Sardonic
Posts: 215
Joined: 12/1/2005 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Joisey quote:
ORIGINAL: Sardonic quote:
ORIGINAL: Joisey quote:
ORIGINAL: Sardonic quote:
ORIGINAL: yammahoper@yahoo.com If Russia seeks dominance, I think every nation on the board will oppose it. Sounds like a great way for Russia to face a coalition of powers who will divy the prize of a conquered Russia. As GB, I would gladly sponser the war, put off the fight againt France, and grap all the out lieing minors as the others surge into Russia. lynn Then I guess we would fight. I dont allow other players to tell me what goals to seek. If you want help against France, the price is dominance. Pure and simple. Otherwise, your asking for altruism. And w/o Russia, it will be very difficult to defeat France. Especially if Russian troops are helping him. But have it your way. I think this "demand" that Russia become dominant is a fundamentally undiplomatic course of play. First, its a given that Prussia and Austria are going to be natural allies with England against France. Rather than make obnoxious demands on England regarding Russia's pursuit of dominance, all you need to do is let this coalition work against France for you. Sending a small contingent to help potentially nets you PP to stay on track to win. Instead, you counsel the Russian to play like a mafiaso running a protection racket. Yeah, Austria and Prussia are going to be screwed as a result of your selfishness. But the big winner will be France. France will take 3 provinces from Prussia and Austria, precluding you from getting the territories you wanted for dominance. And when the Grand Armee enters Russia, you'll be facing the French collossus alone, as your failure to be a team player resulted in Prussia and Austria being laid prostrate, and a pissed off England letting you swing in the wind. Expect Turkey to invade along with France, because you will have obviously alienated anyone from being your ally! Really? It is ok for England and France to be dominant, but NOT Russia. I suppose you feel the same for the other 4 powers? And somehow it is ok for ENGLAND to get Sweden, but not Russia? Why is that again? No, I will fight an England with that attitude, and I can tell you exactly what will happen. He will quit playing roughly 36 turns into the game when he realizes that he cant stop the French. Who's fault is that again? Seems to me that a Dominant Russia makes it much easier to contain France. Silly me. BTW I dont fear a solo invasion of Russia by France nor with his sidekick Turkey. Only ENGLAND has the kind of cash needed to allow Turkey to move his corp around. Are you serious, or are you just roleplaying the stereotypical paranoid Russian???? Although I've commented on seeing an agressive Britian press it's claim for Sweden, I didn't say that I thought that was how it should be. Really, from the Coalition's point of view, Sweden should go to whatever power can most effectively use it to benefit the coalition. If that means an experienced Brit with the cash to build it quickly, and a good plan to hit France in the rear, so be it. If that means going to an agressive Russian with a hot hand on the chit picks and the dice, then Yip Yip Yahoo for Russia! BUT, let's go back to your fundamental premise: That you "demand" that Britain sell out its allies, Prussia and Austria, at the outset of the game, in order to serve YOUR selfish desire to be dominant. That they agree to let you declare war on, and take territory, from Britain's two biggest continental allies, not to mention distracting them from taking on France. I think that is mind bogglingly arrogant. How does taking provinces from Prussian and Austria make you a "team player"? How is that constructive to the task of building an effective coalition against France? I stand by my original assessment: You want to play that way, fine. But don't expect anyone on the Coalition side to be your buddy for it. All you do is ensure that France is able to defeat Prussia and Austria in detail. From there, France will take all the German and Italian prinicipalities, and then it will come for you. And with France owning every province from Brittany to Warsaw to Naples, why you think France wouldn't have enough of a slush fund to pay for Turkish supply is beyond me. Having effectively sabotaged the Coalition against France, why should you be surprised if Britain herself funds Turkey against you. It's not like you could do anything about it anyway. In summary: If it got you to play nice with your neighbors, I'd let you have Sweden as the British player. But no way am I, as Britian, going to stand by and let you carve up Prussia and Austria for your own self aggrandisement---Russian dominance isn't required to defeat France, only that you be willing to send Kutusov and a stack of corps to fight France. Such a course of action by Russia is self-defeating: France will get the provinces you covet in Austria and Prussia long before you do and with no help from other allies, the Russian WILL lose to a co-ordinated invasion by France and Turkey. Your course of action only leads the Russian to playing the spoiler to the benefit of the French player. All that is YOUR synopsis, not mine. I said nothing at all about declaring war upon Prussia or Austria. YOU did. I said nothing at all about not helping them against France, unless I am busy fighting England of course. My original post was about SWEDEN. You see in MY experience, the English player likes to grab Sweden to ENSURE Russia not become Dominant. He can already do that, by declaring war of course, but that isnt as subtle. As I said, I want the English cards on the table at the START. I might point out that the historical result was Russian dominance. And if you fear other player dominance, then I am sure you understand why the entire world allys against England to take away YOUR dominance? Since you apparently feel Dominance is bad. As for spoiler for France, that is exactly what the English call players that dont conform to their idea of how to play. If England was more concerned about actually fighting FRANCE, than ensuring Russia knuckle under, then maybe France would be contained.
|