Moved from Diplomacy thread.
Vezina wrote:Mutually assured destruction, my &$@! You ruined Egypt. Go back and look how no structures were destroyed in Germany until a couple of turns ago. That was a turn or two after Lindi told me you cleared Cairo. Anything I destroyed was payback for you firing first. Notice how nothing else has been destroyed even though I still control the Rhine. If I wanted mutual destruction, wouldn't I still be clearing structures?
The structure destroyed was the ammo factory in Cairo. I don't know what Lindi told you. Again, I was living up to the Hague Conference, however I don't believe Egypt would qualify as a civilized European country at this time to receive the same consideration from another European country. I doubt you understand what MAD (mutual assured destruction) means. It means I can destroy you just as completely as you can destroy me, therefore we won't do anything to each other. Why do you think there has been no nuclear war by now, it is because of MAD. If Germany captured many French economic structures, those could be destroyed for each German structure destroyed by France. Hopefully, with that realization France would not destroy any German factories. That my friend is mutual assured destruction.
Despite this having nothing to do with what's going on, there is no way your strategy would work in real life. No country would ever attack without knowing that it had secure supply lines. German armies stuck in the middle of France with no lines home would be screwed in real life because they would not continue to receive supplies and especially not replacements. Thanks, game engine. Furthermore, France's armies would still receive upkeep even with Paris gone. Its not like cutting Paris destroys the entirety of the logistics of France. The only thing saving you right now is the wonkiness of how the game engine has to handle conscripts through the capital. Do American recruits go to Washington in reality? No, but that's the only way the game can handle it.
Only in your reality would there be some kind of magical wall around Belgium that would prevent supplies getting through. In reality, Belgium would have either given in to German pressure and done nothing or would have gotten steamrolled as German units moved through. Belgium just got smacked hard by France, USA and Italy, it was in no position to seriously oppose Germany. Also, supplies could be captured from French cities as they were taken or temporary ports built to bring in supplies, which is what I did.
As for your point on France continuing to receive replacements even without Paris, I do not disagree with you. However, don't blame me I did not design this game.
Only in the most twisted way would someone read a demand that says "Leave Belgium" when you are moving through Belgium to get to France as "Continue Attacking." If you have no reading comprehension of the English language, that is one thing. I know better than that about you, though. Considering that it was your side that came up with the neutral interference BS, I really shouldn't be surprised. WWII-era Germany would've been proud of your rationalizations.
I read their demands the way I wanted to read those demands. Little Belgium was not going to ruin German warplans. Although my plans could have been ruined when Belgium lied to me and changed his mind after Germany accepted his demands to continue passage rights. But luckily my forces got through anyways. This is a game of power politics among nations. This exchange between Germany and Belgium was the first real situation resembling the hardball diplomacy that goes on between countries.
This seriously reminds me of someone playing something like Axis and Allies that wouldn't allow another player to place his reinforcements because he already picked up his money. You might be technically correct and can twist it any way you want to make it sound good in your head, but it doesn't make you any less of a freaking dick for doing it.
Vezina, now you are starting to whine like a girl.
