Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

1419: New Order II

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Show only dev responses
Hive said:
Yes, we had a RM for more than 3 centuries. But measures had been taken exactly to end this huge alliance in the center of Europe.

Not renewing the RM is in no way a sign of hostility, and you can't claim that you had to do a pre-emptive strike or anything... it's a BS reason for attacking.

You say that you didn't plan anything... but I saw Burgundy build forts on my border (yes he may have built them other places too, but I couldn't see that!), and I asked about it... I then saw France build forts on my borders ONLY - and after that, France moved an army to the border as well...

So of course, I saw no reason to let you see exactly how much trouble I was in vs. OE, in case you would - as you did - take advantage of it.

But not signing a RM is probably the weakest excuse for war I have heard this year. Perhaps you should apply for a job in the Bush administration? :p
Click to expand...

1. Hive, ending the alliances didnot involve abolishing RMs, ~as our RM expired.

2. The forts that had been specifically built at *our* border were built in a previous session while we were still at war with england. ~ And they had been built on the venetian border. This was primarily because I saw the venetians building up troops - obviously to attack aragon - and i wanted a strong defense on the venetian border in the event other nations thought they would aid the venetians in their war against aragon.

3. Forts bordering primarily austria ( like Franche comte) were not upgraded until after you decided to not renew our RM.

4. Burgundy did upgrade their forts throughout their european territory. But your immediate response was to now get into a forts race by upgrading your forts. You response was to similar to the those that you used towards denmark when they were considered austrian enemies. I couldnt help but notice the erie similarities.

5. Heh, already working for Kerry :D
 
PJL said:
Although it did prove that the numerically inferior Venetian navy could beat the crap out of the Aragonese fleet.
Click to expand...

because it Hyperteched for a few years, after I expressed an interest in a 1v1 :p
 
Philip II said:
1. Hive, ending the alliances didnot involve abolishing RMs, ~as our RM expired.

2. The forts that had been specifically built at *our* border were built in a previous session while we were still at war with england. ~ And they had been built on the venetian border. This was primarily because I saw the venetians building up troops - obviously to attack aragon - and i wanted a strong defense on the venetian border in the event other nations thought they would aid the venetians in their war against aragon.

3. Forts bordering primarily austria ( like Franche comte) were not upgraded until after you decided to not renew our RM.

4. Burgundy did upgrade their forts throughout their european territory. But your immediate response was to now get into a forts race by upgrading your forts. You response was to similar to the those that you used towards denmark when they were considered austrian enemies. I couldnt help but notice the erie similarities.

5. Heh, already working for Kerry :D
Click to expand...

1. Still, I fail to see how you can see not giving you a RM as a declaration of war... :rolleyes:

2. I saw you improve forts on our border while we still had RM, and I wondered why you only build them on the border... it was brought to my attention when Venice asked you why you were improving the fort in Piemonte.

3. I'm fairly sure that's not true.

4. Why is it odd that when someone build larger forts on our borders, I do the same? :confused:

And it's totally different from what I did to Denmark. With Denmark, I demanded that he didn't increase his forts - otherwise, I would attack. :p

At any rate, It's not the fact that you attacked me that bothers me - it's the time to do it, the circumstances.

5. Really? I would have figured you more like a Bush man... at any rate, I think Kerry is a lost cause...
 
ForzaA said:
because it Hyperteched for a few years, after I expressed an interest in a 1v1 :p
Click to expand...

PJL shouldn't have talked to you about it first. You had minimum forts in almost all(if not all) of Italy, as well as no troops there (except for 7k or so) - he should just have assaulted his way through it, while blocking you from re-inforcing your position there...
 
ForzaA said:
because it Hyperteched for a few years, after I expressed an interest in a 1v1 :p
Click to expand...

Well, you could have attacked, whether I'd agreed to a 1 on 1 war or not. In fact I was half expecting you to...
 
Hive said:
1. Still, I fail to see how you can see not giving you a RM as a declaration of war... :rolleyes:

2. I saw you improve forts on our border while we still had RM, and I wondered why you only build them on the border... it was brought to my attention when Venice asked you why you were improving the fort in Piemonte.

3. I'm fairly sure that's not true.

4. Why is it odd that when someone build larger forts on our borders, I do the same? :confused:

And it's totally different from what I did to Denmark. With Denmark, I demanded that he didn't increase his forts - otherwise, I would attack. :p

At any rate, It's not the fact that you attacked me that bothers me - it's the time to do it, the circumstances.

5. Really? I would have figured you more like a Bush man... at any rate, I think Kerry is a lost cause...
Click to expand...

1. I assumed attack you before you could attack me. While I still expect an attack from you, atleast now i can consolidate my defenses.

2. Those large forts (4 were built before RM was discontinued) were built in my south-eastern corner, except for 1 which was built on my west coast.

3. Im not *fairly* sure its true, Im positive its true. Franche comte and Burgoune were not upgraded until you decided not to RM.

4. Not really odd, but it does show that suspicions exhist.

Hive, while I knew you were at war and that it would be an easy win...I really had no clue how bad of a position you were in. I figured the war was still teeter-tottering back and forth. While I expect you to remain pissed, I would still like to apologize.

5. Haha up until recently I had in my signature that I was "Proud to be a Democrat" ( Kerry's party) ~ ntm that he is a massachusetts senator ( where I live). I could see why you would think i would be pro-bush (with my uber- catholicism), but Im only a social conservative, Im definitley more liberal towards economics. I'de like to say Im more of a *Joe Lieberman Democrat* minus the Judiasm ;)
 
Hive said:
5. Really? I would have figured you more like a Bush man... at any rate, I think Kerry is a lost cause...
Click to expand...

Out of curiousity, how extensive is the election coverage overseas in europe. Im just wondering what material you have to make such a judgement.

~ I really have no opinion on what you said, as I dont really care for Kerry, I just hate Bush. I CAN tell you that kerry will win all of New England (whether or not New Hampshire joins in, I dont know ~ they probably will go bush), He will win New York, and he will win california.
 
Philip II said:
Apparently you forget that I was the first nation to be *partition* ~ actually, considering you are a sub, it could be you just werent there ;)
Click to expand...

hehe, that looks like circle :rofl:
 
Philip II said:
Out of curiousity, how extensive is the election coverage overseas in europe. Im just wondering what material you have to make such a judgement.

~ I really have no opinion on what you said, as I dont really care for Kerry, I just hate Bush. I CAN tell you that kerry will win all of New England (whether or not New Hampshire joins in, I dont know ~ they probably will go bush), He will win New York, and he will win california.
Click to expand...

Well for one thing: you guys were stupid enough to elect him once, why not again? :p

But aside from that, I think Kerry lacks some charisma, some appeal to the large group of Americans who vote on the person they think looks best on tv... and he doesn't even come close to Bush's financial support. Add to that that I think that Bush will get many votes on his handling of 9/11, the War on Terrorism, etc.
 
PJL said:
Well, you could have attacked, whether I'd agreed to a 1 on 1 war or not. In fact I was half expecting you to...
Click to expand...


Given that there was no *real* reason to :p

now, if I'd have a CB, I would have... but this time it was just because I felt like *doing* something that I asked for a war :)
 
Hive said:
Well for one thing: you guys were stupid enough to elect him once, why not again? :p

But aside from that, I think Kerry lacks some charisma, some appeal to the large group of Americans who vote on the person they think looks best on tv... and he doesn't even come close to Bush's financial support. Add to that that I think that Bush will get many votes on his handling of 9/11, the War on Terrorism, etc.
Click to expand...
Well anything is better than Bush, I hope to god he won't get credits for his own invented wars...
 
This suddenly became a political debate thread? :rolleyes:
 
Hive said:
Well for one thing: you guys were stupid enough to elect him once, why not again? :p

But aside from that, I think Kerry lacks some charisma, some appeal to the large group of Americans who vote on the person they think looks best on tv... and he doesn't even come close to Bush's financial support. Add to that that I think that Bush will get many votes on his handling of 9/11, the War on Terrorism, etc.
Click to expand...

Actually, as of yet Bush hasnt really played on his handling of 9/11. I suppose I may just not be seeing it cause Bush doesnt run TV adds in Massachusetts (would be a waste of money).

As for election, you are wrong with that. Bush actually wasnt elected~technically, his winning of the election was decided by a court. *The state of Massachusetts voted for Gore, and whether or not he won, atleast we know we did as much as we could to elect him.
 
Philip II said:
Ya i gues.

But it really shouldnt be thought of like that. I gues we/I still have to work on preventing gang bangs
Click to expand...

Gang bangs happens to everyone once and a while, and it SHOULD happen if the target nation is insanely uber.

(And wether Austria is/was uber or not is another matter).
 
World Conqueror said:
Gang bangs happens to everyone once and a while, and it SHOULD happen if the target nation is insanely uber.

(And wether Austria is/was uber or not is another matter).
Click to expand...


Well, The degree of that gangbang was rather minimal as far as the amount of nations participating in it.

.....Now Im just trying to figure out which country will fill the now vacant title of *Uber* :confused: :D
 
Philip II said:
Well, The degree of that gangbang was rather minimal as far as the amount of nations participating in it.
Click to expand...

The number of nations is completely irrelevant. What counts is the relative strength between the participating nations on each side of the war at that exact time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back