The Pick of Destiny

[King John]

Game information. Drake's Forum, for edits and perhaps some other things

demographics

UMP

Mod installation instructions:
1. Install Europa Universalis 2
2. Update Europa Universalis 2 with the latest 1.09 patch. Link to the 1.09 patch is HERE
3. Download the UMP. Link to the UMP is HERE (thanks to Tonio for the hosting)
4. Install Winzip or WinRAR or any other program capable of extracting files. Link to WinRAR is HERE
5. Extract the UMP into Europa Universalis' folder by using Winzip, or any other program capable of extracting files
6. Instead of running EU2.exe, be sure to run the launcher located into EU2's folder. Running EU2.exe itself will make the game execute the latest EU2 version you played, be it watk or the UMP.


1453 Start, EGO's mod
Sundays, 17-22 CET. 1st session is 7/8

Current Roster:

England: Ampoliros
France: Fal
Spain: EGO
Austria: Dane Johnson
Russia: Mulliman
OE: Belisarius
Sweden: Drake
Brandenburg: Absolut
Poland: Earendhil
Venice: King John
Burgundy/NL: Sid Meier


CHANGES TO RULES AND MOST OTHER CHANGES ARE ON THE BOTTOM OF THE POST




Hello friends. SOE has died, it is very sad, but life goes on, and so does Eu2.

It would seem appropriate to call this game SOE2, but I'm not going to drag all the bad luck and horrible associations of that game here, we're going to start afresh .

This game will run from 17 or 18 CET Sundays and end at 22 or 23 CET, making it a wholesomely plump five hour session.

What we are going to do exactly I am not sure. We could play an ahistorical game, with a fictional setup a la Test of Skill, or a historical scenario with either EGO's mod on 1453, or Watk3 on the 1492 scenario. Or go with the vanilla map, which would allow us to do a 1520 scenario.

We will have random leaders either way, as I'm 100% sure the majority will want some random leaders. The only person I know of who doesn't like them is HG. We could use Military Tradition, which I'm going to propose very adamantly if we go with an ahistorical setup. It might not be a bad idea anyway. The MT system we would use is the one Daniel A came up with, determining MT by your battle losses/Manpower. If it's an historical setup, historical leaders will be in along with random leaders.

Not sure if we'll be starting this sunday, the 1st, or the following sunday. I want to start this sunday, of course .

I'm going to be the GM, as I'm probably the only one with any desire to do so. If anybody else wants to do it, and promises they'll do a good job, they can, however. It should actually be quite easy, I just finished all the rules.

And here they are!

:Rules:

This will be a more exhaustive rule list than is normal, but I have no doubt that it will save more time in after game discussions. There's always somebody that tries to take an obscure word or clause out of context to get an advantage for themselves, even if it's contrary to general application, forcing the GM to throw away hours of their time on the boards. Or the player that finds it acceptable to insert their ideas of common sense whenever a rule does not give an explicit solution to a situation, and the GMs decision is different than their opinion, and they stand by their opinion to the point of walking out on the game. My inspiration for this comes from EGO and Daniel A in SOE, in case anybody was curious . Enjoy.


General Rules about the GM.

The GM can not force players to do anything in game unless it is in consequence of them breaking the rules, in which case he has power to have them stop doing whatever illegal action, or inaction they are doing. He cannot, however, mete out a punishment on the spot. He can only reverse whatever damage the offender has done. He is not necessarily required to do so if it is something requiring an edit in game, but will nonetheless if deemed important enough. Punishments, OTOH must be dealt with after session when there is time to judge it properly and fairly. They will always be in proportion to the offense. The general rule will be that roughly whatever gain the player took from breaking a rule will be leveled against it times 2, which is separate from whatever inconvenience the player takes to have their actions reversed initially and their damage undone(so it can mean they lose 3x what they gained, in some instances, or it may amount to nothing). This will be approximate.

If something is not included in the rules, it doesn't exist as far as the GM is concerned. It is fair game. Common sense does not exist in this game.

The GM's job is not to moderate players tongues, or fingers. If somebody is acting like a jerk, ignore them, or tell them to shut up yourself. The GM is not going to choose sides in your personal differences, though the person acting as GM reserves the right to call somebody a douchebag, or whatever else if they feel that they are acting like one. And anyone may call the GM names as well. Sticks and stones. That doesn't mean every session will be a mudslinging fest, I would expect players joining this game to act civil most of the time, but I will not have anybody invoking rules or pausing the game just because they are mad at a certain player because they think they are not acting nice. If you plan to do that, please do not attempt to join, but let this paragraph act as a filter and filter you out, saving us the trouble.


In VNET, in the lobby or in game, the GM's only duty is to decide where subs go, unless a player that is missing has provided a sub for himself. In such a case, only that sub can decide not to play the country, however the GM will still get the final say in the matter.

All player agreements normally bound by the rules must be said publicly for them to carry any weight as far as the GM is concerned. If you don't say them publicly, agreements, like ones that fall under the category of simultaneity for example, will not invoke the authority of the rules.

Rewards:

You will get a -1 inflation for showing up on time, and a -1 inflation for writing an AAR.

If you appoint a sub, and that sub shows up at least up to 5 minutes after start time you will get the -1 inflation from that as well.

I'm toying with the thought of having an extra AAR reward if your AAR is voted the most entertaining, on a weekly basis. With the caveat that you can only win once every other week. This reward would be relatively small, like .5 deflation or a little bonus money. Maybe a fine arts academy(more of sentimental value than an actual benefit, so an apt reward I would say).



Editing Policy

Prov exchanges are not going to be edited. If a province exchange is too unrealistic to do in game, then it is probably just too unrealistic. Like if Spain wanted to give part of Mexico to Austria. If Austria can't discover Mexico first, and can't build a fleet to get there, then there's no reason it should be able to rule part of Mexico. The only edits of this sort that will be edited will be those necessary as a result of prov defections or AI declaring independence while somebody is ghosted.

The effects of bugs will always be edited out if requested, almost always after the session. The main exception is if somebody's army freezes during a war, or their fleet. And I'm not talking about freezing on the Russian steppes. This refers to when an army or fleet suddenly, for no proven reason, gets a white flag and is then unable to move. Anything else is subject to the discretion of the GM, but will almost always be relegated to after the session if it has to do with economics.

Missed events will be edited in.

You will need to request your edits in the AAR thread, or another specified thread on Drake's forum. The GM will tend to forget it otherwise.




General Gameplay Rules


1. There is a forced peace rule to prevent eternal wars:
If you have been at war for 2 years or more with another nation
- and that nations sends you a stab hitting peace offer
- and you are at stab -3
- and the peace offer is based upon a war score of -99 for you,
then you must accept the stab hit peace offer.
Note: You need to pause the game and inform your opponent that you are about to force him to a peace this way, so that he can check the current WS.

This does not apply to alliance peace offers, when the alliance offer comes from the one sending. It doesn't matter whether the receiver is the head of an alliance or not.

To force a peace as the head of an alliance, you must be at war with the one receiving the peace offer for at least 5 years. And this is counted from the date of the last person in your alliance to enter the war(so if France and Austria attack Brandenburg in 55, and Russia joins their side in 56, they can't alliance peace Brand until 61, whereas they would've been able to do it in 50 otherwise). It doesn't matter in any why who joins the receiver or when.

2. Simultaneity.
a) If two parties agree to peace terms publicly, one of them cannot then go back on those terms, unless both agree to cancel them and keep fighting. They must be followed through as though the peace had taken place in the engine at the same time that it was agreed on by the players. It must happen in a timely fashion, whenever it is possible to complete through the engine, unless otherwise agreed upon by the players.
b) When players make a deal with one another, whatever effects of that deal would take place right away in real life, like the changing of control over provs(only dependent on the arrival of new garrisons and couriers, almost instant), or the transfer of money, must go through in the game no matter what, even if it cannot happen instantly due to the limitations of the game engine. The terms must be agreed upon publicly, of course, for it to be binding. Bear in mind that simultaneity does not bind anybody to maintain agreements such as vassalages, MA, or NAPs(hello EGO )for any time period, though it does mean that they must enter into such agreements initially if it is a part of the deal.

3. Vassalship between humans.
If you are vassalised by another human, by any means
a) you must stay as a vassal at least 20 years (the vassaliser may cancel the vasssalship any time he wants)
b) you must accept a proposal of alliance(only if the master is atwar)/TA/MA from your Master
c) you cannot enter any other alliance than that of your master, or create one of your own unless the master gives permission.
d) you cannot start a war or join a war without consent from your Master
e) apart from that you may do anything you want. The master cannot ask anything else of you.

4. If you give an opponent MA in a peace treaty you are not allowed to revoke it until 20 years have passed

5. The loan mechanism may not be abused. You may use the loans as a money transfer (then the loan must be for one month and for 1% interest), but that is the ONLY way in which you are allowed to use the loan mechanism.

6. Claiming of cultures. If you control 100% of all provinces of a certain culture for at least 50 years you may claim that culture as your state culture.You can claim a maximum of 2 cultures.(persian-cantonese and han cultures cannot be claimed, same for any europian culture.

7. No map trading allowed with players or AI. If your capital gets sacked before 1600, you lose a manufactury edited out after session, either the one in your capital first, or the next closest prov if there isn't one on your capital. If you have no manufacturies, you lose whatever is half the cost of making one.

You cannot take maps from an AI that has been released from another player. If you do, they'll just have to be edited out, along with whatever gains you made from them(like established colonies) with no refund.

8. No alliances between players alowed in peacetime

9. The land/naval slider will be edited to 5 after every session. That does not mean you can't move it around, but know that all those dp clicks will be lost after the session.

10. Events that will be slept :
-both spanish bancrupty events
-treaty of tordesaille
-possibly some crummy polish events

11. Goldrule : the session ending after 1580 will be used to chek goldincome for every player,
each player will receive 1inflation for every 200 income they make from gold a year regardless where that gold is located.

This will also take place in 1630 and 1680

12. If you convert to protestantism or counter reformed catholicism, you cannot convert back to catholicism until the Edict of Tolerance, at which point you will be forced to convert back to catholicism if you converted to CRC the next time you are at peace(it doesn't convert you back automatically if you are at war at the time).

13. It is forbidden to :

a) attack an enemy fleet with pirates to inhibit loading/landing. You can do it with small fleets though, if you have them. It costs warscore and ships, so I believe it is a balanced trade off.
c) Release any vassals during wartime, to hinder an enemy. I.E., if the vassal is located anywhere near a theater of war. If a province there becomes rebel controlled and you can't do anything about it besides releasing it, that is unfortunate.
d) Force-burn a manufactory, i.e. repeated move and halt orders to an army in a province with a manufactory
f) Declare a 'fake' war on a country with the agreed aim of either
1. increasing the stability of the nation you declare war on,
2. sack the capitol to gain maps of the other player
3.to change the religion of a protestant or Counter-Reformed-Catholic nation back to Catholicism before the Edict of Tolerance.
4. to use the tp/bb exploit(more info below)
g) To DOW a AI nation that are in alliance with a human with whom you have a truce.
h) It will be Forbidden to sign MA's with nation outside europe, or to use MA outside of Europe if taken from players. This will end in 1600
i)It is forbidden to take persian cultured provs .This is obsolete after 1650
j)It is forbidden to explore with a large fleet to avoid atrition(fleets like 100ships)
k) If you change religion from catholic to counter-reformed you may not switch back until the edict of Tolerance
l) You cannot make a peace with the AI that bankrupts it on the same day, or the day after, whichever one it is.
m) You cannot release a vassal and then send them money to build a manufactury. If the vassal builds a manufactury, and then is annexed by you, it will be edited out. It does not apply to vassals that you have not released.
n) You cannot declare Defender of the Faith


Rehosts for CTDers will occur the jan after 2 years if the country is not at war(and the speed will be increased at this time if no other countries are at war). Otherwise it will be done immediately.

If you've got a lot of things to do, like if you're Spain during the 16th century, please do not use it as a reason for requesting a slower speed if the speed is already at Below Normal. Slow speed will only be done for war, or possibly for extreme lag, but not if you are a few days behind. This does not affect economics hardly at all.

*bb/tp exploit, give away alot of tradeposts/colonise or provs to loose a big amount of bb then retake all of it after the truce ends for very few bb





Slots filled so far.

KJ
Drake
Dane Johnson
Earendhil
Belisarius
EGO
Fal
Ampoliros
Absolut
Mulliman


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

UPDATES 6/30

NEW RULES/CLAUSES TO RULES

If during a war, a nation revolts from you, players will be allowed to sack maps from that nation, unless it is landlocked inside the country that it revolted from(in which case it can only be sacked during that war, by the nation(s) that were at war with it at the time the prov revolted).


A "NICE" RULE: If somebody's social behavior is far enough out of line, it will be possible to impeach them, whereby players will be asked to vote on whether they think this person should be punished, something generally along the lines of 1-2 inflation. It will require a 3/4 majority. If said person is voted as being too far out of line twice, it will be possible to have them booted from the game on the third vote with a 3/4 majority.


QUORUM: We will play as long as we are missing no more than three players.
If we miss more than three, the session will be canceled.

If somebody is in an AI war, we won't necessarily rehost immediately, we will assess the situation on the spot and decide if an immediate rehost is required or not, depending on whether the player is in danger of losing armies or provinces to the AI.

[cobjor]

Move the game to another day and I am intrested!

[admiral drake]

i confirm i'm in btw

i prefer 1453 in either egos scenario or normal watk
or some aor scenario like kj used in tos

[King John]

This is the only day that can work for all the people that are on here

But, perhaps, you could move whatever other obligation you have to another day?

[BurningEGO]

b) When players make a deal with one another, whatever effects of that deal would take place right away in real life, like the changing of control over provs(only dependent on the arrival of new garrisons and couriers, almost instant), or the transfer of money, must go through in the game no matter what, even if it cannot happen instantly due to the limitations of the game engine. The terms must be agreed upon publicly, of course, for it to be binding. Bear in mind that simultaneity does not bind anybody to maintain agreements such as vassalages, MA, or NAPs(hello EGO )for any time period, though it does mean that they must enter into such agreements initially if it is a part of the deal.

Again, i do not understand why i was forced to cancel MA with FAL, but that is another totally diferent matter. I think the rule only applies when it is suposed to hurt me.

You cannot take maps from an AI that has been released from another player. If you do, they'll just have to be edited out, along with whatever gains you made from them(like established colonies) with no refund.

I disagree on this rule somewhat. Ok, it shouldnt be allowed for a player to release a nation on purpose so that others can sack it to obtain maps freely. But what if a nation revolts from a human nation after a very, very long war? Are we still forbidden from sacking its maps? I think we shouldnt.

I still have to get confirmation from most of these players, but I believe this is a safe time for all, so we will probably have room for 1-2 more vets.

I confirm i am in... But... i am a semi-noob. Do you accept these?

[BurningEGO]

I just noticed this rule and i am forced to reply and protest at it.

The GM's job is not to moderate players tongues, or fingers. And anyone may call the GM names as well. Sticks and stones.

Excuse me? What kind of game is this suposed to be? Knowing so many people as i do (specially the kind of ones that start insulting others when they are nearly getting annexed or at the very least getting a godlike beating), i fear that allowing people to insult each others is not going to work. I do not know why do you play a game for, but, i play a game to have a nice time, and i cannot have a nice time if i hear kids telling myself to do not very nice things, etc. Having a rule to force people to act "Nicely" is vital to any game. I do not want you to "choose sides". If someone is gravely insulting my person and i havent said a single abusive word to piss him off, the GM should obvious step in and force the "not so nice person" to apology the other at the very least.

I played countless games already and i was forced to leave 3 of them due to the fact that i was insulted at every session and the GM refused to do anything about it.

I do not know if you want a Wild West with cowboys and all, shouting at each other things only God knows of, but i have had enough of that on my last Wednesday game due to a person i do not even want to mention. And no thanks, i do not wish to revive the experience.

[King John]

Originally Posted by BurningEGO

Again, i do not understand why i was forced to cancel MA with FAL, but that is another totally diferent matter. I think the rule only applies when it is suposed to hurt me.

I should just paste here a link to the 4-5 page thread on Drake's forum, but the reason is that you broke the simultaneity rule by offering peace for the right to sack Fal's capital, which Fal accepted, and then changing demands to include MA(ok, you say it was just a "suggestion", or whatever, since he could've declined it without a stabhit, but wouldn't a more rational way of suggesting another deal be to talk to him instead of sending another peace offer? His mistake for assuming it was a stabhit, but you are not supposed to change the peace demands, and your "suggestion" was in the form of a peace demand, thus, no soup for you .

I disagree on this rule somewhat. Ok, it shouldnt be allowed for a player to release a nation on purpose so that others can sack it to obtain maps freely. But what if a nation revolts from a human nation after a very, very long war? Are we still forbidden from sacking its maps? I think we shouldnt.

Good point. I agree with you. So "If during a war, a nation revolts from you, players should be allowed to sack maps from that nation, unless it is landlocked inside the country that it revolted from(in which case it can only be sacked during that war, by the nation(s) that were at war with it at the time the prov revolted)".

I confirm i am in... But... i am a semi-noob. Do you accept these?

You were already in the playerlist, so you don't have to worry about it.

[King John]

Originally Posted by BurningEGO

I just noticed this rule and i am forced to reply and protest at it.



Excuse me? What kind of game is this suposed to be? Knowing so many people as i do (specially the kind of ones that start insulting others when they are nearly getting annexed or at the very least getting a godlike beating), i fear that allowing people to insult each others is not going to work. I do not know why do you play a game for, but, i play a game to have a nice time, and i cannot have a nice time if i hear kids telling myself to do not very nice things, etc. Having a rule to force people to act "Nicely" is vital to any game. I do not want you to "choose sides". If someone is gravely insulting my person and i havent said a single abusive word to piss him off, the GM should obvious step in and force the "not so nice person" to apology the other at the very least.

I played countless games already and i was forced to leave 3 of them due to the fact that i was insulted at every session and the GM refused to do anything about it.

I do not know if you want a Wild West with cowboys and all, shouting at each other things only God knows of, but i have had enough of that on my last Wednesday game due to a person i do not even want to mention. And no thanks, i do not wish to revive the experience.

EGO, sure, I'll tell them to shut up, as will probably anybody else in the game, but I do not believe that a "nice rule" can be enforced fairly. It is too subjective. I prefer to just have people in the game that I know are nice, even if they may inevitably get a bit rowdy at some point or another.

If somebody does not act nice, it will reflect badly on their reputation. I suppose I could add a rule allowing for the ejection of a player if he is unanimously voted off for being too rude. Or a 3/4 vote, and perhaps a similar vote for handing out a punishment of some sort, as a warning.

Would I be correct in saying that part of the reason you left that game was that the GM sided against you in that example you listed? I don't want there to be even the slightest chance of my being considered arbitrary by anybody. So I do not plan to set myself up as a morality policeman.

[cobjor]

Originally Posted by King John

This is the only day that can work for all the people that are on here But, perhaps, you could move whatever other obligation you have to another day?

Nah, sundaydinner is hard to move to another day.

[BurningEGO]

Would I be correct in saying that part of the reason you left that game was that the GM sided against you in that example you listed? I don't want there to be even the slightest chance of my being considered arbitrary by anybody. So I do not plan to set myself up as a morality policeman.

Not really. Both GMs just refused to move a finger and since there was a rule and all, stating players had to be "nice", i left because the insults didnt stop and because neither GM acted properly and enforced the rules.

[Absolut]

Originally Posted by cobjor

Nah, sundaydinner is hard to move to another day.

Theres nothing saying a sunday dinner couldnt take place on a Monday.

Either way, is this the ToS-ish game we talked about a few days back KJ?

About there being no "nice" rule. I think it could very well work, I get along with almost everyone (cant say for basharious though, havent played with him) on the roster.

About scenario, Itd be awesome with the same scenario we used in the original ToS.

[King John]

Originally Posted by BurningEGO

Not really. Both GMs just refused to move a finger and since there was a rule and all, stating players had to be "nice", i left because the insults didnt stop and because neither GM acted properly and enforced the rules.

Yes, exactly, and that's not something I want to have to do either. You're just gonna have to get along with the people in this game. You've played with them before, and hopefully respect their manners enough not to harangue me about this any further.

I think I will include that special option I talked about, about players voting to punish someone and then have them booted if they act like a jerk too much, it's seems like a fair incentive not to just throw insults around indiscriminately.

If somebody starts to call you names, you'll just have to figure out a way to deal with it. That's what responsible parents tell their children when boys at school are making fun of them, that they should learn to deal with it on their own, and that's how they develop better people skills. I'm not your mom, but since you seem to want the GM to act like a "mom" in this regard, that's the advice I'm giving you .

[King John]

Originally Posted by Absolut

Theres nothing saying a sunday dinner couldnt take place on a Monday.

Either way, is this the ToS-ish game we talked about a few days back KJ?

About there being no "nice" rule. I think it could very well work, I get along with almost everyone (cant say for basharious though, havent played with him) on the roster.

About scenario, Itd be awesome with the same scenario we used in the original ToS.

Basically. No promises that it will indeed be the same scenario, but with the exhaustive rules and the philosophy that goes with it, I think it is about the same. Except, I don't think I will bother saying that "winning is the prime objective". So I guess it's not really the same . But it's fairly close.

[Ampoliros]

Awesome KJ.

I am very enthusiasticaly in....hihi...

Dunno if it is okay to post country preferences yet?

In case it is here are mine... :

1. England
2. France
3. Russia

And my vote goes for Drake´s or Burning Ego´s 1453 WatK scenario.

[King John]

Right. We need to get votes for scenario preferences in, stat.

Right now, this is what we're looking at:

EGO's 1453: Belisarius, Ampoliros, Drake
Fal's 1492: Dane Johnson
TOS ahistorical 1419: Absolut, Drake
1520: *sound of crickets cheeping*(that's not a player, BTW)

As you noticed probably, I have Drake on here twice. He voted twice, I don't think there is anything wrong with that, as long as you do not attempt to vote twice for the same scenario.

[Barca]

I'd like Austria again, preferably in a 1492 or 1520 start.

[BurningEGO]

I am fine with drake's or with mine's 1453. I do not really like a TOS-style start up but what the hell.

I guess the ump can be adopted to 1520 as well but i need some time to create a scenario to such a start.

[EarendilHE]

i vote for a ToS- game...then i wont have memories of the old friday game, if i do worse...and anyway: it is a change!

[Duma]

Why are you guy's not playing EU3?

[King John]

Duma?! I thought about inviting you to this game, but I was afraid of interrupting a WOW battle or something similar. Nice to see you .

It's been a while, and yes I'm still playing Eu2, but it's not because I'm just unable to try new things, I tried Eu3 and didn't take to it. The graphics are clumsy and the balance is so so, it has nothing on Eu2, yet. I'll give it a year or so and then see how far they've come with the patches. For now I consider my Eu3 purchase to be nothing more than a well earned donation to paradox for the long, patient work they put into Eu2(or at least Johan, I hope they gave him a big raise for those beta patches, though that'd be old news by now).

We've got a spot or two open still. If you're not already sucked into the black magic of Eu3, it'd be fun to have you in this game, as long as you're willing to commit to a full campaign . Otherwise feel free to ignore this pitch, but I can't help trying to wring you into one more campaign.