"The Hotseat" — Mondays, 19:00 CET *NEED PERM*

[Elcyion]

Btw, I'm sorry for being 'that guy' but I think Milan needs to be punished for breaking the rules, specifically peacing through an AI warleader(milan peaced out mamluks who was warleader in the milan/austrian vs ottoman pvp war). If he is allowed to disregard the rules then why should be we restricted by them? For now, I consider this a game where 'anything goes' because of such actions and from this point I don't see why anyone should follow any of the rules until there is a punishment of some kind for him(milan).

Mind actuly pointing out in the rules where it says i cant peace trough the AI?

And OE even made it clear he wouldent peace without me peacing Mameluk first...
Also its common sense u dont join any wars where AI ganna be leader
I want my 75g back as i broke nu rules...

[The-King]

Mind actuly pointing out in the rules where it says i cant peace trough the AI?

-Alliance leaders may not sign peace without the explicit consent of all members of their alliance. Minor members of the war may peace out separately, but still the other alliance must agree on that. In case the warleader wants to surrender but a minor doesn't, he can request to be edited as warleader, but for the sake of smooth playing i reccomend just not peacing out until every conflict is over.

[Elcyion]

-Alliance leaders may not sign peace without the explicit consent of all members of their alliance. Minor members of the war may peace out separately, but still the other alliance must agree on that. In case the warleader wants to surrender but a minor doesn't, he can request to be edited as warleader, but for the sake of smooth playing i reccomend just not peacing out until every conflict is over.

Thats for Players im guessing and did u ever see OE ask to be edited to Leader? he even said he wouldent peace before Mameluks....

if a minor partner says he wont peace without leader he cant be peaced by leader without him being asked?

[The-King]

Thats for Players im guessing and did u ever see OE ask to be edited to Leader? he even said he wouldent peace before Mameluks....

Well the situation was that Ottomans said he was about to wipe you and you peaced out the mamluks (from what I saw you gave the mamluks 25 ducats to get the peace). I don't think OE ever felt the need to be editted to ai leader because he didn't think you would peace out the mamluks, and he didn't ask to be editted back into a state of war because he said your regiments had already regenerated man power at that point so the opportunity to wipe your army was lost.

As for the the specifics about the rule, I believe that it means you cannot peace out -any- warleader without the consent of the members of their alliance despite if the the warleader is AI or player.

[Elcyion]

Well the situation was that Ottomans said he was about to wipe you and you peaced out the mamluks (from what I saw you gave the mamluks 25 ducats to get the peace). I don't think OE ever felt the need to be editted to ai leader because he didn't think you would peace out the mamluks, and he didn't ask to be editted back into a state of war because he said your regiments had already regenerated man power at that point so the opportunity to wipe your army was lost.

As for the the specifics about the rule, I believe that it means you cannot peace out -any- warleader without the consent of the members of their alliance despite if they are AI or player.

OE Said he wouldent Peace without the Mameluks being peaced the same time...
If u let me know how im suposed to peace both AI and player the same time let me know for the future..

[The-King]

OE Said he wouldent Peace without the Mameluks being peaced the same time...
If u let me know how im suposed to peace both AI and player the same time let me know for the future..

Yes I have a suggestion, perhaps communicate what you want to do before doing it. In this case, you peaced out the mamluks without making any attempt to speak to the ottomans or the GM, I'm sure if you made some announcement about peacing out the mamluks and gave ottomans a chance to voice his objection the situation could have been avoided. From what I can tell, the only reason you peaced out was to avoid a wipe and not 'lose.'

Consider this: If you were winning against the Ottomans and Tuscany for some reason was the warleader. You wanted to make some sort of demand on Ottomans, however by your standards the Ottomans will always have that "get out of jail" free card with abusing the AI by giving it money to end the war. It would be unfair to you because you would never be able to make any demand.

[Elcyion]

Yes I have a suggestion, perhaps communicate what you want to do before doing it. In this case, you peaced out the mamluks without making any attempt to speak to the ottomans or the GM, I'm sure if you made some announcement about peacing out the mamluks and gave ottomans a chance to voice his objection the situation could have been avoided. From what I can tell, the only reason you peaced out was to avoid a wipe and not 'lose.'

Consider this: If you were winning against the Ottomans and Tuscany for some reason was the warleader. You wanted to make some sort of demand on Ottomans, however by your standards the Ottomans will always have that "get out of jail" free card with abusing the AI by giving it money to end the war. It would be unfair to you because you would never be able to make any demand.

I wouldent join if Tuscany was war leader.. Its common sense not to join as a minor partner in a war versus the AI for this reason
My example Denmark Garantees Mameluks... OE dows Mameluks AI ure saying that Mameluks Can never be peaced by OE even if its fully Occupied before Denmark agrees to the Peace? u cant see how this can be abused in any way?


No what i should have done was from the beginning to ask OE to be edited to leader so i could have peaced em from the start and just fought with OE

[The-King]

I believe there should be communication between the two players before peace is made. If there is a conflict because of an AI warleader the GM must make a decision about how the peace should be made.

[Elcyion]

I believe there should be communication between the two players before peace is made. If there is a conflict because of an AI warleader the GM must make a decision about how the peace should be made.

That rule also say that the alliance must agree to a minor partner being peaced so what ure saying is no AI can ever be peaced if its in a war with a player well good to know and thats so ganna be abused lmao means its practicly impossible for someone like OE to expand if u want to grief em... Say i pay Portugal or Spain to garantee evrything around OE he cant expand as he can never Peace any of the AIs he get into a war with as either one of em will be in those wars and OE cant Reach either one of em...

As an Example should Denmark lose its PU on Sweden Milan can just garantee sweden and u can never Re PU em without winning a land war against Milan as u cant peace Sweden without my Say so

Another fun example would be Austria losing its PUs Portugal Garantees the countries ure saying that Austria would have to have Portugal agree to Peace before he can RePu any of the countries?

[stnikolauswagne]

Not to accuse anything of anything, but the fact that most of Italy left the HRE does seem a little fishy, how did you manage it without breaking the rule about not letting other countries leave the HRE for you? Did you leave the HRE itself and just add back Lombardia? Again, not accusing, just curious.

[Elcyion]

Not to accuse anything of anything, but the fact that most of Italy left the HRE does seem a little fishy, how did you manage it without breaking the rule about not letting other countries leave the HRE for you? Did you leave the HRE itself and just add back Lombardia? Again, not accusing, just curious.

I left HRE then when i had removed all of the non core provinces from HRE i rejoined i even asked the GM beforehand if it was Legit

[Sorgenkind]

Guys, dont fight over this shit. Milan paid 75 Gold to OE, GM said so, and GMs word is law. So just forget it, seriously!

As for the HRE provs: He left the empire, took the provs out of the hre and came back, that easy

[Vainfall]

Not to accuse anything of anything, but the fact that most of Italy left the HRE does seem a little fishy, how did you manage it without breaking the rule about not letting other countries leave the HRE for you? Did you leave the HRE itself and just add back Lombardia? Again, not accusing, just curious.

He sold his non-core provinces to switz to avoid losing them when leaving the HRE, and than got them back. Which AFAIK, is pretty much the same as "selling provinces for the exclusive purpose of removing them from the HRE." This doesn't really bother me though, I always thought that rule was... odd.



While I regret missing the game today, especially as it was due to my mother's health, I will not be returning to continue playing the Otts until a new perm is found. It's in the rules that you cannot peace without the consent of all alliance members. It's quite simple - you agree to a peace with the Otts, sign it, and then peace the mamelukes. If what I'm told is true, not only were the Otts cheated out of a complete victory that would have resulted in a surrender from Milan, but also seems the GM doesn't care. I don't wish to play under such a GM. You can edit back into war all you want, but it only takes 2-3 months to recover troops to a fighting standard. Milan didn't peace the mamelukes to end the war, he peaced the mamelukes to save his troops and prevent a total defeat. The war could go on, but it would not be in the same situation as it was left. And having such a serious infraction of this rule does bother me.

[phantomdentist]

Not to accuse anything of anything, but the fact that most of Italy left the HRE does seem a little fishy, how did you manage it without breaking the rule about not letting other countries leave the HRE for you? Did you leave the HRE itself and just add back Lombardia? Again, not accusing, just curious.

Yeah he did it the ok way in my opinion as austria had to let him back into the hre

The way which is against the rules is if he had sold them to say france who took them out of the empire and then handed them back

[Lama43]

He sold his non-core provinces to switz to avoid losing them when leaving the HRE, and than got them back. Which AFAIK, is pretty much the same as "selling provinces for the exclusive purpose of removing them from the HRE." This doesn't really bother me though, I always thought that rule was... odd.



While I regret missing the game today, especially as it was due to my mother's health, I will not be returning to continue playing the Otts until a new perm is found. It's in the rules that you cannot peace without the consent of all alliance members. It's quite simple - you agree to a peace with the Otts, sign it, and then peace the mamelukes. If what Tornadoli says is true, not only were the Otts cheated out of a complete victory that would have resulted in a surrender from Milan, but also seems the GM doesn't care. I don't wish to play under such a GM. You can edit back into war all you want, but it only takes 2-3 months to recover troops to a fighting standard. Milan didn't peace the mamelukes to end the war, he peaced the mamelukes to save his troops and prevent a total defeat. The war could go on, but it would not be in the same situation as it was left. And having such a serious infraction of this rule does bother me.

The problem is that it was unclear whether it was going to be annihilated or not, and evidence suggested it was unlikely. I resolved it by making Milan to pay a small amount of money, and no one complained. I offered Tornadoli to get the war active again, and apparently he did not want that and didn't pause the game to make it happen before Milan could recover. Are you suggesting i should have done favoritism?
The rule that it's not possible to peace out through an AI should probably have been written more clearly, but i remember it was clearly stated so i probably accidentally removed it. In any case, the GM is there for a reason. What Elcyion did was an exploit, and i don't like exploits. Of course if this rule would be exploited in the way Elcyion described i would have accepted peacing out through an AI. If you could have played with strict rules dictating everything there would be no GM.
Regarding to the HRE leaving situation, Elcy as always found a loophole in the rule, but maybe Vainfall is right that it could be removed, so say your opinion on this.

BTW, thanks Phantom for finding the stats, i'll put them at the first page right away.

[Sorgenkind]

He sold his non-core provinces to switz to avoid losing them when leaving the HRE, and than got them back. Which AFAIK, is pretty much the same as "selling provinces for the exclusive purpose of removing them from the HRE." This doesn't really bother me though, I always thought that rule was... odd.

Ok, first of all, he could've just left hre, removed provs from hre and then returned. I'd have allowed it anyway, so even if it was an exploit, it doesn't matter since the result would've been the same. So no more about this nonsense please!

While I regret missing the game today, especially as it was due to my mother's health, I will not be returning to continue playing the Otts until a new perm is found. It's in the rules that you cannot peace without the consent of all alliance members. It's quite simple - you agree to a peace with the Otts, sign it, and then peace the mamelukes. If what Tornadoli says is true, not only were the Otts cheated out of a complete victory that would have resulted in a surrender from Milan, but also seems the GM doesn't care. I don't wish to play under such a GM. You can edit back into war all you want, but it only takes 2-3 months to recover troops to a fighting standard. Milan didn't peace the mamelukes to end the war, he peaced the mamelukes to save his troops and prevent a total defeat. The war could go on, but it would not be in the same situation as it was left. And having such a serious infraction of this rule does bother me.

The Ottos did not have a shot of a total victory whatsoever. None to be honest. I still had my 50k standing and waiting and was building another 20k, I doubt that he could've beaten those easily. And if the war would've continued, OE would've lost eventually. I could have started to Inflate (i didn't during the war, just afterwards) and build up to 100k and Elcy could've thrown in another 40k I presume. I seriously doubt that OE would've had the tiniest chance of beating us at this point. I just didn't want to continue the war, especially with my king on the edge of dying. Not that it really mattered in the end :P

The problem is that it was unclear whether it was going to be annihilated or not, and evidence suggested it was unlikely. I resolved it by making Milan to pay a small amount of money, and no one complained. I offered Tornadoli to get the war active again, and apparently he did not want that and didn't pause the game to make it happen before Milan could recover. Are you suggesting i should have done favoritism?
The rule that it's not possible to peace out through an AI should probably have been written more clearly, but i remember it was clearly stated so i probably accidentally removed it. In any case, the GM is there for a reason. What Elcyion did was an exploit, and i don't like exploits. Of course if this rule would be exploited in the way Elcyion described i would have accepted peacing out through an AI. If you could have played with strict rules dictating everything there would be no GM.
Regarding to the HRE leaving situation, Elcy as always found a loophole in the rule, but maybe Vainfall is right that it could be removed, so say your opinion on this.

Im actually not quite sure how this should be a loophole. he left hre, removed provs from hre and then rejoined. Everything with the backing of the emperor. I really fail to see the exploit...

[Vainfall]

Ok, first of all, he could've just left hre, removed provs from hre and then returned. I'd have allowed it anyway, so even if it was an exploit, it doesn't matter since the result would've been the same. So no more about this nonsense please!

No he can't. If you leave the HRE, you lose your uncored HRE provinces.

The Ottos did not have a shot of a total victory whatsoever. None to be honest. I still had my 50k standing and waiting and was building another 20k, I doubt that he could've beaten those easily. And if the war would've continued, OE would've lost eventually. I could have started to Inflate (i didn't during the war, just afterwards) and build up to 100k and Elcy could've thrown in another 40k I presume. I seriously doubt that OE would've had the tiniest chance of beating us at this point. I just didn't want to continue the war, especially with my king on the edge of dying. Not that it really mattered in the end :P

When the first session ended, Austria wasn't in the war. I doubt it would have taken a great deal to convince France to join if Austria was about to intervene, especially as it would be quite easy to make him realize that the two of you would do the same thing to him in the future if need be. I'm assuming we're still talking about the same war where Milan attacked Otts over the mamelukes, right? Milan had 24k or so total troops(at the end of first session), and were barely making and money at the end of the first session. Ottos were supporting 50k. Again, assuming what I'm told is true if milans 20k or so he had in the balkans were about to wipe, Milan would have been forced to surrender without intervention by Austria.. and if they did, I believe it would be quite easy to speak to France in those circumstances.

Im actually not quite sure how this should be a loophole. he left hre, removed provs from hre and then rejoined. Everything with the backing of the emperor. I really fail to see the exploit...

Like I said, I don't personally think that rule matters anyways. I'm of the belief it's a stupid rule.

texttexttext123456

[Vainfall]

The problem is that it was unclear whether it was going to be annihilated or not, and evidence suggested it was unlikely. I resolved it by making Milan to pay a small amount of money, and no one complained. I offered Tornadoli to get the war active again, and apparently he did not want that and didn't pause the game to make it happen before Milan could recover. Are you suggesting i should have done favoritism?
The rule that it's not possible to peace out through an AI should probably have been written more clearly, but i remember it was clearly stated so i probably accidentally removed it. In any case, the GM is there for a reason. What Elcyion did was an exploit, and i don't like exploits. Of course if this rule would be exploited in the way Elcyion described i would have accepted peacing out through an AI. If you could have played with strict rules dictating everything there would be no GM.
Regarding to the HRE leaving situation, Elcy as always found a loophole in the rule, but maybe Vainfall is right that it could be removed, so say your opinion on this.

BTW, thanks Phantom for finding the stats, i'll put them at the first page right away.

I'm operating entirely off of what I'm told. I don't know anything first hand about how the milanese-ottoman war turned out.

[Elcyion]

I'm operating entirely off of what I'm told. I don't know anything first hand about how the milanese-ottoman war turned out.

On the matter of the war OE could never won it he would have to fight all the way trough Austria to reach Milan and by that time i would have had a standing army again as i did 4 months after the peace.. Anyhow its a moot Point OE dident stand a chans in hell without the 50k Mameluk troops in Balkan one of the reason he dident want the war edited back

Edit: The correct way to deal with that war would have been to edit OE as Leader from the start and immediatly peaced out Mameluks but in that case i dont think OE would have been that happy either

[Tornadoli]

Whether I would have won or not is debatable; but I did have a very large chance to wipe Milan's troops. Your argument that I could not have won without the Mameluks is moot; the same could be said that you could not have won the war without Austria. Furthermore, obviously I did not want the war editted back after you had the chance to recover morale and manpower; that's the whole point of wiping - you first drive them down, then wipe. Therefore, the argument that "the war could have been editted back" is also rather stupid.

To be honest though, I did want a white peace. What I am however annoyed about is that I offered white peace several times, which Elcyion refused, saying things like "I will take loads of provinces from you now as punishment"; then he peaced through the AI when some of his stacks were on the verge of being wiped. The point isn't the peace; the point is that Elcyion somehow feels that he is above the rules and can do whatever he wants. His attitude is rather bad for such an MP game. The HRE situation is another good example. Although not strictly against the rules, it nevertheless is an exploit, and I find such an attitude in MP games rather distasteful.

That said, I will however gladly take over permship of the Ottoman Empire.