14 May 20 UTC | Spring, 2000: [USA]:esto solo en espanol? |
14 May 20 UTC | Spring, 2000: [South-Africa]:Argentina let’s DMZ Southwest Atlantic |
14 May 20 UTC | Spring, 2000: [Kenya]:No, pero algún español habrá |
14 May 20 UTC | Spring, 2000: [Quebec]:yo hablo penqueno espanol |
14 May 20 UTC | Spring, 2000: [Pacific-Russia]:espero no ser el unico espanol |
14 May 20 UTC | Spring, 2000: [Near-East]:Let’s get this party started. @Libya: Greetings Arab brother, how would you like to manage our Saudi-Egypt border? Seems like a potential trouble spot. Regardless, I look forward to negotiating with you and seeing how you and Europe manage the Med. @India: Afghanistan is a 50/50 center for both of us. Any way I can convince you to focus on the east and let me take it? Of course, I won’t take offense if you’d rather bounce there and kick the can down the road til next year. @Russia: “Who gets Armenia?” is one of history’s most consistent questions. Romans and Persians, Turks and Russians have all fought over it. I feel like I have a slightly stronger claim to it, but if I can engineer a second build somewhere else, I’d be perfectly happy to see it turn white. @Europe: Can we agree to a DMZ in the Balkans? That seems like a pretty logical buffer. |
14 May 20 UTC | Spring, 2000: [Quebec]:@jack I noticed you left china out of that post :P |
14 May 20 UTC | Spring, 2000: [Near-East]:How astute, it’s almost as though China is all the way on the other side of Asia! |
14 May 20 UTC | Spring, 2000: [Oz]:@jack Hey don’t leave me out! My country can be very influential in European politics! |
14 May 20 UTC | Spring, 2000: [China]:Yo habla un poco de espanolo tambien |
14 May 20 UTC | Spring, 2000: [Quebec]:ok can't think of any way other than to be upfront ^_^ I fully intend to go after western canada, especially after writing this message canada will start taking aim at me(and rightly so) @USA it will be you that likely decides who wins out of me and western canada, I am hoping that my openness in this message works in my favour in that regard but you gotta decide what you think is best @europe can we agree to a DMZ in norweigan sea and barents sea? @brazil can we agree to a DMZ in the norwest atlantic? @western canada nothing personal man @all buenas suerte!!!!!!!! |
14 May 20 UTC | Spring, 2000: [USA]:@Quebec, as long as your opening moves reflect that intention (by staying out of Union and NW Atlantic), my support is yours! Sorry western canada :( :( |
14 May 20 UTC | Spring, 2000: [Quebec]:I was planning to bounce in union as that will mean at the end of this we both get 1 SC because you can then support yourself in indiana or indeed easily get mexico and bounce in indiana well I am more than happy to work with you it is likely that an alliance between us 2 will not work once canada is gone(unless brazil/argentina is marching north by then) for this reason I think it makes sense for the 2 of us to grow at relatively the same pace rather than 1 grow faster than the other do you disagree with this analysis? as I have said to brazil in my previous message I would would like the northwest atlantic to be a DMZ |
14 May 20 UTC | Spring, 2000: [Quebec]:it is possible that the 2 of us could hold north america together without fighting however I think that is a discussion we should have further down the road when we have gained more trust with each other and seen how the rest of the world has developed |
14 May 20 UTC | Spring, 2000: [Near-East]:RIP Western Canada |
14 May 20 UTC | Spring, 2000: [USA]:I don't think we need to play it so slowly. While I don't want to lay out exactly what you should do here, you can play it so that you are very likely to secure 2 SCs this turn without keeping me out of Union / making your unit bouncing me otherwise useless for a full year. In any event, 1 SC in difference (a difference that may not ultimately materialize) seems to be splitting hairs. It's also uncertain what happens to me on the west coast. If I don't guess correctly, I could end up with no gains there, even if I send Texas to Nevada (though it wouldn't be in his long term interest to prevent me like that, given we're having this conversation publicly, seems reasonably likely that he will go that route). This is a long way of saying that I'd like you to reconsider your position on Union. |
14 May 20 UTC | Spring, 2000: [Quebec]:we must be counting differently :D there are 3 neutral SCs I can get to by this autumn and only 1 of them is likely to be uncontested because canada will likely bounce me in manitoba and you'll bounce me in union which just leaves godthab if you take union that puts you next to 2 of my SCs opening me up for a stab in 1902 if you have 5 units instead of 4 then you are in a better position than me to take more SCs and so continues a steamrolling effect while will be difficult for me to stop and then it will be very easy for you to eliminate me and have north america to yourself... indeed we do not know if any of the other countries will attempt to take america changing the situation but you being stronger than me so early on puts me at a major disadvantage |
14 May 20 UTC | Spring, 2000: [Quebec]:it also isn't much of a waste for my army to bounce you in union given that it's sandwiched between my 2 other SCs and union so can't really move much right now anyway |
14 May 20 UTC | Spring, 2000: [Quebec]:of course if you are concerned about armies being wasted you could instead give me union |
14 May 20 UTC | Spring, 2000: [Quebec]:ok I'll go with your plan instead |