Messages - vDiplomacy

Chat archive

13 Jun 17 UTC	Autumn, 1904: GameMaster: Plug Uglies voted for a Draw. If everyone votes Draw the game will end and the points are split equally among all the surviving players, regardless of how many supply centers each player has.
16 Jun 17 UTC	Autumn, 1905: GameMaster: Dead Rabbits voted for a Cancel. If everyone votes Cancel all points will be refunded and the game will be deleted from the database.
17 Jun 17 UTC	Spring, 1906: GameMaster: Someone has taken over Hell-Cats replacing "Tazo101". Reconsider your alliances.
21 Jun 17 UTC	Pretty crappy there LLGeorge, taking advantage of an unbalanced game when one player deserts. You should have cancelled - poor sportsmanship there.
21 Jun 17 UTC	I joined knowing that there would probably be little I could still do (and indeed the positioning of the person playing Hell Cats wasn't really a situation in which I could make a difference. I had never played this map before but this guy most definitely screwed up.
21 Jun 17 UTC	I can handle weak play. But non-play? He just let ST walk all over him and get SCs where even a simple defense would have limited ST's growth. I was holding my own against ST, but PU was giving me a fight, where HC wasn't giving ST any resistance.
21 Jun 17 UTC	Thats not the full truth. My position was quize good and i thinl u was prepared. I had the better moves and strategy in this game....it would only take more time eith active HC
21 Jun 17 UTC	The extra builds you got let you defend and attack where you would have struggled more if HC denied you those final SCs better. It's not like you had a flood of units in HC territory - just a couple of units with a dead lump fighting back, allowing you to bring everything else my way.
21 Jun 17 UTC	Still, poor form not to cancel under those circumstances. Not very sportsmanlike on your part.
21 Jun 17 UTC	I think your behavior while loosing is not very sportsmanlike. If you could read the game bettet you would see that my position against you was better...the more units i had because of the bad play of HC gave me only the opportunity to win more quickly....take a look at the moves of bith of us, make your analysis and if you want to see, you can see.
21 Jun 17 UTC	Take a look at spring 1905....HC went inactive, but this would nit changes my opportunities
21 Jun 17 UTC	Because of the fog, I can't tell what was going on for you in 1905 (which should be lifted in my opinion when the game ends). All I know is that you didn't take a single SC from me all game, so it wasn't that you had great success against me, but that you were benefitting from plundering a no-show player. You picked up 6 SCs off of HC after he bailed, so don't tell me it made no difference - you are deluding yourself and trying to excuse taking advantage of an unfair situation to get a win. If PU had bailed like that, I too would have had several extra SCs and units to attack you with (and defend myself). Your own successful defense against my attack depended largely on your builds. Do you really think you would have been as successful with no additional builds in the past two years? But your continued insistence on thinking this was fine only shows you don't believe in fair play. In some games, NMRs are just part of the play, and the players can adjust to balance it out. On this map, the player diagonally opposite an abandoning player is put at a huge disadvantage.
21 Jun 17 UTC	Looking back at the build orders, I see that you twice got to build in the middle of the board at m5 near the front lines and once built for defense where I was pressuring you back at i5. But of course according to you, you had superior position without those extra units - give me a break. Truth is, without those units, I would have taken m5 from you or captured one of your SCs behind the lines by now - they gave you a huge benefit.