Conquer Club

yep thats you Marv, just letting everyone know. he'll attack you after suggesting alliances.

haha that sucks. easy fix, don't suggest alliances then.

Hahahah, this is ridiculous!! First, because break alliances is not cheat or abuse. This should be at Flame Wars forum. But see:

2006-05-04 15:56:04 - Marvaddin: Want a pact between Hessen and Rheinland, hairingtons?
2006-05-04 15:57:28 - Marvaddin: Hmm, you will have a problem...
2006-05-04 18:17:18 - hairingtons: marv - i wont attack in rheinland for two turns then (this one and the next) ok?

I suggested a pact. (The problem was yellow player controlling East Germany.) But he suggested a truce for 2 turns only. Now, some elementary Math:

2006-05-04 18:17:28 - hairingtons receives 3 armies for 8 territories
2006-05-04 18:18:32 - hairingtons deployed 3 armies on Dusseldorf
2006-05-04 18:18:53 - hairingtons attacked Koln from Dusseldorf and conquered it from balugianshadow65
2006-05-04 18:20:36 - hairingtons fortified Koln with 3 armies from Mainz
2006-05-04 18:21:03 - hairingtons gets a card

His 1st turn of truce. Now, in my turn I attacked him in Rheinland, no problem with this:

2006-05-05 03:48:02 - Marvaddin receives 4 armies for 12 territories
2006-05-05 03:48:20 - Marvaddin deployed 4 armies on Stuttgart
2006-05-05 03:48:37 - Marvaddin attacked Tubingen from Stuttgart and conquered it from hairingtons
2006-05-05 03:49:42 - Marvaddin fortified Heidelberg with 2 armies from Stuttgart
2006-05-05 03:49:55 - Marvaddin fortified Frankfurt with 4 armies from Stuttgart
2006-05-05 03:50:04 - Marvaddin gets a card

Now, his 2nd turn of truce:

2006-05-05 16:14:09 - hairingtons receives 3 armies for 8 territories
2006-05-05 16:14:30 - hairingtons deployed 3 armies on Koln
2006-05-05 16:15:09 - hairingtons attacked Bonn from Koln and conquered it from balugianshadow65
2006-05-05 16:15:20 - hairingtons attacked Aachen from Koln and conquered it from Angelo
2006-05-05 16:15:40 - hairingtons fortified Mainz with 3 armies from Koln
2006-05-05 16:15:51 - hairingtons gets a card

Done, alliance over. How could I betray him if the alliance is over?
1st of all, I never accepted his suggestion in the chat. As it was different of mine, was it accepted without an answer? But, there are some strange things too.

When I attacked him, his borders were 2 in Hessen, where yellow could attack, and 4 in Mainz, border with me. What this suggest? Should I really wait for his attack? And a attack from yellow? He controls East Germany, but hairingtons did nothing. I believe I would need a 2 turns truce with him, too

But, no problem, Im not offended by this ridiculous post. This player is a surely fool. See what he wrote after cash a set and attack me:

2006-05-06 06:21:55 - hairingtons: you were given the choice between war and dishonour, you chose dishonour and you shall have war.

By the way, if I broke an alliance as he said, werent dishonour and war the same? But hes a fool and couldn realize it.

Its because of things like this I believe a reputation system would not be a good thing. Some fools and lame players can become angry after you defeat them, and use it in the wrong way...

Case closed.

It's a problem with language. He must have thought the truce lasted for two of you turns as well as his. You didn't.

The alliance wasn't really stated all that well.

If I had to go... I'd say Marv's probably right in terms of the wording of the alliance.

Generally the best way to go is to state the round number when it's ok for you to attack each other again, as people have different interpretations for the words "turns" and "rounds" and when each begins etc.

Marv you tail touching cretin, you just gave the answer yourself.

you suggested the truce, i obliged and didnt attack you for 2 turns and then you attacked me on what was your 2nd turn of the pact.

thanks for posting all the info so everyone can see. nobrash.

edit - by the way the thing i wrote to you, is a quote from the man in the picture you brainless gimp. if you dont know who he is then you're a bigger prick than i thought.

ta ta

His 1st turn of truce. Now, in my turn I attacked him in Rheinland, no problem with this:

Wasn't part of the truce not to attack him in Rheinland anyway?

"Wasn't part of the truce not to attack him in Rheinland anyway?"

No, the plans were, I could take Rheinland, and he could take Hessen.


Oh, man, how stupid is this guy...
By pact, I didnt mean truce of 2 turns, did I? So, if I offer a Rheinland - Hessen pact, you can reply "so we have an Africa - South America truce in the other game". Im exagerating, but its the same idea. If your suggestion is a different one, silence is a "yes"? Anyway, since I didnt attack you in the turn I suggested it, it could be part of the truce, too. Two turns of truce to each side.

And I dont understand why you become angry. You had 2 armies in the border, and you leave East Germany to yellow doing nothing. He had 4 in the border, and could deploy 7 just after my turn. You would lose the control of the continent anyway... so, whats the problem? You was fool enough for doing nothing and concentrate in control a continent you couldnt hold. Obviously, you should attack him, or make it easier to me. Ah, I understand, because an expired alliance, I should be as lethargic as you and do nothing while yellow armies are over me...

And I know the pig with the top hat is Winston Churchill, but of course he didnt use this phrase in the same context. I bet it means "when you cowardly accept a dishonour, your enemy will attack you anyway". And you are so fool that dont realize I opted for the war, at least, together with the dishonour, admiting you are right about the broken alliance, what is not true.

i dont see that u broke anything mav.. im on your side on this one

Thanks

Yeah, actually, looking at it, I don't see anything wrong with it... Ok, ok you both could have been a bit clearer but just get over it!