I was recording the session so I could send it to vR later that day.Originally Posted by Anders_de_K
I was recording the session so I could send it to vR later that day.
On Ubik: "HE GETS TO BE SMUG AFTER CARVING THE FACE OF PERFECTION USING THE SPOON OF INSPIRATION UPON THE BUTTOCKS OF AN ANGEL"
────── OrangeYoshi's Newbie Sig Information Center: Help is just a click away...™ ──────
EU3 Wiki lll Paradox Acronyms lll FAQ Forum lll General FAQ lll Siege FAQ lll Patrolling Guidelines
No Time Limit Mod lll Quick Questions Quick Answers
What happen? And why would OY turn against Blayne when China was great defender against Russian oppression?
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever.
-George Orwell
I was paid rather well.
And really, "Great Defender" is overstating it a bit. He fought in about 4 battles in that war, all in my territory. The work in actually winning the war was done by Croatia and Kongo. Oddly enough, he didn't want to break a NAP he had with Russia at the time, which meant he would only fight in the rear and on my territory. Although you would think that fighting Russia in the field in the first place would've broken the NAP...
On Ubik: "HE GETS TO BE SMUG AFTER CARVING THE FACE OF PERFECTION USING THE SPOON OF INSPIRATION UPON THE BUTTOCKS OF AN ANGEL"
────── OrangeYoshi's Newbie Sig Information Center: Help is just a click away...™ ──────
EU3 Wiki lll Paradox Acronyms lll FAQ Forum lll General FAQ lll Siege FAQ lll Patrolling Guidelines
No Time Limit Mod lll Quick Questions Quick Answers
I really don't understand what was up with Blayne's sudden reluctance there. We had discussed it between ourselves; his defense was in deep trouble because of Kongo's outflanking move through Bengal, and while I was keeping Russia busy, the opposite was also true! Not a single regiment could I spare for the Chinese front. (Incidentally, Blayne's interpretation of that NAP was that it would be voided either by combat, or by putting troops in land that the other guy owned. Possibly he should make his interpretations clear beforehand; it must be admitted that it is not always easy to tell exactly what actions he will consider legitimate. Me, I try to play things simple, which kept me from defending Bengal last session, but on the other hand it also led Kongo to promise that his troops would not cross my border. But I digress.) So we agreed to ask for the terms we'd been offered previously, which I did, and then suddenly Blayne said that he had only meant to ask Russia for terms. That's not what I had understood, and anyway it wasn't the Khanate front that was collapsing. If he'd suggested offering terms only to the people invading him, and then turning on Russia, that would have made sense. But in any case jodokus wasn't having a separate peace, and I assume vR wouldn't have, either, so it couldn't have mattered.
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
I guess this is a no, Rex Homini?
"We give the facts. You can't say that we have a slant because of it. I hear that the jury's in on evolution."
"When you divide a country into two sides, one of which cheers the idea of murder and hate, you don't have much choice in which side you're on."
I have only heard vague allegations of the shenanigans you speak of. If OrangeYoshi has a complaint to make, let him do so himself. And perhaps it would be best to keep it to Ederon. As a general rule I'm obviously not in favour of people being dropped from TS, even for short periods.
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
So, Quin ...
"For 'tis the sport to have the enginer
Hoist with his own petard, an't shall go hard"
Hamlet Act 3, scene 4, 202–209
..maybe my interpretation of a NAP would have been better after all
Blitz: Yeah, that about sums it up.
Kongo tourists land in occupied Qinese lands to see famed cultural wonders of China. Kongo tourists slaughtered by pitiless Chinese ruler despite treaty. Kongo army take exception, smash Himalayan defenses, invade China. China ruler come to regret slaughter Kongo tourists, surrender out of feelings of remorse and guilt. And feelings of half million angry cannibals bearing down on capital, but mostly remorse and guilt.
Emperor of Ethiopia, High King of Ceylon, Sultan of Arabia, Prince of Antioch and Damascus, Lord Protector of the Tamil Coast, Maharaja of Gujarat, First Citizen of the Malay Peoples, Archduke of Australia, and Defender of the Ark of the Covenant in Tyranny's Bloody Banner.
Kongo had committed a vile and completely unprecedented escalation.
What I did in bengal:
Accept the call to arms.
Insisted to Kongo that taking additional provinces as per our MSN discussion was unacceptable, he had already taken provinces.
I wasn't willing to go as far as breaking the nap but felt some leeway was due, citing the precedent of my agreement with Jodokus I sent troops to Bengal where they conducted blocking operations.
However my troops did not
1) Engage Kongoese troops.
2) Did not occupy or otherwise traverse onto Kongoese lands.
3) Had stayed entirely on the defencive in Bengali Lands.
What Kongo did was to in a completely unprovoked, vile, and outrageous manner escalated this to an hirtherto unprecedent level of belligerence by:
Landing troops on Chinese lands that were occupied by the enemy, in order to cover for their advance, as opposed to simply defending their own lands from potential attack by myself.
There is an entire difference in scope, scale, and type between our actions. Mine were defencive in nature, to find some middle ground between protecting my allies who were being unprovokedly attacked by Africa, a fact being conveniently forgetten by all here and abandoning them, a prospect I felt distasteful.
Kongo simply used the trick to cover and to advance the cause of further aggression by expansionist powers and their experiments in adventurism.
Their actions should be condemned with the full force of public opinion, their actions were completely reprehensible and vile.
We shall never forget, and never surrender our ancenstral and sacred lands, by 1800 the islands shall be returned and their lands salted, their cities reduced to rubble, their fields salted forevermore so that nothing shall ever grow there again.
I will see Ethiopia burnt to ashes.
To all the enemies who dare to stand in our way, we will prevail. Whatever the cost.
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
From what I understand, the war was conducted such that the lands that Kongo landed troops in were de facto, if not de jure, the lands of the occupying country - as such, Kongo had every right to defensively place its troops there, in the hopes of maintaining the peace in the area while being protected by the mutually beneficial NAP, as Qin did in Bengal, which it neither de facto nor de jure controlled.
"We give the facts. You can't say that we have a slant because of it. I hear that the jury's in on evolution."
"When you divide a country into two sides, one of which cheers the idea of murder and hate, you don't have much choice in which side you're on."
Bullshit and stop your shit disturbing. The lands were not "de facto" under the control of anyone but myself, it was a war zone in which I was the defending party, Kongo "keepig the peace" by helping and abiding enemy forces occupy sovereign Qin territory is an act of war and a violation of the nap and the most vile abrogation of common sense and player sportsmanship I have ever had the disgust and misfortune to lay eyes on.
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
Wow, it looks like the only way for China's opponents to survive to play V2 is to annihilate China beyond recovery.
Most supporters of the Oslo Accords insisted that this agreement would solve all existing problems.
Didn't China do pretty much the same thing earlier? I think something was mentioned aboot China placing troops so Kongo couldn't advance without breaking some NAP.
Most supporters of the Oslo Accords insisted that this agreement would solve all existing problems.
...well, as a peanut who's meaning does only matter to himself... I think you did EXACTLY the same in Bengal...
and, as I have said before, all this only happens because of your weird "Elcyonic" NAP's. (And of course because this IS a wargame, and war IS what you want..or to WIN wars
With a more logical NAP, Kongo would have been agressor in Bengal, and you would have been in your right to join a DEFENSIVE war against an AGRESSOR..And in case you were the attacked party this time around, Kongo wouldn't have been able to join against you
The issue is not the non-interference-pacts signed, but Blayne trying to find a blaynish way around them. Either sign them and stick to them, or don't sign them. Don't try to "compromise"....well, as a peanut who's meaning does only matter to himself... I think you did EXACTLY the same in Bengal...
and, as I have said before, all this only happens because of your weird "Elcyonic" NAP's. (And of course because this IS a wargame, and war IS what you want..or to WIN wars
With a more logical NAP, Kongo would have been agressor in Bengal, and you would have been in your right to join a DEFENSIVE war against an AGRESSOR..And in case you were the attacked party this time around, Kongo wouldn't have been able to join against you
Even Qin can't seem to decide whether it was retribution for prior loophole-seeking by Qin or else some sort of completely unprovoked assault by Kongo. Interesting that the private admissions of culpability and contrition by Qin have been accompanied by the opposite publicly, proclamations of complete innocence.
Lord Blayne V3.9 r89(Qin)*: what interest is it of you now that you got your retribution for my earlier actions?
Lord Blayne V3.9 r89(Qin)*: I was mistaken to do so, I should havent have done so
Last edited by Irsh Faq; 19-10-2011 at 15:46.
Emperor of Ethiopia, High King of Ceylon, Sultan of Arabia, Prince of Antioch and Damascus, Lord Protector of the Tamil Coast, Maharaja of Gujarat, First Citizen of the Malay Peoples, Archduke of Australia, and Defender of the Ark of the Covenant in Tyranny's Bloody Banner.
Yes, Anders. Kongo's invasion of Bengal was ground to a halt by similar tactics from Qin - he joined the war on Bengal's side, and stationed stacks on every possible route of advance further into Bengal, citing the no-war pact to prevent Kongo attacking them. Kongo swallowed its pride and respected these constraints, earning surprise from Qin at Kongo's fire discipline in fighting without ever attacking Qinese troops despite Qinese troops being all over the theatre of war.
We ended up staring each other down with hundreds of regiments apiece in theatre (necessary for me because Bengal's army was still in the field and kept attacking from behind Qinese protection, so I couldn't just leave small blocking stacks) while the major fighting moved westwards into Punjab and Persia, wider theatres where blocking would have been largely ineffective.
Last edited by Irsh Faq; 19-10-2011 at 16:12.
Emperor of Ethiopia, High King of Ceylon, Sultan of Arabia, Prince of Antioch and Damascus, Lord Protector of the Tamil Coast, Maharaja of Gujarat, First Citizen of the Malay Peoples, Archduke of Australia, and Defender of the Ark of the Covenant in Tyranny's Bloody Banner.
Jodokus asked me to clarify few things:
The incidence to which Blayne keeps refering as a "precedent" was when Qin placed troops in Croatia to similary blockade Novgorods attempts to attack on Croatia. Jodokus felt that it was indeed against the NAP he had with Qin and was about to claim that Blayne was breaking the NAP by this method. However Jodokus decided to use the stunt as an advatage and lure chinese to think that the attack would take place from the direction in which Qin was blockading. Thus he decided to suggest blayne a seperate deal: Chinese and Novgorodian troops would be able to fight in Croatia but only in croatia. Qin accepted the offered deal.
...Eventually it didn't went that well for Novgorod but not due the blockade tough.
Jodokus would like to emphasis that he decided to use Blayne's unsportman and gamey stunt as his advantage, not agreeing that it was generally a good thing to do. If there weren't any changes to exploid the Blayne's exploitation of the NAP, he would have claimed Blayne beign a "Dirt* b***s***r and oathbreaker who does sh*** gamey s**t.." (His words, not mine and thank god he did find the way to exploit the situation...or at least tought he did..)
The Professor wrote:
Also is there a site somewhere where I can google the acronyms you use.
Ulmont wrote:
Yes. The site is available at www.google.com.
There is something very wrong with your priorities if you think they're even remotely the same, I didn't waltz onto your territory in order to help the advance of Bengali troops.
You essentially joined into an aggressive war that resulted in the loss of critical territory, you are directly responsible. You were
never similarly at risk to losing territory when I did it, only preventing from gaining territory.
It would have been equivilent if I had I dunno, invaded Ethiopian India and you decided to place blocking troops there, THAT would have been the same and resulted in making the war a stalemate.
But you didn't do that did you? Instead you used it to force me to give up provinces in a war that didnt even remotely harm you or your allies, it was oppurtunistic land grab vastly dissaproportionate to the "crime" I am accused of.
Last edited by Sid Meier; 19-10-2011 at 16:59.
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
whoa there, Sid... no reason for namecalling like that...you can be angry all you like, but please don't get THIS thread shut down too!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
