Messages - vDiplomacy

Chat archive

30 Sep 21 UTC	Spring, 1800: Liberté, égalité, fraternité!
30 Sep 21 UTC	Spring, 1800: We always have been, we are, and I hope that we always shall be detested in France.
30 Sep 21 UTC	Spring, 1800: Bonjour all!
02 Oct 21 UTC	Spring, 1800: Here's hoping I wake up in time to read press sorry all
05 Oct 21 UTC	Autumn, 1800: GameMaster: Austria voted for a Cancel. If everyone votes Cancel all points will be refunded and the game will be deleted from the database.
07 Oct 21 UTC	Spring, 1801: GameMaster: Denmark voted for a Concede. If everyone (but one) votes concede the game will end and the player _not_ voting Concede will get all the points. Everybody else will get a defeat.
08 Oct 21 UTC	Spring, 1801: Sorry I was trying to leave lol
13 Oct 21 UTC	Autumn, 1802: GameMaster: Someone has taken over Spain replacing "General Pirolicchio". Reconsider your alliances.
13 Oct 21 UTC	Autumn, 1802: GameMaster: Spain voted for a Cancel. If everyone votes Cancel all points will be refunded and the game will be deleted from the database.
13 Oct 21 UTC	Autumn, 1802: GameMaster: Spain voted for a Concede. If everyone (but one) votes concede the game will end and the player _not_ voting Concede will get all the points. Everybody else will get a defeat.
20 Oct 21 UTC	Spring, 1805: The Pope has issued a decree in the name of the Church of St Peter, leave the Holy See her possessions and the temporal power of his god given lands or face eternal damnation.
20 Oct 21 UTC	Spring, 1805: ANNOUNCEMENT! To the governments in Stockholm, St. Petersburg, and Berlin: It was never my intent to break the alliance, if I wanted any of you to be eliminated, I would have sided with Britain instead. (May I remind you that it took a lot of cajoling to even convince me to turn on a neutral party I had arranged DMZs with). Barring that, (let's say after helping you, I had a change of heart) why would I go after Naples, your last standing enemy? A power I would definitely want on my side, were I to turn. The only explanation I can think of would be that I'm a complete tactical and diplomatic fool. I'm sure we can all agree I am not that, sirs. Your casus belli for this invasion of my sovereign lands is that I attempted to cause the alliance to fold in on itself and collapse. Nothing could be further from the truth. I looked out for each of your interests and protected your borders and seas faithfully. This newfound malice is unfounded, disgraceful, and barbaric. I am willing to split the points up to 4 ways, but at this point I don't really care who that is with. If Prussia wants to jeopardize his spot by turning on an ally, that's his choice. My opinion is that he's making the wrong one.
20 Oct 21 UTC	Spring, 1805: And if Russia or Sweden had desired to stab Prussia they would have had many chances thus far. Both have been faithful and honest partners on the battlefield alongside Prussian sailors and soldiers. France continues to insist that other parties are motivated to betray by their partners by their inability to continue to forceful expansion, an attitude that appears to be uniquely French. This has never been a concern for our alliance, as we have pragmatically moved to eliminate our geopolitical rivals with the victory of the alliance as a goal. Paris' inability to fathom this is telling. The accord between Sweden, Russia, and Prussia (The 2nd League of three Emperors) is ironclad. If France is unable to participate faithfully without casting aspersions and accusations then Berlin would be willing to offer Naples the same proposition that was offered to France: assuming Russia and Sweden concur.
20 Oct 21 UTC	Spring, 1805: "And if Russia or Sweden had desired to stab Prussia they would have had many chances thus far. Both have been faithful and honest partners on the battlefield alongside Prussian sailors and soldiers." As have the French. Or did you just conveniently forget our plans for a joint invasion of Naples, or when I singlehandedly saved your alliance by stabbing Britain for you? I will also point out that my interest was never to expand (other than my Spanish campaign) simply to protect my borders. This should be obvious, as the only centers I've picked up are Spanish and British. I have also had opportunities to stab you, but I declined, because I did, in fact, value our alliance at one point. The sanctity of which you have basely violated.
21 Oct 21 UTC	Spring, 1805: Following is a recording of recent communication between myself and Prussia: 04:14 PM Prussia: We're aware that you've been sowing disinformation in the alliance. We have to move to protect the tripartite agreement. 04:40 PM You: Disinformation? An example would be nice, please and thank you. 04:48 PM You: Here's a list of the information I have sent: 1) A warning of possible betrayal by Sweden, when he speculated stabbing you 2) A warning of possible betrayal by Russia, NOTED that it was from an unreliable source That is all. Anything else you may have heard is either lies or exaggeration. 05:05 PM Prussia: I think you misunderstood the extent of our cooperation. The three of us have shared your messages. Each time there's been an internal issue in the alliance we have all discussed it. Also Sweden and Russia both distrust you, so the idea that they would go behind my back to you is dubious. You've been trying to get each of us to stab the others for several turns, as you know. Also the message you sent me does not read like a Swedish message (English is not his first language), it sticks out to me as suspicious. The obligations we set out in this agreement were very plain, a four way draw, and NO actions to undermine the agreement or other members. The consequences are very plain. If you try to undermine the agreement, the other members will take counter-measures. 06:28 PM You: Right. You have not sent any examples of my "treachery", therefore, I do not believe that you have a proper casus belli against me. I have not attempted to break the alliance in any way. If you can find an example of a message where I actually said something like that, I would appreciate it. In addition, the first time I suggested anyone stab anyone else was after you mobilized in my direction the most recent time. If you wish me to show you the full Swedish message, I can do that. Also, how do you know that English isn't Sweden's first language? 06:30 PM You: Furthermore, I have acted with honor and integrity throughout the entire game, except when prompted to do so by you and Sweden, and that was against a neutral party with much persuading. What makes you think I would betray my game-long ally? I also find it rather insulting that you think I would do it so incompetently. When you say the words "We have to move to protect the tripartite agreement.", it kind of makes it seem like this was planned from the beginning. 06:32 PM You: Here is the full correspondence with Sweden, if you can be persuaded that I have no ill intent. Sat 16 Oct Autumn, 1803: You: Oh, good. What do you plan to do now that you're surrounded by allies? Sat 06 PM Autumn, 1803: Sweden: I need some time to think about that. Do you have any proposal? Sat 09 PM Autumn, 1803: You: Rest on your laurels. However, not to spread rumors, but I have heard rumor that Russia is looking to stab. (It's not from a reliable source, but there might be an element of truth to it) So maybe rest on your laurels, but fortify your eastern front... Sun 02 AM Autumn, 1803: Sweden: Thank you, I never really trusted Russia. And how are you relations with Prussia? As you know, we’re collaborating since the beginning of the game, but he left so many centres free. Sun 01 PM Autumn, 1803: You: We are allies, I trust him, and would rather not stab him. Mon 03 AM Autumn, 1803: Sweden: Sounds good. 06:45 PM Prussia: It was planned insofar as we agreed to an alliance fairly early in the game, and after resolving a short dispute with Russia in Austria, we fully committed to a three way draw upon victory. You were included in that agreement contingent on not undermining the very strong mutual trust the agreement rests on. The messages with Sweden are less important than the overall impression that all three of us have that you are uncomfortable with the alliance. Russia, Sweden, and myself have all received messages individually from you urging us not to trust the others. I've recieved no messages from Russia, or Sweden to that affect. Every time there's been an issue it's been resolved diplomatically. These bellicose disruptions have only taken place since we included you in the agreement. (also I don’t know that Sweden’s first language isn’t English, but I’m willing to wager based on my work as a translator and several grammatical/syntax errors he’s made that indicate he’s a non-native speaker). You can attempt to gaslight, but your actions speak for themselves. I think you expected one of us to move to violate the agreement before you needed to commit forces to a new war front. We’re simply pre-empting that. 07:03 PM You: You may notice that this "very strong mutual trust" is nothing but an illusion. Sweden states in our correspondence that he does not trust you, if you wish, I can also send a excerpt of my conversation with Russia, implying that he also does not trust you. What about my troop placement shows that I am "uncomfortable with the alliance"? If I was uncomfortable, there would be a fracking Maginot line across my eastern territories. Do you see one there, because I most certainly do not! Have you considered that the "bellicose disruptions" might have taken place not because I joined, but because Sweden no longer had any viable fronts, and Russia was colluding with Naples because he saw that Turkey would quickly fall and that there would soon be no way for anyone but you or me to gain centers? 07:14 PM Prussia: Russia has been the biggest advocate for a three way draw. He begged to attack Naples and I stopped him. So i know you're lying. Sweden has also been very keen on the draw, was reluctant to include you, but has defended Russia's participation largely because he didn't want cracks to form in the alliance. You've overplayed your hand early, and underestimated the extent to which Russia and Sweden have built trust reciprocal trust throughout this game. If you'd been a bit less obvious, you may have timed it better, and gotten one of us to wobble. As it stands, we've all noticed you whispering in our ears about the others, and it's simply not sustainable to maintain a partnership with you. 07:21 PM You: Make your arguments publicly. It's just the five of us left, and Naples might as well hear what's going on. Or are you afraid that someone's going to call your bluff? More excerpts from conversations with your allies: 12:25 PM You: Greetings Russia. It appears that Prussia and Sweden might want to go for a duo victory instead of splitting the game between the four of us. Any thoughts? 03:17 PM Russia: I know, I have this suspect 04:02 PM You: I will attempt to dissuade them from proceeding, but if they do, I believe we should ally ourselves against them.
21 Oct 21 UTC	Spring, 1805: Note that I cite proof from previous correspondences, whereas Prussia makes general statements with no solid evidence to back them up. Also, please note that I express a willingness to repair the alliance, but, alas, to no apparent avail, as Prussia seems suddenly impossible to reason with.
21 Oct 21 UTC	Spring, 1805: I'll reiterate that you have violated our agreement by undermining the solidarity of the alliance. I have been entirely forthright in my communication with my diplomatic partners, and even endeavoured to the same with my foes. I am confident that where disagreements or confusion has emerged, it has been dealt with lucidly. I will not be deceived though. I'm sure you did not anticipate our agreement to hold together with your interreference, and you would have opportunistically moved to take advantage of a Russian-Prussian or Swedish-Prussian war. I'll put your frustration down to you thinking that we would not notice your interloping, or that you thought you had time to adjust your troop deployments that you ultimately did not have. I offered Britain a very similar deal to the one we offered you, and he took advantage of our goodwill and attempted to splinter the alliance. We have chosen to act pre-emptively and rapidly to secure our interests and to reinforce the confidence of our allies. While you may have assisted in the defeat of the British, the brunt of those sacrifices were made by the Swedes, that's not to mention the shared experience of defeating the Turks, the Austrians, and the Danes. Our experience with France has been one of sustained mistrust, and repeated failures to communicate (especially in Northern Italy, with you promising various things to me and Naples separately). Your use of deception and misdirection in your diplomatic manoeuvres with Naples (and Britain) is consistent with our impression of your sustained efforts to undermine our pact with Sweden and Russia.
21 Oct 21 UTC	Spring, 1805: Well damn, for the founder of an alliance built on trust, you certainly are very paranoid (it takes one to know one, after all). I will defend myself yet again: I do not wish for the dissolution of the alliance. At this point, I have become very VERY disappointed in the amount of honor you have been showing recently, Prussia. Your repeated accusations of my "interloping", and insistence that you are correct, despite my well-founded protests (repeating, for the third or forth time that I am villainous scum, and had a master plan the entire time... at the same time defeating you own argument by telling me how incompetent I am). Comparing me to Britain is not fair, he stabbed you the second he had the chance, I did not. "While you may have assisted in the defeat of the British, the brunt of those sacrifices were made by the Swedes, that's not to mention the shared experience of defeating the Turks, the Austrians, and the Danes." No offence to Sweden, he would not still be here if it weren't for my help, the "brunt of the sacrifices" would have turned into "all of his territory was lost because his allies provided one fleet to his defense", so I'll have none of that, thank you. Furthermore, how was I supposed to help you against Denmark, Turkey, or Austria? I don't have a border with them. I helped where I could, and left you alone where I could not. "Our experience with France has been one of sustained mistrust, and repeated failures to communicate (especially in Northern Italy, with you promising various things to me and Naples separately). Your use of deception and misdirection in your diplomatic manoeuvres with Naples (and Britain) is consistent with our impression of your sustained efforts to undermine our pact with Sweden and Russia." If the Northern Italian incident you're referring to is the Vienna Scramble, I explained myself, and everything was sorted out. Completely and entirely through MY efforts. I made no "diplomatic manoeuvres" with Britain other than the standard beginning-of-game DMZs. And for the love of all that is holy, please back up these aggressive claims of my "deception and misdirection" with some EVIDENCE.
21 Oct 21 UTC	Spring, 1805: We have no desire or obligation to pursue further consultations with Paris. Prussia has sent the French ambassador and his diplomats back to France. They are heretofore personae non gratae.
21 Oct 21 UTC	Spring, 1805: GameMaster: France voted for a Draw. If everyone votes Draw the game will end and the points are split equally among all the surviving players, regardless of how many supply centers each player has.