What if a host gets annexed? What happens then? and there are no more AI countries left :rofl:
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Chaingun said:
While a logical solution, most players who are annexed, and then take hold of another country, will most likely work their hardest to simply punish those who annexed and dismantled their first country.
While I know of more than a few people who would not take this route [of vengeance], I know quite a few more who would
arcorelli said:
Yeah, remember the glory days of the first Unleashed? Half of our starting regulars there were random vnetters who just happened to be at the right place at the right time.
Daniel, first of all I don't think my GMing could've been a deterrant to annexation. My sacrifices for DBD outside of the game are minimal, and I procrastinate a lot with edits. If anything it would've been an opportunity to get rid of a bad GM.
There are a few good reasons I wasn't annexed though, the first being that in the minds of everyone but you, Prussia was being weakened satisfactorily. One, I lost Frederick and Blucher in that last battle. Two, each of you were taking provs from me, which amounted to five European provs lost in total, not a small number when you only controlled 16 to begin with. Thirdly, I never took more than one or two provs from a country in any given war before this, even if some of those wars were as decisive as that gangbang was(thinking of your country especially Daniel). Thus common courtesy was to cut me some of the same slack. The fourth reason was that Austria needed Prussia to counter France during Nappy times(good thing Drake was subbing it). Fifthly was that Denmark felt some mixed feelings after backstabbing me for a Swedish prov I had already promised to get for Denmark while he was on my side. Personal honor I think compelled him not to take provinces, accepting a 1000D tribute instead. Sixthly, it's very cheap play to turbo-annex a country as soon as you have the opportunity. If everyone played that way, few games would last longer than 100 years.
There are a few good reasons I wasn't annexed though, the first being that in the minds of everyone but you, Prussia was being weakened satisfactorily. One, I lost Frederick and Blucher in that last battle. Two, each of you were taking provs from me, which amounted to five European provs lost in total, not a small number when you only controlled 16 to begin with. Thirdly, I never took more than one or two provs from a country in any given war before this, even if some of those wars were as decisive as that gangbang was(thinking of your country especially Daniel
). Thus common courtesy was to cut me some of the same slack. The fourth reason was that Austria needed Prussia to counter France during Nappy times(good thing Drake was subbing it). Fifthly was that Denmark felt some mixed feelings after backstabbing me for a Swedish prov I had already promised to get for Denmark while he was on my side. Personal honor I think compelled him not to take provinces, accepting a 1000D tribute instead. Sixthly, it's very cheap play to turbo-annex a country as soon as you have the opportunity. If everyone played that way, few games would last longer than 100 years.
Fnuco said:
In Crusader Kings the game turned into latency when this happened once when I was playing with some others under 1.03 patch.
First, I totally disagree that new players get screwed. If anything, they get the benefit of the doubt and enormous kindness in my experience. I constantly see people of different skill levels getting along great. The veteran knows that you get more flies with honey. The new player wants powerful allies. People of equal skill levels, in my experience, are the most brutal towards one another. I could easily see myself crushing a veteran out of existence, but I would almost always go for vassalization with a novice.
Second, I would generally rely upon my group to enforce a common standard of "survivability" and that standard would be based on relative worth. Lets use the example of Venice, since it hasnt been used yet. Lets say that the OE and Austria were plotting to crush the player in Venice completely. Well, where are France, Poland, Brandenburg, Russia, and Spain? There is always someone who would lose big if player X was defeated, why arent they leading a coalition to save them?
That begs the question, what if no one benefits from your survival? Well, if you lose that is just tough potatoes. It is probably your fault, since virtually every country can be "made valuable" to other players. I would call this diplomatic failure on YOUR part, not greed on the part of your enemies.
Therefore, any complaints about any nation being destroyed fall on deaf ears. Why werent YOU asking others for help? Why werent YOU prepared for being invaded? Why didnt YOU have any friends to save you? I would have to place the blame squarely on your head if you are annexed. That is just poor play.
Now if a noob suffers this fate, I would have to see that as a rare exception. It is the responsibility of all players to preserve balance. Lead a coalition against the greedy bastards!!
Second, I would generally rely upon my group to enforce a common standard of "survivability" and that standard would be based on relative worth. Lets use the example of Venice, since it hasnt been used yet. Lets say that the OE and Austria were plotting to crush the player in Venice completely. Well, where are France, Poland, Brandenburg, Russia, and Spain? There is always someone who would lose big if player X was defeated, why arent they leading a coalition to save them?
That begs the question, what if no one benefits from your survival? Well, if you lose that is just tough potatoes. It is probably your fault, since virtually every country can be "made valuable" to other players. I would call this diplomatic failure on YOUR part, not greed on the part of your enemies.
Therefore, any complaints about any nation being destroyed fall on deaf ears. Why werent YOU asking others for help? Why werent YOU prepared for being invaded? Why didnt YOU have any friends to save you? I would have to place the blame squarely on your head if you are annexed. That is just poor play.
Now if a noob suffers this fate, I would have to see that as a rare exception. It is the responsibility of all players to preserve balance. Lead a coalition against the greedy bastards!!
Well said.
People often underestimate the power of good diplomacy. That's where newbies fail usually.
People often underestimate the power of good diplomacy. That's where newbies fail usually.
Ryoken has a good point there... and it's well summarized by Balinus.. in my tiny MP experience I haven't seen anything like "let's kill the noob" order... even, I have been a newbie myself in my MPs and I can fairly say that people have been merciful with me, even though I had screwed my game...
but, hey.. at least it's my experience....
but, hey.. at least it's my experience....
Ryoken is right. It's like I love to say : "There is an invisible hand that control how much power a nation can have" (genious sentence adapted ). So if someone get too much power, soon or late a strong coalization will be created to re-balance the situation.
I also think that there arent privileges in the EU community and we are all equal. But there are some players that think that they belong to an elitist group or consider themselves superior... I just laugh towards them
). So if someone get too much power, soon or late a strong coalization will be created to re-balance the situation.I also think that there arent privileges in the EU community and we are all equal. But there are some players that think that they belong to an elitist group or consider themselves superior... I just laugh towards them
I think the lesser experienced players are more often the ones who try to utterly destroy their enemies than they are the victims of that sort of thing.
Casluerj said:I also think that there arent privileges in the EU community and we are all equal. But there are some players that think that they belong to an elitist group or consider themselves superior... I just laugh towards them
I think the only group of players who consider themselves different is the group of players who victimize themselves and blame their incompetence and stupidity on others, labelling them "elitists"
Slargos said:I think the only group of players who consider themselves different is the group of players who victimize themselves and blame their incompetence and stupidity on others, labelling them "elitists"
Well said, brother Slarg!
Slargos said:I think the only group of players who consider themselves different is the group of players who victimize themselves and blame their incompetence and stupidity on others, labelling them "elitists"
Indeed
Slargos said:I think the only group of players who consider themselves different is the group of players who victimize themselves and blame their incompetence and stupidity on others, labelling them "elitists"
Maybe... or maybe there are kids that think they are gods... as I said I dont f****ucking care...
Slargos said:
The Sweden incident in New Order IV occured because the losing country wouldn't come to an agreement, and the winning side didn't need to... plus Denmark and Russia had sufficient military, economic, and political strength to force it, as there was insufficient opposition from other players. This happens to veterans as well - e.g. Fredrik's Brandenburg that got gobbled up basically because he didn't make a session and nobody cared enough to keep BB alive. It's not about the player, it's about the situation and the game. Particularly obnoxious opponents can sometimes have more punitive damage inflicted on them, but that doesn't occur very often, not in the games I'm involved in anyway.
Djeheuty said:
Actually, Brandenburg got gobbled up because we lacked a perm for Denmark - and Fred would rather play them than Brandenburg, so they were instead made AI.
As several posters has noted my example from NOIV was not the best. Sorry about that. My memory obviously failed me.
You made some good points there John, as is your habit. It's only number 6 that I definitely disagree with. But anyway, your eloquence is remarkable.
However, in case there are any children reading this thread I would like to point out that it is very dangerous to take the rethoric at face value. And to believe that John is merely a cunning fox. What really happens is that he devours you bit for bit, province for province. Yes he does, and because you and your neighbours are eaten only one province at a time lesser-gifted players might be decieved regarding his true character. Remember, he only uses a fox' disguise, in reality he is an insatiable wolf.
King John said:
You made some good points there John, as is your habit. It's only number 6 that I definitely disagree with. But anyway, your eloquence is remarkable.
However, in case there are any children reading this thread I would like to point out that it is very dangerous to take the rethoric at face value. And to believe that John is merely a cunning fox. What really happens is that he devours you bit for bit, province for province. Yes he does, and because you and your neighbours are eaten only one province at a time lesser-gifted players might be decieved regarding his true character. Remember, he only uses a fox' disguise, in reality he is an insatiable wolf.