Molacole wrote:I just went over a lot of that game and it seems like matt wasn't contesting rickny for his bonus at all. Barbie was the first to break up rickyny when he was holding a 5 point bonus and matt was off attacking paws...
Matt you let rickyny keep his 5 point bonus, cashed in the turn after he broke up your bonus and used your armies to attack a player with a 2 point bonus.
You should maybe learn how to play a little better before you accuse people of cheating. If anything I would say you were helping rickyny, but rickyny wasn't helping you.
After ricky broke up your bonus he was threatened by barbie and if you would've attacked him or moved troops into position to attack him he would be forced to leave your bonus alone unless he was willing to suffer great losses.
You let rickyny keep his 5 point bonus so paws let barbie keep her 4 point bonus to fight him off. If he didn't then rickyny would've worked his way through scandinavia and broke him up too. He couldn't go after barbie while you we attacking him on every single turn you made either because he was only getting 5 troops per turn.
The reason why it looks the way it does is because you never contested yellow for his 5 point bonus. If you would've made rickyny weak then paws would've done the same to barbie. Instead you decided to attack paws who was getting 5 troops per go and let rickyny who was getting 9 armies per go all go uncontested.
barbie ended up beating down rickyny and you moved into the near east for a bonus. Soon as you left your borders weak barbie broke you up and instead of fighting to get it back you ran scared into africa for an easy bonus. That is when rickyny broke up barbie and by you moving out of the near east so easily you're actually the one who made it easy for barbie to get an easy bonus back.
after that you decided to cash in your cards, break up barbie in the near east and blew your whole set of troops (by the looks of what happened afterwards) then paws tried to take the bonus from you and rickyny ended up with the bonus on his next turn.
After that you cried alliance and the game changed drastically....
granted I never saw troop numbers, but from what I did read from round 1 - 17 it doesn't seem to look like there was any alliance. If anything I would say it was your lack of aggression towards rickyny that made it look like they were playing as a team.
Just the opposite, molacole, just the opposite. I had to stop attacking yellow when I realized that Paws and Barbie were playing Team Game. Till this very moment, I attacked yellow all the time. In fact, he had to abandon The West because I blocked his border in Spain. At this moment, we both (rickyny and I ) realized that something was wrong. Rickyny could be here to explain it... but I will copy what he said during the game...
2006-09-22 22:50:11 - Matt2006: one question: why green and blue have not attacked each other in russia-scandinavia border in all game? just for curiosity...
2006-09-22 22:51:49 - Matt2006: may be there is some important strategic reason to justify it that I cannot understand... will someone give me a clue? Thank u
2006-09-23 05:28:09 - RICKYNY: I also would learn a lot in strategy if someone could explain it to me^^
2006-09-23 05:28:48 - RICKYNY: now, as I am a stupid strategist, I won't attack you for a while matt...
2006-09-23 19:03:55 - RICKYNY: still I understand it's not an alliance but result is the same, you're both against us
2006-09-24 09:43:32 - RICKYNY: reds, arguing is clueless, barbie and ken, oh sorry matt, won't change their behavior^^
2006-09-27 17:58:18 - RICKYNY: ok strange move pows, the good thing is if greens don't attack Arkhangelsk, ther will be little doubt left about your relation...
2006-09-28 16:28:43 - RICKYNY: I'd really like the tone of this chat to lower a little bit. True there is a quasi alliance blues/greens which was undeclared and it would be a good idea to recognise this matter of fact. Ture also that there is a reasonable tactical logic behind this