+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 60

Thread: Horde request

  1. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by Xeorm View Post
    You misunderstand me, yes, the AI, that all AI's share, thinks a white peace would be a good idea. But this is a horde They won't accept a white peace. That's just how they roll. Same as not being able to royal marriage outside your religion group, it's just wasn't done, and was hardcoded for a reason.
    Actually it did happen from time to time, but not often in this timeframe.

  2. #22
    I didn't screen capture in time, but here was the situation recreated in Paint on the vanilla DW map. Most of the colors are pretty close to what they actually are in-game, major exception being that the Mamluks are steel.



    So no, I am in fact "reasonably managing my expansion," but thanks for taking shots at my skill as a player for no good reason.

    In response -

    (1) I've already stated that the "but hurr mongols are irrational obsessed with pride!!" responses can get out, because Europe at the time was unreasonable about pride as well to an absurd extent, and that this is already modeled by the AI's general delusion in its peace deals... but that white peace is still an option. Treating Mongols and Timurids like they're somehow so stupid that they could never contemplate the possibility of a draw is inconsistent with reality and does nothing to solve any of the issues here. So please, if that's all you have to say, stop talking. You're not furthering the discussion.

    (2)
    Regardless, I think 5 prestige, or even tribute is acceptable in most circumstances. It's like being upset when the AI wins.
    How the fuck do you even come to that conclusion?

    I'm sorry if this all sounds rude, but I was posting this to make the suggestion that hordes be allowed to white peace, and it seems like the entire response can be summarized into either (a) comments about how hordes are meant to be super stupid about honor, significantly moreso than the delusional narcissists that ran Europe (and can white peace) at the time, which is just plain false; or (b) patronizing comments about how I need to get better at the game/stop whining so much... neither of which are helpful.
    Last edited by President_Eden; 29-06-2012 at 05:50.

  3. #23
    Honestly it sounds like you are just upset and came here to complain. If you really want to prove your point that things should be changed. Prove it. Find examples from history where any horde agreed to a ceasefire or white peace. I have seen you say time and time again why it is incorrect. That hordes were just not that way, well prove it.

  4. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by President_Eden View Post
    I didn't screen capture in time, but here was the situation recreated in Paint on the vanilla DW map. Most of the colors are pretty close to what they actually are in-game, major exception being that the Mamluks are steel.



    So no, I am in fact "reasonably managing my expansion," but thanks for taking shots at my skill as a player for no good reason.

    In response -

    (1) I've already stated that the "but hurr mongols are irrational obsessed with pride!!" responses can get out, because Europe at the time was unreasonable about pride as well to an absurd extent, and that this is already modeled by the AI's general delusion in its peace deals... but that white peace is still an option. Treating Mongols and Timurids like they're somehow so stupid that they could never contemplate the possibility of a draw is inconsistent with reality and does nothing to solve any of the issues here. So please, if that's all you have to say, stop talking. You're not furthering the discussion.

    (2)

    How the fuck do you even come to that conclusion?

    I'm sorry if this all sounds rude, but I was posting this to make the suggestion that hordes be allowed to white peace, and it seems like the entire response can be summarized into either (a) comments about how hordes are meant to be super stupid about honor, significantly moreso than the delusional narcissists that ran Europe (and can white peace) at the time, which is just plain false; or (b) patronizing comments about how I need to get better at the game/stop whining so much... neither of which are helpful.
    your previous posts gave me the impression that you were battling like a champion against overwhelming odds-to suggest that the developers change the rules simply because you are incapable of colonising one province is ridiculous......

  5. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by President_Eden View Post
    Ehm, how is one province a problem in any way, good sir? The only way they can get to you is by being at war with the Mamluks and cross two provinces (minimum) fighting you in a good defensive position in central Anatolia. Why don't you just colonise? Or better yet, just send a spy and cause a rebellion. The province will split off from the Timurids in no time. Better yet, its a fringe province (no core?) that will probably rebel upon the Tribal Succession Crisis. In conclusion, your problem require nothing to solve itself and you can speed it up for 10 ducats.

    Discussion concering improvements of Horde mechanics are always good, but if any argument comes down to "it annoys me," it's not worth the time changing the code. I don't think people are patronizing you, but you are obviously whining and it's difficult to respond to that in an entirely helpful manner.
    Last edited by Serzis; 29-06-2012 at 15:08.

  6. #26
    First Lieutenant Cpl Wilding's Avatar
    Crusader Kings IIEU3 CompleteHearts of Iron IIIVictoria 2Victoria II: A House Divided
    V2 Beta500k club

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    246
    Unless that blob up north is the Golden Horde (which would increase your problems) then your solution is simple...colonize or force a rebellion in that one-off province.
    Self-proclaimed German Wehrmacht expert and Russian general extraordinaire
    Airpower? Who needs it when my army can beat your army to a pulp!

  7. #27
    Honestly it sounds like you are just upset and came here to complain. If you really want to prove your point that things should be changed. Prove it. Find examples from history where any horde agreed to a ceasefire or white peace. I have seen you say time and time again why it is incorrect. That hordes were just not that way, well prove it.
    Where's the proof that they were as designed in the game? That's what I'm finding to be the hangup. When the horde mechanic was developed, the developers made the conscious decision not to allow a white peace. If this question requires proof either way, then there would be proof that hordes would *never* accept a draw. I don't see any proof of that in the least, and no one has been able to supply such proof.

    Like I said before - of course leaders at the time were extremely prideful and delusional. (They still are.) This is modeled just fine by the AI's default behavior not to accept what would seem to be a reasonable peace (white peace at no warscore when they're far away, for instance - we've all seen examples of that). Superimposing the complete inability to white peace at all seems unnecessary in light of this, unless there were some reason specific to the behavior of the tribal cultures that would make it impossible. There isn't, or certainly hasn't been any such reason presented.

    your previous posts gave me the impression that you were battling like a champion against overwhelming odds-to suggest that the developers change the rules simply because you are incapable of colonising one province is ridiculous......

    Ehm, how is one province a problem in any way, good sir? The only way they can get to you is by being at war with the Mamluks and cross two provinces (minimum) fighting you in a good defensive position in central Anatolia. Why don't you just colonise? Or better yet, just send a spy and cause a rebellion. The province will split off from the Timurids in no time. Better yet, its a fringe province (no core?) that will probably rebel upon the Tribal Succession Crisis. In conclusion, your problem require nothing to solve itself and you can speed it up for 10 ducats.

    Discussion concering improvements of Horde mechanics are always good, but if any argument comes down to "it annoys me," it's not worth the time changing the code. I don't think people are patronizing you, but you are obviously whining and it's difficult to respond to that in an entirely helpful manner.
    If you're going to be patronizing douchebags, you could at least read the goddamn thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by OP
    I've had multiple cases (including a Byzantium one right now) where I've been at war with the Timurids for years on end, with nothing happening on either side - they've had an exclave on my land occupied by the AI all this time
    Occupied by the AI. That AI, obviously, was the Mamluks, who were quite busy colonizing everywhere, but didn't send any additional colonists beyond the initial 200 to the settlement. It was growing at some absurd rate like 4 per month. So that's 200 months - over 16 years. What logic could possibly justify a ban on a white peace here? This is beyond the scope of any realistic representation as it is, because the Timurids, were they so decisively routed in the Caucasus area by the Mamluks, would probably have just had that one piece of land defect. It wouldn't even hang around anyway. It's hard enough to say "Well hordes are super prideful so no white peace" - adding "Well hordes would still be super prideful in this circumstance" is just baseless conjecture.

  8. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by President_Eden View Post
    Occupied by the AI. That AI, obviously, was the Mamluks, who were quite busy colonizing everywhere, but didn't send any additional colonists beyond the initial 200 to the settlement. It was growing at some absurd rate like 4 per month. So that's 200 months - over 16 years. What logic could possibly justify a ban on a white peace here? This is beyond the scope of any realistic representation as it is, because the Timurids, were they so decisively routed in the Caucasus area by the Mamluks, would probably have just had that one piece of land defect. It wouldn't even hang around anyway. It's hard enough to say "Well hordes are super prideful so no white peace" - adding "Well hordes would still be super prideful in this circumstance" is just baseless conjecture.
    The ability to spring up a rebellion there with spies is still present. The ability to DoW Mams and take the province from them is still present. The ability to get m.a. from Mams and go grab a different province is there. You also could push a stack of Turkish rebels there were you so inclined. As there are several ways to alleviate the situation, beyond the obvious just wait it out, there is no reason to change the horde rules to save you a little bit of work.

    You, sir, are the one sounding like a whiney little d........ here...

  9. #29
    First Lieutenant Cpl Wilding's Avatar
    Crusader Kings IIEU3 CompleteHearts of Iron IIIVictoria 2Victoria II: A House Divided
    V2 Beta500k club

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    246
    In that case, what you should do now is get military access through the Mamluks and take the war to them. I'm sure if you beat them down enough they'll concede defeat to you and you won't be at war anymore.
    Self-proclaimed German Wehrmacht expert and Russian general extraordinaire
    Airpower? Who needs it when my army can beat your army to a pulp!

  10. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by President_Eden View Post
    If you're going to be patronizing douchebags, you could at least read the goddamn thread.
    First of all, I've read the thread and posted at two different point, indicating that felt invested in the discussion. I know you considered colonization, but I can confirm that that would be an easy solution. Secondly, I'd prefer if you did not quote me in the same box as another person (confuses who said what), although I don't disagree with simon. Thirdly, no one (?) is patronizing you. You opened up a thread and most people didn't agree that this should be patched -- but rather suggested that it could be fixed by a few button clicks. Though I take little offense at being called a vaginal irrigation device, I don't really see your replies as very constructive.

    ---------------

    As you point out, the developers made a concious choice, but to use the rule of 'presumption' in your favor is in fact a retreat from debate. Although I am no scholar, I must recognise that the Mongols did not act in accordance with the western rules of war. Moreover, one may point out that 'stalemates' or 'white peace' has been exceptionally rare even in the western community. Almost always, an signing of Status quo ante bellum can be considered a prestigeous failure to the country who began hostility. To take an example from modern history:

    Austria-Hungery declared war on Serbia, beginning WWI. The days before the declarations of war by the Entente, Austria-Hungery could have disengaged it's mobilisation, returning to Status Que and signed a white peace. It was a distinct possibility. However, by such an act, Austria-Hungery and the Habsburgs would have indicated their own inability to assert itself in the Balkens and would have lost prestige, finally ending it's status as a Great Power and thusly reduced it to a second rate country diplomatically. Considering what a WP would mean, they chose to persue a war against the odds.

    More historically, the Austrian-Prussian confrontation of the 7 year war ended in a formal WP (return state before the war -- no winners). However, it was Austria that had failed to reconquer Silesia and it was thus a loss of prestige. In essence, the concept of a WP in EU3 isn't really very historical. It's a game device. There can be war without territorial change, but there is almost always a person who gains the most prestige from the engagement (most often the defender).

    Concerning the Mongols, one may point out that the tribute system of foreign policy was the most common way of dealing diplomatically between countries in East-Asia. Almost to the western tip of Indonesia, people gave tribute to China without becoming vassals per se. The simply bowed and recognized superiority, although not supremacy. This system was probably already established in Mongol society (can't tell for certain), but Gengis Khan and the Yuan Dynsty certainly had adopted the system. Futhermore, the reason why the Mongols were called a Horde was simple, the were travelling bands of soldiers and armies, not interested in territorial conquest or even settlement, but in sacking cities and creating a tribute zone (see for example the Mongol Yoke). Not all campaigns ended in victory, but peace treaties by western standards was seldom made. [Did pirates in the Carrabbian WP?] For this purpose the Horde war in EU3 are not signalled by "The Timurids have declared war on us" but by "The Mongols are Restless." It's an indication that the Horde is readying an offensive campaign of raids, not a war. The Horde cannot raise war taxes because there is no clear distinction between war and peace, its a question of a state of leading the army into none-tributary land, not a formal dynastic militery operation by western or even general standards. As I said in my previous post, Conceding defeat is simply a surrender to Mongol superiority, while forcing Cede Defeat is an indication of the Horde being momentarily too beaten to wage offensive campaigns.

    THERE, I've given you arguments for the current system. Presumtion broken. For the sake of debate, now make you counter-argument proving the fallacy of the EU3DW system.
    Last edited by Serzis; 29-06-2012 at 17:10.

  11. #31
    The ability to spring up a rebellion there with spies is still present. The ability to DoW Mams and take the province from them is still present. The ability to get m.a. from Mams and go grab a different province is there. You also could push a stack of Turkish rebels there were you so inclined. As there are several ways to alleviate the situation, beyond the obvious just wait it out, there is no reason to change the horde rules to save you a little bit of work.

    You, sir, are the one sounding like a whiney little d........ here...
    And none of this changes the fact that the AI wants peace, I want peace, and there's no good reason given for why we can't just sign a white peace.

    I can't even comprehend why this bothers y'all so much. if you don't feel like it's in the spirit of the setting, you can just not sign a white peace with them even if the option's there. But there *still* isn't a good reason for not allowing a white peace.

    In that case, what you should do now is get military access through the Mamluks and take the war to them. I'm sure if you beat them down enough they'll concede defeat to you and you won't be at war anymore.
    (1) Mamluks actually weren't giving me that option, I did try it. Gift spamming would have been really costly.
    (2) Again, I get that there are workarounds, but my point isn't that there are no workarounds, it's that there shouldn't be a need *for* a workaround because there's no justification for the existence of the roadblock that's requiring the workaround in the first place.

  12. #32
    so fight the mamluks.....

  13. #33
    Yeah, because it's totally reasonable to say that I should take on somebody twice my size with a military twice as big as mine so that I can kick them out of one province that another power holds so I can colonize it out of existence instead of just being able to white peace with aforesaid other power, which wants a white peace anyway.

  14. #34
    The Mamluks are distracted take Candar and Karaman.

  15. #35
    That isn't even relevant to the topic at hand. I'm not asking for strategy tips, I'm requesting that in the next patch that hordes be allowed to sign a white peace.

  16. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by President_Eden View Post
    That isn't even relevant to the topic at hand. I'm not asking for strategy tips, I'm requesting that in the next patch that hordes be allowed to sign a white peace.
    I'm yet hear a good argument for changing the current set-up. Is the argument simply that you don't think there is any difference between Western and Horde historical approach to warfare and diplomacy -- and if so, can you back it up? One can theoretically criticize the whole Horde system in DW, but if one want to change a minor detail, rather than fully reverse to pre-DW Khanate mechanics, I believe it is in order to make compelling argument.

    This argument can rely on two ideas 1) the change would improve the players enjoyment of the game and 2) it would be more historically accurate. EU3 is in essence a balancing act between these two principles. I understand that you find it annoying to lack a WP option, so I can't argue with that opinion regarding 1), but since most people want to work with the mechanics, rather than change them to something personally sutible, I would greatly appreciate an argument concerning 2). I don't believe you have cited history up onto this point, but rather assumed that the Mongol's approach to diplomacy was compatible with the Western system of International treaties.

    So, please give historical basis for your claim that the Timurids would agree to ceasefire.

    On another note, you keep repeating that both your nations want peace and it's stupid to withhold WP in such circumstances. Yes, the Timurids probably want a peace, but why would they discontinue a war they are not losing. My take on the situation:
    Quote Originally Posted by The Protocol of the Khan
    General: "My Great Khan, we are struggling with the Egyptian Tribes. The war effort is receiving mixed results and they have cut the western tributary zone in half! We might want to discontinue offensive raids for now... Also, there is this Greek lord. He doesn't pose a threat to us. He does not invade our lands, although he has captured a single province. He wants peace, but refuse to submit to our Horde -- that is maybe four times his size."

    Khan: [The Khan ponders for a while] "How about we deal with these Mamluks for now and later teach at Greek a lesson in Mongol superiority? To promise not to attack for 5 years would only undermine our position in the region.

    General: Very well, my Khan.
    This last bit wasn't very constructive -- I'll give you that, but it is the internet.

  17. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by President_Eden View Post
    Yeah, because it's totally reasonable to say that I should take on somebody twice my size with a military twice as big as mine so that I can kick them out of one province that another power holds so I can colonize it out of existence instead of just being able to white peace with aforesaid other power, which wants a white peace anyway.
    which brings us back to my original point about sensible management of your territorial expansion-if you hadnt swallowed sivas this situation wouldnt have arisen.

  18. #38
    I'm yet hear a good argument for changing the current set-up. Is the argument simply that you don't think there is any difference between Western and Horde historical approach to warfare and diplomacy -- and if so, can you back it up? One can theoretically criticize the whole Horde system in DW, but if one want to change a minor detail, rather than fully reverse to pre-DW Khanate mechanics, I believe it is in order to make compelling argument.
    I have very consistently stated that *there isn't a compelling argument for the existing system in the first place.* I would certainly agree that there needs to be evidence in the first place to substantiate a mechanic's existence. That's *the whole problem I have with the lack of a white peace option.* There is no way to declare what the hordes would have done in the situation I posted above that wouldn't be baseless conjecture one way or the other. The above picture doesn't even make realistic *sense.* The hordes' land can be settled because they're nomads; the implication is that they don't "own" the land in the sense that sovereign governments "own" land. It's just unclaimed territory that occasionally has worldbeating destroyer nomad warriors stomping through it. So the above picture is illustrating an exclave of unowned land that might occasionally have nomad warriors wandering through it. I have further added in the detail that there are no such nomad warriors. It's for all intents and purposes empty land, except for the small (and VERY slowly growing) Mamluk settlement there. There's no way to postulate how the hordes would have acted in this situation - I don't think that's a particularly contentious claim.

    So, when you can't postulate that, your second point becomes null, because there's no way to ensure *any* policy in this situation is historically accurate. The situation itself is too ahistorical for meaningful speculation. In that case, we come back to your first point, which is asking whether the change would improve the players' enjoyment of the game. I would argue that for those who would think this change does, like me, it would, and for those who wouldn't, like (I assume) you, it would be indifferent. Consider: the White Peace option is allowed. We have four situations to weigh in this thought experiment:
    (1) The player who thinks this change would be enjoyable wants to white peace with the AI. Having the option is clearly better than not from the perspective of player enjoyment, as they can offer the white peace, which would make their experience more enjoyable.
    (2) The AI wants to white peace with the player who thinks this change would be enjoyable. The above stands, as the player can consider whether or not to accept the white peace - but as the option is present, the experience is more enjoyable.
    (3) The player who thinks this change would not be enjoyable wants to white peace with the AI. This player can simply decide not to white peace with the AI. It wouldn't make the experience more enjoyable, but it wouldn't make it less enjoyable.
    (4) The AI wants to white peace with the player who thinks this change would not be enjoyable. The player, again, can simply refuse all white peaces, effectively making the situation the same as it is now, and thus not hurting his playing experience.

    THEREFORE, as (1) is satisfied, and (2), given the ahistoricity of the situation, cannot be satisfied in any such policy, I believe the option to white peace with hordes would be a positive addition to the game.

  19. #39
    I'm glad that you at least made the argument that historical accuracy is impossible (and thus not worthy of considering?).

    Quote Originally Posted by President_Eden View Post
    We have four situations to weigh in this thought experiment:
    (1) The player who thinks this change would be enjoyable wants to white peace with the AI. Having the option is clearly better than not from the perspective of player enjoyment, as they can offer the white peace, which would make their experience more enjoyable.
    (2) The AI wants to white peace with the player who thinks this change would be enjoyable. The above stands, as the player can consider whether or not to accept the white peace - but as the option is present, the experience is more enjoyable.
    (3) The player who thinks this change would not be enjoyable wants to white peace with the AI. This player can simply decide not to white peace with the AI. It wouldn't make the experience more enjoyable, but it wouldn't make it less enjoyable.
    (4) The AI wants to white peace with the player who thinks this change would not be enjoyable. The player, again, can simply refuse all white peaces, effectively making the situation the same as it is now, and thus not hurting his playing experience.
    The open choice system sounds, at first glance, like a good idea, but a game in which the player controls it's own limitations rather than playing by general rules is honestly quite dull. I suppose Playing Chess with pawns moving like Queens could be enjoyable, but it wouldn't be Chess. The player uses the options available and by succeeding in spite of these is the source of satisfaction. In essence, the open choice system already exists, it's called the Console. Typing in "Prestige" gives you 17,5 prestige. Put the Timurids in a spot in which you think it would accept WP (personally, I would say never) and concede defeat. For every Console input, you can concede three times. It will also affect trading a little in your favour, but hey, it's a solution. So how is this not a solution to this problem if you want to change the rules rather than play by them?

    Quote Originally Posted by President_Eden View Post
    I have very consistently stated that *there isn't a compelling argument for the existing system in the first place.* I would certainly agree that there needs to be evidence in the first place to substantiate a mechanic's existence.
    Technically the presumtion (conservative methodology) should lie on you since you do not advocate the complete return to pre-DW, but the reversal of a specific detail, giving a new model over-all. If you have a system and seek to impose change, you must back it up. By this classical philosophical thinking, it would be justified to demand a reversal to the old system if the change will not lead to progress. However, your suggestion represents a new configuration and can, thusly, not claim the conservative presumption argument in its favour.

    Old system: Western Diplomatic system in peace-time -- Land must be ceded by treaty -- WP possible
    Current System: Steel and Blood! -- Land submits after occupation -- No WP
    Proposed system: Steel and Blood! -- Land submits after occupation -- WP possible

    This is futher complicated by intellectual root behind the presumtion argument, specifically:

    "Over time, the argument goes, civilizations and groups develop a set of traditions, practices or customs that grow to solve certain problems of human existence. Conservatives argue that we should have a presumption in favour of such institutions, rather than changes to them. Institutions reflect the wisdom of the collective human intellect, whereas changes reflect reasoning or deduction by individuals or groups who are only exposed to contemporary problems."

    In our case, you have been exposed to a temporary problem which you seek to solve by changing the institution of peace options. However, the current system and the old one was collective effort growing out a continual developmental system over three games and numerous expansions deriving from the group that is Paradox. The idea is not that the current system is perfect, but that it is more likely to be due to its rooting in the past.

    Personally, I think the presumption argument is a load of bull, but I don't invoke it in my favour other than as an illustrative devise. This was an entirely different discussion, but I think I'll withdraw from now. Perhaps post your suggestion in the Beta Suggestion Thread.
    Last edited by Serzis; 30-06-2012 at 16:47.

  20. #40
    Captain xereck's Avatar
    Crusader Kings IIDeus VultEU3 CompleteDivine WindHeir to the Throne
    Europa Universalis III: In NomineMagickaEU3 Napoleon's AmbitionEU3 Collectors Edition500k club
    Europa Universalis IV

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Frederiksberg (Copenhagen), Denmark
    Posts
    487
    If it says anywhere in the peace interface that the horde would accept a white peace, consider it a remnant of the old system and thus obsolete. That notifier works if you're at war against France, Austria etc. but not against horde nations.

    They will only respect a defeat or a win, there is no middle way when dealing with the horde.
    "If I were to reward all my men for their bravery, I would have a fleet of admirals" - Frederik VI of Denmark

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts