Forum
unknown6096634
Meatbomb wrote
at 2:31 AM, Friday December 15, 2006 EST
In order to help those of honor and principle, I am going to keep track of those who lie and steal in this thread.
Just so you know, if your score in one game is that important to you: you can easily get 1st place, instead of 2nd or 3rd, by turning against me and breaking alliance once our common enemies are vanquished, as I will not counterattack. DISHONORABLE PLAYERS: BE VERY CAREFUL, THESE PEOPLE DO NOT KEEP THEIR WORD 1. Fraser_Park_Boy: would not surrender at end of hostilities, turned upon former allies. 2. Felixycat: would not surrender at end of hostilities, turned upon former allies. |
Meatbomb wrote
at 2:32 AM, Friday December 15, 2006 EST Other players, please help by contributing your own experience with thieves here.
|
Albert Hendriks wrote
at 2:34 AM, Friday December 15, 2006 EST There was a rumour about a girl named Meatbomb and she did something wrong.
|
Felixycat wrote
at 2:51 AM, Friday December 15, 2006 EST I did not have allied relations with that Meatbomb.
|
Vengeance wrote
at 2:59 AM, Friday December 15, 2006 EST Would not SURRENDER?!? That's just silly.
I am a faithful ally and will go to great lengths to damage allies who turn on me, but it is not breaking an alliance to go ahead and finish the game once the enemy is defeated. Save your list for people who actually backstab you. |
Meatbomb wrote
at 4:30 AM, Friday December 15, 2006 EST Well, vengeance, as I see it there is no point going on when only alliance partners are still standing. If I am in 2nd place, rather than fight my ally I will surrender. I would expect the same from others.
I can understand that in tight cases, two allies might be neck and neck. But the case I describe is two midgets, insolently turning against me. |
Pegasus wrote
at 5:39 AM, Friday December 15, 2006 EST Meatbomb, add me to your list in advance. I will do it too when appropriate.
|
totalsoccer wrote
at 8:44 AM, Friday December 15, 2006 EST me too!
|
CNE wrote
at 5:50 PM, Friday December 15, 2006 EST I think that its fair that once all other enemies have been eliminated, that the two alliance players should duke it out and not just auto surrender, unless "finish the game, I'll take 2nd" is mutually agreed on.
Vermont and I allied, rid ourselves of the remaining enemies, and then he had at me. Honestly, if you're second and have at least 7 territories, its worth a shot to try and fight. Sometimes I don't even mind if the 2nd place player doesn't wait until 3rd place is done; it might be to that player's advantage to do so. There have been at least 3 games that I've been in where 2nd & 3rd teamed up to drive back 1st, then started fighting each other, letting the original 1st guy to team up with one of the others, going back and forth until somebody was completely broken and out of the game. Those are entertaining for me, because you never know what is going to happen. |
Lindsay wrote
at 7:28 PM, Friday December 15, 2006 EST Killing one another is the point of the game. All this proves is that you like it when you can gang up on someone else, but you don't like being ganged up on. Boo hoo hoo.
|
Mxt wrote
at 7:50 PM, Friday December 15, 2006 EST Meatbomb, honour and principle lie in the accomplishment of great things through strategy and rigor and not by using a crutch (by which I mean your allies). As Lindsay so eloquently said, there is no honour in ganging up on people. Especially since you have a tendency of declaring your alliances only after all your major rivals are renderred impotent.
|