10-20 people NON-PLAYER pbem game!

[unmerged(11097)]

Re: Turn 29 is out (after re-run)

I haven't spent any time whatsoever studying 1.07, but this sounds nuts. Austria and France just seem to take turns going bankrupt??

 

[unmerged(471)]

OK; lets look at it like this for a moment:

"So, I, as the Netherlands (or any other country for that matter) have lost a war against France/England/the Ottomans/ ... (enter-country-name here) and have lost 5-20 provinces in it. But gee, I just happened to forgot (or the other country just happened to forget) to put in the orders for our royal marriage or whatsoever treaty. So lets do a re-run of the turn now! *happy dance in the streets for not losing territory*...."

If we really want play like this then we don't really have to *play* much since we won't have to live with the results of our actions at all ?
That's why I'm thinking of leaving this game now... I mean what's the reason of playing when whenever something goes wrong we do a re-run anyway?

 

[unmerged(11097)]

If the re-run was done only to avoid another player was leaving, I would feel the same way as you. I only supported the re-run because I felt it was justified.

But since we disagree on the treaty rules, how can we ever agree about the re-run?

I really hope you will consider staying, but if you look differently upon the situation, I can understand how you feel.

 

[AVN]

Originally posted by Gorlin
OK; lets look at it like this for a moment:

"So, I, as the Netherlands (or any other country for that matter) have lost a war against France/England/the Ottomans/ ... (enter-country-name here) and have lost 5-20 provinces in it. But gee, I just happened to forgot (or the other country just happened to forget) to put in the orders for our royal marriage or whatsoever treaty. So lets do a re-run of the turn now! *happy dance in the streets for not losing territory*...."

If we really want play like this then we don't really have to *play* much since we won't have to live with the results of our actions at all ?
That's why I'm thinking of leaving this game now... I mean what's the reason of playing when whenever something goes wrong we do a re-run anyway?

I really don't want that a player leaves the game because of a re-run I asked (and which was granted). Therefore I ask Ederon now to cancel the results of the re-run and to continue the game with the original results.

This doesn't mean that my request for a re-run was invalid or unjustified. I still think it was fair, because a rule was violated (even if this was unintended).

However to keep the peace between the players I ask Ederon to cancel the results of the re-run.

I'm prepared to resolve the situation diplomatically.

Because I will not be online this weekend (Friday, Saturday and Sunday) and a lot of diplomacy need to be done I herewith request to delay next turn till Saturday June 14.
I hope that's acceptable for all the other players

 

[El Greco]

I see the siatuation like this:
AVN demand a re-run of the turn because a player violated the rules. This is legitimate for me. Lord Ederon who is the gamemaster and therefore the referee of the game has accepted to re-run the turn.
Even if I agree that the first run would have spiced the game a lot (yes yes ), I find normal that AVN wanted a re-run as he suffered many losses.
Also, I really think that we should lower the maximum duration of NAP.

 

[Owen]

Re: Turn 29 is out (after re-run)

Originally posted by Lord Ederon
I've run the turn again and sent results to players. Master summary has slightly changed, see here.

France has now inflation of 256% (almost twice as much as before rerun), 427k foot soldiers, 65k cavalry and 494 artilery. Support limit is 235k, which means France monthly pays 680d for army upkeep. I think we should think about this a bit.

Thanks for doing the rerun Daniel.

We do need to do something about the troops, but bear in mind that ai costs for being above the support limit are not as high as the player's. The answer would have been to spot this, along with Austria, Hannover etc. before the turn, but none of us did. I suggest we edit all ai nations' troops down to the support limit, reduce all nations' inflation to the 1699 value (as long as it's lower) and remove all loans.

I'm not sure what to do about player troop reductions. Perhaps have the option of either being reduced to the support limit or being left as is, but not somewhere in between.

I think the best approach would be to reduce numbers proportionally between infantry, cavalry and artillery, but I'm open to suggestions.

I am willing to carry out the necessary edits over the weekend, but we first need to agree what needs doing, and players would have to let me know what they want doing with their armies on Saturday, earlyish if possible.

Comments?

 

[unmerged(9404)]

Player nations with bankruptcy in the last turn should get their inflation reduced to the highest player nation inflation + 5% (or 10%), whipe out the current loans, reduce the army to the support limit (reduction at the discretion of the player). I don't know if this helps, I will test it a bit if I have time.

The suggestions for ai countries seems good for me.

 

[unmerged(11097)]

It probably only solves half of the problem to reduce the troops before the turn, coz the ai could arm up again during a war in the early period of the turn, and then have several bankrupcies later on.

Is there any way to control this through the ai file settings or anything else??

Originally posted by Ironfoundersson
Player nations with bankruptcy in the last turn should get their inflation reduced to the highest player nation inflation + 5% (or 10%), whipe out the current loans, reduce the army to the support limit (reduction at the discretion of the player). I don't know if this helps, I will test it a bit if I have time.

The suggestions for ai countries seems good for me.

 

[Owen]

Originally posted by Ondoval
It probably only solves half of the problem to reduce the troops before the turn, coz the ai could arm up again during a war in the early period of the turn, and then have several bankrupcies later on.

Is there any way to control this through the ai file settings or anything else??

It's not a problem, since the AI won't arm itself beyond what it can afford, even if that means it doesn't invest in tech enough.

 

[Filou]

Question:
Did we just lose Grolin as a player?
I really hope not.

And the re-run version is the good one or not?

As for bankrupcies, I doubt we can get ais to not build troops and to not DoW. As an exemple, I have war=0 but my ai still DoWed a pagan nation. And since ai is not able to transfer troops propoerly, they will pile up on the continent.

 

[El Greco]

Promotion asked?

I put in my orders that I want to promote the judge in Firenze(legal counsel? - sorry I have the french version of the game), but I see that it hasn't been promoted. I also checked the log file for rebelions in Firenze but they never rebelled.
Am I missing something?

 

[Lord Ederon]

I'd appreciate if Gorlin reconsider his decision yet. The re-run was justified (because of violation of rules, did you remember?) and every player has right of veto (in the means whether to re-run the turn). And AVN used it. I think there is no other case around this problem to talk about.

So whether you stay or leave, re-run turn is vaild. If you want to change the way how we interpret treaty violations and how far do we allow them, then go on and open the discussion, but now I've acted in terms of rules.

For the case of bankruptcies, I'd appreciate if you do some research and tests here. Sadly I have almost no free time. Thanks for your understanding.

 

[Lord Ederon]

Re: Promotion asked?

Originally posted by El Greco
I put in my orders that I want to promote the judge in Firenze(legal counsel? - sorry I have the french version of the game), but I see that it hasn't been promoted. I also checked the log file for rebelions in Firenze but they never rebelled.
Am I missing something?

I must apologize for my mistake again. I promoted judge in Liguria instead of Firenze as you ordered. I'm really sorry. I don't know how did it happen.

Is there anything reasonable you want to claim as reparation or correction?

 

[Owen]

Andreas,

Well, I thought the rerun was justified because it was AVN that suffered from Asaris's mistake. If Asaris suffered, I wouldn't have wanted to see a rerun. I think there's a fundamental difference there.

 

[Owen]

As I said, I'm happy to do the army edits over the weekend unless someone objects.

However, all players will need to me know whether they want to stay unchanged or be reduced down to the support limit. Unless anyone argues otherwise, I'll leave each nation approximately in their current proportions of inf/cav/art.

Please tell me as soon as you can. The main part will be editing all the ai nations who are over the support limit, so I will be able to find time to finalise things on Monday evening if necessary.

 

[Lord Ederon]

Originally posted by Owen
As I said, I'm happy to do the army edits over the weekend unless someone objects.

However, all players will need to me know whether they want to stay unchanged or be reduced down to the support limit. Unless anyone argues otherwise, I'll leave each nation approximately in their current proportions of inf/cav/art.

Please tell me as soon as you can. The main part will be editing all the ai nations who are over the support limit, so I will be able to find time to finalise things on Monday evening if necessary.

Thanks Owen. For France, leave it on 150k infantry, 50k cavalry and 350 artilery (if I'm right that it's equal to 35k army). I think support limit of France is 235k.

 

[El Greco]

Re: Re: Promotion asked?

Originally posted by Lord Ederon
I must apologize for my mistake again. I promoted judge in Liguria instead of Firenze as you ordered. I'm really sorry. I don't know how did it happen.

Is there anything reasonable you want to claim as reparation or correction?

Daniel, don't mind, it is not very important. All I wanted to know is that I didn't do something wrong in my orders.

Also, I know that you are in exams period and I want to thank you for the time you dedicate in our game, as the work charge of being a gamemaster is pretty important. Keep up the good work

 

[unmerged(471)]

Originally posted by AVN
I really don't want that a player leaves the game because of a re-run I asked (and which was granted). Therefore I ask Ederon now to cancel the results of the re-run and to continue the game with the original results.

This doesn't mean that my request for a re-run was invalid or unjustified. I still think it was fair, because a rule was violated (even if this was unintended).

However to keep the peace between the players I ask Ederon to cancel the results of the re-run.

I'm prepared to resolve the situation diplomatically.

Because I will not be online this weekend (Friday, Saturday and Sunday) and a lot of diplomacy need to be done I herewith request to delay next turn till Saturday June 14.
I hope that's acceptable for all the other players

Don't.

You and most of the others feel that it is fully justified, and I don't want to impose my point of view over all of yours. What I'd want is for you all to agree with my PoV but since that isn't going to happen....

My point is simple: If something goes against plan in reality, like somebody promised you anything and then didn't (but not due to intent, mainly because he forgot or the like) you *can't* reload reality from one day before and try again either. You can only deal with the situation like it is.

The only difference, and the only time I feel any rerun is justified is when something goes wrong that does not depend on the players at all. The GM is also human, and is allowed to make mistakes . In such a case I'd agree with a rerun. Anything that happens due to players actions *has happened* - lets deal with the consequences of those actions.

I don't like to play in a game where when something goes very wrong you immediately "reload", instead you should try to fix things in-game. However, as stated, I don't want to impose my point over yours. All of you seem to agree that "reloading history" is ok, so please do that and continue like the game. I don't want to have you all unhappy (with me) continuing the pre-rerun game. It's just one of those things that I, personally, can't agree with.

 

[Filou]

Originally posted by Owen
As I said, I'm happy to do the army edits over the weekend unless someone objects.

However, all players will need to me know whether they want to stay unchanged or be reduced down to the support limit. Unless anyone argues otherwise, I'll leave each nation approximately in their current proportions of inf/cav/art.

Please tell me as soon as you can. The main part will be editing all the ai nations who are over the support limit, so I will be able to find time to finalise things on Monday evening if necessary.

I'm not sure I want my armies to be reduced.
IIRC, I'm at approx. 125% of my army maintenance, and I don't really see that my country suffers from that.

There is also the fact that I will have to (well would like to) decide which armies get reduced/disbanded and which will survive.
Unless you pland to reduce each unit equally, which is not necesserally the best solution either for me.

 

[Owen]

Originally posted by Filou
I'm not sure I want my armies to be reduced.
IIRC, I'm at approx. 125% of my army maintenance, and I don't really see that my country suffers from that.

There is also the fact that I will have to (well would like to) decide which armies get reduced/disbanded and which will survive.
Unless you pland to reduce each unit equally, which is not necesserally the best solution either for me.

In that case I'll leave your armies alone and you can do any disbanding in your orders if you want. I might do the same thing myself, thinking about it.