Napoleonic Empires: Game Thread

Originally posted by no1marauder
All of France and most of Spain is now in Prussian and Swedish hands. Spain and Naples have managed to wrest a few provinces from us in what used to be Bavarian territory, but their forces there are now outnumbered and will soon be surrounded. The French fleet is bottled up in London and soon Italy itself will be threatened from both the east and west.
...[text shortened]... main forces well away from Prussian territory. So, it's hard to say what would have happened.

I was fully prepared to join you in a proposed coalition against Naples and the Ottomans. But you chose to attack me, which thrust me into an alliance with them instead.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I think you're full of it. When supposedly did you ally with France? I bet after I had made it clear to Napoleon that I had no intention of going to war with Naples unless France and Spain took steps to move in the Med and not merely leave large forces at my back in the Atlantic. You never even spoke to me diplomatically in the game until it was clear I ...[text shortened]... uld undoubtedly be over by now and you would have almost certainly been in a winning coalition.

As soon as you tore your way through Bavaria I sought a mutual protection pact with France. Not long afterwards you approached me to hit France, but I had given my word by that stage and was not going to just forget prior agreements. You made the error of not approaching me sooner.

Originally posted by rwingett
Nobody is going to throw themselves to the dogs to help an "ally" who is clearly on his way out. It would be folly to do so. You seem to carry around a very unrealistic idea as to what alliances actually convey in this game.

There are non-aggression alliances and there are real alliances in which people actually work to help one another out. In the latter case, I am a very loyal guy. Coordinated groups of competent people who trust one another ALWAYS beat scheming scumbags in this sort of game, if such alliances exist. I've seen it time and time again; I've LOST to it time and time again in other games. I gave up on being a scheming, selfish prick, because it never worked in free for all games before for me. Apparently, it's never worked for you either, as you've yet to win one of these games. Apparently no one trusts you enough to work with you long enough to let you win the game. I may be mistaken, but in the MD game in which you were France, didn't you get attacked and had your victory chances ruined by a group which went on to win with only three nations in it?

EDIT - Yep; it's game mgf. They probably COULD have included you in the victory, but for some reason they did not. Anyone who has seen Rob play one of these games - any ideas about why they might not have wanted to be nice to Rob?

I understand others play differently. However, when I suffer because of it, I like to fight down to the last man and in this case beyond (as I can still talk on the forum) to bring down not only the people who killed me but even more so those who promised help and then didn't send it.

Maybe you've never seen how brutally effective a good team is in a free for all wargame. In this game, the closest thing to that kind of team is the western alliance; Aquitaine, Castile, Aragon, and Morocco. For most of the game these guys were fairly minor powers, but I wouldn't be surprised if they went on to win the game. The Heathers were an even stronger coalition, but unfortunately Bavaria and Saxony treated their allies like garbage and are now paying for it.

Originally posted by dyl
As soon as you tore your way through Bavaria I sought a mutual protection pact with France. Not long afterwards you approached me to hit France, but I had given my word by that stage and was not going to just forget prior agreements. You made the error of not approaching me sooner.

Doesn't seem like much of an error to me. He's doing just fine without you.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
There are non-aggression alliances and there are real alliances in which people actually work to help one another out. In the latter case, I am a very loyal guy. Coordinated groups of competent people who trust one another ALWAYS beat scheming scumbags in this sort of game, if such alliances exist. I've seen it time and time again; I've LOST to it tim ...[text shortened]...
Maybe you've never seen how brutally effective a good team is in a free for all wargame.

There's nothing wrong with a good team, but when one of the members is clearly defeated you cut your losses and move on. Alliances are temporary arrangements that are instituted because it brings some benefit to both parties. When it is no longer in one party's benefit to maintain the alliance, then the alliance has outlived any usefulness.

You and Naples were clearly never a team. You just wanted him to bail you out of a tight spot. There was clearly no benefit for him to do so. Sure he could have, but what was his incentive, other than trying to save you from almost certain defeat?

In my other MD game where I was France, my other two allies weren't on the up and up over the division of spoils. They always wanted to give me the worst provinces from each campaign. So I dropped out of the alliance. If they had treated me fairly I would have stayed on. I didn't get killed, though. I survived the game and got some points for it.

Originally posted by rwingett
There's nothing wrong with a good team, but when one of the members is clearly defeated you cut your losses and move on. Alliances are temporary arrangements that are instituted because it brings some benefit to both parties. When it is no longer in one party's benefit to maintain the alliance, then the alliance has outlived any usefulness.

You and Napl have stayed on. I didn't get killed, though. I survived the game and got some points for it.

They sound like you.

His incentives were: 1) getting free undefended French land; 2) having England owe him big time; 3) not having England remind everyone what a useless ally he was; 4) getting a strong ally like Prussia on his side.

Originally posted by rwingett
I was fully prepared to join you in a proposed coalition against Naples and the Ottomans. But you chose to attack me, which thrust me into an alliance with them instead.

Since you and Spain refused to take even minor steps for war with Naples, like moving forces to the Med, I didn't believe you. The way you've played in MD had a strong effect as well; you constantly and consistently stabbed your allies in the back if they were weak and/or vulnerable. King David and I moving our forces against Italy while you and Spain had superior forces at our back would have been suicide. And you were allied with Naples, anyway! Your word in these games is absolutely worthless; I figured either way I'd be at war with you and decided to strike first. I was hoping to save some of England and entice Naples into the war on my side with generous offers of spoils in Spain. Unfortunately for England, but quite fortunately for me, your obession with England made you leave your fleet vulnerable to destruction while you supported the last attack on London. And unfortunately for Naples, he picked the wrong side.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Since you and Spain refused to take even minor steps for war with Naples, like moving forces to the Med, I didn't believe you. The way you've played in MD had a strong effect as well; you constantly and consistently stabbed your allies in the back if they were weak and/or vulnerable. King David and I moving our forces against Italy while you and Spain ha supported the last attack on London. And unfortunately for Naples, he picked the wrong side.

Naples, look at how Prussia played to see what I expected from you and what the rewards would have been. And for that matter the Ottomans too. I don't talk about them so much because BBill hasn't been trying to justify his gameplay as being noble and honorable.

Originally posted by rwingett
There's nothing wrong with a good team, but when one of the members is clearly defeated you cut your losses and move on. Alliances are temporary arrangements that are instituted because it brings some benefit to both parties. When it is no longer in one party's benefit to maintain the alliance, then the alliance has outlived any usefulness.

You and Napl ...[text shortened]... have stayed on. I didn't get killed, though. I survived the game and got some points for it.

Well, which is it, Rob? If you were going to go to war with Naples eventually anyway as you claim, surely it would have been to his benefit to strike at your weakly defended lands pre-emptively.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Since you and Spain refused to take even minor steps for war with Naples, like moving forces to the Med, I didn't believe you. The way you've played in MD had a strong effect as well; you constantly and consistently stabbed your allies in the back if they were weak and/or vulnerable. King David and I moving our forces against Italy while you and Spain ha ...[text shortened]... supported the last attack on London. And unfortunately for Naples, he picked the wrong side.

You make the mistake of confusing one game with the other. Khan Ozbeg of the Golden Horde is not Emperor Napoleon of France. My strategy and approach for each game is very different. I've tried very hard not to drag one into the other, either for myself or for other players.

Despite your self-serving refusal to believe it, I was fully prepared to work with you in NE. The Emperor Napoleon never attacked an ally in this game. In fact, my relationship with Spain was very good for the entire game. We worked together quite well against England and each of us gained ample spoils.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Well, which is it, Rob? If you were going to go to war with Naples eventually anyway as you claim, surely it would have been to his benefit to strike at your weakly defended lands pre-emptively.

With 20/20 hindsight perhaps it might have been. But we can never know these things in advance.

Originally posted by rwingett
You make the mistake of confusing one game with the other. Khan Ozbeg of the Golden Horde is not Emperor Napoleon of France. My strategy and approach for each game is very different. I've tried very hard not to drag one into the other, either for myself or for other players.

Despite your self-serving refusal to believe it, I was fully prepared to work w ...[text shortened]... entire game. We worked together quite well against England and each of us gained ample spoils.

Napoleon never had the slightest chance to attack an ally. The moment England fell, Prussia attacked. You've already acknowledged that given the chance you'd have attacked your ally Naples.

Originally posted by rwingett
You make the mistake of confusing one game with the other. Khan Ozbeg of the Golden Horde is not Emperor Napoleon of France. My strategy and approach for each game is very different. I've tried very hard not to drag one into the other, either for myself or for other players.

Despite your self-serving refusal to believe it, I was fully prepared to work w ...[text shortened]... entire game. We worked together quite well against England and each of us gained ample spoils.

Khan Ozbeg and Napoleon ain't playing; you are. And I would have been foolish to believe that you would alter your playing style since it paid off so well in MD.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Napoleon never had the slightest chance to attack an ally. The moment England fell, Prussia attacked. You've already acknowledged that given the chance you'd have attacked your ally Naples.

Naples cancelled their alliance with me first, which greatly angered me. I had to virtually beg them to re-install it. The whole process angered me, so I had vowed to punish them when I finished with you. But circumstances changed, so I never got the chance.

After I had finished your remaining forces off, I had to attack someone. Since I was allied with every nation on the map at that time except for Sweden I would have had to break one of those alliances, now wouldn't I? Spain was a good ally. I thought Prussia was a useful ally. That left Naples who had aroused my wrath. But it's a moot point. The fact remains that I never declared war on a single country until after I was attacked by Prussia/Sweden.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Khan Ozbeg and Napoleon ain't playing; you are. And I would have been foolish to believe that you would alter your playing style since it paid off so well in MD.

You fail to comprehend the very different strategic situations both realms are in. Diplomacy was much more important to France than it was to the Mongols. My alliances were of far greater value to me in NE than they were in MD. Napoleon was not in a position to treat them as cavalierly as the Great Khan did. Each game requires a different approach, as does each realm within each game. Some require a softer touch than others, and I tailor my approach to what the situation requires.