Erm, there is no reason for me not to demand more. I have significantly more troops and MP and with the tips pewt gave me, im pretty sure that i will the war. Ah and je, the demands are as i said before i dowed, lothringen and sundgau.Originally Posted by Sorgenkind
Last edited by Histaxin; 24-02-2012 at 00:52.
MSN: histaxin@hotmail.com
Define french demands.
Former Games : Revenge of The Habsburgs, Primus Inter Pares II+III, Ex Castris Virtute II, Testing Grounds, Nemesis, Sound of Drums, In Absentia, Fruit I+II, End of Days, Imperium Malleus, Novus Aevum, Vespere Jovis, Pecunia Infinita, Cabal is for Winners, Vacca Polska & Victis Honor.
2 provs (1 which was taken in a previous war that session) is more than reasonable...
Indeed, I just wanted to hear that "More" wasn't triple of the originally demands.
Former Games : Revenge of The Habsburgs, Primus Inter Pares II+III, Ex Castris Virtute II, Testing Grounds, Nemesis, Sound of Drums, In Absentia, Fruit I+II, End of Days, Imperium Malleus, Novus Aevum, Vespere Jovis, Pecunia Infinita, Cabal is for Winners, Vacca Polska & Victis Honor.
Nah, i actually learned that from you or i realized that ppl shouldnt change their original demands just cause the war is going better than expected. If i dont change my original demands, ppl wont change their original demands in wars against me either. So its a win-win situation for both.
MSN: histaxin@hotmail.com
I agreed, and disagree... i think changing the terms during a war is acceptable... but not because ''the war is going better than expected.'' At least with me... i will start with fair terms and if a defeated opponent does not agree by a year or so... my terms will likely go up for wasting my time and resources.
Well, you can't blame me for giving it at least a try :P I will surrender then if you accept to get a NAP for 10 yrs (5 yrs truce, 5 yrs after that). The war has probably cost me more than I expected, so I kinda need time to rebuild so I can be a bigger opponent next war
I disagree. Once the terms are stated openly, you shouldn't change them. Unless its asking for less or for WP or something. Never ask for more. That is not only rude, you make yourself aswell enemies in the campaign
Im alrdy giving you a 5 years *NAP* since were in a truce during that time and i simply see no reason whatsoever to agree to another longer NAP. Give me a reason ;-). And seriously, lets dont do stuff like this here. It belongs to private (msn/skype or whatever) chats. I alrdy gave you my msn contact, use it ;-).Well, you can't blame me for giving it at least a try :P I will surrender then if you accept to get a NAP for 10 yrs (5 yrs truce, 5 yrs after that). The war has probably cost me more than I expected, so I kinda need time to rebuild so I can be a bigger opponent next war
For any1 else who wants to do diplo with me, my msn-nick is in my signature.
Last edited by Histaxin; 24-02-2012 at 02:25.
MSN: histaxin@hotmail.com
Fair enough, I'll surrender though any way. We can discuss specifics in private.
I was speaking in terms of rules, some people think it should be against the rules... And imo just because something is ''evil'' doesnt make it unfair.
Here is an example from a campaign that I was a part of, Big evil OE declares on small Hindustan that is trying to catch up in tech after westernization, OE says "Give me ~4 provinces or I will ask for more if you fight me", Hindustan thinks "well I might as well just try seeing what my outteched tech 9 troops can do" and engage in a single battle after scourging ~1-2 lines of provinces to reduce OEs huge hordes to something manageable and realizes that "hell if I scourged everything, in time Hindustan would be occupied, pointless to try" so Hindustan surrenders after a single battle, OE takes ~6 provinces.
Another example, Venice got 4 provinces, capital + 3 connected, Milan decides that the core he has on Venice is possible to take and Venice basically only sits on his capital with his superior. Venices ally, the big and mighty France is doing their usual napoleonic run to moscow so is nowhere near to help and probably won't be able to do anything for a couple of years, so Venice decides that well he might just sit and wait it out and see what happends in the end, puts up a nice sweet blockade and negotiates that england/spain/scand won't interfere in this little war, in the end the OE is payed off with Ds and throws their mighty 80 galleys into the venetian fleet and the venetian fleet crumbles, making milan able to take venetia, Milan now takes all 3 provinces due to the "added costs from fighting the war".
I've got 1 word for both cases, bullshit, there is no such thing as added costs, there is a "risk" that your opponent fights back, if you don't like the risk, you don't war. If your opponent can stall you in the war, you didn't prepare well enough, If you have to call in allies to even out an unfair matchup then they have demands as well or you might have bribed em with 1 of your own provinces and therefore demand more out of the enemy. Changing your own demands is low and ratlike, obviously you can do it but your opponent will remember and the other players in the campaigns will as well.
Former Games : Revenge of The Habsburgs, Primus Inter Pares II+III, Ex Castris Virtute II, Testing Grounds, Nemesis, Sound of Drums, In Absentia, Fruit I+II, End of Days, Imperium Malleus, Novus Aevum, Vespere Jovis, Pecunia Infinita, Cabal is for Winners, Vacca Polska & Victis Honor.
First example is not what i mean, however the 2nd example seem reasonable in my eyes. I would likely do the same. It maybe bad mannered but it is not bullshit. Terms are should not be set in stone until the final presentation followed by a surrender. For example... If i was to say my terms are 2 provs... and my opponent was to say no and we fight on for lets say.. 2 more years. And i can see i have a clear victory... i will tell him, surrender in the next year or i will add x amount of ducats to my peace.
What is NOT an example of what i means... is saying my terms are 2 provs... and the war rages on for 2 years and my opponent surrenders... it is NOT ok at that point so say "Nope now i want more". Honestly the way i see it working is giving them a chance to surrender in the clear face of defeat... and if they drag it out for the sake of dragging it out... i find it very reasonable to start tacting on more to my peace deal in a timely manner to either
A. Cause the surrender of my clearly defeated opponent
B. Get more for the money and manpower and more importantly the vulnerability i have had to stake on pursuing a finished war.
People generally tend to have different opinions and a lot of them can be backed up reasonably well by arguments. Framing your perspective as unquestionable fact and demeaning people who disagree with you as "ratlike" certainly is not conducive to a productive discussion.
I know when I've lost and surrender quickly normally to avoid extra costs so I would presumeable not be affected by your method but that is simply not the case in most of the scenarios where it is done, I remember Poland in the friday game, asking around for help in private while Austria is saying "SURRENDER OR I WILL TAKE MORE"... Everyone was like "ok" with it and the fellow was merely doing his diplo while fighting and seeing what he could do through diplomacy, in the end Austria takes an extra provinces and some D for no apparent reason then he had to wait for poland to do his diplo before he would surrender to the original terms now he got to pay another province and Ds on top of it, reasonable? I think not.
Former Games : Revenge of The Habsburgs, Primus Inter Pares II+III, Ex Castris Virtute II, Testing Grounds, Nemesis, Sound of Drums, In Absentia, Fruit I+II, End of Days, Imperium Malleus, Novus Aevum, Vespere Jovis, Pecunia Infinita, Cabal is for Winners, Vacca Polska & Victis Honor.
Well Kommando, for the future, whenever we get into a war and I have to state my demands, it will be just enough to make you say "No, I will war for it" and then when you surrender I will triple my demands due to added costs. That is how it's being used and that's why I'm calling it ratlike.
Edit -> If it was being used like Kneehi is proposing then I wouldn't object for a sec, my experience is that it isn't, I'm seeing the ratlike behaviour.
Last edited by jpvg; 24-02-2012 at 16:47.
Former Games : Revenge of The Habsburgs, Primus Inter Pares II+III, Ex Castris Virtute II, Testing Grounds, Nemesis, Sound of Drums, In Absentia, Fruit I+II, End of Days, Imperium Malleus, Novus Aevum, Vespere Jovis, Pecunia Infinita, Cabal is for Winners, Vacca Polska & Victis Honor.
You don't seem to realize that I have not criticized your opinion but the way in which you are delivering it. As such I am kind of lost why this would influence your behavior towards me in game.
If you agree on that it is ratlike, what is the problem? No, it won't affect our future relations, the goal was to set the scenario up so you could see the ratpart of the issue.
Former Games : Revenge of The Habsburgs, Primus Inter Pares II+III, Ex Castris Virtute II, Testing Grounds, Nemesis, Sound of Drums, In Absentia, Fruit I+II, End of Days, Imperium Malleus, Novus Aevum, Vespere Jovis, Pecunia Infinita, Cabal is for Winners, Vacca Polska & Victis Honor.
Okay, the france/austria war is over with austria surrendering to my terms (lothringen/sundgau).
And i dont know when ill come online, so iceni will sub me till im online.
MSN: histaxin@hotmail.com
Agreed. Nice Fighting with you Hixt
Any time, barney ;-).Agreed. Nice Fighting with you Hixt
MSN: histaxin@hotmail.com
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote