"Victis Honor" — Wednesdays, 19:00 CET

[Sickness_]

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?

I'm pretty sure that the three points Seemore made was not in defense of the rule, but rather the opposite.

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.

Seems like a rather pointless rule if it doesn't really change anything.

[Lama43]

You could add the limitations of being able to request it only if the enemy has demands on you, a minor, and the war leader surrendered, while you want to fight on. It makes perfect sense imho.
And Alfonso, if a game is made like this it doesn't mean that it has to be that way. On earlier patches you could have cheated sliders because the game allowed that, was it right? Same for peacing out a player through an AI. That's just an exploit.

Anyway i usually ask to be called in when i have no particular demands to the enemy other than WP or something, i wouldn't say it's noobish.

[Alfonso V]

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...

Sure, I understand, np.

[Alfonso V]

Same for peacing out a player through an AI. That's just an exploit.

I disagree, that is a very serious mistake made by the player, not an exploit. Kids who make it are the ones who cry for edits all the time. If you dont like it that your alliance leader peaced out without asking you, find an honorable ally instead of QQQ and asking for edits!

[Janlm]

Alfonso, chill...

The only problem with the rule is that it will be a lot of trouble to enforce it. Requiring edits and rehosting? So i'll just avoid fighting in alliance wars with that rule on, to avoid getting into a situation that might require a rehost. But other than that I don't care.

[Bixit]

Alfonso, chill...

The only problem with the rule is that it will be a lot of trouble to enforce it. Requiring edits and rehosting? So i'll just avoid fighting in alliance wars with that rule on, to avoid getting into a situation that might require a rehost. But other than that I don't care.

And for this reason I will probably edit out that rule, we had a situation where we had to do that in the middle of a session in the newbie game. Ended up with that we didn't bother, as it took to much of our game time.

[Lama43]

I disagree, that is a very serious mistake made by the player, not an exploit. Kids who make it are the ones who cry for edits all the time. If you dont like it that your alliance leader peaced out without asking you, find an honorable ally instead of QQQ and asking for edits!

Let's make an example, maybe you'll get it.
Denmark has guaranteed AI Hansa. Brandenburg attacks it, but gets overrun by Denmark. Denmark wants the death of a contender to Germany, but then Hansa that still kept the WL status offers WP to Brandenburg while it is fully occupied and about to accept Denmark's demands. The war ends, Brandenburg survives, and Denmark is forced to wait another 5 years to attempt to kill BB again.

[AndyAnders]

Would like to be in again

Preussia (BB/TO whatever is more suitable for the game)
England
Denmark
Milan
NL

[jpvg]

Seems like a rather pointless rule if it doesn't really change anything.

It changes that people don't just declare separate wars instead of coming to arms so instead of having 6 wars in a 3v2 :

France vs Brit, France vs Burgundy, France vs England, Spain vs Brit, Spain vs Burgundy, Spain vs England

We get one war :

Spain+France vs Brit+Burgundy+England.

Because in worst case scenario, leadership is just moved upon Brittany being forcepeaced and others wish to continue. This speeds up and smooths peacenegotiations and avoid situation where France gets his army wiped after Burgundy surrendered, Burgundy only surrendered to Milan apparently and a ton of other problems related to peacenegotiations, now there is a pricetag attached to doing your own war and that is in peacerule #3, you can not demand that nation x must be peaced out with nation y, ergo - declaring a war on your own is risky business.

So it does change something, fighting a war while being called gives you some protection while fighting a separate war is more risky, you can choice what you want, but attacking on your own is not always best any longer.

I was in the campaign that originally implemented these two rules and was asked about these rules, I don't want to sound like I'm defending em, I don't consider em better then ie karma, I'm just explaining why they are done this way, it was meant to reduce the size of terms slightly by enforcing the 100% rule via encouragin players to accept calls rather then always go into wars on alliance CBs. It works to prevent that, it does also require edits once and awhile (seldon in reality), I've seen much more edits to people who have lost armies etc during peace negotiations so in that regard it is a non-issue. It's an alternative with slightly smaller terms then karma in general.

[Alfonso V]

Is the game going to start 4th of april or 11th?

[Nilspart]

Is the game going to start 4th of april or 11th?

11th.

[stnikolauswagne]

Hey, if possible I'd like no deathmatch position early on, so if burgundy absolutely HAS to be taken then put me somewhere that isn't France. I feel confident in my ability to build a decent France in the long run, but I guess the risk of letting western Europe descend into utter chaos because I f* up the first war against Burgundy is not really interesting to me.

[Histaxin]

Umm, I'm not really sure how this goes, but it's in the order of countries you wanna be, right? In that case..;

-Burgundy
-Castille
-France
-Naples
-Bohemia

I'm not the best at the game, thus the pretty strong countries to begin with. XD If all the countries are taken, please tell me so I can change them! I hope not though, they're the only countries I feel I can do -okay- in. c:

Especially as a new player, you will get Minors to play, since newbies are provenly not reliable compared to regulars. Majors are for the more experienced/reliable players.

So add in some minors like Portugal/Hansa/Morocco etc., so the GM can actually give you a decent Nation. With your current lineup, you wont get a nation at all. Furthermore Bohemia/Naples are bad choices, since Milan/Austria simply have the better decisions/missions and starting positions.

[jpvg]

Hey, if possible I'd like no deathmatch position early on, so if burgundy absolutely HAS to be taken then put me somewhere that isn't France. I feel confident in my ability to build a decent France in the long run, but I guess the risk of letting western Europe descend into utter chaos because I f* up the first war against Burgundy is not really interesting to me.

Your request is impossible to fix with certainty when you have the desire to play a european landnation, If you want to avoid deathmatch situations, ask for nations that have an easy time to negotiate to be left alone usually not landnations although Russia, Mamluks, OE might be able to do it.

[stnikolauswagne]

Your request is impossible to fix with certainty when you have the desire to play a european landnation, If you want to avoid deathmatch situations, ask for nations that have an easy time to negotiate to be left alone usually not landnations although Russia, Mamluks, OE might be able to do it.

I do have to say that I dont really understand your point. II would have little trouble with a BB/Hansa or maybe even a BB/Poland situation, most of the time it should be possible to reach an agreement there. But I really, really dont like having a played Burgundy next to me in France. In my oppinion its like playing novgorod while having a played Muscowy, you both want the same land and one has to die. But then again, I am still not really experienced and am perfectly willing to learn.

[Histaxin]

I do have to say that I dont really understand your point. II would have little trouble with a BB/Hansa or maybe even a BB/Poland situation, most of the time it should be possible to reach an agreement there. But I really, really dont like having a played Burgundy next to me in France. In my oppinion its like playing novgorod while having a played Muscowy, you both want the same land and one has to die. But then again, I am still not really experienced and am perfectly willing to learn.

Unless were playing a cabal-type game with 20+ starting ppl, there most likely wont be a burgundy/france Situation. Otherwise we would have to include a Milan/Naples, a Switz, a Castille-Aragon, a BB-TO-Poland-Russia and an OE/Mamluks Situation to even it out.

[stnikolauswagne]

Unless were playing a cabal-type game with 20+ starting ppl, there most likely wont be a burgundy/france Situation. Otherwise we would have to include a Milan/Naples, a Switz, a Castille-Aragon, a BB-TO-Poland-Russia and an OE/Mamluks Situation to even it out.

My point exactly, thank you very much.

[jpvg]

I do have to say that I dont really understand your point. II would have little trouble with a BB/Hansa or maybe even a BB/Poland situation, most of the time it should be possible to reach an agreement there. But I really, really dont like having a played Burgundy next to me in France

BB, Poland, Russia -> atleast 1 has to die or they convince ie hansa to turn on Scand and get some room there or someone else. One of em won't have enough room to exist in. The most common is Poland trying to kill Russia or BB or simply gets eliminated while trying, if you simply stay put as Poland in between bb, austria and russia, you're killing yourself in the longrun.

In my oppinion its like playing novgorod while having a played Muscowy, you both want the same land and one has to die. But then again, I am still not really experienced and am perfectly willing to learn.

The situation is different from Burgundy-France to Novgorod-Muscowy as 1. Burgundy-France is located next to some very fine areas meaning that you don't need 50+ provinces before 1600+ and 2. Burgundy can easily take out Holland and become a strong landbased NL while slowly selling off his french land, combine that with stealing the HRE from Austria and you're pretty much set as both Burgundy & France.

[stnikolauswagne]

The situation is different from Burgundy-France to Novgorod-Muscowy as 1. Burgundy-France is located next to some very fine areas meaning that you don't need 50+ provinces before 1600+ and 2. Burgundy can easily take out Holland and become a strong landbased NL while slowly selling off his french land, combine that with stealing the HRE from Austria and you're pretty much set as both Burgundy & France.

You are right, but what you probably dont know: I had the same situation with the exact same player some weeks ago. He made it clear that for him that was not an option and that he wanted to keep his french holdings on all costs. At the end we made a deal that completely broke the game for austria and italy and that is not a fun. But at the end all this will depend on the gm and I just wanted to show my concerns about the situation.

[jpvg]

You are right, but what you probably dont know: I had the same situation with the exact same player some weeks ago. He made it clear that for him that was not an option and that he wanted to keep his french holdings on all costs. At the end we made a deal that completely broke the game for austria and italy and that is not a fun. But at the end all this will depend on the gm and I just wanted to show my concerns about the situation.

You should ask the GM to be moved from your spot if you believe that personal relations will interfere with the game. In any case you can't just ask for free roam in whatever area you are put, if the GM deems it neccessary to put a player in Burgundy there will probably also be one in other random nations for other "deathmatches", there will be no special treat for you whether that is in a positive or a negative light. Besides that France is usually one of the stronger nations even if placed in a deathmatch with Burgundy as long as it isn't a plot to weaken France per definition I see absolutely no problems in it, where is the nationlist btw?