• 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.
So, you suggest that we take only a fraction of what they've taken in their last war, and then wait for them to attack and make massive demands again?

Yes, that sounds wise.

No, I just suggest that your side would cut down the spiral of making each peace more unbearable for the opponent by asking little now...to then give the ball to play nicely to the opponent when its due their time to make demands...
otherwise the next war after this will lead into severe castration of the loosing side :(, and after that, we can be in dire situation in terms of balance.

Im not suggesting any detailed alterations to the peace, but that this above logic is atleast considered when you negotiate with Frosty...
 
I would have been satisfied with the land i had prior to this war, but both of you started to make very threatening noices.

The store owner you robbed twice purchased a gun, so to defend yourself you torched his store?

Again I ask how many times you and KoM have attacked me or vR, and how many times I or vR have attacked you or KoM? ;)

(spoiler; its 4-0)

But anyways, its Monday and we still wait for a counteroffer. :)
 
The store owner you robbed twice purchased a gun, so to defend yourself you torched his store?

Again I ask how many times you and KoM have attacked me or vR, and how many times I or vR have attacked you or KoM? ;)

(spoiler; its 4-0)

But anyways, its Monday and we still wait for a counteroffer. :)

Why is it so important to start at peace? -You are only going to war again shortly after! -Or does it have to do with one of the bugs?

I mean, either you are in deep shit, and need to win the peace because you are loosing the war (in wich case the Orient Partners are not going to give you anything!), or you are winning the war -why then bother with the peace?- or this is stalemate, in wich case you are only giving the Northern Alliance a chance to pull ahead if you continue..

??
 
human BB, human BB...;)
the infamy limit for Russia isen't that big..."oh the big bear is once again threathing our very lifes..." and egypt apparently haven't fared there that better either.


In this war, France, HRE, Bavaria and Denmark remains neurtal sofar, together they present huge power to turn the tide away or another...if they choose, offcourse
 
human BB, human BB...;)
the infamy limit for Russia isen't that big..."oh the big bear is once again threathing our very lifes..." and egypt apparently haven't fared there that better either.


In this war, France, HRE, Bavaria and Denmark remains neurtal sofar, together they present huge power to turn the tide away or another...if they choose, offcourse

Denmark and the HRE have NAPs, Bavaria is friendly with Russia and Croatia, and France... France I know nothing about.
 
Why is it so important to start at peace?

Negotiations? So we know where we stand. We will win, but enforcing a victory will take a lot of resources and time what with moralebugs and such. As a general principle one should be ready to accept a lenient peace early in a war, but enforce a harsher one if they insist on fighting to the last man.

Byzantophiles said:
Evul Egyptjuns make harsh demands, buhuhu
:p

Since people seem to lack a comparative oveerview of our demands here is what they took from us in the last war, compared to what we are demanding back.

24compareddemands.jpg


Astute readers will notice the demands encompass basically the same provinces. Actually our demands encompass less, despite what some would have you believe.


From taking back the same provs they took from us? Yes, how horrendously evil we are... :eek:
 
Last edited:
Obvious propaganda is obvious.

I am butthurt over Sicily

You sure are.


The astute reader may want to remember that the majority of the demands that Frosty ascribes to us were actually enforced by coalitions of many states besides KoM and I. I seem to recall one casus belli roughly amounted to "Continued douchebaggery by Egypt".

Also, notice that Baghdad and Constantinoble are included in their demands. 38 Basetax right there.

Also, note that Alexandria and Jerusalem was only to be taken temporarily. Also note that Egypt and Russia are friggin' twice our sizes. Also note that Frosty is notorious for stealing vassals by cowardly means instead of being upfront about it in battle.


Why the ridiculous and misleading map Frosty?
 
Last edited:
From taking back the same provs they took from us? Yes, how horrendously evil we are...

Well, some players used to got that simply from the name of their dynasty ;)
It moves, in mysterious ways. Also, it doesen't generate itself automatically, it always dependes from delicate skills in propaganda.

Also, have you guys considered of dropping Tsarigrad from the peace demands, as KoM rather clearly put that he would go to the end with it?
 
I am prepared to contemplate peace on roughly the current lines of occupation, with some adjustment in favour of the B-S alliance (that's Bear-Sphinx, in case you were wondering.) For example, I could hand back part of the Black Sea coastline territories Russia lost in the last war, Famagusta, and Beirut; and Foels is, I would guess, willing to hand back parts of the large Levantine territories he has conquered, in exchange for adjustments up north to make a pretty border. Alternatively we might create a neutral Kingdom of Jerusalem (not a two-province minor!) out of these much-disputed lands, and give it to Ike to rule. (You all know Ike will take the first possible opportunity to attack me, as revenge for what happened to Poland, so the 'neutrality' of such a kingdom would be rather pro-forma. In effect this creates a vassal state of Egypt, similar to al-Andalus.) I'm not sure what the situation is on the Caspian front, but possibly some adjustment could be made in favour of Russia.

I haven't had a chance to discuss this with Foels, so consider it tentative.
 
part of the Black Sea,Famagusta, and Beirut, parts of the large Levantine territories

So you propose the pre-war situation, and we get a few token provinces on the border?

Alternatively we might create a neutral Kingdom of Jerusalem

Or you take yet another major bite out of my realm? Or do you mean a Jerusalem consisting of a march between my rich provs and Foels rich provs?
 
So you propose the pre-war situation, and we get a few token provinces on the border?

In effect, yes. Observe that you are not winning this struggle; long-term manpower does you no good if all your provinces that supply that manpower are lost in the short term. I am being generous in not demanding the remaining Med islands.

Incidentally, you have said that you thought we would attack you, and therefore made preparations; and we have likewise been convinced that you would attack us, and as the weaker party we went for the pre-emptive strike. So this makes me wonder, just where is all this belligerent information coming from, when both parties disavow their aggressive intent? Where did you hear that we were going to attack you? Because we weren't, until we heard you were gearing up to attack us.

Or you take yet another major bite out of my realm? Or do you mean a Jerusalem consisting of a march between my rich provs and Foels rich provs?

Either alternative would be acceptable to me. Of course, this is mainly Foelsgaard's area.
 
Incidentally, you have said that you thought we would attack you, and therefore made preparations; and we have likewise been convinced that you would attack us, and as the weaker party we went for the pre-emptive strike.

Precedent. You attack your neighbors one after one, expanding by war and annexation. Foels claims my realm all the way to Egypt, why would he do that if not in preparation to take said land from me? Likewise he claims land halfway up Russia, and did you not try to wrest a third of Russia from vR not long ago? Claims+history of conflict = reasonable suspicion. As for us attacking, how often do I attack? I never do, do I? War is not my thing, I expand diplomatically, by vassal-sniping. The Fatimids may rattle sabers, but they don't seem in terrible haste to actually put their asses on the line.

Second: Russia. You attacked him despite the fact that he had never attacked you, and with demands not exactly small. Is it strange then that we expect you to do again what you have done repeatedly before?

I was perfectly happy with just the Fatimid vanilla startpos in the levant. When I reached it I offered Foels long-term peace and recognition of our border, he in not to veiled terms informed me he intended to take it away from me. So expecting he would do exactly what he told me he intended to do I started sniping his vassals so he would have less regiments with which to attack me, and thus I gained most of Iraq as buffer for the coming assault.

In the same vein I do not seek Baghdad because I want it as such, but because after Persia has attacked me for the third time and repeatedly voiced intent to take even larger swats of my land (again he wouldn't have claimed all that land unless he intended to take it), I seek a solution to make him unable to do so. That solution is to sufficiently weaken his ability to hurt me, as apparently even defensively allying Russia is not sufficient to not get attacked.

Now obviously we come to the problem that our best (and often only effective) defense is offensive conquest. As thus we attack players who we perceive as threats, but with the main intention of defending ourselves from feared aggression. The side who is getting occupied will of course not be terribly likely to agree with that definition of "defense". In this our little game is quite similar to history, after all how many nations have not claimed their every war was in self defense?
 
Last edited: