Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Mind-bogglingly popular game series that you follow from early on and cannot stop, waiting for new installment like a drooling addict.

Long-runner soap opera you're too invested into to just stop watching it.

A fun little comic strip in the daily newspaper that's been around forever.

3/6

Who said it's fun? I didn't for sure.

I'm just waiting here for it to die horribly already so it will stop showing on my Unread Posts list.

[Haspen]

Somewhere past 6k mark, split in three parts.

[Criptfeind]

C

[Prophet]

C

[Harry Baldman]

C, nothing makes people surrender faster than the destruction of an opposing army!

[Iituem]

C, let's not fall victim to Lanchester's Laws.

[helmacon]

A

[Kashyyk]

A

[omada]

A I think that if we cover that place with troops they will ignore it and aim for the weaker troops. if our horses can make their numbers smaller without putting themselves in a great/stupid risk we should do it

[mightymushroom]

Well, I thought I was venting in a light-hearted manner, but perhaps it didn't translate well over the internet.

Spoiler: rebuttal (click to show/hide)

4*

Let me expand that asterisk:

6-2 due to Breaking Truce

That the treaty was null because of change in administration is wrong. To repeat the assertion is a big fat lie. Please stop.

That it was made under pressure I don't contest; although there is the problem that it is Cyl's signature that history records regardless of fairness. Which is why we were one pip of the die away from another army rebellion.

I never meant to claim that there are no reasons to go to war, including unilateral expansion. My vote for "Not today" very much left open the possibility of "Tomorrow." I am frustrated and bewildered that nobody has yet offered any policy reason that we couldn't wait for the truce to expire, preserving our reputation in the process. Instead of game analysis, what I read sounds, to me, like wishful thinking that the mechanics must be mistaken because Cyl is self-justified.

A number of my ideas about running SPAMKINGDOM have been misguided before; and I admit to being a worrywart at times. This one betrayal may cost us little or nothing, depending on how we roll. I agree that expansion keeps us strong. I tried to put that vote behind me. But I found myself unable to write a simple response without diverting onto this tangent, so I have to speak out. My resentment could be (it quite probably is) unfair to you who may be easily mischaracterized due to the medium. I apologize for any misplaced emotion; still, I do not comprehend just how you reached your position.

If we want to expand, well, that's the vote. But why the insistence that we are perfectly righteous in doing so? Why not just be opportunists?

Spoiler: musings (click to show/hide)

It was also asserted by the hawks that because the commoners think Ansbach is anti-Gubta, he wouldn't hire them. I wonder if that holds up as well as the treaty one? Because if I were a monarch who had the means to keep a standing contract for a super army, and I were just invaded unannounced from a quarter I thought safe, would I hold to principle or make the deal?

And if I have a Lakemetal Tunic that is safe from all but the strongest blows, what could worry me? Other than you, know, oliphaunts are pretty big hitters. Funny how nobody this time around mentioned that it's mechanically sound to leave the monarch home. (My own vote to go was explicitly with the intent of leading Cyl into the consequences of his decision.)

If we do take Ceodwell to its far border, won't the Gubta be SO HAPPY to greet their new neighbors with open arms? I recall they had a hand in that document, too.

Is it just me or are the turns going faster? I hardly have time to think of this stuff lately, much less type it out in a cogent fashion, before Haspen's changed the question.

Just to prove (to myself, at the very least) that I can get over my grumbling:

C
I nearly voted A, but the cavalry will probably be outnumbered and without our Fireblood advantage. B is probably even odds – our siegers will have Fireblood but be somewhat outnumbered – and we'd rather fight with both our strengths when we can.

[Puppyguard]

C

[Maximum Spin]

That the treaty was null because of change in administration is wrong. To repeat the assertion is a big fat lie. Please stop.

It's not a "big fat lie", it's a point of subjectivity. Read the words after that roll: the question was whether the Army would support the decision. We can imagine that some of them felt that the treaty was void due to the rebellion in Ceodwell and an apparently smaller faction disagreed; ultimately, the faction supporting the decision won the debate, so, as far as history is concerned, the treaty really was void. With a lower roll, it might not have been, but that's how these things always go.

(My own vote to go was explicitly with the intent of leading Cyl into the consequences of his decision.)

Am I the only one who finds this kind of attitude utterly staggering? I mean, I was on the Luath side in the civil war, and Cyl won because the GM made a mistake of all reasons, but now that Cyl's the king I'm 100% behind him. What is even the point of playing like that? I mean, you know he's not a real person and therefore cannot "learn from his mistakes" or whatever, right? So it is just to try to stop other people from having their fun?

[mightymushroom]

On the treaty being void we will have to agree to disagree. I cannot accept that there would be any roll at all if it had no binding effect; that we successfully pushed past the resistance does not retroactively negate its force.

Am I the only one who finds this kind of attitude utterly staggering? . . . What is even the point of playing like that? I mean, you know he's not a real person and therefore cannot "learn from his mistakes" or whatever, right?

I am sorry to have staggered you. I held back at least one post in the same vein precisely because I feared drawing out a fight over a settled vote. As I explained, my emotions got the better of me there. It was either let loose or quit playing a game I enjoy.

(Oh yes, yes. I, in turn, would fully support Luath if the case were reversed.)

I would like to reassure you, if I can, that I am not in any sense playing to lose. I am trying to balance the needs of the kingdom against a role play of both the man whom I read Cyl to be as a result of his known actions and of the man I wish him to be. In this case, I would not wish him to be a man who orders such a war without fighting it himself, and this is consistent with his recent history against the Hurthlings earning the title Conqueror. I know it is not reasonable on my part to expect a multiplayer community to be of the same consensus all the time. Now the die is cast, the border is crossed, and the best thing for all is to win as expeditiously as possible. To that end I am attempting to throw my best support.

[Maximum Spin]

I would like to reassure you, if I can, that I am not in any sense playing to lose.

Ah, it sounded like you were, and I know I've seen other people claim as much before. If you aren't, then that's another thing entirely, and doesn't bother me at all. That Cyl the Conqueror ought to lead his own campaign, I obviously agree.

[Twinwolf]

To be fair, we've gotten a certain gift from the elves that makes leading personally much less likely to end in our demise.

[Baffler]

Well if past experience is any indicator, it's the horse we need to watch out for rather than enemy action.