[Dominions 6] 2 Grogs 2 Furious (IN PROGRESS)

[Tanaka]

For some inscrutable reason, I am being attacked from a corner position before turn 20 for the second game in a row.  This time by Pyrene.

Corner wars are obnoxious and many players view them as griefing, myself included.  In case the reason for that isn't obvious: neither side that wins can reasonably hold the territory for most nations.

I don't think I can convince the lobby to leave me alone if I go kill Pyrene.  That said, I also don't appreciate moves that amount to griefing, regardless of their intentions.  Realistically, Pyrene's poor expansion should have put a target on them by now, to the extent that attacking me wouldn't be on their radar.  Since that hasn't happened, I will make an offer.  I will NAP anybody willing to take this conduct out of the game until Pyrene is gone, and am willing to commit to attacking anybody who backstabs the player attacking Pyrene if possible.

That way, winning a war means actually winning it and we can untangle the nonsense a bit.  I do want my province back, though.

What is a corner war? What is griefing? I decided to keep expanding because of just that. Bad expansion. I have so few provinces I have to expand or die. You were my best path. Don't take it personally it's just a game this was my best option and I decided to take a risk. Nothing to do with the last game or any other games. None of us were the reason Ulm attacked you last game. I'm just having fun playing a game. I'm sure you will have no problem killing me as always haha.

[al_infierno]

Corner war, I believe, refers to attacking someone so far away from you that you can't reasonably hold their territory.  I.e. attacking someone in an opposite corner.  I'm pretty sure TMIT is referring to me attacking them in the last game, not Ulm.

Griefing refers to the online practice of intentionally causing grief to other players.  Common example would be Team Killing in a competitive FPS when one gets frustrated by their teammates.

"Expanding" into other players turf is an odd strat, to say the least.  Don't you still have underground real estate you could claim?  :P

[TheMeInTeam]

For some inscrutable reason, I am being attacked from a corner position before turn 20 for the second game in a row.  This time by Pyrene.

Corner wars are obnoxious and many players view them as griefing, myself included.  In case the reason for that isn't obvious: neither side that wins can reasonably hold the territory for most nations.

I don't think I can convince the lobby to leave me alone if I go kill Pyrene.  That said, I also don't appreciate moves that amount to griefing, regardless of their intentions.  Realistically, Pyrene's poor expansion should have put a target on them by now, to the extent that attacking me wouldn't be on their radar.  Since that hasn't happened, I will make an offer.  I will NAP anybody willing to take this conduct out of the game until Pyrene is gone, and am willing to commit to attacking anybody who backstabs the player attacking Pyrene if possible.

That way, winning a war means actually winning it and we can untangle the nonsense a bit.  I do want my province back, though.

What is a corner war? What is griefing? I decided to keep expanding because of just that. Bad expansion. I have so few provinces I have to expand or die. You were my best path. Don't take it personally it's just a game this was my best option and I decided to take a risk. Nothing to do with the last game or any other games. None of us were the reason Ulm attacked you last game. I'm just having fun playing a game. I'm sure you will have no problem killing me as always haha.

The reason I'm complaining is precisely that I'm not your "best path", and can't be in this game state.  There is a 1 province corridor between us, before you also attacked Arco.  Anybody who wins such a conflict would not be able to reinforce what they just took.

If you took the game state before you attacked me, posted it on multiple discord channels, and asked players to rank which nations would be reasonable for you to attack or be attacked by, I will bet money that I'm not in top 2 among their choices on average *for either side* to start the war.

Many players would also consider a fight between nations positioned like this to be obviously detrimental, to the point of questioning the motives of players doing such a war/whether they're trying to win the game vs just harming a particular nation.  This is why I'm calling it griefing.  If you lose, you lose.  If you win, you still lose.  But you chose it anyway, and as a consequence it hurts my position as well.  Obviously I don't like that : . 

I get that it's probably not in bad faith, but it's such an odd choice that it looks like it's in bad faith.  This is very similar to how you and Agartha both ended NAP with me in the last game, then claimed you didn't necessarily want to fight right away.  When I mentioned that to Lucid, the first thing that came to mind for him was that it was deception and you were definitely planning an attack.  That's what ending NAP de facto means.  I understand now that both you and Agartha probably didn't see it that way...but in not seeing it that way, you misunderstand how the game works.

The most obvious explanation for my observations was that you were trying to vulture a province off me that would be harder to defend than most of my others as part of some coordinated strike from Arco.  But then a) Arco didn't attack me and b) you attacked Arco too, which is some pants on head stuff lol.

[Tanaka]

Corner war, I believe, refers to attacking someone so far away from you that you can't reasonably hold their territory.  I.e. attacking someone in an opposite corner.  I'm pretty sure TMIT is referring to me attacking them in the last game, not Ulm.

Griefing refers to the online practice of intentionally causing grief to other players.  Common example would be Team Killing in a competitive FPS when one gets frustrated by their teammates.

"Expanding" into other players turf is an odd strat, to say the least.  Don't you still have underground real estate you could claim?  :P

Ah thanks for the explanations. I think you guys can see that in suiciding risk against two players I am definitely not griefing one. Underground is pretty much finished.

[Tanaka]

For some inscrutable reason, I am being attacked from a corner position before turn 20 for the second game in a row.  This time by Pyrene.

Corner wars are obnoxious and many players view them as griefing, myself included.  In case the reason for that isn't obvious: neither side that wins can reasonably hold the territory for most nations.

I don't think I can convince the lobby to leave me alone if I go kill Pyrene.  That said, I also don't appreciate moves that amount to griefing, regardless of their intentions.  Realistically, Pyrene's poor expansion should have put a target on them by now, to the extent that attacking me wouldn't be on their radar.  Since that hasn't happened, I will make an offer.  I will NAP anybody willing to take this conduct out of the game until Pyrene is gone, and am willing to commit to attacking anybody who backstabs the player attacking Pyrene if possible.

That way, winning a war means actually winning it and we can untangle the nonsense a bit.  I do want my province back, though.

What is a corner war? What is griefing? I decided to keep expanding because of just that. Bad expansion. I have so few provinces I have to expand or die. You were my best path. Don't take it personally it's just a game this was my best option and I decided to take a risk. Nothing to do with the last game or any other games. None of us were the reason Ulm attacked you last game. I'm just having fun playing a game. I'm sure you will have no problem killing me as always haha.

The reason I'm complaining is precisely that I'm not your "best path", and can't be in this game state.  There is a 1 province corridor between us, before you also attacked Arco.  Anybody who wins such a conflict would not be able to reinforce what they just took.

If you took the game state before you attacked me, posted it on multiple discord channels, and asked players to rank which nations would be reasonable for you to attack or be attacked by, I will bet money that I'm not in top 2 among their choices on average *for either side* to start the war.

Many players would also consider a fight between nations positioned like this to be obviously detrimental, to the point of questioning the motives of players doing such a war/whether they're trying to win the game vs just harming a particular nation.  This is why I'm calling it griefing.  If you lose, you lose.  If you win, you still lose.  But you chose it anyway, and as a consequence it hurts my position as well.  Obviously I don't like that : . 

I get that it's probably not in bad faith, but it's such an odd choice that it looks like it's in bad faith.  This is very similar to how you and Agartha both ended NAP with me in the last game, then claimed you didn't necessarily want to fight right away.  When I mentioned that to Lucid, the first thing that came to mind for him was that it was deception and you were definitely planning an attack.  That's what ending NAP de facto means.  I understand now that both you and Agartha probably didn't see it that way...but in not seeing it that way, you misunderstand how the game works.

The most obvious explanation for my observations was that you were trying to vulture a province off me that would be harder to defend than most of my others as part of some coordinated strike from Arco.  But then a) Arco didn't attack me and b) you attacked Arco too, which is some pants on head stuff lol.

I think you think I am a logical player which I am not. I play risky and unpredictable. Just my playstyle and personality. More for fun than winning. If you are looking to analyze my every move I am the wrong guy for that because you will not be able to.

It is deception to end a NAP? I did not claim anything but you did attack me first afterwards. I also had no idea what Agartha was doing until they ended NAP and then decided to quit. Interesting that you talked to Lucid about our game haha.

[TheMeInTeam]

It might help to work backwards.  Why do you think players make non-aggression pacts?  What purpose does this achieve in a game?

Ending NAP and then saying "you attacked me first" is an oxymoron...basically the same thing as declaring war and then saying the other nation attacked you.  Ending NAP comes with considerations/requirements attached that are inherently hostile.  It's that part where both me in the moment and Lucid when I mentioned it on his comments concluded it was deceptive.

[Myrmidon]

For some inscrutable reason, I am being attacked from a corner position before turn 20 for the second game in a row.  This time by Pyrene.

Corner wars are obnoxious and many players view them as griefing, myself included.  In case the reason for that isn't obvious: neither side that wins can reasonably hold the territory for most nations.

I don't think I can convince the lobby to leave me alone if I go kill Pyrene.  That said, I also don't appreciate moves that amount to griefing, regardless of their intentions.  Realistically, Pyrene's poor expansion should have put a target on them by now, to the extent that attacking me wouldn't be on their radar.  Since that hasn't happened, I will make an offer.  I will NAP anybody willing to take this conduct out of the game until Pyrene is gone, and am willing to commit to attacking anybody who backstabs the player attacking Pyrene if possible.

That way, winning a war means actually winning it and we can untangle the nonsense a bit.  I do want my province back, though.

What is a corner war? What is griefing? I decided to keep expanding because of just that. Bad expansion. I have so few provinces I have to expand or die. You were my best path. Don't take it personally it's just a game this was my best option and I decided to take a risk. Nothing to do with the last game or any other games. None of us were the reason Ulm attacked you last game. I'm just having fun playing a game. I'm sure you will have no problem killing me as always haha.

The reason I'm complaining is precisely that I'm not your "best path", and can't be in this game state.  There is a 1 province corridor between us, before you also attacked Arco.  Anybody who wins such a conflict would not be able to reinforce what they just took.

If you took the game state before you attacked me, posted it on multiple discord channels, and asked players to rank which nations would be reasonable for you to attack or be attacked by, I will bet money that I'm not in top 2 among their choices on average *for either side* to start the war.

Many players would also consider a fight between nations positioned like this to be obviously detrimental, to the point of questioning the motives of players doing such a war/whether they're trying to win the game vs just harming a particular nation.  This is why I'm calling it griefing.  If you lose, you lose.  If you win, you still lose.  But you chose it anyway, and as a consequence it hurts my position as well.  Obviously I don't like that : . 

I get that it's probably not in bad faith, but it's such an odd choice that it looks like it's in bad faith.  This is very similar to how you and Agartha both ended NAP with me in the last game, then claimed you didn't necessarily want to fight right away.  When I mentioned that to Lucid, the first thing that came to mind for him was that it was deception and you were definitely planning an attack.  That's what ending NAP de facto means.  I understand now that both you and Agartha probably didn't see it that way...but in not seeing it that way, you misunderstand how the game works.

The most obvious explanation for my observations was that you were trying to vulture a province off me that would be harder to defend than most of my others as part of some coordinated strike from Arco.  But then a) Arco didn't attack me and b) you attacked Arco too, which is some pants on head stuff lol.

It occurred to me that after the Pyrene incident with you, me having a bunch of troops on the border looked bad.    I had lost a fort in another game on the last turn of it's construction to an indy attack, and absolutely didn't want that happening in this game, so I just garrisoned the province to make sure it didn't happen again, and probably ended up sending the wrong message.

Then Pyrene just decided to up and steal one of my provinces.  I won't complain though, I'm just gonna go kick his ass. 

[Tanaka]

It might help to work backwards.  Why do you think players make non-aggression pacts?  What purpose does this achieve in a game?

Ending NAP and then saying "you attacked me first" is an oxymoron...basically the same thing as declaring war and then saying the other nation attacked you.  Ending NAP comes with considerations/requirements attached that are inherently hostile.  It's that part where both me in the moment and Lucid when I mentioned it on his comments concluded it was deceptive.

Again you are trying to apply logic to me. I am not logical. I am the opposite of Commander Spock. More like Captain Kirk haha. I am much more likely to go down in flames!

[Tanaka]

This has been a fun fight guys! Now the question is what happens to my two enemies as they bear down on my cap? Do they share my territory or fight to the death? And what happens as Man and Marignon sleep? Will they awaken? Stay tuned for more!

[TheMeInTeam]

I'm getting less out of the war despite killing your god, but that's what you chose in making these attacks.  It's better than getting nothing for me, but still not a great transition of game state.  Helps Arco a lot, me a little.  Maybe if you still had the stuff you sac'd to hold one of my provinces for a few turns, you could put up a fight (would be hard vs what Arco is sending your way though).  As it stands now, you're helpless, and the correct move for Mari is to just vulture whatever is possible :p.

[Tanaka]

I'm getting less out of the war despite killing your god, but that's what you chose in making these attacks.  It's better than getting nothing for me, but still not a great transition of game state.  Helps Arco a lot, me a little.  Maybe if you still had the stuff you sac'd to hold one of my provinces for a few turns, you could put up a fight (would be hard vs what Arco is sending your way though).  As it stands now, you're helpless, and the correct move for Mari is to just vulture whatever is possible :p.

Since I am helping Arco a lot you should probably attack him now. We can call a ceasefire and go against Arco and Marignon together! 

[TheMeInTeam]

Fighting Mari is borderline impossible from my position, and it looks like the Man attack on Arco shifts the gains from your land to Mari.

There will be no cease fire, though.  You de facto lost the game when you lost your god + 19 sacreds alongside that PD dump.  In a different world, we'd have been natural allies in this game since two of your actually-viable opponents were also potential targets for me.  Given your conduct though, it's better if you're off the board in this one :p.

Other than one more province to raid there's not much left for me to take from you.

[Tanaka]

Good game all! Good luck in the carnage to come!

[al_infierno]

Hope you'll join us again in the next one!

[al_infierno]

Good game all! Good luck in the carnage to come!

Carnage indeed!  I finally got into my first big scuffle with Myrmidon.  He whooped my ass, but it was an awesome battle to watch!