page