>When did you send such message? And to whom?

I'll have to check my email when I get back, but I remember sending it to both Dukks and Breads as both had no official treaty in place.

>So you didn't actually read my message offering fuel assistance for those presumably needy fleets stopped at such weird places?

I don't remember such a message...

>next turn he turned all his minefields against them without warning. Serves me right for having let that one pass.

That was the turn immediately after I saw the freighters being 'disabled' since I was going on holiday, I didn't want anybody to have free reign over my gates for 6 turns while I was away so I switched breads to neutral.

>please explain why the "loaded-freighters manoeuver" was needed,

Actually, I thought it was a clever move and much more subtle than shooting down the freighters. I'm not sure what other valid explanation there was for moving 1200kt of minerals to my packet catching freighters.

I did consult with another stars player about that manoever so I hope it wasn't all dream

>same as you say you did when another race attacked another different race.

Not sure what you're talking about here.

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Ok - I really have to step in here.
(obviously to cover my own honor, but I will come to that later).

First the others
Ducks "Backstabbing" Brutes (Me), this came about due to a miscommunication. I was stomping Ducks when the player took over.
He said "Leave me alone and I will give you 2 things"
I said "Give me 3 things and I will stop attacking you and instigate a 5 year NAP"
He said "Give me one of my planets back and leave me alone and I will give you 3 things and more things in the future"

I accepted and assumed that we had a NAP, he accepted and assumed we didnt.
Later he attacked me - I was very cross , he was worried about his reputation. We emailed back and forth, decided it was genuine misunderstanding and agreed not to mention it further - which is why I think its a bit unfair to bring it up now.
Note we are still at war to this day (but I do not consider him a backstabber! I will however read emails from him carefully )

Second
Steve (Tribbles) this is easy. One of the rules is that every 10 years 1&2nd place are published and any treaties between them are voided - and they cant make any treaties.
This happened between you and Steve in 2480, in 2481 he attacked you. This is not only honest it is in fact encouraged by the rules.

Finally Me (Joseph, Brutes)
We did indeed have a 5 year NAP, at some point in the past you also asked for the removal of all my ships from your worlds.

Due to you allegidly "Backstabbing" the Breads, I set you to neutral. This was to stop you gating fleets into my worlds (as others have pointed out on this thread sitting with pants down invites a kicking and you had just been accused of using your foot).

I am aware, that one of my fleets has encountered and destroyed one of yours, this was not as such intentional. I had intended to use Witter to refuel that fleet so that it could continue to further Duck worlds (and bomb them)
- for those not playing in the game Witter belongs to my ally the Breads and did have a big Star Base - (its now a smoking ruin due to Vegi bombers so I am glad that I have some fuel transports in the fleet or it would be moving slowly now.)

You will notice that NONE of my other fleets targeted any of yours, none of your minelayers around my worlds were targeted (and I have a few sweepers in the area that are clearing it of Duck mines and layers) and NONE of your worlds were attacked.
The only other attacks were of scouts orbiting worlds of mine where I happened to have armed ships, and these were a side effect of setting you to neutral.

(For those of you interested - I have sent an email to the Breads actually the Vegies informing them that in 2486 I will be attacking their worlds and fleets)

I dont see this as a backstab - I see it as making sure the area near my back was cleared of knives (and an unfortunate diplomatic incident due to me thinking Witter was still a friendly star).
It being a bank holiday here all I really had time to do when I heard that the "Pricklies were Backstabbers" was change a setting friend to neutral and upload again.
Joseph

EDIT - changed who I sent the email to telling them I was attacking them - the Brutes are an unsubtle race not known for patience or good eyesight

[Updated on: Tue, 29 August 2006 10:52]

Report message to a moderator

So backstabbers hall of Shame consists of:
1) PricklyPea
2) Icebird
3) Dethdukk
4) Joseph
5) Steve
6) Backblast
Or who of you were the ones who simply were too weak for wielding that dagger of Loki?

Report message to a moderator

>Note we are still at war to this day (but I do not consider him a backstabber! I will however read emails from him carefully )

>This happened between you and Steve in 2480, in 2481 he attacked you. This is not only honest it is in fact encouraged by the rules.

Interesting. This could well be the answer, in which case it is not a backstab but in fact good play! I haven't received an email stating the new #1/#2 positions. Nor has it been updated on the game page. Perhaps the host sent to the wrong email (I've been using work email from time to time which I can't access from home)?

>We did indeed have a 5 year NAP, at some point in the past you also asked for the removal of all my ships from your worlds.
>Due to you allegidly "Backstabbing" the Breads, I set you to neutral... and these were a side effect of setting you to neutral.

Yes. I guess setting attack enemies instead of 'enemies and neutrals' would have prevented this (also removing armed ships from orbit).

>I dont see this as a backstab - I see it as making sure the area near my back was cleared of knives (and an unfortunate diplomatic incident due to me thinking Witter was still a friendly star).
It being a bank holiday here all I really had time to do when I heard that the "Pricklies were Backstabbers" was change a setting friend to neutral and upload again.

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

[Updated on: Mon, 28 August 2006 15:59]

Report message to a moderator

multilis wrote on Mon, 28 August 2006 22:25

Backstab comes from real life idea of stabbing someone from behind who trusts you.

I havent met someone with such a bright real life ideas.

[Updated on: Mon, 28 August 2006 16:19]

Report message to a moderator

PricklyPea wrote on Mon, 28 August 2006 19:11

The earlier Dukk 'backstab' against brutes (although later determined that no NAP was actually in force).

Possible nitpicking here, but those two races were never friends to start with. Their peaceful coexistence was always a tight balancing act and neither had reason to trust too much the other.

Quote:

Brutes (Joseph) against Veggies: breaking a 3/5 year NAP (can't remember the exact terms);

Of course you can't.

But the Brutes, unlike you, are my faithful allies and battle partners, and, unlike you, can choose to honor our covenant, that is, defending each other against all comers, and might even consider that by backstabbing me, you backstabbed them, too, double backstabber!

Quote:

Tribbles (Steve) against Veggies: breaking a 10 year NAP.

Strictly by game rules, it seems. Though I can understand them actually *wanting* to attack you.

Quote:

I actually was wondering how to deal with this NAP since Tribbles being a 4% HE with 25/3/25 mines would soon be unstoppable as a race and giving notice would give too much warning

So, theirs was a "preventive backstab" by your book, then?

[Updated on: Tue, 29 August 2006 06:37]

Report message to a moderator

vonKreedon wrote on Mon, 28 August 2006 16:04

MA - I note that you are not claming that there was an NAP in place. Without an explicit treaty there can't be a backstab can there?

That is because I, as replacement player, have absolutely no proof of any treaties signed nor their special clauses.

I just found two races set up as "friend" when I opened the 1st m file, I asked them both if we were allied, and they both said "yes".

Then both acted as friends, until one of them decided I was either distracted enough or dangerously wary.

Report message to a moderator

PricklyPea wrote on Mon, 28 August 2006 19:03

I'll have to check my email when I get back, but I remember sending it to both Dukks and Breads as both had no official treaty in place.

Well? Did you find it?

Funny to think that all this time you were stringing me up and readying my funeral you were afraid of my attacking you!

Quote:

That was the turn immediately after I saw the freighters being 'disabled'

Disabled? How? By Jove I want to know that trick!

Also, how do you manage to automate packet-stealing freighters in the 1st place?

Quote:

free reign over my gates for 6 turns while I was away so I switched breads to neutral.

Not even your allies? How sad.

Besides, as our host carefully arranged and explained, you were to skip just ONE turn.

Quote:

I thought it was a clever move and much more subtle than shooting down the freighters. I'm not sure what other valid explanation there was for moving 1200kt of minerals to my packet catching freighters.

Subtle? Sending my ships in plain view to rendez-vous with yours?

Worse, these were pop-carrying freighters, slated for the colonies you so "generously" allowed the Breads to take near your border. Your scanners should have picked all the pop liftings and droppings... if you had bothered to check.

Quote:

I did consult with another stars player about that manoever so I hope it wasn't all dream

And he also thought it was a clever move to send unarmed valuable freighters to mess with packet-catching fleets very possibly protected by cloaked no-nonsense skirmishers?

Quote:

>same as you say you did when another race attacked another different race. Not sure what you're talking about here.

You say the Duck attack on the Brutes alarmed you so much you decided to actually write down that vaporware treaty you had conned me into believing we had. Yet you claim you watched a dangerous, clever, subtle move of mine against your 1st line of defense and you didn't bother to wake up your diplomats for it? Awww, c'mon!

Report message to a moderator

joseph wrote on Mon, 28 August 2006 20:13

I am aware, that one of my fleets has encountered and destroyed one of yours, this was not as such intentional. I had intended to use Witter to refuel that fleet so that it could continue to further Duck worlds (and bomb them)

Karma did it, then. Some might say the Veggies had it coming!

Quote:

The only other attacks were of scouts orbiting worlds of mine

Spies, no doubt. You were lucky you didn't send any commando freighters to disable his packet-catchers, or it could have been your gates he had used.

Quote:

I have sent an email to the Breads informing them that in 2486 I will be attacking their worlds and fleets

I hope this is a typo!

I haven't received such a message!

[Updated on: Tue, 29 August 2006 06:34]

Report message to a moderator

PricklyPea wrote on Mon, 28 August 2006 21:00

Yes. I guess setting attack enemies instead of 'enemies and neutrals' would have prevented this (also removing armed ships from orbit).

So, you would actually ask someone to stop building their own fleets so they cannot accidentally harm your spies?

Report message to a moderator

vonKreedon wrote on Mon, 28 August 2006 21:56

even with a treaty it is incumbent on me to keep a wary eye on my allies because, assuming Sole Victory condtions, at some point my allies are likely to become my enemies.

That must be why he was trying to set me up to attack his friends the Tribbles, and at any rate encouraging both me and the Brutes to keep our attrition war against the Snarfs. Sadly from his point of view, both these HE races lacked the two convenient weak points that made the Breads so good a target, i.e: gates and replacement commanders.

[Updated on: Tue, 29 August 2006 06:33]

Report message to a moderator

Kotk wrote on Mon, 28 August 2006 22:03

multilis wrote on Mon, 28 August 2006 22:25 Backstab comes from real life idea of stabbing someone from behind who trusts you. I havent met someone with such a bright real life ideas.

You lucky you don't have stargates in real life.

Report message to a moderator

[Updated on: Tue, 29 August 2006 10:03]

Report message to a moderator

m.a@stars wrote on Tue, 29 August 2006 05:50

two convenient weak points that made the Breads so good a target

Actually, the plan was as follows:

1. Get tribbles to #2 position by attacking breads (presumed 3rd) on the assumption that tribbles were about to overtake the econ of snarfs (who probably have maxxed out their planets).

2. Disable the threat of packet attacks from nearby bread planets

3. I didn't really care who you, brutes or snarfs were attacking so long as it wasn't me

4. Since you had nil defences on all planets, it was a far too tempting a target. With snarfs moving closer, the opportunity to strike would disappear as you would presumably build defences soon.

The last point is that veggies could co-exist with all other races due to compatible habs, but were contesting with breads all the high-rad planets.

Report message to a moderator

With the benefit of hindsight, I should have waited til the new #1/#2 rules were announced so that instead of having to fight 3 races (maybe 4 depending on the dukks - I presume they are still your allies), I could focus on only 1.

But I don't mind a challenge

Report message to a moderator

m.a@stars wrote on Tue, 29 August 2006 02:09

vonKreedon wrote on Mon, 28 August 2006 16:04 MA - I note that you are not claming that there was an NAP in place. Without an explicit treaty there can't be a backstab can there? That is because I, as replacement player, have absolutely no proof of any treaties signed nor their special clauses. I just found two races set up as "friend" when I opened the 1st m file, I asked them both if we were allied, and they both said "yes".

I'd say you did not perform your due diligence in this matter. Simply being told that you are allied without being provided with the text of the treaty is like the proverbial verbal agreement being worth the paper its written on. When I take over a race I at the least insist that supposed allies provide me with the text of the alliance, if I know that the race I'm taking has allies. If I'm taking over the race blind then I simply broadcast that all treaties are now null and void, and invite players to open communications on establishing new treaties.

Report message to a moderator

PricklyPea wrote on Tue, 29 August 2006 17:21

Actually, the plan was as follows: 1. Get tribbles to #2 position by attacking breads (presumed 3rd) on the assumption that tribbles were about to overtake the econ of snarfs (who probably have maxxed out their planets).

Whatever you've been smoking, it can't be healthy!

Report message to a moderator

multilis wrote on Tue, 29 August 2006 15:47

whether his actions were intentional or an accidental triggering of unknown bug.

Oh, I'm pretty sure it was not intentional.

What I don't like one bit is his completely intentional and unmovable refusal to allow the game to be trivially fixed and continue.

Report message to a moderator

vonKreedon wrote on Tue, 29 August 2006 17:33

I'd say you did not perform your due diligence in this matter.

Hey, novice replacement player here , learning fast in the two steps left before the high fall and the final rest.

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator