+ Reply to Thread
Page 52 of 82 FirstFirst ... 2 27 42 50 51 52 53 54 62 77 ... LastLast
Results 1,021 to 1,040 of 1632

Thread: The End Is Not Yet: MP 900-year game

  1. #1021
    Quote Originally Posted by Varyar View Post
    Why would I have to withdraw them? If you're on your way to attack their presence is legal. Only if you halt your attack do I have to withdraw them. Either way, you'll be fighting 40 divisions
    Nono not if your troops get there first, even if mine are moving.

    The rules are written are that if I have troops moving to attack, then you can move troops to reinforce but if yours arrive first regardless of my troops you have to withdraw them, I can either choose to keep moving and potentially get there before you can withdraw and thus make it legal or stop attacking and wait for you to withdraw.
    If your using ships then obviously youll get there first however you also load troops faster then mine move making it so I can attack only the 20 until you move the divisions back.

    Denying entrenchment bonus to the second or more stacks.
    He who wishes to fight must first count the cost. When you engage in actual fighting, if victory is long in coming, then men's weapons will grow dull and their ardor will be dampened. If you lay siege to a town, you will exhaust your strength. Again, if the campaign is protracted, the resources of the State will not be equal to the strain. Now, when your weapons are dulled, your ardor dampened, your strength exhausted and your treasure spent, other chieftains will spring up to take advantage of your extremity. Then no man, however wise, will be able to avert the consequences that must ensue... In war, then, let your great object be victory, not lengthy campaigns.
    -Sun Tzu, the Art of War

  2. #1022
    Grandpa Maur DarthMaur's Avatar
    Europa Universalis 3Europa Universalis: Rome

    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Warsaw, Poland
    Posts
    8,385
    Haven't played Ricky lately, but between forts, entrenchments and terrain bonuses i doubt naval support will make the day.
    Polyamory? And now also the (shorter, but expanding lately!) Polish version!

    Androgynous atheist bisexual feminist liberal libertine polyamorous transhumanist switch.

  3. #1023
    POPpet Master Varyar's Avatar
    200k clubHoI AnthologyCrusader Kings IIDeus VultDiplomacy
    EU3 CompleteFor The GloryHeir to the ThroneEuropa Universalis III: In NomineEU3 Napoleon's Ambition
    Victoria: RevolutionsEuropa Universalis: RomeVictoria 2Victoria II: A House DividedRome: Vae Victis
    EU Rome Collectors EditionEU3 Collectors Edition500k clubEuropa Universalis IV: Pre-orderCrusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
    Crusader Kings II: Sword of IslamCrusader Kings II: Sunset InvasionCrusader Kings II: The RepublicCrusader Kings II: The Old GodsCrusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
    Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    lo·ca·tion n. 1. The act or process of locating. 2. A place where something is or could be located; a site.
    Posts
    2,900
    Quote Originally Posted by Sid Meier View Post
    Nono not if your troops get there first, even if mine are moving.

    The rules are written are that if I have troops moving to attack, then you can move troops to reinforce but if yours arrive first regardless of my troops you have to withdraw them, I can either choose to keep moving and potentially get there before you can withdraw and thus make it legal or stop attacking and wait for you to withdraw.
    If your using ships then obviously youll get there first however you also load troops faster then mine move making it so I can attack only the 20 until you move the divisions back.

    Denying entrenchment bonus to the second or more stacks.
    We obviously need a GM ruling on this. KoM, I choose you! *tosses poké ball*
    - I regret to say I have never heard of Kraftwerk.
    J M Coetzee

    Liberty and Responsibility, Equality and Solidarity, Fraternity and Compassion

  4. #1024
    Field Marshal von_Rundstedt's Avatar
    HoI AnthologyCommander: Conquest of the AmericasDeus VultEuropa Universalis 3Divine Wind
    Hearts of Iron IIIHeir to the ThroneEuropa Universalis III: In NomineEU3 Napoleon's AmbitionVictoria 2
    Victoria II: A House Divided

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Deutschland
    Posts
    2,893
    Quote Originally Posted by Varyar View Post
    We obviously need a GM ruling on this. KoM, I choose you! *tosses poké ball*
    I believe Sid is right on this. You can have 20 divisions in a province, and set up your reinforcements to arrive one day after the enemy, but if you arrive with more than 20 divisions without fighting the Chinese, even if they are on the move, you have to withdraw immediately.

  5. #1025
    POPpet Master Varyar's Avatar
    200k clubHoI AnthologyCrusader Kings IIDeus VultDiplomacy
    EU3 CompleteFor The GloryHeir to the ThroneEuropa Universalis III: In NomineEU3 Napoleon's Ambition
    Victoria: RevolutionsEuropa Universalis: RomeVictoria 2Victoria II: A House DividedRome: Vae Victis
    EU Rome Collectors EditionEU3 Collectors Edition500k clubEuropa Universalis IV: Pre-orderCrusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
    Crusader Kings II: Sword of IslamCrusader Kings II: Sunset InvasionCrusader Kings II: The RepublicCrusader Kings II: The Old GodsCrusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
    Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    lo·ca·tion n. 1. The act or process of locating. 2. A place where something is or could be located; a site.
    Posts
    2,900
    Quote Originally Posted by The Rules
    At most 20 divisions may occupy one province, except when attacking an enemy-held province or being attacked; in this case, up to 60 divisions may be used.
    The heart of the matter is the definition of "being attacked". My argument is that if enemy troops are approaching a province (but have yet to reach it) the province is being attacked. Your argument, presumebly, is that a province isn't being attacked until the attacking forces have actually reached it.
    - I regret to say I have never heard of Kraftwerk.
    J M Coetzee

    Liberty and Responsibility, Equality and Solidarity, Fraternity and Compassion

  6. #1026
    Quote Originally Posted by Varyar View Post
    The heart of the matter is the definition of "being attacked". My argument is that if enemy troops are approaching a province (but have yet to reach it) the province is being attacked. Your argument, presumebly, is that a province isn't being attacked until the attacking forces have actually reached it.
    Thats Hearts of Iron not Victoria, in Victoria that is "movement" it is only attacked when it reaches it.
    He who wishes to fight must first count the cost. When you engage in actual fighting, if victory is long in coming, then men's weapons will grow dull and their ardor will be dampened. If you lay siege to a town, you will exhaust your strength. Again, if the campaign is protracted, the resources of the State will not be equal to the strain. Now, when your weapons are dulled, your ardor dampened, your strength exhausted and your treasure spent, other chieftains will spring up to take advantage of your extremity. Then no man, however wise, will be able to avert the consequences that must ensue... In war, then, let your great object be victory, not lengthy campaigns.
    -Sun Tzu, the Art of War

  7. #1027
    Quote Originally Posted by hyme View Post
    # Stacking limits

    # Any time the rule is broken, the divisions breaking it will be deleted by edit; other sanctions may be imposed at the GM's discretion.
    So China is going to have several hundred divisions deleted?

  8. #1028
    Not a necromancer, no sir! Foelsgaard's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    754
    Quote Originally Posted by Irsh Faq View Post
    So China is going to have several hundred divisions deleted?
    For several reasons, I think not.

  9. #1029
    Captain
    Crusader Kings IIEU3 CompleteDivine WindFor the MotherlandHearts of Iron III
    Semper FiVictoria 2Warlock: Master of the Arcane

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ottawa
    Posts
    477
    Quote Originally Posted by Irsh Faq View Post
    So China is going to have several hundred divisions deleted?
    No, aside from their army not being that large, there have been nothing more then a few accusations. Even on those there has been no GM ruling on the matter.

    From what I have seen it does seem like the stacking rule is working as intended. Without it the whole China-Georgia war would have been a couple of doomstacks throwing themselves at each other near the border until one side gives up. With it the war seems to have been very fluid. While I don't like China having used Finland as a doormat to invade Georgia that is a matter of diplomacy and fully within the rules.

    It will be interesting how the stacking rule holds up in the up and coming Coalition versus China war but I do expect to see something to the same effect as with Georgia. A very fluid front requiring skilled players to move their forces responsibly.

  10. #1030
    Quote Originally Posted by Thlawrence View Post
    No, aside from their army not being that large, there have been nothing more then a few accusations. Even on those there has been no GM ruling on the matter.

    From what I have seen it does seem like the stacking rule is working as intended. Without it the whole China-Georgia war would have been a couple of doomstacks throwing themselves at each other near the border until one side gives up. With it the war seems to have been very fluid. While I don't like China having used Finland as a doormat to invade Georgia that is a matter of diplomacy and fully within the rules.

    It will be interesting how the stacking rule holds up in the up and coming Coalition versus China war but I do expect to see something to the same effect as with Georgia. A very fluid front requiring skilled players to move their forces responsibly.
    While in the looming crisis its one skilled player vs several unskilled players ^-^

    I didn't use finland as doormat, he was at war with me so I took the oppurtunity, if he didn't want me to go through him to get around Georgia then he shouldn't have been at war with me. He dowed me and not vice versa.
    He who wishes to fight must first count the cost. When you engage in actual fighting, if victory is long in coming, then men's weapons will grow dull and their ardor will be dampened. If you lay siege to a town, you will exhaust your strength. Again, if the campaign is protracted, the resources of the State will not be equal to the strain. Now, when your weapons are dulled, your ardor dampened, your strength exhausted and your treasure spent, other chieftains will spring up to take advantage of your extremity. Then no man, however wise, will be able to avert the consequences that must ensue... In war, then, let your great object be victory, not lengthy campaigns.
    -Sun Tzu, the Art of War

  11. #1031
    Quote Originally Posted by Thlawrence View Post
    No, aside from their army not being that large, there have been nothing more then a few accusations.

    I see screenshots, do you see screenshots?

    I guess no deletions then though? Although the stacking rule certainly seems to have caused a mess, either way.

  12. #1032
    Quote Originally Posted by Irsh Faq View Post

    I see screenshots, do you see screenshots?

    I guess no deletions then though? Although the stacking rule certainly seems to have caused a mess, either way.
    The stacking rule is work as designed.

    Also, the accuser waiting until after the session is over seems more like an attempt to game the rules to his advantage to avert his defeat rather then to actually be an honest attempt at making sure the rules are followed.

    If you see a rule breach report on it ingame right away pause if nessasary.
    He who wishes to fight must first count the cost. When you engage in actual fighting, if victory is long in coming, then men's weapons will grow dull and their ardor will be dampened. If you lay siege to a town, you will exhaust your strength. Again, if the campaign is protracted, the resources of the State will not be equal to the strain. Now, when your weapons are dulled, your ardor dampened, your strength exhausted and your treasure spent, other chieftains will spring up to take advantage of your extremity. Then no man, however wise, will be able to avert the consequences that must ensue... In war, then, let your great object be victory, not lengthy campaigns.
    -Sun Tzu, the Art of War

  13. #1033
    Why did you guys do a stack rule, by the way? To favor maneuver warfare? But it's not like WWI era warfare was known for being high-mobility :P The technology for blitzkrieg (proper bombers, properly militarized internal combustion engine, and military radios) didn't exist.

  14. #1034
    Quote Originally Posted by Irsh Faq View Post
    Why did you guys do a stack rule, by the way? To favor maneuver warfare? But it's not like WWI era warfare was known for being high-mobility :P The technology for blitzkrieg (proper bombers, properly militarized internal combustion engine, and military radios) didn't exist.
    Because the alternative made even less sense.

    Stalemade on the western front was because of A) the German attack bogged down giving the French time to entrench. and B) Because neither side was willing to violate swiss neutrality.

    Both sides had sufficient troops to prevent any flanking of the front resulting in expensive offencives to push back the front and never achieve a breakthrough until the advent of armor.

    The front with Georgia was for about 4 months this exact kind of stalemate until i realized Finland was not neutral afterall.

    Wars from 1700's to WWI were wars of maneuever or at least the Napoleanic wars were a better example of this anyways of large armies constantly maneuvering for the best ground.
    He who wishes to fight must first count the cost. When you engage in actual fighting, if victory is long in coming, then men's weapons will grow dull and their ardor will be dampened. If you lay siege to a town, you will exhaust your strength. Again, if the campaign is protracted, the resources of the State will not be equal to the strain. Now, when your weapons are dulled, your ardor dampened, your strength exhausted and your treasure spent, other chieftains will spring up to take advantage of your extremity. Then no man, however wise, will be able to avert the consequences that must ensue... In war, then, let your great object be victory, not lengthy campaigns.
    -Sun Tzu, the Art of War

  15. #1035
    Resident Opportunist King of Men's Avatar
    Arsenal of DemocracyHearts of Iron 2: ArmageddonCrusader Kings IIDeus VultEuropa Universalis 3
    Divine WindHearts of Iron IIIHOI3: Their Finest HourHeir to the ThroneEuropa Universalis III: In Nomine
    EU3 Napoleon's AmbitionVictoria 2Victoria II: A House DividedVictoria II: Heart of DarknessCK2: Holy Knight
    500k club

    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    I was banned from religion threads before it was cool. And after it was cool.
    Posts
    7,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Irsh Faq View Post

    I see screenshots, do you see screenshots?

    I guess no deletions then though? Although the stacking rule certainly seems to have caused a mess, either way.
    You gentlemen ought not to jump to conclusions. I am a busy man and, just because I do not make a decision two minutes after something is posted, that does not mean no decision will be made.

    The stacking-rule discussion might be better suited for Ederon, perhaps.
    MP Megacampaigns :
    The Great Game: CK, EU2, EU2 stats, Vicky, Doomsday.
    There Will Be War: CK, EU3, Vicky, Arma.
    Children of the Fatherland: Crusader Kings. Divine Wind I II Victoria 2
    Final update 22-January-2013: Final Overview
    God Will Know His Own: CK2 EU3

  16. #1036
    Don't rush the norse god! Let him go at Baldur's Gait...

    But anyways Secrets didn't say anything about me breaking any rules during the session but waited until after the war was lost to whine about anything, its his own damn fault. If you see someone making a mistake you dont just stand there and do nothing, especially when that mistake can and will harm you.
    He who wishes to fight must first count the cost. When you engage in actual fighting, if victory is long in coming, then men's weapons will grow dull and their ardor will be dampened. If you lay siege to a town, you will exhaust your strength. Again, if the campaign is protracted, the resources of the State will not be equal to the strain. Now, when your weapons are dulled, your ardor dampened, your strength exhausted and your treasure spent, other chieftains will spring up to take advantage of your extremity. Then no man, however wise, will be able to avert the consequences that must ensue... In war, then, let your great object be victory, not lengthy campaigns.
    -Sun Tzu, the Art of War

  17. #1037
    Major hyme's Avatar
    Hearts of Iron 2: ArmageddonCrusader Kings IIDeus VultEuropa Universalis 3For the Motherland
    Hearts of Iron IIIHeir to the ThroneEuropa Universalis III: In NomineLost Empire - ImmortalsEU3 Napoleon's Ambition
    Victoria: RevolutionsEuropa Universalis: RomeSemper FiSengokuSword of the Stars II
    Supreme Ruler 2020Victoria 2Victoria II: A House DividedRome: Vae VictisMount & Blade: Warband
    Warlock: Master of the ArcaneCK2: Holy Knight500k club

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Muscoda WI, US
    Posts
    783
    I should also point out the aforemened encirclements, the war at this point was already lost for Georgia regardless of my throwing everything into wiping out his stacks or not, actually study the situtation before making baseless assumptions.
    Sid are you says it was ok for you to broke the rules because Georgia had lost the war? Because some of the screens i saw where you broken rules looks like they took place in Finland. I think if the other people had done this sid you would "crying a river".
    Last edited by hyme; 08-10-2009 at 05:15.
    "Berlin is the testicle of the West. When I want the West to scream, I squeeze on Berlin." Nikita Khrushchev

    "Under my command, every mission is a suicide mission."- Zapp Brannigan, Futurama


    "Capitalists will always find a way of buying themelves out of any crisis. As long it's the workers that foot the bill" Lenin

  18. #1038
    Quote Originally Posted by Sid Meier View Post
    Because the alternative made even less sense.

    Stalemade on the western front was because of A) the German attack bogged down giving the French time to entrench. and B) Because neither side was willing to violate swiss neutrality.

    Both sides had sufficient troops to prevent any flanking of the front resulting in expensive offencives to push back the front and never achieve a breakthrough until the advent of armor.

    The front with Georgia was for about 4 months this exact kind of stalemate until i realized Finland was not neutral afterall.
    Point granted on the Finnish front - if a front simply becomes too long for trench warfare, then it's too long. But I do disagree with your analysis of trench warfare.

    In WWI, despite the name, the stalemate of trench warfare was not really due to trenches, literally. It was never impossible to break through the trench lines, it was impossible to exploit breakthroughs, because the defender (on whichever side) had a huge advantage in communications and logistics and so could move and concentrate troops much more effectively than the attacker. The massive trench lines were just a better way of defending that arose naturally once warfare had already become static due to the defenders natural mobility-and-concentration advantages on the Western Front. Note that in 1914, first the French stopped the German attacks, then the trenches started growing, not the other way around.

    Armor didn't change this equation at all, nor did other breakthrough weapons such as stormtroopers or simply massed artillery. They just made it easier to do what was already possible, break the trench lines, but they didn't help with the real problem of the Western Front - that the attacker was unable to move and concentrate troops better than the defender irregardless of the trenches. That's why the war in the West ended literally when one side was too exhausted to continue, rather than on any of the many times when offensives temporarily broke the front lines, whether with tanks, artillery, stormtroopers, or just mass human waves.

    I'm curious because the stack rule you've implemented would seem to give the mobility and concentration advantage to the attacker, when really, it was the defender that enjoyed these advantages (assuming relatively equal infrastructure, etc) up til the advent of motorized troops and the widespread military use of radio. But I guess it's a somewhat academic distinction for Vicky?

  19. #1039
    I happen to recall the Kaiser's Offencive and the subsequent Allied-American pushed making significant headway while either side had the munitions and manpower to keep it going.

    Sid are you says it was ok for you to broke the rules because Georgia had lost the war? Because some of the screens i saw where you broken rules looks like they took place in Finland. I think if the other people had done this sid you would "crying a river".
    Not what I am saying at all.

    I am answering varyars baseless accusation that my error in anyway resulted in my victory but rather that my victory was already secure when the error occured.

    Next, you make it sound like I did it on purpose when I clearly did not, I honestly believed that there was no maximum upper limit, just a limit based on the number of adjacent provinces.

    And why does it matter if it takes place in finland or not?

    Hyme, if other people had done this I would and did pause the game to make sure both the DM and the opposing party knows of this so they can stop they're breach of the rules.

    And furthermore secrets did not do this he did not pause or make a single sound but deliberately it seems waited until the end of the session before making any noise.

    Its not a breach in rules if the other player is unwilling to excersize their rights.
    He who wishes to fight must first count the cost. When you engage in actual fighting, if victory is long in coming, then men's weapons will grow dull and their ardor will be dampened. If you lay siege to a town, you will exhaust your strength. Again, if the campaign is protracted, the resources of the State will not be equal to the strain. Now, when your weapons are dulled, your ardor dampened, your strength exhausted and your treasure spent, other chieftains will spring up to take advantage of your extremity. Then no man, however wise, will be able to avert the consequences that must ensue... In war, then, let your great object be victory, not lengthy campaigns.
    -Sun Tzu, the Art of War

  20. #1040
    In short had Secrets paused the game and told me, and then gotten the subsequent correction from King of Men I would say "oops" and correct my mistake, I cannot correct a mistake if I do not know I am making such a mistake.

    Your accusations are baseless.
    He who wishes to fight must first count the cost. When you engage in actual fighting, if victory is long in coming, then men's weapons will grow dull and their ardor will be dampened. If you lay siege to a town, you will exhaust your strength. Again, if the campaign is protracted, the resources of the State will not be equal to the strain. Now, when your weapons are dulled, your ardor dampened, your strength exhausted and your treasure spent, other chieftains will spring up to take advantage of your extremity. Then no man, however wise, will be able to avert the consequences that must ensue... In war, then, let your great object be victory, not lengthy campaigns.
    -Sun Tzu, the Art of War

+ Reply to Thread
Page 52 of 82 FirstFirst ... 2 27 42 50 51 52 53 54 62 77 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts