Thank you. Could tell me what exactly you are going to do, please?Fredrik82 said:Of course
-
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.
the amount of minted ducat you got in treasury can be transfered to a by you requested tech investment. Then the inflation gained for that session will be removed.Lurken said:
I will take a look at the leader generator for next session, as it is almost only generating 4-5-5s o
o
well 2 of my provinces defected to china while zombie. i dont know how to get ids with this map though. i used to go to builders paradise.
After I have studied the technologies from the save, I think that trade is most useful to me.Fredrik82 said:
Daniel A said:Besides what I wrote was basically common sense.
You could have skipped the crap about how to humiliate a child to teach it to obey and so on. This is a minor, internal, easily-solved matter, and did not need someone to start knocking out people on the head over it.
Daniel A said:No, but the problem is easily solved if you just immediately peace out with your opponent and then leave the alliance. Time elapsed 10 seconds. Another case of common sense.
If you are suggesting whoever was the third to peace out(in this case Brandenburg) leaves the alliance after peacing, he can't: he was alliance leader. If you're suggesting that SWE-HOL white peace, that only creates a bigger problem than the one which was present. Or as you say...
Daniel A said:
Which is what we did. Brandenburg immediately peaced out and that left only 2 players in war vs England. To have the whole alliance peace out (not sure if this is what you suggested or not) would have created problems for us, without fixing anything for juv.
Tem_Probe said:
No it is not easy to solve. In your previous post you proved that by displaying that you have still not even accepted the fundamental principle that what you had to do was to eliminate the existence of the condition that constituted your rule-break.
Tem_Probe said:
1. The rule was max 2 per alliance
2. You were 3
3. Thus one must leave the alliance
It has nothing to with who is in the war. It has only to do with you being not more than two in the alliance.
(The fact you were more than 2 was the "condition" I referred to above. )
Whether you are in war or peace is as well nothing that concerns the rest of the players. As soon as you see someone calling attention to the rule you must solve the situation by one of you leaving the alliance. This may mean that one or more of you must ask for peace. (If your opponent disagrees we have another problem which however is easily soved. But a nation in war would more often than not be charmed if his opponents by mistake broke a rule and because of this one or two of them would have to call of the attack and perhaps leave a third alone and then the ones leaving the war had to pay 5 in stab for breking truce and get back into the war. How I would laugh!).
It may well turn out that this creates a "bigger problem" than the current one was, but only for you, not for the rest and n.b. I fail to see how it could create any other problem for you than that of a "less successful game play". I cannot fathom how it could create any practical problem to speak about. To make peace and leave an alliance is not difficult or burdensome to do. Thus, when you say it "creates bigger problems" you in fact appear trying to seduce the reader into believing there are practical problems, as this is how a casual reader will probably interpret it.
If you break the rules and it can be solved by ingame actions (especially if those are easy to do), rather than edits, then that is the preferred action and the one that as far as I know always have been applied in the games I have participated in. I believe that this kind of limitation on alliances is in fact the most common type of those errors that are fixed ingame. Before this incident I have never heard about anyone refusing to obey a rule about that. When people are reminded of the rule they solve it directly.
From post 1
Fredrik82 said:
I am looking forward to see what punishment Fredrik will hand out. According to this, his own rule, it is mandatory.
I dont really get what the fuss is about.
BB, Sweden and NL broke a rule, although it was not intentionally, when this was discovered, BB peaced out but didnt leave the alliance because they were at war.
Is it something more to it than that?
EDIT: If im not completely wrong, there has been alliances with 3 countries in it before, France (before I took them over), Venice and The Ottoman Empire and they didnt get any punishment AFAIK, so I dont think that the punishment should be too severe.
BB, Sweden and NL broke a rule, although it was not intentionally, when this was discovered, BB peaced out but didnt leave the alliance because they were at war.
Is it something more to it than that?
EDIT: If im not completely wrong, there has been alliances with 3 countries in it before, France (before I took them over), Venice and The Ottoman Empire and they didnt get any punishment AFAIK, so I dont think that the punishment should be too severe.
And if my memory serves me right there was an alliance Austria-Poland-Sweden to counter Russia when it was still very powerful compared to Poland and Sweden.
Venice, France and OE (plus some minors) had a defensive alliance earlier, i don't think we attacked anyone. Spain perhaps attacked us, not sure.
But ofcourse the rules should be applied, shame on Frederik for not pointing out it
But ofcourse the rules should be applied, shame on Frederik for not pointing out it
I trust you guys when you say that it was a misstake, and as i understand it the three nation alliance didn't accomplish anything against England as Brandenburg peaced out.?
I will therefore not punish anyone.
If Juv got any other opinion, or consider this unfair for some reason i will listen to him and perhaps reconsider.
People do misstakes, even i do sometimes (extremely rare though )
I will therefore not punish anyone.
If Juv got any other opinion, or consider this unfair for some reason i will listen to him and perhaps reconsider.
People do misstakes, even i do sometimes (extremely rare though
)
Absolut said:
It may well have been so that they did not break the rule intentionally when they allied, as PJL e.g. said, but that is not what we are discussing. We discuss the fact that they intentionally broke it when they did not get down to two alliance members when they were reminded about the rule. Temu explicitly confessed they (at least those who saw the reminder) did not. Because of "problems" it would create he said.
In fact I believe you should never penalise people for involuntary breaking of rules (case 1). As in Chill4 when people take to many provinces. We have either merely edited them away or made sure they did not gain from it (by removing money from treasury etc). Thus more a case of trying to get back to scratch than actually giving a penalty, although it may not have appeared so.
Thus Fredrik's penalty rule covers too much I think.
Penalties are mainly appropriate for knowingly breaks of rules of order (case 2), like not being in vnet on time or without giving notice of being absent from a session or not be silent if the GM demands silence etc. I.e. rules of order and courtesy. Here people allow themselves to break written or unwritten rules far too much.
The 3rd case is as here when people knowingly breaks a material game rule. That is very rare and really should be nonexistent.
But my guess is that what Fredrik wants more than anything else is that I leave this discussion now and so I will try and do.
EDIT: This post was written without me noticing Fredrik's post right above this one.
Last edited:
Lurken said:
Good ponit - there defintely was such an alliance, but again, only Austria and Poland actively fought Russia. So it wasn't the first time such a rule had been broken inadvertantly.
I've just received word from a partner in University that we have an unexpected extra work due for tuesday for one of my classes. So I'll need to skip tomorrow as I'll be working on that all day-long. I'll try to get myself a sub. Feel free to contact me for diplomacy tonight or tomorrow pre-game.
JTU will sub me. I've left him some instructions, though I'm still up for diplomacy until the session start.
Due to my classes not ending until 20.00 cet mondays at times (This was a known fact before the campaign started) and certain in game issues that I am strongly opposed to I feel it's better for all parties if I step down from this game.
England is in excellent shape and could play a major role under a skilled player and in a proper EU environment if such could be created in this game.
I apologize for any inconvenience this might create and wish you all good luck in the future.
England is in excellent shape and could play a major role under a skilled player and in a proper EU environment if such could be created in this game.
I apologize for any inconvenience this might create and wish you all good luck in the future.