Game 100

[Lord Diamond]

Hmmm, yes I had to go back and read our correspondence. I don't think the surprise attack was in the spirit of our agreement, and the emissary movement certainly against the agreement...

This is the last message I sent you on April 23rd and you never responded:

Thank you for the prompt clarification. We should take this opportunity to formalize a treaty to prevent further misunderstanding. What would you say to no hostilities until after turn 12? I would welcome longer terms as well.

[Lord Thanatos]

We agreed to a NAP on turn 12 and Frost Lord notified me within two turns that you were in the Southern Sands.

Frost Lord was already fighting the Gnome and the Underworld and the Ancient Ones attacked him about the same time you did. Throw in the Red, and he has five declared enemies.

I have taken no direct action against you. Your assuming I did doesn't make it so.

Why don't we disolve this NAP and make the rest of this game really interesting? I'm sure that I have plenty to learn from a foe as experienced as you. I probably should have attacked you first. Who knows how good I would be by now! I suggested it before, but you didn't respond.

Don't you dare defend the damn BL. He knew when he attacked me that he was becoming my fourth opponent. When he reconned PI he saw at least 4 gnomes, 4 red dragons, and 4 trolls in my dungeon. I completely ignored his presence because I knew you and he always work together and you and I had an agreement not to attack each other.

AFTER he became my fourth opponent is when he first got his enemies. I made peace with the GN and RD so they could defend Runnimede against the BL and EL invasion. He only got the AN as an enemy because he joined with the TR.

The fact that the WI began pummelling the BL is only a good thing, in my book. I can guarantee that I have never knowingly become the fourth enemy of any player. The BL cannot say that because I had captured emissaries from three different kingdoms in my dungeon, which even if he didn't perform a recon he certainly became aware of this when he took my capital.

Had the BL not attacked me (the UN) knowing in advance he would be my fourth enemy AND simultaneously attacked the GN in Runnimede he would not have so many opponents. I guarantee the ONLY reason he felt comfortable attacking me and doing anything else simultaneously is because he knew in advance he would be my fourth opponent.

Another thought: not only did the BL knowingly become my fourth opponent but also he has known for years from my FoR forum postings that I despise players who intentionally attack players who already have more opponents than any average player can handle. It is the exact reason I stopped playing FoR for so long and then stopped playing with my identifiable name - because of players attacking those already engaged with numerous foes!

I had convinced myself to just let it slide and hope that maybe someday he will come out from under your protection and become his own player - until I saw your statements in this thread.

You know I believe you can assist your ally as long as you don't intentionally break any other agreements.

And you also know that the very NAP you are complaining of by Kalrex was exactly the type of agreement you believe in and was perfectly in keeping with the exact terms of a NAP.

I guarantee you that if I had known the BL would stoop to intentionally becoming a fourth opponent to someone already engaged with three enemies I would have made peace with everyone else and attacked him immediately. Oh, too bad for me that Kalrex thought of this first!

But Kalrex has other enemies while he is beating up the BL? Good for him.

For the record... If you have a NAP with Kalrex you should NOT be opposing him simply because he attacked your ally. That is what I believe! You are free to believe differently and apparently do!

You know I respect you as a player and enjoy the challenging contests we have had for years.

You need to let the BL player figure out how to become a good player without always being under your wing. Tell him you have a NAP with the WI and cannot help him with that opponent. You know it is the right thing to do. It is the same reason I ignore every one of your popcenters, nobles, etc... in Torvale because you and I have a game-long peace -- despite the fact that your ally is attacking me!

Do you also give him assistance against me? After all, you and I do have a NAP! It doesn't matter to me... What does matter is intentionally becoming somebody's fourth enemy knowing in advance he already has three enemies. I still despise that!

Doesn't anyone ever help the outnumbered kingdom?

Is there ever going to be a contest when you two aren't allied? If so, let me know so I can determine what caliber of player he actually is...

[Lord Diamond]

LT, I don't think the BL even knew that you controlled Avalon when he moved there. My impression was that he just wanted the city. You and he hadn't communucated at all. You had exactly ONE declared enemy at that time and that was the RD. Not having reconned your city, how would he know who you had been targetting with all your kidnappers? If it makes you feel any better, he mentioned in a recent message that you have hurt him far more than the Gnome, Ancient Ones, and Witchlord did together.

If Kalrex had shown me even a glimmer of courtesy or respect after our NAP, it may have been different. However, he went out of his way to antagonize me and that just pissed me off. I still haven't attacked him or broken a NAP as a FoR player would see it. He feels differently, but I can't envision ever having another treaty with him anyway.

I am hoping that he will let me out of our NAP so that he can show me just how awesome he is. In the future, I will be sure to include a "Don't be a Jerk cancellation clause" in any treaty I have with someone I don't know. I am on the verge of cancelling the treaty on those grounds anyway.

[paway]

Don't you dare defend the damn BL. He knew when he attacked me that he was becoming my fourth opponent. When he reconned PI he saw at least 4 gnomes, 4 red dragons, and 4 trolls in my dungeon. I completely ignored his presence because I knew you and he always work together and you and I had an agreement not to attack each other.

AFTER he became my fourth opponent is when he first got his enemies. I made peace with the GN and RD so they could defend Runnimede against the BL and EL invasion. He only got the AN as an enemy because he joined with the TR.

Some of your information is wrong. My first contact with the BL was an in-game message on turn 16. Since then, we have had very limited contact, mostly through the in-game message system. I'm not sure when BL "joined with the TR", but I sure wish someone would have told me about it.

Regarding someone "becoming (your) fourth opponent," I feel like there is a distinct difference between three or four kingdoms attacking you, and you launching attacks on other kingdoms. I'm not sure of the nature of your conflicts with the Gnomes and Red Dragons, but in my case it was an unprovoked and quite devastating attack with no immediate downside risk for you due to your staging grounds being Avalon and villages in the Sea of Foreboding.

I certainly don't begrudge you (or anyone else) the right to attack me unprovoked or with a strong strategic advantage, but to attack me and then use me as a rationale why someone should have the courtesy of not attacking you seems a bit peculiar.

[Lord Thanatos]

LT, I don't think the BL even knew that you controlled Avalon when he moved there. My impression was that he just wanted the city. You and he hadn't communucated at all. You had exactly ONE declared enemy at that time and that was the RD. Not having reconned your city, how would he know who you had been targetting with all your kidnappers? If it makes you feel any better, he mentioned in a recent message that you have hurt him far more than the Gnome, Ancient Ones, and Witchlord did together.

If Kalrex had shown me even a glimmer of courtesy or respect after our NAP, it may have been different. However, he went out of his way to antagonize me and that just pissed me off. I still haven't attacked him or broken a NAP as a FoR player would see it. He feels differently, but I can't envision ever having another treaty with him anyway.

I am hoping that he will let me out of our NAP so that he can show me just how awesome he is. In the future, I will be sure to include a "Don't be a Jerk cancellation clause" in any treaty I have with someone I don't know. I am on the verge of cancelling the treaty on those grounds anyway.

If he didn't know then I will apologize for my angry post. In fact, I will take it from your post that he didn't know. Still, when he retrieved all my captives he had to know I had three enemies. Oh well...

Anger makes me focus. I have done more diplomacy since he took PI than I had done before...

I know you keep your word as you and I have had many agreements (when we weren't attacking each other, more often than not) over the years.

[Lord Diamond]

For clarity, the Black doesn't seem to care how many people he is fighting. I only made a point of it because Kalrex raised such a fuss in game 102. To be fair, he was ganged up on for four uncoordinated players and he had a right to be distraught. He knew that he wasn't popping the Blacks enemy-cherry in 100 though!

From what I could tell, there were few kingdoms that didn't suffer from your kidnapping! I hear that you have added Darkelves and Elves to your list of victims. I am grateful to not have been one of them. I have been very concious to stay clear of your war with the Black Dragon even when it rolled over to Arcania. The only help he has had from me where you are concerned is gold and food. Had you asked me for either, I would have provided them to you as well.

[Ry Vor]

"You know I respect you as a player and enjoy the challenging contests we have had for years.

Doesn't anyone ever help the outnumbered kingdom?"

The above is what I like about the recent posts here. Let's not get too personal, folks. As some point out, it's a game. There are those other discussions on interpretations on NAP's, which I believe I have said, are far too common. I wish we could get to more nuanced understandings more frequently than kind of a bi-polar "NAP or war". Short length, non-invasion treaty, for example. We are seeing this now in Alamaze. Trying to have everything ironed out to the "little i's" in a NAP from the first turn takes away from the game, IMO. I just don't know exactly how to stop it from a design perspective. Try just agreeing on little points and grow from there instead of the reflexive "Game long NAP". Then again, I am not the most successful player in either game, so, as someone pointed out earlier today, what do I know?

On another note, one of my own Fall of Rome personas is currently getting his ass kicked by Frost Lord, without him getting assistance from anyone else. I think his credos as a player are well established.

[Lord Thanatos]

For clarity, the Black doesn't seem to care how many people he is fighting. I only made a point of it because Kalrex raised such a fuss in game 102. To be fair, he was ganged up on for four uncoordinated players and he had a right to be distraught. He knew that he wasn't popping the Blacks enemy-cherry in 100 though!

From what I could tell, there were few kingdoms that didn't suffer from your kidnapping! I hear that you have added Darkelves and Elves to your list of victims. I am grateful to not have been one of them. I have been very concious to stay clear of your war with the Black Dragon even when it rolled over to Arcania. The only help he has had from me where you are concerned is gold and food. Had you asked me for either, I would have provided them to you as well.

Thanks for the offer of resources.

If I need either food or gold I "borrow" what I need from random popcenters.

[Lord Thanatos]

Don't you dare defend the damn BL. He knew when he attacked me that he was becoming my fourth opponent. When he reconned PI he saw at least 4 gnomes, 4 red dragons, and 4 trolls in my dungeon. I completely ignored his presence because I knew you and he always work together and you and I had an agreement not to attack each other.

AFTER he became my fourth opponent is when he first got his enemies. I made peace with the GN and RD so they could defend Runnimede against the BL and EL invasion. He only got the AN as an enemy because he joined with the TR.

Some of your information is wrong. My first contact with the BL was an in-game message on turn 16. Since then, we have had very limited contact, mostly through the in-game message system. I'm not sure when BL "joined with the TR", but I sure wish someone would have told me about it.

Regarding someone "becoming (your) fourth opponent," I feel like there is a distinct difference between three or four kingdoms attacking you, and you launching attacks on other kingdoms. I'm not sure of the nature of your conflicts with the Gnomes and Red Dragons, but in my case it was an unprovoked and quite devastating attack with no immediate downside risk for you due to your staging grounds being Avalon and villages in the Sea of Foreboding.

I certainly don't begrudge you (or anyone else) the right to attack me unprovoked or with a strong strategic advantage, but to attack me and then use me as a rationale why someone should have the courtesy of not attacking you seems a bit peculiar.

I have lost two or three capitals to your timely assaults and each one of them were followed by losing my subsequent capitals to the BL. If you weren't working together, the coincedence has been equivalent to the best coordinated team I have ever seen.

I attacked the TR without provocation, that is true. [AN was my ally, but he missed about 4 consecutive turns having a baby. Understandable, but such is life.]

I attacked the RD without provocation, that is true. [DW and I reached an agreement wherein I would attack RD popcenters outside of region 3 in exchange for something I valued. RD took offense to this, of course.]

I attacked the GN without provocation, that is true. [He desired an agreement with the RD more than with the UN and offended my delicate sensibilities when he refused to allow me popcenters in Runnimede.]

TR had no enemies when I attacked him!

RD had one enemy when I attacked him.

GN had no enemies when I attacked him!

I definitely brought about all my enemies and earned their enmity; I concede this.

I am in the full number of games allowed by Imperator service level and have definitely created my share of enemies. But I have never attacked anyone when I believe he already has multiple enemies! There are just way too many other options available - including assisting the outnumbered player! I guarantee that if I believed you were fighting with multiple opponents I would be FAR more likely to assist you than to join in the beating. While I "may" someday become a third enemy, I can't imagine any circumstances that would lure me to becoming the fourth opponent of any player.

Also, you and I almost reached an agreement to cease hostilities, as did the GN and I. The RD and I never really had much to offer each other until the BL attack. I will always negotiate, whether ultimately successful or not.

Does this help clarify my personal outlook?

[paway]

I have lost two or three capitals to your timely assaults and each one of them were followed by losing my subsequent capitals to the BL. If you weren't working together, the coincedence has been equivalent to the best coordinated team I have ever seen.

I attacked the TR without provocation, that is true. [AN was my ally, but he missed about 4 consecutive turns having a baby. Understandable, but such is life.]

...

Does this help clarify my personal outlook?

The BL and I have certainly shared information on the location of your PCs since turn 16, but almost entirely through in-game messaging, so most intelligence has been a turn old. I was just disputing your contention that we had "joined together" early on, or at all, thus earning the AN's enmity.

When you steal a Troll's Crown of Anzu, then steal a Troll's king, you get what's coming to you. My only regret is that your king escaped both times I sacked your capital!

I understand your personal outlook, and I share your dislike for multiple kingdoms ganging up on a single one. I witnessed it in my 103 game and I wish I had come to the defense of the Dark Elves instead of steadfastly maintaining my neutrality. Next time, I will.

That all said, I think its a bit absurd to think that launching unprovoked attacks on three kingdoms immunizes you from attacks from other kingdoms. You attacking three kingdoms and three kingdoms attacking you are entirely different matters. And even if they were one in the same, it is unrealistic to expect other players to follow your own personal code of conduct.