"Day of Glory" — Saturdays, 10:00 EST

[Sid Meier]

http://forums.ederon.net/default.aspx?g=topics&f=154

[OrangeYoshi]

You done got emu'd. *nods*

[Sid Meier]

I believe Malacca is stil open.

[Emperor Ike]

Yes to Malacca we player need. More the merrier like Robin Hood said to Little John.

[danomite]

Technically its not open, but that said, Malacca, Oman and Korea are all have the potential to be opened up as 2nd tier power slots. Provided there is sufficient interest (the key issue), and the mighty elected dictator KoM says to open em up :P

[Sid Meier]

Currently trying to discuss whether to have one or two auctions, I feel if its 1 auction (everyone in the same auction europe and rotw) than there needs to be 2-3 copies of each decision so that 1 decision could be had by more than 1 country.

Otherwise no change is needed with 2 auctions.

[Sid Meier]

I'ld like us to confirm to add the following rules:

1) That prior to a real player vs player war and prior to a real player vs AI war that you publicly announce the dow and your war goals in both chat and teamspeak and that the GM confirms hearing it.

Reasoning: I feel that in alot of games alot of people will try to sneakily grab dows on nations even right under your nose and succeed if you happen to be dealing with popups, critical real life shit, or arguments on teamspeak; I've seen plenty of SoI nations get dowed and no pop up either so its not always clear cut.

Also i feel alot of bad blood can be avoided and sportsmanship restored to a common base level if everyone abides by it, increases at least the appearance of politeness even when stabbng you in the kidney and eliminates any and all ambiguity in a dow. I think just about everyone at one time or another lost critical time in the confusion on whether a dow was real, or lost time and money in game to a war they would've folded on instantly had the war goals been clear from the beginning.

Also gives proper time and warning for the diplomatic community to react to any potentially major change; in real life a war wasn't just some back of the mind occurrence that was put on a pile of diplomatic messages and forgotten, even minor roles on the outskirts of Europe attracted *some* European attention.

2) That the war goal you demand at the beginning can only be limited in scope (say 2 provinces or a single cot) or less than 20% warscore but for each year in the war you can publicly on teamspeak or in chat one additional wargoal (another 20%) each year until 100% after which case the sky is the limit, so after 6 years you can attempt to demand and enforce +100% warscore peace deals.

Reasoning: I feel that this can add additional structure to wars, give a little more flavorful roleplaying and time for the defender to organize a defense, this rule is designed to protect subs more than regular players, day 1 dows etc, since most wars in EU3 last about 6 years anyways this shouldn't change all that much but to insure that A) Everyone who might have a stack clearly no your war goals as is plausible with real life, and B) gives the defending some breathing space and the fairness option to fold right away to relatively light demands.

As a corrolly if you demand 20% warscore and he surrenders you have to accept and not destroy his nation or "farm" him to get more war goals, as that is an obvious exploit.

3) Fake wars should probably be banned to clear up any such ambiguity once and for all unless there's specific gm approval to fix a bug or administer an ingame deal.

We have a lot of newer players with us and people who might have never played multiplayer before, these should level the playing field, this isn't a hypercompetitive game.

[von_Rundstedt]

No to 1) and 2), to 3): Define "Fake Wars".

[Gollevainen]

No to 1) and 2), to 3): Define "Fake Wars".

+1

Also:

I'ld like us to confirm to add the following rules:

-1
Don't start taking a style like you would be in charge of these things, and try to give impression that things (like the above suggestions) would be something else than mere (super-subjective) opinion of possible rules we have...

[danomite]

...this isn't a hypercompetitive game.

You sure were playing the same game? Be the last man standing by HoI sounds fairly competitive to me :P

1) & 2) no
3) maybe, like Von R said, Define fake wars.

And I agree with Golle, KoM is one who makes the calls, and everyone who is really interested in playing would be posting on the ederon forums to get their voice heard. What you are doing is attracting trolls to debates they have no place in.

[OrangeYoshi]

No to 1), 2), and 3).

As for it being a hypercompetitive game, you are aware that in the very first phase that 4 player nations were annexed? That's one-third of the playerbase.

[King of Men]

I'm not in favour of the rules Blayne proposes, but I must say I did not find his tone objectionable; his post looked polite enough to me. Perhaps "I'd like to suggest" would be a better formulation than "I'd like to confirm", but really now, I think you gentlemen are just jumping on Blayne for being Blayne, here. And this thread was started early for the purpose, among others, of discussing house rules, so it's hardly off-topic.

Touching the declare-war-on-TS thing, we've had that rule before and it has not really worked too well. It's easy to forget, even if you remember it's easy not to be heard in TS (especially if we're going to have 20 players!), and what's the GM going to do about it, edit out a war that wasn't properly declared? I'm also of the opinion that a player who manages to miss a DOW through dealing with other popups is going to get what he deserves. I'm also not much in favour of limiting war aims; that's what diplomacy and the balance of power are for. And with those two shot down, there seems little reason for banning fake wars.

[oddman]

You'd think "King of Traitors" would be more euphonious.

Traitor of Kings seems most accurate, though. Not that I would cast any aspersions on KoM's credibility, though, just his penchant for kidney donations of dubitable consent.

[Valiant_Hogers]

Also some of us do not have a microfoon or cannot use dueing location or social matters.

[Sid Meier]

Purchase a headset, you should at *least* be on teamspeak and can hear us so you know when we rehost; its pretty much mandatory if you want to make it on time to each rehost.

[von_Rundstedt]

Purchase a headset, you should at *least* be on teamspeak and can hear us so you know when we rehost; its pretty much mandatory if you want to make it on time to each rehost.

No, it's not. The chat in eu3 is sufficient for that - we wont have some people on hamachi and some people not on hamachi like we do during CK.

[Sid Meier]

No, it's not. The chat in eu3 is sufficient for that - we wont have some people on hamachi and some people not on hamachi like we do during CK.

Yes its pretty much is, it always you and anyone else not on teamspeak without fail we end up waiting on. There is overwhelming proof that teamspeak improves the multiplayer experience with massive increased coordination.

[von_Rundstedt]

Yes its pretty much is, it always you and anyone else not on teamspeak without fail we end up waiting on. There is overwhelming proof that teamspeak improves the multiplayer experience with massive increased coordination.

Claiming that it's "mandatory" is laughable, though. You can be on time to each rehost without teamspeak. All you have to do is actually type "rehost" in the chat.

You make it sound like it's a "get a headset or don't play". Bad attitude.

[Gollevainen]

playing is indeed possible without TS, but I do agree that things are lot easier sometimes when everybody is on TS...
+ the drama is more "up to your face" in TS, and actually knowing how you chaps sound like is always positive

[OrangeYoshi]

and actually knowing how you chaps sound like is always positive

I beg to differ.