Alas, the point is: How many of your guys are still having fun,
especially if your focus are rules/features/bugs and arguing about them
in public? How long are you gonna last? We try and focus elsewhere.
UDB
My honour is my life
PS: While I have you on the line:
I'll strike from the dead.
>From: Cappy <cappy@skynet.be>
>To: "The Undying" <udb80@hotmail.com>,
apenney@lpr.com.au,NGPhillippi@email.msn.com
>CC: g2-list@rt.com
>Subject: Re: Harn and safe havens in general
>Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 11:44:14 +0200
>
>Actually I think an alliance built on friends knowing each other in
person
>is much stronger than anything you can think up of.
>So just shut up.
>
>Cappy
>
>At 23:36 29/03/99 -0800, The Undying wrote:
>>If honour had been allowed to rule how wars are conducted, safe havens
>>would not have been an issue. The Harn Confederacy, which as you may
>>remember consisted of indedependent states in an uneasy alliance,
>>decided to leave all safe havens ungarrisoned to avoid conflicts like
>>this. For example, one of ours had garrisoned Harn, but was convinced
>>that longterm this was a strategy that would not be beneficial. We
also
>>argued that there where honorable ways to solve conflicts (like
personal
>>combat) and also that prisoners should not be executed. This to limit
>>the way wars was fought. Alas, this was not to be.
>>
>>However, as long as we are having fun, We, the Undying Banner will
fight
>>for whats ours, thus in the long run alliances built like HC (RIP) are
>>stronger than alliances focusing on bugs, features or rule issues to
win
>>petty things like a battle here and there.
>>
>>My honour is my life
>>The Undying Banner
>>
>>
>>>From: Cappy <cappy@skynet.be>
>>>To: Mordekai <apenney@lpr.com.au>, "Neal" <NGPhillippi@email.msn.com>
>>>CC: g2-list@pbm.com
>>>Subject: Re: Harn and safe havens in general
>>>Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1999 12:50:26 +0200
>>>
>>>I thought a safe haven was supposed to be available to everyone.
>>>As long as we're not standing outside it waiting to bash every
>>>newbie's head in, what's the problem?
>>>You'd be a stupid man NOT to use the advantage of a combat-safe
>>>zone, as long as you don't bother anyone with it.
>>>
>>>On the other hand, YOU put up a barrier in front of a safe haven.
>>>Wars have been fought (and lost) for issues like that.
>>>
>>>Cappy
>>>
>>>PS: Mordekai is a poofter (I owe U $20,000)
>>>
>>>
>>>At 09:46 28/03/99 +1000, Mordekai wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I agree that Mordekai's comments might not be that realistic:
>>>>> i.e., to not use safe havens for recruitment. All sides of THE
>>>>> war (and other wars, as well as neutrals and newbies) use
>>>>> safe havens in this manner.
>>>>
>>>>It is not recruitment per se but the permanent stationing of a large
>>>>force there and using it as a staging point to accumulate troops in
>>>>safety from the surrounding area and then shipping them out while
>>>>being safe from attack.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Mordekai
>>>>Marshal
>>>>Brotherhood of the Red God
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
>>
>
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com