Rabelais wrote:It's not actually true.
If Utgard is annexed by Abysia... then Caelum will be between you and me. Marignon's northern border is Abysia, while their eastern border is the sea.
So I'm not misrepresenting the situation if you annex Utgard in any way or form
You can certainly
claim that you will stop attacking after you take Utgard and turtle. But even if you do turtle you'll still be left in a position of power - which isn't good news for Caelum and Marignon in the long term (as they'd be hemmed in), and definitely bad news for Utgard because they'd cease to exist.
Simple geography required I attack Utgard, as any other opponent would have made my borders absurdly elongated. It's a war game, and my territory is very economically feeble.
It's also a game of diplomacy however, and let's face it - Utgard has made a lot of friends - including Chelms.
Utgard is not just a simple geographical convenience. They're a fellow nation-player that's been pretty active on the diplomatic front, and I'm fairly sure that more than one player owes him.
Had you invaded say, Ermor instead, then Chelms wouldn't be protesting so much. Unless of course that results in Ermor firing the old age anthrax missiles into the atmosphere
![Tongue :p](./images/smilies/tongue1.gif)
.
Also, that reminds me... Utgard, any aid requests for this turn?
As you would attest, people with excess income like to turtle, where they run out of profitable opportunities to posture on the way to further conquest.
Or I could have bumped up my military production until my income was almost entirely consumed by upkeep... and then I could have used those massive armies to conquer my weaker neighbors.
But again, I'm not doing that. Because I prefer to play using soft power. The massive gem income you keep panicking over isn't being hoarded to create something to doom the world. A lot of it is in fact going to help support various allied/friendly states
![Smile :)](./images/smilies/smileyellow.gif)
.