• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.

unmerged(26)

Captain
Jan 20, 2000
438
1
Visit site
Hello everybody.
If you have read my knight AAR, I need your opinion on my strategy. So give a note corresponding to what you thing of such way of playing:
5: Great player with a lot of moral decision. Could be ONU president.
4: Great leader of the country. His actions are brilliants even if sometimes not very moral.
3: Normal leader. Sometimes do thing right, and sometimes bad.
2: Immoral leader: his action are not legals. Dictator and ennemy of peace.
1: Bloody bastard and War criminal: he don't respect any rules. Should not have the right to play EU.

Personnaly, I will give to me 1 (perhaps even 0).
 
Sarges,

I'd give you a '4'. But I wouldn't give '5' to any player because I think that 'moral' and 'great player' are mutually exclusive. You exploited brilliantly the opportunities available, appraising the risks involved with possible gains ...and you were succesful. You definitely earned the highest marks for the achievment of turning a funny midget like the Knights into a international player. You might have been a little rough in the process, but more power to you, it made a VERY interesting AAR.

Before anyone is offended, let me add that the above applies to games only, I'm not too sure if I would appreciate Rhodes backstabbing Turkey in real-life. And, If I had bought some St. John bonds I would have been furious by your intentional bankrupcy.
Now that's immoral! :)

H
 
I had no particular problem with you backstabbing the Turks. They would have done you in on the first opportunity. It is a simple matter of self-preservation. Moreover, the majority of the territory taken by your forces had been recently conquered by the Turks - it was being liberated. Moreover, if the Turks were not aggressively attempting to expand their borders by attacking other powers, they wouldn't have had the problem. Sow the wind, inherit the whirlwind...

Now do not get me wrong. The world would be a better place without any war. But in EU (and in the timeframe in real life), that was not an option. Those that tried to make peace generally ended up on the short end of the stick. When Poland in good faith gave up territory to the Russians to get them to join the Holy Alliance, little did they know that the Russians would be the driving force behind Poland's destruction.

Now, taking loans without even the slightest intention of paying them back is another story. The good Catholics will need to make restitution and probably buy some indulgences for the usury. And I better not see you attacking your fellow Catholics (and fellow Christians) without very good reason.
 
If I were the sultan of the Ottoman empire, I'm sure I'd brand you as a 1 or less. However, what you've done for your Knightly Order will mark you as the greatest patriarch of their history and they'd vote you as a 5 due to your victories with minimal bloodshed.

Personally, I'd go for 5 in terms of pure accomplishments, as the backstabbing is a legitimate strategy. However the planned bankruptcy does have negative moral issues attached, so there I'd have to go for a '2' on that scale.

I'd like to see if you can sustain your gains, even if you manage only to keep your territories intact I'll still say you've gotten a guaranteed '4' if you can expand some more, you'll garner a '5' :)