Cross, Quill and Swords : World at War(Sunday game)

[Barca]

2)
no rule is broken since that was never with players in mind, we even stil have rules in the first page about how a vassalplayer should behave.
the no vassal rule is a classic example of how rules made up on the fly was a bad idea because we forgot to think it trough and list what is allowed and isnt

you can complain all you want about this but the spirit of the rule was to end abuse from keeping a small ai arround forever to abuse it for mp

First of all, we banned vassals because there exists a bug which allows decentralized countries to gain insane manpower. This bug exists regardless of whether the vassal is an AI or player nation, hence both kinds of vassals are banned. Don't tell me that TC paid 10k to vassalize HAL to control his diplomacy or for the extra tax income, that's bullshit. Let's call a spade a spade. He did it to exploit a bug which doubled his manpower. The fact that you're the one who suggested this to them really makes me question your GMing. Even if it were legal by the letter of the rule--which it most certainly isn't--it's a definite breach of its spirit and exploitation of a very serious bug.

Secondly, just because the first post wasn't updated doesn't mean a violation hasn't occurred. Some examples of rules that we still have which are rendered obsolete by other rules:

* Releasing one or more vassals during wartime, to hinder an enemy.

Why would this rule exist explaining when it's not allowed to release vassals if they're banned altogether? Obviously, the total ban takes precedence.

*Declaring a 'fake' war on a country, with the aim to: Change the religion of a protestant or Counter-Reformed-Catholic
nation back to Catholicism before the Edict of Tolerance.

And later:

14. No claiming DOTF or converting to counter reformed Catholicism

Why do we regulate fake wars on this subject when CRC is banned altogether? Obviously, the total ban takes precedence.

The obvious way to handle player vassalization is to treat it like we treat AI vassalization. If you want to vassalize someone then you can just announce it to the game and then he has to follow all the vassalization rules for 20 years. If he wants to break it he has to DOW you and take three stabhits. If you want to force vassalize someone, then pause before you send it so the recipient can check the score, then send a stabhit for WP or MA. If the warscore is high enough and he accepts then he's your vassal for 20 years.

 

[admiral drake]

that is fairly redicilous
first of all
when we where talking about banning vassals we where talking about ai vassals
the concept of player vassals never even came up
this is again a issue with voting rules on the fly without thinking about it properly.

(though granted i could see a reason to ban diplovassals and vassals by fake wars)
but i definatly think it should remain a option after winning a total war

on a sidenote your the only 1 pretty much that thinks it was banned since half the playerbase was discussing it before session

 

[TC Pilot]

Don't tell me that TC paid 10k to vassalize HAL to control his diplomacy or for the extra tax income, that's bullshit. Let's call a spade a spade. He did it to exploit a bug which doubled his manpower. The fact that you're the one who suggested this to them really makes me question your GMing.

I feel it's more than a little unwarranted to throw around accusations of cheating, exploiting, and biased management at three players when you have absolutely nothing but your memory of a verbal conversation more than a month ago no one whose weighed in yet agrees with your interpretation of. I mean, while we're at it, why not look at your own clearly biased motives for complaining about this? Because it's completely unproductive and unhelpful in any way.

 

[delian]

1 )

5)
i agree actually
but i reckon aus deserves some compensation for it since he was promised it at the start when we merged it

Why would you promise that? wasnt it buff enough to get countries merged and the extra cultures from Poland?
I have to fight sobeski, eugene etc with shitgenerals. feels like mission impossible

 

[admiral drake]

Secondly, just because the first post wasn't updated doesn't mean a violation hasn't occurred. Some examples of rules that we still have which are rendered obsolete by other rules:
.

i'm afraid if that is the case
i cannot be lenient to you or brandenburg either Wich i have been last week

i wil have to punish ottoman empire and brandenburg for severe rule violations since you broke a rule 3-4times then used it on a player(sweden) to reach china by land in a fashion he could not counterattack you in chinese lands
and france broke the same rule but didnt abuse it on players in hyderabad

the rule in question being :
as for the Ma outside europe
i wil add a rule about it later this week but in general you cannot ask for Ma from ai except by war
you cannot explore ai lands without Ma

page 2 post 32

 

[admiral drake]

and delian
nobody at the time expected the result like this
both poland and austria where very weak so didnt expect it to be so powerful after

therefor i wil delete the polish leaders and give him some financial or mp compensation(wichever feels apropriate)
but that wil be it, after that you dont have to wory about them anymore

 

[TC Pilot]

On that note, we do have a couple matters to take care of. Namely:
-delian's misclicked stabhit
-drake's misclicked event
-Urko's loss of the London COT.

For my part, I think the London COT should be restored from whatever Australian hole it fell into. That seems like a game mechanic acting in a way it shouldn't have. Likewise with Drake's event. The Chambers of Reunion are a pretty clear case of an event having only one good option to it. For the record, these are the options:

action_a ={ #Make the Claim#
name = "ACTIONNAME3127A"
command = { type = addcore which = 344 } #koln
command = { type = addcore which = 345 } #pfalz
command = { type = addcore which = 374 } #elsass
command = { type = addcore which = 375 } #loraine
command = { type = addcore which = 377 } #luxembourg
command = { type = addcore which = 378 } #brabant
command = { type = addcore which = 1924 } #hainaut
command = { type = addcore which = 1926 } #trier
command = { type = addcore which = 426 } #rosello
command = { type = addcore which = 405 } #savoie
command = { type = addcore which = 380 } #fladern
command = { type = addcore which = 387 } #franmche comte
command = { type = trigger which = 3172 }
command = { type = trigger which = 3030 }
command = { type = trigger which = 3198 }
command = { type = trigger which = 3522 }
command = { type = trigger which = 3510 }
command = { type = trigger which = 3680 }
command = { type = trigger which = 3611 }
command = { type = trigger which = 3684 }
command = { type = trigger which = 3676 }
command = { type = trigger which = 3663 }
command = { type = trigger which = 3664 }
command = { type = trigger which = 3662 }
}

action_b ={ #Let the matter fall#
name = "ACTIONNAME3127B"
command = { type = relation which = SPA value = 100 }
command = { type = relation which = HAB value = 100 }
command = { type = relation which = ENG value = 100 }
command = { type = relation which = HOL value = 100 }
command = { type = treasury value = 500}

Hard to argue he'd deliberately opt for 500 ducats over having cores on everything west of the Rhine.

As for Delian's mislick, here's the event he received 6 months before the end of the war:

action_b ={ #Only Reform Army#
name = "ACTIONNAME3423B"
command = { type = land value = 2500 }
command = { type = domestic which = ARISTOCRACY value = -2 }
command = { type = domestic which = OFFENSIVE value = 2 }
command = { type = domestic which = LAND value = 2 }
command = { type = domestic which = QUALITY value = 3 }
command = { type = gainmanufactory which = -1 value = weapons }
command = { type = gainmanufactory which = -1 value = weapons }
command = { type = gainbuilding which = -1 value = barrack }
command = { type = INF which = -2 value = 20000 }
command = { type = CAV which = -2 value = 10000 }
command = { type = ART which = -2 value = 20 }
command = { type = INF which = -1 value = 20000 }
command = { type = CAV which = -3 value = 10000 }
command = { type = ART which = -3 value = 20 }
command = { type = stability value = 3 }
command = { type = technology which = latin }
}

So, 60k troops, a CC in Moscow, it filled up his Quality slider, and boosted land. Now, in fairness, he was already down 50 ws in December '80 facing Sobieski with no comparable general, and given HAL's ability to stabhit for 6 provinces, seems likely it was higher when the war ended. Was Delian ready and eager to fight the war to a bitter end? Probably, yes, and it's hard to imagine he'd actually wanted peace at the price HAL was stabbing for (which was higher than HAL was even demanding verbally). I think Delian deserves some kind of compensation for this mistake (I don't know if what was done right before session end counts for that), but this is more difficult than an event misclick because it affects someone else, and it's no fault of HAL's that Delian made a mistake. So, I don't know, maybe edit things down to what HAL was actually demanding, sans whatever stabhits were?

 

[HALNY (HAL)]

So, 60k troops, a CC in Moscow, it filled up his Quality slider, and boosted land. Now, in fairness, he was already down 50 ws in December '80 facing Sobieski with no comparable general, and given HAL's ability to stabhit for 6 provinces, seems likely it was higher when the war ended. Was Delian ready and eager to fight the war to a bitter end? Probably, yes, and it's hard to imagine he'd actually wanted peace at the price HAL was stabbing for (which was higher than HAL was even demanding verbally). I think Delian deserves some kind of compensation for this mistake (I don't know if what was done right before session end counts for that), but this is more difficult than an event misclick because it affects someone else, and it's no fault of HAL's that Delian made a mistake. So, I don't know, maybe edit things down to what HAL was actually demanding, sans whatever stabhits were?

We already made a deal. He got 2 prowinces for free and Tula was sold for 2k.

 

[HALNY (HAL)]

(though granted i could see a reason to ban diplovassals and vassals by fake wars)
but i definatly think it should remain a option after winning a total war

I agree.

 

[delian]

therefor i wil delete the polish leaders and give him some financial or mp compensation(wichever feels apropriate)
but that wil be it, after that you dont have to wory about them anymore

He allredy got his übers from Poland... so the damage is allredy done, doesnt realy matter now if he loose his polish leaders...

 

[delian]

As for Delian's mislick, here's the event he received 6 months before the end of the war:

action_b ={ #Only Reform Army#
name = "ACTIONNAME3423B"
command = { type = land value = 2500 }
command = { type = domestic which = ARISTOCRACY value = -2 }
command = { type = domestic which = OFFENSIVE value = 2 }
command = { type = domestic which = LAND value = 2 }
command = { type = domestic which = QUALITY value = 3 }
command = { type = gainmanufactory which = -1 value = weapons }
command = { type = gainmanufactory which = -1 value = weapons }
command = { type = gainbuilding which = -1 value = barrack }
command = { type = INF which = -2 value = 20000 }
command = { type = CAV which = -2 value = 10000 }
command = { type = ART which = -2 value = 20 }
command = { type = INF which = -1 value = 20000 }
command = { type = CAV which = -3 value = 10000 }
command = { type = ART which = -3 value = 20 }
command = { type = stability value = 3 }
command = { type = technology which = latin }
}

So, 60k troops, a CC in Moscow, it filled up his Quality slider, and boosted land. Now, in fairness, he was already down 50 ws in December '80 facing Sobieski with no comparable general, and given HAL's ability to stabhit for 6 provinces, seems likely it was higher when the war ended. Was Delian ready and eager to fight the war to a bitter end? Probably, yes, and it's hard to imagine he'd actually wanted peace at the price HAL was stabbing for (which was higher than HAL was even demanding verbally). I think Delian deserves some kind of compensation for this mistake (I don't know if what was done right before session end counts for that), but this is more difficult than an event misclick because it affects someone else, and it's no fault of HAL's that Delian made a mistake. So, I don't know, maybe edit things down to what HAL was actually demanding, sans whatever stabhits were?

I also got the event to go latin, wich did put me up to +3stability, i think i got some troops from thta event as well

And if i recall correctly hal demanded 2 provinces, but yeah... not hals fault.

i was so devastated over this, so i totaly forgot to yell "rehost"... otherwise i would have done that.

i thinki was in a decnt spot with the new troops, +3 stab and that HAL stayed for the whole winter in muscow

 

[TC Pilot]

I also got the event to go latin, wich did put me up to +3stability, i think i got some troops from thta event as well
And if i recall correctly hal demanded 2 provinces, but yeah... not hals fault.
i was so devastated over this, so i totaly forgot to yell "rehost"... otherwise i would have done that.
i thinki was in a decnt spot with the new troops, +3 stab and that HAL stayed for the whole winter in muscow

You did seem pretty frustrated, for sure. I thought you'd outright left for awhile there.

So do you think anything else needs to be done now? Or did the deal at the end of the session finish it?

 

[Barca]

I feel it's more than a little unwarranted to throw around accusations of cheating, exploiting, and biased management at three players when you have absolutely nothing but your memory of a verbal conversation more than a month ago no one whose weighed in yet agrees with your interpretation of. I mean, while we're at it, why not look at your own clearly biased motives for complaining about this? Because it's completely unproductive and unhelpful in any way.

You're right, my tone was counter-productive, uncalled for and I apologize. However, no one has claimed that anyone said anything about the rule only applying to AIs, they've only said they thought it only applied to AIs. So please don't call my memory into question, unless your (or someone else's) memory differs from mine. Also, I don't recall seeing a player diplo-vassalized in any game I've played. If you can honestly tell me that the extra manpower wasn't a factor in your decision to vassalize HAL then I'll shut up right now.

I agree with your other post about Essex, that should be restored. And drake's misclicked event should be fixed. I'm inclined to agree that some compensation is in order for Delian but I'm also unsure what would be fair to HAL. I'd love to hear HAL's opinion.

Drake, I'm happy to accept whatever censure the majority wants to impose for using MA in China. Ignorance of the rules is no excuse.

 

[TC Pilot]

I'd rather not post chat logs of it, but I vassalized HAL in order to protect him from a DOW.

 

[Barca]

So the only reason you paid 10,000D to vassalize him is to protect him from a country which had an open NAP offer to him. I also seem to recall a giddy "Guess how much manpower I have," not "HAL is very protected now." But again, if you straight up say that three hundred extra manpower didn't factor into your decision, I'll stuff a sock in it.

Anyway, at this point I'm more interested in seeing the first post updated and the rules enforced. I think my proposal regarding "fake" vassalization might suffice, or maybe another idea someone has?

 

[TC Pilot]

The 10k was to convince HAL to actually go through with it. I've always looked at it was something to "pay" for, whether paid for via warscore or otherwise (I'd offered to be France's vassal earlier for some indeterminate period of time if he sold large bits of Italy to me, for example) so I didn't consider his demand unreasonable, particularly since the thought of diplo-vassalizing didn't even occur to me until embarrassingly late and I thought I'd have to MA-break and DOW. At some point in the conversation the manpower boost did come up, but the original idea behind it was to prevent OE from attacking Polstria without breaking the NAP. I'd rather not go into the details of the original plan other than to say it broke down not long after the session started.

 

[admiral drake]

ok what i would like to know is
who wants to continiu this game

who wants to call it a day(perhaps call dane the winner)
and move on to a restart perhaps using that diplomacy eu2 people made a post of


personally i hardly care either way since i'm most likely going to be afk majority of the session sunday eitherway (exam tuesday)

 

[Barca]

I'd prefer to play on. I don't think I've won the game by any means

 

[TC Pilot]

I think the campaign has mostly run its course. I'll be doing other things tomorrow, so unless there's some sudden surge of players voicing their impassioned desire to continue, I don't plan on showing up.

 

[delian]

i wanna continue