Ancients Founder Ghosts

DeletedUser7813

Guest
I meant all alliances will face a crisis of some kind or another. Just the way it goes.

And thanks for modifying my quote to fit your needs.
 

HomeGod

Artisan
I meant all alliances will face a crisis of some kind or another. Just the way it goes.

And thanks for modifying my quote to fit your needs.
You ever grow tired of looking a bloody fool? Because I promise ya, we aren't done laughing if you want to keep it coming
 

tbwolf

Artisan
Wolf, I had your back with the whole NAP thing. But this is just LOL-worthy. The unnamed leader did behave strangely, when it was apparent that the NAP was in the books and done. But you know... When I got upset, I didn't ghost.

And you k ow what happened? In the hours since then, I learned the whole story. I learned that the diplomat overstepped his authority inviting an enemy alliance leader into chat. I learned that very every NAP we had, had been agreed upon with a council vote... Not just the diplomat setting it up.

I learned that there were very good reasons for not going with the NAP, even while there were compelling reasons to go for it.

I also learned that leadership earned its first mark of stability by maneuvering through its first crisis. All alliances will have them. How they recover, is important.

And I learned all of this because I didn't ghost.
If the diplomat didn't have the authority to do it, it shouldn't have been done in the first place.

It's not the fact that the NAP didn't happen that bugged me, it's that the details were hashed out and agreed upon by the enemy leaders.

I couldn't care less if we NAP'd with them-- if you remember, I was literally the one leading an op against Mole Man at the time. However, to agree upon an NAP and then break your word due to internal leadership conflicts, no matter whose fault it is, is pretty ridiculous.

If the diplomat can't be trusted to actually carry out diplomatic actions, then what's the point of having them? I'd rather just have 1-2 dictatorial leaders that make every important decision if that's the case-- at least then, stuff like that wouldn't happen.

Thank you for letting us know tbwolf.

I will say i'm not a alliance jumper... However if a saw a NAP that big i'd be gone ASAP. As for your respect/honor your pure aptitude of holding to your own beliefs has my respect.

As for the Rest of those outside of Mortis... See you soon.
Yeah, well not all of us can come into the world with a premade that has decent diplomatic policies(aka no diplomacy). I was always the biggest voice against any and all NAPs or pacts in SW tbh, but Name Changers was a small alliance that I could see value in past just taking their cities like we were doing to the other alliances.

That said, I do prefer zero diplomacy policies in general, they're a lot more fun, but alliances that I find randomly when I start worlds never have those, unfortunately.
 

Lord Fauntleroy

Guest
Not all alliances Mortis doesn't have naps or pacts :)
They do have a full pre-made and a sister alliance though (82 players in a 50 cap world) so other alliances will look for effective relationships to counter that. Some consider a sister alliance a pact.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not dissing Mortis (only know say 10 players) this approach brings certainty and looking at intel others have done it (may not have declared it as openly) and brought more players.

I tried a no nap/pact fight everyone - but we will leave the true killler of worlds discussion (mass coalitions) to another day ;)
 
Blame Inno clinging to alliance caps despite them being easily abused and obsolete for us having another branch. If anyone wants to consider it diplomacy, fine cling to that. We'll either stand or fall on our own merits with no help from others either way.
 
Last edited:

Lord Fauntleroy

Guest
Blame Inno clinging to alliance caps despite them being easily abused and obsolete for us having another branch. If anyone wants to consider it diplomacy, fine cling to that. We'll either stand or fall on our own merits with no help from others either way.
Actually I think the no pacts/naps with a sister is fine. We have all seen the model from EN which ended alliance caps, changing the end game to only one crown winner is the best answer I have heard about that may end the problems. Ending vm on wonder islands and delaying the period players moving into the main can pump resources just scratches at the main issues.

One sister alliance means you will have a full alliance when the wonder age kicks in if it is managed well - and with your current numbers that seems to be the case (RL can hit anyone so having a reserve you can trust makes sense - far prefer that to just pacting with 1/2 the world).
 

DeletedUser15615

Guest
Can't really tell you because I was out but when I find out you still wont know because you are a fake. But you keep bringing up how many cities we lost but really how many gold coins did it cost you to get the five cities. Lets see you guys win without the gold, OOOps cant do it can you.
 

DeletedUser15615

Guest
Really because all of my players are good players but you wouldnt know that because, oh yeah you are a liar.
 

Athanasios

Hoplite
Really because all of my players are good players but you wouldnt know that because, oh yeah you are a liar.
If this is true, why did you need to ask for mercy on your main city? Wouldn't good players be able to support you, or at least produce some amazingly timed CS snipes?
 
Really because all of my players are good players but you wouldnt know that because, oh yeah you are a liar.
Your players fed me 30k+ ABP in a day. Of course someone who Sea Storms a griff nuke, doesn't dodge, then loses their LS, and finally begs to keep their city really shouldn't be taken seriously when talking about who is good or not.