20 Apr 06
Originally posted by no1marauderDid you purposely leave out the marines?
A predictable response from a treacherous liar. Was your and the Algerian's fleet equal to the Ottomans and Naples in the Turn 9 turnfile?
EDiT: Algeria: Gulf of Azrew 3 Corsairs, 1 Transport, 5 Gun Galleys, 3 War dhows CS: 722 HP: 19
Gulf of Tunis: 9 War Dhows, 6 Transports, 11 Gun Galleys CS: 1812 HP: 57
Tunis: 5 War Dhows CS: ...[text shortened]... rity" of your enemies you speak of? They obviously have it now due solely to your treachery.
20 Apr 06
2 edits
Originally posted by HalitoseYour "military advisors" are poor planners. Your forces in Grenada could have swept the Naples and Ottoman forces from Western North Africa with ease; the Russians even provided an army to assist you. Still you refused to act.
My military advisors don't take such a simplistic approach to our military planning. It takes nothing to load a marine on a ship.
Russia went to war with the Ottomans this turn; France wanted United Germany and Sweden to start conducting operations next turn. When was the turn scheduled for France and Spain to actually do something against these potential enemies ("something" meaning engaging them in battle)? I never got an answer. I know why.
The Algerians alone inflicted heavy losses on the Neapolitian fleet. Sooner or later you'd have to face that fleet anyway; why not when you were in a position of equality with a willing ally? Perhaps you are simply cowardly rather than treacherous. Still, this is not a desirable trait in an ally of the Alliance.
20 Apr 06
Originally posted by no1marauderPerhaps you are simply cowardly rather than treacherous. Still, this is not a desirable trait in an ally of the Alliance.
Your "military advisors" are poor planners. Your forces in Grenada could have swept the Naples and Ottoman forces from Western North Africa with ease; the Russians even provided an army to assist you. Still you refused to act.
Russia went to war with the Ottomans this turn; France wanted United Germany and Sweden to start conducting operations ne ...[text shortened]... y rather than treacherous. Still, this is not a desirable trait in an ally of the Alliance.
I paraphrase the great Tzu again: Fight only battle that you are certain of winning.
My army in Granada was +-500 CS 16HP compared to the 630 CS 22HP Neapolitan army in North Africa (not to mention them being in a level 8 fortress). Such an assault would have been little more than waves crashing against a pier.
20 Apr 06
Originally posted by no1marauderYes. But allowing a fleet past an undefended fortification is extremely suspicious. Is this the same Tsar who at the same time said he had only a few brief conversations with you, but nothing further? The same Tsar who then messed around in my territories doing nothing but build forces, then cancelled alliance and attacked me? The same Tsar who saw his butt in Buda? Ah well, it's all part of the game, but I think I can figure out who the conductor of the orchestra may be.
The Russian fleet was never in anything but an inferior position to the combined forces of the Alliance. I had no reason to think he would turn on us with such a small, isolated fleet while we had heavy naval superiority. I have only good relations with the Tsar, maybe I'll even help him out a bit in dismembering ya.
20 Apr 06
Originally posted by AThousandYoungKudos. How about raizing the red-light district? 😛
In their last gesture of defiance, the English troops have smashed what they know is Napoleon's greatest prize: the London harbor, the only harbor in the world with the capacity and knowhow to build the famous English Victory ships (I think).
20 Apr 06
Originally posted by HalitoseI was talking last turn, Hal.
[b]Perhaps you are simply cowardly rather than treacherous. Still, this is not a desirable trait in an ally of the Alliance.
I paraphrase the great Tzu again: Fight only battle that you are certain of winning.
My army in Granada was +-500 CS 16HP compared to the 630 CS 22HP Neapolitan army in North Africa (not to mention them being in a level 8 fortress). Such an assault would have been little more than waves crashing against a pier.[/b]
20 Apr 06
1 edit
Originally posted by buffalobill(Shrug) Our conversations have been rather brief, but we have been allied since early on and divided Poland in an agreeable manner. You don't seem to have had a problem with Prussia and Russia being on friendly terms when it enabled the Russians to join you in attacking Austria. But for some reason, it's a big deal now. Curious.
Yes. But allowing a fleet past an undefended fortification is extremely suspicious. Is this the same Tsar who at the same time said he had only a few brief conversations with you, but nothing further? The same Tsar who then messed around in my territories doing nothing but build forces, then cancelled alliance and attacked me? The same Tsar who saw his b s all part of the game, but I think I can figure out who the conductor of the orchestra may be.
20 Apr 06
Originally posted by AThousandYoungExcellent work. London is now strongly defended and the interior of France is threatened. Perhaps England can escape defeat after all.
In their last gesture of defiance, the English troops have smashed what they know is Napoleon's greatest prize: the London harbor, the only harbor in the world with the capacity and knowhow to build the famous English Victory ships (I think).
20 Apr 06
Originally posted by no1marauderIt all depends where the relative strengths could be concentrated. Naples and the Ottomans were guessing and decided correctly, focusing on Algeria's weakest point. The fact we got it right has nothing to do with Spain. Algeria immediately stopped playing the game. Algeria's fall has everything to do with Algeria. The way we played, Algeria could have loaded up a bunch of troops, skipped past me and landed anywhere in my backlines, possibly in Greece or Egypt. But, he didn't.
A predictable response from a treacherous liar. Was your and the Algerian's fleet equal to the Ottomans and Naples in the Turn 9 turnfile?
EDiT: Algeria: Gulf of Azrew 3 Corsairs, 1 Transport, 5 Gun Galleys, 3 War dhows CS: 722 HP: 19
Gulf of Tunis: 9 War Dhows, 6 Transports, 11 Gun Galleys CS: 1812 HP: 57
Tunis: 5 War Dhows CS: ...[text shortened]... rity" of your enemies you speak of? They obviously have it now due solely to your treachery.
Spain was not involved and stop insulting him.
20 Apr 06
Originally posted by no1marauderNaples was well advised on the terms of our peace agreement -- it was contingent on them being at peace with France. Anyways, my honesty is probably bringing more harm than good to Spain's current diplomatic position, so I'll cut it there for now.
And an alliance? When were you and the French planning to conduct combat operations against Naples and the Ottomans?