While we wait...

[~Darkening~]

Gah- I said peace! I will not attack Eire for quite some while, mainly becuase I have no reason and the fact that, like people said, it would be hard to do. But I could always go around the forts ;].

This turn, for the first in 3, I will actually be quite peaceful.

 

[EQandcivfanatic]

Who are you people, where did you all come from, why are there so many of you? All ya youngins, and people who claim to be old timers, but may be account hackers or something (you're looking twitchy over there Sheep, i remember you when you first started on these forums). just me and das left of the true old timers. And both of us have mellowed with age. I remember when he was a whiny little brat of a Germany way back when in RTOR 2. Lasted maybe 2 turns then never came back. Of course i've mellowed since then as well. Also das has been more successful in expanding his ideas than i ever was.

 

[Israelite9191]

Gah. Right now I feel like I should repeat my "Shut up or move on!" thread that nearly got me banned. Would be worth it too.

 

[Neverwonagame3]

As for what people have been saying to me, i was talking about Eire long term. If it competes with Britan in any way it'll lose, and it's expansion options are blocked off.

Also, i decided to be risky.

 

[~Darkening~]

If it competes with Britan in any way it'll lose, and it's expansion options are blocked off.

Not really. Economic wise, I am indeed stronger. But stronger doesn't always decides the winner. Its more who's more dedicated to winning the war than who's stronger. For instance, I have a tendancy (if not properly motivated) to give up on a war half-way through and just sign peace (see current example.) Anyways, Eire has plenty of room to expand- Iberia for instance.

 

[Neverwonagame3]

The Tartessan war proves Iberia is blocked off.

EDIT: My statements may not be comprehensible. I admit i'm not that good at it, having never seen a civ even in Civilisation IV through to the end of any long scenario.

I usually don't have time to check out the stats, firstly.

Second, i don't have the patience and consider myself a good planner of suprise attacks. I stand a much better chance then i would have had it failed.

 

[Kozmos]

Gah. Right now I feel like I should repeat my "Shut up or move on!" thread that nearly got me banned. Would be worth it too.

your just jelaous cuz older people are more coooler then you

 

[EQandcivfanatic]

Damn straight.

 

[Oruc]

Gah. Right now I feel like I should repeat my "Shut up or move on!" thread that nearly got me banned. Would be worth it too.

Why dont you follow your own advice and shut up?

 

[andis-1]

*sigh* this thread had such a great potential, but by judging the above three(or more) posts I could say this deserves to be locked.

 

[Disenfrancised]

Who are you people, where did you all come from, why are there so many of you? All ya youngins, and people who claim to be old timers, but may be account hackers or something (you're looking twitchy over there Sheep, i remember you when you first started on these forums). just me and das left of the true old timers. And both of us have mellowed with age. I remember when he was a whiny little brat of a Germany way back when in RTOR 2. Lasted maybe 2 turns then never came back. Of course i've mellowed since then as well. Also das has been more successful in expanding his ideas than i ever was.

Thanks for that EQ, and your point was? We're all NESers, and the time of our joining doesn't really seem to correlate (once you get past the first few months of callowness of course ) with playing skill, modding ability, or the amount of fun we have NESing.

I'm trying to couch this in the politiest possible terms by the way, but condensation on part of "old" timers rankles just as much as any other condensation, and your comments, even if they were not intended to, come off as such. Please try to disparage our ideas and actions in the future, not our persons.

You do manage the old timer ramble very well

 

[Kozmos]

*sigh* this thread had such a great potential, but by judging the above three(or more) posts I could say this deserves to be locked.

what the flock are you talking about we were just dissin israelite for him dissing us old people and our old ways. nothing out of the ordinary moving on....

 

[Dachs]

"Us old people"? Dis is arguing against the "old people" bit and he's been on (or at least had an account) for half a year longer than you!

In other news...what happened to talking about NESes? About five NESes are updating or about to soon.

 

[Oruc]

What old people bit? Isrealite was the one acting in an offensive manner telling people to shut up just because he doesnt like what they say.

 

[Cuivienen]

Stop. Now. All of you. There is absolutely no reason to be arguing over this.

 

[EQandcivfanatic]

Indeed, i was just babbling to kill some time. Meant nothing by it.

 

[Dachs]

Cool beans.

I must air one grievance, though: das, you're awesome, and your control of the English language is better than many native speakers, but there is one major problem I always see when you write about war. Please stop writing "Battle at X" instead of "Battle of X". It's slowly driving me insane as I read and reread some of your more recent and excellent althists.

[/pedantic rant]

 

[das]

Sanity is for the weak.

And personally I preffer the "at" when a battle took place at a certain geographic orientir, like a village, a town, or a city. "of" is for the battles in wider, vaguer geographic areas. Compare "Battle at Gettysburg" with "Battle of France" or "Battle of Dogger Bank". In any case, I am led to understand that both versions are in use.

 

[Dachs]

Well, the hilarious (because it thinks MacArthur was a Great Captain) Dupuy Encyclopedia of Military History uses the "of" convention, as does the more reputable source Wikipedia. I can visit Gettysburg over the weekend and check to see what they call it there, but I'm pretty sure it's "of" there, too.

I never heard the "at" variant until I saw your usage of it; is it the Russian convention?

 

[Disenfrancised]

Sanity is for the weak.

And personally I preffer the "at" when a battle took place at a certain geographic orientir, like a village, a town, or a city. "of" is for the battles in wider, vaguer geographic areas. Compare "Battle at Gettysburg" with "Battle of France" or "Battle of Dogger Bank". In any case, I am led to understand that both versions are in use.

Yeah, I mean if I was going to criticism das's english (from a position of weakness myself), I'd go for the overuse of "either" . Its either [first statement], or [second statement], or [third], etc.