Field of Diplomacy - Calling Players for an MP game

Field of Glory: Empires is a grand strategy game in which you will have to move in an intricate and living tapestry of nations and tribes, each one with their distinctive culture.
Set in Europe and in the Mediterranean Area during the Classical Age, experience what truly means to manage an Empire.

Moderator: Pocus

Post Reply
MARVIN_THE_ARVN
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Posts: 323
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2008 2:37 pm

Re: Field of Diplomacy - Calling Players for an MP game

Post by MARVIN_THE_ARVN » Wed Aug 07, 2019 10:06 pm

You think this is bad, I'm in a COOP game where 2 people attacked other players early on. We, only had a total of 5 people in the game at the start :lol:
"I'll gladly trade you some ARVN rifles, never been fired and only dropped once"

13obo
Captain - Bf 110D
Captain - Bf 110D
Posts: 862
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2016 11:01 am

Re: Field of Diplomacy - Calling Players for an MP game

Post by 13obo » Wed Aug 07, 2019 10:38 pm

If it was Aetolia attacking others, that may (or may not) have been me. I surrendered the game as one player was idle and the turn limit was 3 days. The game was moving excruciatingly slow.

MARVIN_THE_ARVN
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Posts: 323
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2008 2:37 pm

Re: Field of Diplomacy - Calling Players for an MP game

Post by MARVIN_THE_ARVN » Wed Aug 07, 2019 10:50 pm

13obo wrote:
Wed Aug 07, 2019 10:38 pm
If it was Aetolia attacking others, that may (or may not) have been me. I surrendered the game as one player was idle and the turn limit was 3 days. The game was moving excruciatingly slow.
I think you do have that honour, although, you weren't the only blood thirsty one as another person decided to declare war :lol:

That idle person must be back because the turns seem to be moving faster but I think the coop concept has been blown out of the water.
"I'll gladly trade you some ARVN rifles, never been fired and only dropped once"

13obo
Captain - Bf 110D
Captain - Bf 110D
Posts: 862
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2016 11:01 am

Re: Field of Diplomacy - Calling Players for an MP game

Post by 13obo » Wed Aug 07, 2019 10:56 pm

Oh well... Mishaps happen! The whole idea of a co-op Helene game is a bit of a bummer as you have limited options to expand. It's easiest to head for your neighbours. But we digress...

Where were we here?

Ah yes, picking what's left of Epirus I think.

pnoff
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Posts: 100
Joined: Mon Jul 15, 2019 2:39 pm

Re: Field of Diplomacy - Calling Players for an MP game

Post by pnoff » Wed Aug 07, 2019 11:17 pm

ledo wrote:
Wed Aug 07, 2019 9:52 pm
I feel truly sympathetic to the Macedonians, your losses must have been truly staggering.

That Epirus did not attack aetolians immediately is clear. But that doesn't mean they did not have the intention to. Aetolia is likely to sit in its borders and defend. That Macedonia decided to attack immediately is it's choice. Had Macedonia discussed with Epirus the exact timing of the attack in detail or waited for Epirus to attack it's region first it would have been satisfied. As it stands two years in Macedonia declared war within twelve months of the agreement, because of one false move that was not even confirmed to be anything other than a misunderstanding. You can justify it all you want, but I see no cause for war nor reason to break the agreement. You still benefit from an ally on your border and one willing to deal with the dardarni which benefits you. A harsh word about lack of assistance and a tribute of gold could have settled the matter well in your favour. Meanwhile Epirus is the loser here either way because it does not get it's province. Indeed Epirus could just as easily be aggrieved by you moving too soon without notifying it and grabbing the territory you agreed to hand over to it (we're only two turns in!). Instead you want war. Myself I am starting to suspect that Macedonia was keen for allies while it was uncertain of the intention of the other diadochi, now however it sees no reason to avoid taking Epirus' lands.
Oh right, we were supposed to attack in the first century AD. We're sorry, we will disband our armies and surrender now.

Sure our armies had nothing to do than to guard a bunch of barbarians holed up in mountains for a decade or two.

More incompetent buffoonery by Carthage generals. We recommend you run a wargame by having Epirus attack immediately (hire 3 ranged units, appoint best general (not Carthaginian!)) and see how easy it is. Even attack on both provinces in one year is very likely to succeed. Also, whoever finds green barbarians on the map first wins a basket of dates.

Epiruses deception or total incompetence made the agreement void, and since it did not have non-aggression pact the attack is within the bounds of honor.

This arguments take too much papyrus and, more importantly, our king's time. Thus he withdraws from it until more interesting matter come up.

MARVIN_THE_ARVN wrote:
Wed Aug 07, 2019 5:04 pm
King Dodones of the Kingdom of Bactria calls upon his fellow Hellenics to stop this senseless death and warfare, if you want rid your nation of people send your citizens to Bactria where we can offer them a new start (I'm a Hellenic nation but only 2 of my 40 pops are Hellenic citizens).

Hail Hydra
Unfortunately, the mobility of people in Kingdom of Macedon is temporary limited, since we are in dire need of workforce for Great Salt Mines of Macedon that were completed just this year.


- Pnoff of Macedon

edit. Checked if there is an actual Great Salt Mine building. There is none, severely disappointed. It should increase Legacy and unrest, just for memes.

ledo
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Posts: 152
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2016 3:12 am

Re: Field of Diplomacy - Calling Players for an MP game

Post by ledo » Wed Aug 07, 2019 11:53 pm

pnoff wrote:
Wed Aug 07, 2019 11:17 pm
ledo wrote:
Wed Aug 07, 2019 9:52 pm
I feel truly sympathetic to the Macedonians, your losses must have been truly staggering.

That Epirus did not attack aetolians immediately is clear. But that doesn't mean they did not have the intention to. Aetolia is likely to sit in its borders and defend. That Macedonia decided to attack immediately is it's choice. Had Macedonia discussed with Epirus the exact timing of the attack in detail or waited for Epirus to attack it's region first it would have been satisfied. As it stands two years in Macedonia declared war within twelve months of the agreement, because of one false move that was not even confirmed to be anything other than a misunderstanding. You can justify it all you want, but I see no cause for war nor reason to break the agreement. You still benefit from an ally on your border and one willing to deal with the dardarni which benefits you. A harsh word about lack of assistance and a tribute of gold could have settled the matter well in your favour. Meanwhile Epirus is the loser here either way because it does not get it's province. Indeed Epirus could just as easily be aggrieved by you moving too soon without notifying it and grabbing the territory you agreed to hand over to it (we're only two turns in!). Instead you want war. Myself I am starting to suspect that Macedonia was keen for allies while it was uncertain of the intention of the other diadochi, now however it sees no reason to avoid taking Epirus' lands.
Oh right, we were supposed to attack in the first century AD. We're sorry, we will disband our armies and surrender now.

Sure our armies had nothing to do than to guard a bunch of barbarians holed up in mountains for a decade or two.

More incompetent buffoonery by Carthage generals. We recommend you run a wargame by having Epirus attack immediately (hire 3 ranged units, appoint best general (not Carthaginian!)) and see how easy it is. Even attack on both provinces in one year is very likely to succeed. Also, whoever finds green barbarians on the map first wins a basket of dates.

Epiruses deception or total incompetence made the agreement void, and since it did not have non-aggression pact the attack is within the bounds of honor.

This arguments take too much papyrus and, more importantly, our king's time. Thus he withdraws from it until more interesting matter come up.

MARVIN_THE_ARVN wrote:
Wed Aug 07, 2019 5:04 pm
King Dodones of the Kingdom of Bactria calls upon his fellow Hellenics to stop this senseless death and warfare, if you want rid your nation of people send your citizens to Bactria where we can offer them a new start (I'm a Hellenic nation but only 2 of my 40 pops are Hellenic citizens).

Hail Hydra
Unfortunately, the mobility of people in Kingdom of Macedon is temporary limited, since we are in dire need of workforce for Great Salt Mines of Macedon that were completed just this year.


- Pnoff of Macedon

edit. Checked if there is an actual Great Salt Mine building. There is none, severely disappointed. It should increase Legacy and unrest, just for memes.
A decade or two is a bit of an exaggeration. Probably two turns is more accurate. The fact that their incompetence/deception makes the agreement void, particularly when it's not clear which it is, is your opinion, but not one I expect many will hold in high esteem. I would also wonder if you would so readily declare war on the Antigonids if they were not so eager, in their own interest mind you, to secure athens immediately. If the answer is no, I would suggest your attack is opportunism, if your answer is yes, I would suggest the Antigonids be very careful to clarify every comment you make in your agreement, lest they accidentally move to consolidate some territory or take some time to regroup their forces and you take it as a casus belli. I assume the latter, if it were to happen, would more likely happen once the Antigonids are not so comfortably at peace with the Seleucids and Ptolemies.

Also, in a game between human players using messaging, your argument that there is no non-aggression pact, considering the messages exchanged is less than solid. While you may have noted nothing down on paper, your statement that your word is meaningless, absent such a document, is telling.

As for Carthaginian generals we have a 2-2 and a 2-1, as well as two 1-1s, if Macedon considers this the bottom of the pile, I would dearly like to see what the gods have deemed fit to bestow upon other nations.

pnoff
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Posts: 100
Joined: Mon Jul 15, 2019 2:39 pm

Re: Field of Diplomacy - Calling Players for an MP game

Post by pnoff » Thu Aug 08, 2019 12:37 am

ledo wrote:
Wed Aug 07, 2019 11:53 pm
A decade or two is a bit of an exaggeration. Probably two turns is more accurate. The fact that their incompetence/deception makes the agreement void, particularly when it's not clear which it is, is your opinion, but not one I expect many will hold in high esteem. I would also wonder if you would so readily declare war on the Antigonids if they were not so eager, in their own interest mind you, to secure athens immediately. If the answer is no, I would suggest your attack is opportunism, if your answer is yes, I would suggest the Antigonids be very careful to clarify every comment you make in your agreement, lest they accidentally move to consolidate some territory or take some time to regroup their forces and you take it as a casus belli. I assume the latter, if it were to happen, would more likely happen once the Antigonids are not so comfortably at peace with the Seleucids and Ptolemies.

Also, in a game between human players using messaging, your argument that there is no non-aggression pact, considering the messages exchanged is less than solid. While you may have noted nothing down on paper, your statement that your word is meaningless, absent such a document, is telling.

As for Carthaginian generals we have a 2-2 and a 2-1, as well as two 1-1s, if Macedon considers this the bottom of the pile, I would dearly like to see what the gods have deemed fit to bestow upon other nations.
Apparently, if you don't stick to agreements and act derpy you might get attacked by you neighbour. O tempora o mores!

- Pnoff of Macedon

ledo
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Posts: 152
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2016 3:12 am

Re: Field of Diplomacy - Calling Players for an MP game

Post by ledo » Thu Aug 08, 2019 12:47 am

pnoff wrote:
Thu Aug 08, 2019 12:37 am
ledo wrote:
Wed Aug 07, 2019 11:53 pm
A decade or two is a bit of an exaggeration. Probably two turns is more accurate. The fact that their incompetence/deception makes the agreement void, particularly when it's not clear which it is, is your opinion, but not one I expect many will hold in high esteem. I would also wonder if you would so readily declare war on the Antigonids if they were not so eager, in their own interest mind you, to secure athens immediately. If the answer is no, I would suggest your attack is opportunism, if your answer is yes, I would suggest the Antigonids be very careful to clarify every comment you make in your agreement, lest they accidentally move to consolidate some territory or take some time to regroup their forces and you take it as a casus belli. I assume the latter, if it were to happen, would more likely happen once the Antigonids are not so comfortably at peace with the Seleucids and Ptolemies.

Also, in a game between human players using messaging, your argument that there is no non-aggression pact, considering the messages exchanged is less than solid. While you may have noted nothing down on paper, your statement that your word is meaningless, absent such a document, is telling.

As for Carthaginian generals we have a 2-2 and a 2-1, as well as two 1-1s, if Macedon considers this the bottom of the pile, I would dearly like to see what the gods have deemed fit to bestow upon other nations.
Apparently, if you don't stick to agreements and act derpy you might get attacked by you neighbour. O tempora o mores!

- Pnoff of Macedon
It's "or" act derpy, not "and". And no, I would not attack my neighbour after telling them I wouldn't if I feel they made a mistake or there was the possibility of miscommunication, without clarifying what had happened. In my view incompetence does not warrant dishonor. We wish your remaining allies well and hope they do not make even a single misstep, as the bonds of Macedonian friendship are clearly more string than iron.

Morbio
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Posts: 2020
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2010 4:40 pm
Location: Wokingham, UK

Re: Field of Diplomacy - Calling Players for an MP game

Post by Morbio » Thu Aug 08, 2019 7:39 am

ledo wrote:
Thu Aug 08, 2019 12:47 am
... In my view incompetence does not warrant dishonor. We wish your remaining allies well and hope they do not make even a single misstep, as the bonds of Macedonian friendship are clearly more string than iron.
I totally agree and looking at the outcome it's clear to me that there was never any Macedonian intention to work peacefully with Epirus, it was all a ruse to enable a sneak attack, to take the Epirus lands. If I was Antigonus I wouldn't expect their solitary land in Greece to last too long! You will have an interesting challenge to station troops there and keep them supplied.

I'm also sure Lysimachos is wondering what will happen once Greece is conquered, there are only a limited number of Hellenic lands in the area...

pnoff
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Posts: 100
Joined: Mon Jul 15, 2019 2:39 pm

Re: Field of Diplomacy - Calling Players for an MP game

Post by pnoff » Thu Aug 08, 2019 9:04 am

Morbio wrote:
Thu Aug 08, 2019 7:39 am
Not sure how outcome of an attack can make anything clear, except who is the winner.

We are concerned that Lysimachos might be under influence of Carthaginian-Epirean propaganda and would like a public confirmation of Non-Aggressions Pact with 5 years warning between any hostilities. (Can negotiate details in private and then announce them)

Antigonids is our trusted ally and we unilaterally declare that at least 10 turns warning will be given before any hostilities from our side. This is just to be formal. We are commited to long term strategic partnership with them.


- Pnoff of Macedon

ledo
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Posts: 152
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2016 3:12 am

Re: Field of Diplomacy - Calling Players for an MP game

Post by ledo » Thu Aug 08, 2019 9:10 am

pnoff wrote:
Thu Aug 08, 2019 9:04 am
Morbio wrote:
Thu Aug 08, 2019 7:39 am
Not sure how outcome of an attack can make anything clear, except who is the winner.

We are concerned that Lysimachos might be under influence of Carthaginian-Epirean propaganda and would like a public confirmation of Non-Aggressions Pact with 5 years warning between any hostilities. (Can negotiate details in private and then announce them)

Antigonids is our trusted ally and we unilaterally declare that at least 10 turns warning will be given before any hostilities from our side. This is just to be formal. We are commited to long term strategic partnership with them.


- Pnoff of Macedon
Those are some interesting terms your asking for. They would be wise to accept considering your recent actions. But also assume that they might not be adhered to if Macedonia smells weakness.

ledo
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Posts: 152
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2016 3:12 am

Re: Field of Diplomacy - Calling Players for an MP game

Post by ledo » Thu Aug 08, 2019 9:12 am

pnoff wrote:
Thu Aug 08, 2019 9:04 am
Morbio wrote:
Thu Aug 08, 2019 7:39 am
Not sure how outcome of an attack can make anything clear, except who is the winner.

We are concerned that Lysimachos might be under influence of Carthaginian-Epirean propaganda and would like a public confirmation of Non-Aggressions Pact with 5 years warning between any hostilities. (Can negotiate details in private and then announce them)

Antigonids is our trusted ally and we unilaterally declare that at least 10 turns warning will be given before any hostilities from our side. This is just to be formal. We are commited to long term strategic partnership with them.


- Pnoff of Macedon
Those are interesting terms and Im not sure if your allies would be more eager to accept them due to recent event or more likely to disregard them as empty promises just waiting for an excuse to be broken.

Also playing the victim from any minor inconvenience then crowing about victory over Epirus frames you well Macedon.

It seems not only was the victory over aetolia not as costly as first thought but you had steam left over you could walk right over Epirus as well. That's a far cry from the betrayed wounded ally that you claimed to be earlier.

Carthage not only does not condone such dishonorable behaviour and it also does not forget. For us, unlike Macedon victory is nothing if it is won at the expense of our honor.

pnoff
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Posts: 100
Joined: Mon Jul 15, 2019 2:39 pm

Re: Field of Diplomacy - Calling Players for an MP game

Post by pnoff » Thu Aug 08, 2019 9:30 am

ledo wrote:
Thu Aug 08, 2019 9:12 am
More misinformed ramblings, will it ever end?

The fight with Aetolia was close and bloody, since Epirus left them time to expand their army.

Epirus army was destroyed by our fleet when their abandonment became clear.


- Pnoff of Macedon

ledo
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Posts: 152
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2016 3:12 am

Re: Field of Diplomacy - Calling Players for an MP game

Post by ledo » Thu Aug 08, 2019 9:35 am

Left them time to expand there army? Was that in turn one or two? And when did your army arrive exactly? What turn did you agree upon for the invasion and show us the communication that made that clear and I will absolutely admit I was wrong.

Two turns for someone to turn a non aggression agreement into a big country attacking a small one is a new record in my fairly lengthy experience of multiplayer grand strategy gaming. Or was it one turn, I need the exact number for the record books.

Macedonia can play the hyena, sneaking around for scraps. Carthage will play the lion, as we are a truly great nation with the ability to be magnanimous towards its allies particularly those who pose no threat to us. Call it propaganda all you want, we are not the ones preying on the weak for our own gratification, turning inconveniences into betrayals or misunderstandings into grievances.

Your fears about Lysimachos are unfounded because we do not sneak about in the shadows turning alliances like hyenas. We are lions who openly state our intentions.
Last edited by ledo on Thu Aug 08, 2019 9:52 am, edited 1 time in total.

pnoff
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Posts: 100
Joined: Mon Jul 15, 2019 2:39 pm

Re: Field of Diplomacy - Calling Players for an MP game

Post by pnoff » Thu Aug 08, 2019 9:51 am

ledo wrote:
Thu Aug 08, 2019 9:35 am
The oral negotiations left Macedon under impression that territorial division and attack on Aetolia at the start was in order, meaning that as long as both sides stick to it no hostilities are possible.

Since no treaty was officially annonced, we are entitled to our understanding.

Funny how Carthage tries to misrepresent the situation as we had a non-aggression pact (with specified warning period beflre hostilities) or even an alliance, haha

- Pnoff of Macedon


OOC I treat private messages as oral discussion and publicly announced things as written, since I believe it is the best way.

ledo
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Posts: 152
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2016 3:12 am

Re: Field of Diplomacy - Calling Players for an MP game

Post by ledo » Thu Aug 08, 2019 9:53 am

pnoff wrote:
Thu Aug 08, 2019 9:51 am
ledo wrote:
Thu Aug 08, 2019 9:35 am
The oral negotiations left Macedon under impression that territorial division and attack on Aetolia at the start was in order, meaning that as long as both sides stick to it no hostilities are possible.

Since no treaty was officially annonced, we are entitled to our understanding.

Funny how Carthage tries to misrepresent the situation as we had a non-aggression pact (with specified warning period beflre hostilities) or even an alliance, haha

- Pnoff of Macedon


OOC I treat private messages as oral discussion and publicly announced things as written, since I believe it is the best way.
So then no year for the invasion was detailed and thus misunderstanding was not only possible but probable.

The fact you were left 'under the impression' by your mind is so ironclad it is justification for war but the conversation as a whole is so meaningless to you that a verbal agreement to peace means nothing. This is the doublespeak of an opportunist.

pnoff
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Posts: 100
Joined: Mon Jul 15, 2019 2:39 pm

Re: Field of Diplomacy - Calling Players for an MP game

Post by pnoff » Thu Aug 08, 2019 10:03 am

ledo wrote:
Thu Aug 08, 2019 9:53 am
So then no year for the invasion was detailed and thus misunderstanding was not only possible but probable.

The fact you were left 'under the impression' by your mind is so ironclad it is justification for war but the conversation as a whole is so meaningless to you that a verbal agreement to peace means nothing. This is the doublespeak of an opportunist.
In our language at the start means at the start, especially since that is what any half competent commander would do anyway.

Macedon does not need a justification for war when no treaty is in effect, we congratulate Sherlokid Holmsonid on that amazing deduction.

edit. Our understanding is reinforced by the fact that Epirus, when exposed in their backdealings, started claiming that they "were attacking green barbarians (independents)", which was hilariously unconvincing weaseling and shows that they had the same understanding of the treaty.

- Pnoff of Macedon

ledo
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Posts: 152
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2016 3:12 am

Re: Field of Diplomacy - Calling Players for an MP game

Post by ledo » Thu Aug 08, 2019 10:11 am

pnoff wrote:
Thu Aug 08, 2019 10:03 am
ledo wrote:
Thu Aug 08, 2019 9:53 am
So then no year for the invasion was detailed and thus misunderstanding was not only possible but probable.

The fact you were left 'under the impression' by your mind is so ironclad it is justification for war but the conversation as a whole is so meaningless to you that a verbal agreement to peace means nothing. This is the doublespeak of an opportunist.
In our language at the start means at the start, especially since that is what any half competent commander would do anyway.

Macedon does not need a justification for war when no treaty is in effect, we congratulate Sherlokid Holmsonid on that amazing deduction.

- Pnoff of Macedon
Start is neither a turn or ayear, and can mean many things within a reasonable timeframe. I do not count the 'start' of my appointment to the leadership of Carthage only to the first day or minute or second of my rule. I would imagine we are still, three years in, at the start of the game. But I guess start has many meanings like 'peace' and 'honor' have many meanings for Macedonians if they are based purely on their word.

How many plots are there against you Macedon. First Epirus, then Rome and Epirus, now it is Carthage and Epirus and the Lysimachos too! All of it must be some grand ever changing conspiracy, how many theories Macedonia has.
Last edited by ledo on Thu Aug 08, 2019 10:17 am, edited 1 time in total.

pnoff
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Posts: 100
Joined: Mon Jul 15, 2019 2:39 pm

Re: Field of Diplomacy - Calling Players for an MP game

Post by pnoff » Thu Aug 08, 2019 10:17 am

ledo wrote:
Thu Aug 08, 2019 10:11 am
Start is neither a turn or ayear, and can mean many things within a reasonable timeframe. I do not count the 'start' of my appointment to the leadership of Carthage only to the first day or minute or second of my rule. I would imagine we are still, three years in, at the start of the game. But I guess start has many meanings like 'peace' and 'honor' have many meanings for Macedonians if they are based purely on their word.
We are sorry that part of our scroll arrived too late affer you written the response. Allow us to reiterate it here for your convenience:

"Our understanding is reinforced by the fact that Epirus, when exposed in their backdealings, started claiming that they "were attacking green barbarians (independents)", which was hilariously unconvincing weaseling and shows that they had the same understanding of the treaty."

- Pnoff of Macedon

ledo
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Posts: 152
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2016 3:12 am

Re: Field of Diplomacy - Calling Players for an MP game

Post by ledo » Thu Aug 08, 2019 10:18 am

That was of course after you declared war. Even if Epirus had openly stated they were trying to cheat you I would think it a questionable casus Belli if you had agreed verbally to peace.

Post Reply

Return to “Field of Glory: Empires”