"Victis Honor" — Wednesdays, 19:00 CET

[Bixit]

Victis Honor

Game Information:

• Timeslot: Wednesdays, 19.00-23.00 CEST
• Startdate: 18.04.2012
• GM: Bixit
• Co-GM:
• Host: Bixit
• Pre/Mid Game Communication: Chat

Settings:

• Difficulty: Normal
• AI Aggressivness: Low
• Lucky Nations: Off
• Spread of Sea Provinces: 100 Years
• Spread of Land Provinces: 100 Years

Absence:

Players not showing up to the first session may be removed from their country and / or the game, subject to GM discretion. Players not showing up for two consecutive sessions may be removed from the game, subject to GM discretion. It is the responsibility of the player to find a substitute in the event that they are forced to miss a session.

General Rules:

Disrespectful treatment of other players is forbidden. Any disputes about in game situations are to resolved by the GM. Continual harassment of a player will lead to removal from the game. Going to war with another player just for the lulz or for the sole purpose of farming War Taxes/Crusader Bonuses is not allowed. The nature of enforcing this rule is subjective. War Taxes are however permitted during 'real' wars. Agreements between players, private or public, will not be enforced. No sale of provinces to nations who can't see said provinces and can't see the sellers capital. If you feel you have been seriously mistreated by another player, contact the GM discreetly. Do not wreck your nation. No mass-releasing of vassals out of spite, and no refusing to peace for no reason other than pettiness.

Peace Rules:

No single player may be forced to accept a peace deal over 100% cumulative warscore from every player attacking them simultaneously. Seizing and burning of colonies does not count towards the previous rule. If a player surrenders, their opponent(s) must present their terms. If the player accepts those terms, their opponent(s) must cancel all sieges and retreat all armies except those necessary to fulfill the peace terms. Once a player has surrendered, the peace will be enforced by the GM. Release Nations is considered worth the combined value of the provinces as if they were demanded, but using the cost modifier for Release Nations rather than Demand Provinces. (Basically don't use Release Nations as a way to instantly kill a large nation just because it's underpriced) Selling provinces (for ducats or not) can ONLY be part of a peace deal if the buyer has a core on the province in question or is a distant colony.

Gaming the System:

Any sort of abuse/exploit is forbidden Following is a list of examples, abuses/exploits not listed here is still not allowed. Abusing lag to intentionally gain an unfair advantage (especially RE sliders). Releasing and reconquering vassals on which you have a core in order to burn infamy. Selling or donating manufactories, CoTs or missionaries to other players. Selling provinces to another player for the sole purpose of said province being removed from the Empire and then returned. Asking a non-HRE member to conquer a country, leave the HRE and sell it to you.

Rules are subject to change without notice up until 3 days before gamestart. After gamestart rules will only be changed if the majority of the players agree to it.

[Bixit]

Country list:

Venice: Histaxin
Portugal: mVd
Milan: Troxbox
Sweden: Serzis
Hansa: Iceni
Castille: Janlm
Muscowy: Elcyion
England: Bixit
Ottoman Empire: Seemore
Burgundy: Sickness_
Austria: Stnikolauswagne
Morocco: Lealo
Mamluks: Hagbard
France: jpvg
Holland: Uladh_88
Switzerland: Jalthammar


Dead Nations:

Poland: Alfonso
Brandenburg: Redmaster
Brittany: Uokko

Stats


Maps

[Histaxin]

Venice
Venice
Venice
Portugal
Denmark
Novgorod/Muscowy
England

[Iceni]

Austria
Hansa
Brandenburg
Muskovy/Novgorod
Dehli

[Bixit]

posting for stnikolauswagne:

1. France
2. Austria
3. Ottoman Empire
4. Brandenburg
5. Any land-nation

[Alfonso V]

Spain
England
France
Portugal
NL

[Sickness_]

Burgundy
Castille
Novgorod or Muskowy
Holland
England
Sweden

[Seemore]

England
Ottoman
Denmark
Castille
Hansa

the campaign would have to start on the 11th of april for me to be able to participate as I will not be able to play on the 4th and missing the first session imo is not an option

[Bixit]

England
Ottoman
Denmark
Castille
Hansa

the campaign would have to start on the 11th of april for me to be able to participate as I will not be able to play on the 4th and missing the first session imo is not an option

It's not going to start on the fourth, wouldn't be able to play myself, so, at earliers we will start the 11th

[Alfonso V]

There is a rule that I dont agree with:
"If the leader of a war involving multiple players on the same side surrenders, they cannot peace without consulting the junior members of the war. If the junior members do not wish to surrender, they may request that the leadership of the war be transferred to one of them."
Alliances have leaders for a reason, not to toy with them however you want by edits. This rule should be completly removed bcos its unfair and unjust. It hurts the game experience and gives way to exploits. If you picked your alliance leader poorly and he peaces out and backstabs you, you should not be allowed to complain for edits like a noob. This is not a newbee game anymore if Im right.
Another exmpl.: Spanish-French war, NL got called in by France when Spain attacked. France is the alliance leader and he surrenders. Now Spain will use an exploit and eliminates NL from the game by asking for edits with alliance leader to be moved to the NL.
Please delete this rule completly bcos I fully disagree with useing it and the way some people exploit it.

[Nilspart]

Portugal
England
Venice
Ottomans
Ming

[Seemore]

@Alfonsos post
fairly ceirtan that rule would only allow you to change leaders on your side of the war.

that said the rule kind of dosent make sence to me:
1. it could be exploited(?) to make a neverending war
2. Wars generaly are, and should be, fought around ingame things. Why should, for example, the french conquest of brittany war continue to be fought long after brittany have been annexed.
Even if the alliance that fights on after brittany have been annexed, manages to win the war and have brittany released and the brittany player reinstated, what is there to stop france from going to war with brittany and annexing them again after the 5 year truce.
3. So If your alliance cant defend the warleader, usualy the two contries witch the war aswell as the claims are centerd around, then (at least imo) you've lost the cause of the war and thus the war itself

[jpvg]

@Alfonsos post
fairly ceirtan that rule would only allow you to change leaders on your side of the war.

that said the rule kind of dosent make sence to me:
1. it could be exploited(?) to make a neverending war
2. Wars generaly are, and should be, fought around ingame things. Why should, for example, the french conquest of brittany war continue to be fought long after brittany have been annexed.
Even if the alliance that fights on after brittany have been annexed, manages to win the war and have brittany released and the brittany player reinstated, what is there to stop france from going to war with brittany and annexing them again after the 5 year truce.
3. So If your alliance cant defend the warleader, usualy the two contries witch the war aswell as the claims are centerd around, then (at least imo) you've lost the cause of the war and thus the war itself

1. There are other ways to make a neverending war.
2. Yes so when Brit gets attacked, the ally burgundy joins in his separate war @ alliance cb and you get precisely the same. Makes no difference.
3. Dosen't matter if your allies just dow on Alliance CB.

And that's the general idea, to stop people from always dow'ing in their own wars which is the only right thing to do as you can't be forced out as you describe. Now the defenders might actually take the call and actually fight in a defensive war and not in offensive wars while defending. I have seen similar rules in quite a few campaigns by now, it works fine from what I have seen, I think it removes more problems then it brings but yes your argument is valid if people actually took the defensive calls, the reality is that they declare their own wars on the alliance CB (atleast the better players in general take separate wars).

[Seemore]

if that's the case it makes a bit more sence

[Alfonso V]

I disagree with you. If you join a war separated you risk staying in the war after the others peaced out. The alliance system is in the game for a reason, not to freely exploit it by edits all the time. This is how europa universalis works. I dont agree with this rule, it has to go.

[Alfonso V]

1. it could be exploited(?) to make a neverending war
2. Wars generaly are, and should be, fought around ingame things. Why should, for example, the french conquest of brittany war continue to be fought long after brittany have been annexed.
Even if the alliance that fights on after brittany have been annexed, manages to win the war and have brittany released and the brittany player reinstated, what is there to stop france from going to war with brittany and annexing them again after the 5 year truce.
3. So If your alliance cant defend the warleader, usualy the two contries witch the war aswell as the claims are centerd around, then (at least imo) you've lost the cause of the war and thus the war itself

1. doesnt even make sence,
2. this is the nature of the game, it is perfectly fine. You should be playing with these things and not ask for a noobish edit every time u dont like something, srly
3. this is how it should work, it is perfectly fine. Have you ever heared about alliance WS?

This rule is against the very nature of EU. It is a joke. Same as when a noob joines an alliance lead by an AI, and he just gets peaced out true the AI bcos he made the most basic mistake. Now he is crying for edits. Pls no, this rule has to go!

[sharpcat]

You should consider using less offensive language Alfonso. I'm not sure calling people 'noobs' will advance your argument a great deal. Not everyone is as advanced as you...

I think the rule is fine really, if a bit unwieldy given it requires on the spot editing. Probably better to coordinate warfare using Alliance CBs to avoid edits - up to the GM though. Good luck with the campaign everyone, wish I could join.

[Alfonso V]

I know my english is not the best, maybe thats why. You know I never intended to offend any1 personally. I only made a general statement that this isnt nursery school to use such rules. I ment that the rule is noobish not a person. There is no need to use such a rule in this campaign.

[Janlm]

England
Castille
Hansa
Holland
Brandenburg

[Bixit]

I am not finished setting up rules yet alfonso, only copy pasted and did some small changes. I would personally prefer to have as few rules as possible, so please just wait for now. You can start complaining when I am happy with them...