At your service, Sir.Daniel A said:Thanks Lurken,
You just showed Cheech what I meant with an "alert intellect"
-
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.
cheech said:
... but the fact remains its one of the worst deals ive ever seen. Those provinces are vital for strategic reasons. Anyone can see that 300 is a stupid price. Anyone!
Indeed a stupid price. I would have given them for nothing.
Between friends one should avoid the question of money. That creates trust.
cheech said:
Indeed, again you are right. By this behaviour Duke has almost guranteed himself that during the next 200 years he will lose 10% of his income on endless wars with FRA which will on average end in no gains and no losses. A tactic worthy of an intellect set in stone (which for your information is the opposite of an alert one
).cheech said:
I never see any shameful in giving another an advantage when I myself get an advantage as well. I always am on the lookout for advantages I can gain and care little if in the process advantages spill out unevenly on the rest. Apparently you are not a player who plays to maximise the success of your nation and thus you are an apple while I am the orange.
cheech said:
A nice paradox (I took the liberty of underlining the two elements of the paradox in the quote). The logic of which is worthy of the man who just claimed that if FRA and AUS fights 20 wars in the game that proves that he was right in claiming that the proposed deal was bad for AUS, while in fact he only proved that the one who was right was his counterpart in the discussion who claimed
"You cannot fathom a game where AUS and FRA are friends. And there lies your basic problem"
If the deal was made AUS and FRA would become distinctly more friendly and the number of wars would as a consequence be far fewer than these 20 you talk about. But that you cannot understand, as I said. Thanks Cheech for so clearly proving I was right in my thesis.
cheech said:Heck i even played bavaria not long ago. You are the conservative in your huperteching. Your OE sounds to me very boring although i havnt seen it. GIving Austria hungary and then trading all game. You should just stick to portugal i think
Yeah, I first gave Hungary to Austria and then I traded the whole game. Now when I think back, if I only traded how the heck did I then end up with 200+ provinces? :rofl:
my god you are worse than i thought :rofl:
I read the rest of your response and its your usual arrogance really. You seem to love congratulating yourself on what a great player you are and how small minded i am. All your really doing though playing with my words. The basic point about me NOT being a conservitive player was true but you try and prove yourself right by poking fun at what i wrote. Fact is your wrong on CORE of the argument but youve reduced it to something more petty.
I have no doubt i will be proven right in the long term. Lets look at the france-austria balance though this game and bring back this discussion then. We will then see who was right.
Daniel,
I've already outlined the reasons I wouldn't have made the deal, quite apart from the largest issue-that being there is a limit to what kind of deals one ought to make in this game. It's not the real world. You aren't sparing the People the frivolities and dangers of war, and if you end the game with the highest income, having fought not a single war but drawn all your borders by words and not deeds, that success comes to nothing if you didn't have any fun.
I draw the line, for myself, at this notion of eternal peace between any two countries, but particularly any of the Big Four (France, Austria, the OE and Spain), because such a position, where Austria more or less gives away provinces and the two leave one another strictly alone, would not be any fun for me. Quite apart from the fact that this wasn't eternal peace as you and Lurken seem to suggest (the Dutch provinces were left out of it) and it would be far better for France in the long run than Austria, I wouldn't have accepted it even if it were. And neither would Cheech.
That's not an intellectual disparity. That's just a fundamental difference in our approach to the game, yours and mine. I like wars. I think this is a war game. I think the ultimate strength of one's own nation is less important than the relative strength of all nations, and war is one of the paramount means of weakening your neighbors. If at the end of the game a hyperteching England is making more money than your Mongol-like France but you can say you've defeated Austria thirteen times and Spain eleven times and occupied Moscow with Napoleon, you beat England in my book. And I think you had more fun doing it.
We can debate whether the deal was a good one on face-I don't believe it was and I've already stated my reasons-but there's just a difference of opinion here on our priorities in this game. No need to resolve them-widely divergent styles is one of the things that makes the game great. I enjoy nothing more than beating your ass on the field of battle after you've spent two hundred years counting coins. And I know you get a perverse pleasure watching the rest of us throw our money away on pointless conflicts from behind them-moreso, I would guess, than in the actual counting itself.
But what it comes down to is that Duke agrees with Cheech and me. Where you, Lurken, Oz, et al, or Cheech, Mulli and I, for that matter, stand on it is ultimately irrelevant-Duke thought it was a bad deal. And so he didn't agree to it.
I've already outlined the reasons I wouldn't have made the deal, quite apart from the largest issue-that being there is a limit to what kind of deals one ought to make in this game. It's not the real world. You aren't sparing the People the frivolities and dangers of war, and if you end the game with the highest income, having fought not a single war but drawn all your borders by words and not deeds, that success comes to nothing if you didn't have any fun.
I draw the line, for myself, at this notion of eternal peace between any two countries, but particularly any of the Big Four (France, Austria, the OE and Spain), because such a position, where Austria more or less gives away provinces and the two leave one another strictly alone, would not be any fun for me. Quite apart from the fact that this wasn't eternal peace as you and Lurken seem to suggest (the Dutch provinces were left out of it) and it would be far better for France in the long run than Austria, I wouldn't have accepted it even if it were. And neither would Cheech.
That's not an intellectual disparity. That's just a fundamental difference in our approach to the game, yours and mine. I like wars. I think this is a war game. I think the ultimate strength of one's own nation is less important than the relative strength of all nations, and war is one of the paramount means of weakening your neighbors. If at the end of the game a hyperteching England is making more money than your Mongol-like France but you can say you've defeated Austria thirteen times and Spain eleven times and occupied Moscow with Napoleon, you beat England in my book. And I think you had more fun doing it.
We can debate whether the deal was a good one on face-I don't believe it was and I've already stated my reasons-but there's just a difference of opinion here on our priorities in this game. No need to resolve them-widely divergent styles is one of the things that makes the game great. I enjoy nothing more than beating your ass on the field of battle after you've spent two hundred years counting coins.
And I know you get a perverse pleasure watching the rest of us throw our money away on pointless conflicts from behind them-moreso, I would guess, than in the actual counting itself. But what it comes down to is that Duke agrees with Cheech and me. Where you, Lurken, Oz, et al, or Cheech, Mulli and I, for that matter, stand on it is ultimately irrelevant-Duke thought it was a bad deal. And so he didn't agree to it.
I actually even disagree with this. Its not a matter of style of play. Its a bad deal even if you are a peacful hypertecher.
This france will use the aquired provinces to further his expansion more and more. At the most critical time in the game the habsburgs have lost vital provinces.
And lets say you know for a fact that both you and france are both peacful hypertecher types, therefore you can make this deal and be at peace or concentrate on other enemies. Im against this also because it is against the spirit of the game. You shouldnt be able to rely that much on another country because your fellow player is a friend irl or someone who keeps eternal naps. You should have to look over you back. The game shouldnt be too comfortable.
This france will use the aquired provinces to further his expansion more and more. At the most critical time in the game the habsburgs have lost vital provinces.
And lets say you know for a fact that both you and france are both peacful hypertecher types, therefore you can make this deal and be at peace or concentrate on other enemies. Im against this also because it is against the spirit of the game. You shouldnt be able to rely that much on another country because your fellow player is a friend irl or someone who keeps eternal naps. You should have to look over you back. The game shouldnt be too comfortable.
Last edited:
A fundamental difference between Daniel A. and that of many other players is that he tries to be the biggest bloke on the block when it's 1820. The years before that care him little.
If, to reach that goal, it means that he must be at peace with any of his neighbours in order to savely gobble up the AI, trade and hypertech, he will do it. As an Ottoman Empire he won't invade Europe at all, he will invade Asia, annex China and settle himself in Africa.
In the end, he will probably have the highest income, the most manpower and is able to crush two or three countries. It will be an amazing country.
However, as I already said, Daniel only looks to the end result.
Many more players look to the game as a whole. I myself, for example, would be more impressed with the result of an Ottoman Empire that manages to win ten wars in Europe and forces Austria to vassalship, even if it ends up less than decently in income and tech.
I am more impressed with a Spain that doesn't make a deal with France, but invades them with Alba and takes a good amount of territory from them, but has to lose it's territory 150 years later when Turenne returns the favour. It's even possible I am more impressed with this Spain, that might end up mediocre in income by 1820, compared to the super Ottoman Empire Daniel A. created. Simply because this Spain was great at another time than the endtime and in a different way. A way I like more.
If, to reach that goal, it means that he must be at peace with any of his neighbours in order to savely gobble up the AI, trade and hypertech, he will do it. As an Ottoman Empire he won't invade Europe at all, he will invade Asia, annex China and settle himself in Africa.
In the end, he will probably have the highest income, the most manpower and is able to crush two or three countries. It will be an amazing country.
However, as I already said, Daniel only looks to the end result.
Many more players look to the game as a whole. I myself, for example, would be more impressed with the result of an Ottoman Empire that manages to win ten wars in Europe and forces Austria to vassalship, even if it ends up less than decently in income and tech.
I am more impressed with a Spain that doesn't make a deal with France, but invades them with Alba and takes a good amount of territory from them, but has to lose it's territory 150 years later when Turenne returns the favour. It's even possible I am more impressed with this Spain, that might end up mediocre in income by 1820, compared to the super Ottoman Empire Daniel A. created. Simply because this Spain was great at another time than the endtime and in a different way. A way I like more.
HolisticGod said:
I have great fun HoG, all the time, and you know that it is so because you paint such an accurate picture when you write:
HolisticGod said:I enjoy nothing more than beating your ass on the field of battle after you've spent two hundred years counting coins.
Quite apt
If Duke or Cheech had claimed that the fun in the game got lost because they as AUS could not do battle to FRA there would be some kind of logic in their stance, but they did not. They simply claimed it was a "bad deal". For me that implicates that from a power point of view it was a bad deal and I am 99% sure that is what they meant.
But assume they had claimed it was the fun-factor. Let us look closer at that. If they had a relatively safe border with FRA they could still get all the wars they wanted versus BB, OE, Venice, Russia etc. And their chance to win them would increase if their ass was safe. Well, for all of us winning wars is one of the most fun things that exist in the game. So it appears they lost the fun-factor argument as well.
And then we are back to my basic theme. These guys fail to see the advantages not because they do some kind of objective analysis of the suggested deal but because their brain works as a railway. The path chosen is predetermined. For the train the rails decides its course, for them their experience binds their thinking ... AUS must fight FRA, must fight FRA, must fight FRA, ...
simply because that is how they have always played the game.
-------------
For me this is not a war game. For me it is so much more. Colonising, exploring, trading, diplomacy etc. That what's makes it so grand. Wars is just a part of it. Undoubtedly the one feature that gives you the greatest excitement, although not always fun - being beaten in wars is not fun. Anyone claiming that has no competitive spirit within himself.
FAL said:
Well written FAL.
It is a pity we do not have a well working VP system in EU. As it is each player can decide for himself what is his aim in the game and you accurately depict what I have decided to be mine, although I would say I rather try to be as big and powerful as possible. To become the biggest is in practice not possible for some nations, like Portugal.
Daniel,
Except some of us don't like to have a permanently safe border. We make more temporary deals but make sure we hit everybody in the game at least least once.
As I said, for me it's a fundamentally different approach to the game. Nothing wrong with that. It just so happens that Duke doesn't value that kind of peace the way you do.
Cheech,
I think it's a rotten deal as written too. I'm just saying the way Daniel presents the deal it could be considered enormously useful from a certain point of view.
Just not mine. But I recognize Daniel's style of play as perfectly valid, and I actually enjoy his company. Picking on the kid who likes to sit in the corner and label his rock collection is always more fun than picking on the kid (John) who stands in the middle of the dodge ball field and throws rocks at everyone.
Except some of us don't like to have a permanently safe border. We make more temporary deals but make sure we hit everybody in the game at least least once.
As I said, for me it's a fundamentally different approach to the game. Nothing wrong with that. It just so happens that Duke doesn't value that kind of peace the way you do.
Cheech,
I think it's a rotten deal as written too. I'm just saying the way Daniel presents the deal it could be considered enormously useful from a certain point of view.
Just not mine. But I recognize Daniel's style of play as perfectly valid, and I actually enjoy his company. Picking on the kid who likes to sit in the corner and label his rock collection is always more fun than picking on the kid (John) who stands in the middle of the dodge ball field and throws rocks at everyone.
On the subject of making bad deals England is considering auctioning Calais for the modest starting bid of 500d effective during the entire next session...
Daniel A said:
Wrong. I did that before.
P.S: If you're so bright, you really ought to stop calling people stupid because they do not evaluate things as you are.
HolisticGod said:
LOL :rofl: That's the best description of KJ I've heard yet.
Tem_Probe said:Wrong. I did that before.
LOL :rofl: That's the best description of KJ I've heard yet.
In what game was that Temu? No doubt some dishonorable act versus the poor spaniards
Regarding HoGs descriptions I thought his description of me was funny as hell as well :rofl:
Daniel A said:In what game was that Temu? No doubt some dishonorable act versus the poor spaniards
Regarding HoGs descriptions I thought his description of me was funny as hell as well :rofl:
I think it was one of the CQS series. And no, I didn't fight the Spanish. But I did occupy most of Italy, the greek islands, Romania, the Slavonic coast and Ukraine, not to mention the colonial empire :rofl: It's an odd-game where Portugal has more ship support and manpower than England.
So I presume at least 2 of the 3 provinces will be edited back to Austria then? I really can't believe anyone would think that the other person would accept such a deal to sell 3 valuable provinces for 300d. Unless your Daniel of course lol. Not even a 100 year NAP would be good enough, since that could be broken. I'd rather lose those 3 provinces in a war, at least it would cost France more....
You are forgetting that I would do what Daniel would have done. If France and Austria can co-exist and co-operate, they would be the great powers of Europe.
Not certain. Spanish cash and assistance would instead go to OE, BB and Poland. OE and Spain together are in the early game quite alot more powerful than Austria and France.Lurken said:
Fredrik has made it pretty clear what happens, but Ozzeh seems to differ, so idea atm..
The Austro-Franco deal will be edited out, 300D will be taken from Austrian treasury (Well Spanish treasury since Austria only have 85D ) to French treasury.
This is the only solution, i'm afraid.
As for the NA indians, it was decieded that we would play with them ON.
Also, the colonial taxes in the caribean mostly, is a joke. All the Islands got 1 tax base. If no-one objects those will also be changed to Vanilla standard.
Mostly because caribean should be a lucrative area for all the colonisers.
If nothing is done, i foresee a dead area with little or none activity in any kind. Probably Spanish level 6 TPs for sugar trade, and that would be sad really.
) to French treasury.This is the only solution, i'm afraid.
As for the NA indians, it was decieded that we would play with them ON.
Also, the colonial taxes in the caribean mostly, is a joke. All the Islands got 1 tax base. If no-one objects those will also be changed to Vanilla standard.
Mostly because caribean should be a lucrative area for all the colonisers.
If nothing is done, i foresee a dead area with little or none activity in any kind. Probably Spanish level 6 TPs for sugar trade, and that would be sad really.
Last edited: