Then you surely won't mind the glorious Russian imperial crest flying high throughout Asia, right?
Then you surely won't mind the glorious Russian imperial crest flying high throughout Asia, right?
The Roman Empire is deeply offended that its eagle is being used by Novgorod, as well as the extent of the green line.Originally Posted by anubisfike
Then you surely won't mind the glorious Russian imperial crest flying high throughout Asia, right?
My EU3 Hansa Multiplayer AAR, probably the first in its kind, come and learn how an MP game is played!
Which two provinces are they for Manchu? And yea post the save so I can fiddle around :P
Showcased AAR 4/17/2010, Lord Strange's Cookie of British Awesomeness ●, Favourite EU3 History Book AAR Q2 2010, Favourite EU3 Narrative AAR Q3 2010
The Manchu cultured provinces, most likely.
edit: the Manchu cultured provinces owned by Ming in a 1399 start, that is.
Last edited by anubisfike; 27-12-2011 at 22:59.
No. Monday. Get a violin if you need to fiddle around.
OK, that's the new peace rules, any questions, complaints, declarations of love?
Last edited by Kommando23; 28-12-2011 at 16:11.
I would add that it's not possible to dow using the alliance CB as it creates another war, instead a CTA must be made.
BTW some examples of how many provinces could be taken on various sizes?
My EU3 Hansa Multiplayer AAR, probably the first in its kind, come and learn how an MP game is played!
10 provinces nation would be able to lose two provinces in a war.
20 provinces nation would lose 3 provinces and so on.
Oh and less than 10 provinces would mean you would lose 1 province.
You're the one who wanted the full alliances allowed. Having your rule-suggestion in the mix just makes things needlessly complicated.
Most supporters of the Oslo Accords insisted that this agreement would solve all existing problems.
Not sure if that was a suggestion or a misunderstanding? If it is the latter: It's rounded up, so less than 11 means you can lose up to 2 provinces.
I've never considered that as 2 separate wars as far as the application of peace rules was concerned but you made me realize that not everybody may naturally share that opinion, so I updated it a bit.
I like your rules however, just to clarify rule 3, if the nation accepts the terms that will mean a negotiated peace instead of an unconditional surrender. That being said, since you only explicitly state that is forbidden to change your mind on unconditional surrender of rule 4, it would be best if you also word in that its forbidden to change your mind on a negotiated peace for rule 3.
Right, my bad. It was a misunderstanding and I was in a hurry to post a response to Lama, nothing else.
Yeh, rule number 4 (the Torbjorn-rule as it's affectionately called) would actually be completely unnecessary if people wouldn't somehow still feel compelled to yell "surrender" from time to time. I suppose it stems from some dark part of the paradox collective unconscious. I'll try to clarify that.
Well it was obvious Polussia couldn't win against HRE Austria and Ottomans combined, I just didn't think they'd have the dickishness to demand Warsaw and both my European CoT.
Showcased AAR 4/17/2010, Lord Strange's Cookie of British Awesomeness ●, Favourite EU3 History Book AAR Q2 2010, Favourite EU3 Narrative AAR Q3 2010
Whyyyy whyyyyyyyy, burn it, burnnnnn.
Ha!
Showcased AAR 4/17/2010, Lord Strange's Cookie of British Awesomeness ●, Favourite EU3 History Book AAR Q2 2010, Favourite EU3 Narrative AAR Q3 2010
There any spaces left? If so...
Morocco/Hungary/Ming/Minamoto/Oman/M'lukes
Last edited by Rae; 29-12-2011 at 07:25.
Sure, I'll sign you up as Morocco then.
I was wondering why it was so calm in the chat, then i figured it dont start until next week
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
