Animal Farm: Sunday Game

[unmerged(6147)]

This was an interesting twitch to the debate we had some weeks ago about what a sub could and could not do. Incidentally that debate also was based upon an incident in this particular game.

Fraese is our GM and plays Russia. He was subbed by Drake because of connection problems.

BB is a vassal of RUS and was also subbed, by Wonko.

In the middle of the game Wonko asks about that vassalship and it becomes clear he wants to end it. Drake contacts Fraese on ICQ and Fraese tells him that the perm in BB has promised not to break the vassalship (well at least not during this session).

Fraese did not issue any formal GM decision on the question and we all had a chance to say what we thought. I myself was unsure.

Finally Wonko, the sub in BB, followed the general guideline for the sub that so many agreed upon in that thread we had a few weeks ago, that unless he had instructions from his perm the sub can do whatever he want. He had no instructions whatsoever from his perm. Thus Wonko cancelled the vassalisation and then Drake (subbing RUS) who was constantly in contact with Fraese told us that Fraese decided to abandon the game.

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

Well, this was as well since the perms in this campaign have been insufficiently reliable. In this last session we had only four perms (ENG, POR, VEN and FRA) present. We had subs in AUS, BB, OE, SPA and RUS. We simply lacked NL and SWE.

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

Up for debate: If a perm who is subbed has made an agreement with another player but

a) does not give any instructions at all for his sub

b) does give instructions but does not mention this particular agreement

Is the sub then bound by this agreement?
In a)?
In b)?

I would say he is in a) but am not as sure in b).

Like Fraese I would be greatly annoyed if my longterm playing tactics were destroyed by a sub.

One problem with forcing the sub to follow a claimed agreement is that the claimer might be in error. Perhaps no agreement exists? Perhaps he misunderstood everything?

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

My basic recollection is that whenever I tell a sub that his nation and mine are good friends I have no problems with that nation, they believe it.

However, to be vassalised IMO automatically means there is a presumption that the relation between the nations is bad. Voluntary vassalisations are rare.

 

[unmerged(7276)]

I could be interested in russia if game continues. If not I think fal will start new game.

Sundays is my fav day for EU btw

 

[admiral drake]

This was an interesting twitch to the debate we had some weeks ago about what a sub could and could not do. Incidentally that debate also was based upon an incident in this particular game.

Fraese is our GM and plays Russia. He was subbed by Drake because of connection problems.

BB is a vassal of RUS and was also subbed, by Wonko.

In the middle of the game Wonko asks about that vassalship and it becomes clear he wants to end it. Drake contacts Fraese on ICQ and Fraese tells him that the perm in BB has promised not to break the vassalship (well at least not during this session).

Fraese did not issue any formal GM decision on the question and we all had a chance to say what we thought. I myself was unsure.

Finally Wonko, the sub in BB, followed the general guideline for the sub that so many agreed upon in that thread we had a few weeks ago, that unless he had instructions from his perm the sub can do whatever he want. He had no instructions whatsoever from his perm. Thus Wonko cancelled the vassalisation and then Drake (subbing RUS) who was constantly in contact with Fraese told us that Fraese decided to abandon the game.

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

Well, this was as well since the perms in this campaign have been insufficiently reliable. In this last session we had only four perms (ENG, POR, VEN and FRA) present. We had subs in AUS, BB, OE, SPA and RUS. We simply lacked NL and SWE.

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

Up for debate: If a perm who is subbed has made an agreement with another player but

a) does not give any instructions at all for his sub

b) does give instructions but does not mention this particular agreement

Is the sub then bound by this agreement?
In a)?
In b)?

I would say he is in a) but am not as sure in b).

Like Fraese I would be greatly annoyed if my longterm playing tactics were destroyed by a sub.

One problem with forcing the sub to follow a claimed agreement is that the claimer might be in error. Perhaps no agreement exists? Perhaps he misunderstood everything?

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

My basic recollection is that whenever I tell a sub that his nation and mine are good friends I have no problems with that nation, they believe it.

However, to be vassalised IMO automatically means there is a presumption that the relation between the nations is bad. Voluntary vassalisations are rare.

no matter what you think you can't blaime fraese for resigning when the sub pulled that off

and subs should honor important agreements in most cases if the other players informs the sub of this.
breaking a nap is alright stil but a deal where 2nations got plans for next 50+years all ruined cause the sub does't like the idea of being vassalt sucks no matter how you look at it.

 

[Brent15]

Way to go Cheech! Thank you for finally kicking some OE booty! :rofl:

Wished I could have been there

Game over guys?

 

[Seen]

Way to go Cheech! Thank you for finally kicking some OE booty! :rofl:

Wished I could have been there

Game over guys?

Afraid so Brent, only 4 perns last session (i think) and 3 orso the one before. The game has no basis apperently. As porto we still enjoyed funding you though

 

[unmerged(6147)]

no matter what you think you can't blaime fraese for resigning when the sub pulled that off

If you read my post once again, instead of merely taking up space by quoting it, you will find that I in no way blame Fraese for resigning, indeed I do not blame him for anything at all.

I even kind of commend him since I, in my 7th paragraph, say that it was "as well" he abandoned the game since this meant we finally could end this game which had become more of a nuiscance than a pleasure due to the low attendance percentage.

 

[Ampoliros]

no matter what you think you can't blaime fraese for resigning when the sub pulled that off

and subs should honor important agreements in most cases if the other players informs the sub of this.
breaking a nap is alright stil but a deal where 2nations got plans for next 50+years all ruined cause the sub does't like the idea of being vassalt sucks no matter how you look at it.

I disagree (obviously).

In general I tend to try and honour agreements a perm has indulged himself in.
In this specific situation, however, there were extraordinary circumstances which led me in an altogether different direction.

For one thing, as has been stated already, there were no specific instructions for me by the perm. In fact, I was mobilized spontaneously in circumstances I can only describe as chaotic. A mere 4 perms were there, the GM had connection problems, which later on forced him to be subbed himself. I was forced to try and help organise the session and get it going myself and I consequently searched for and found 2 subs. Now the bottomline here is that, factualy, the entire campaign had already collapsed into bloody anarchy and there was a wafty atmosphere of fatality hanging over sunday night´s session.

Add to this the fact that I have never in my whole EU II MP career been vasallized and you will begin to understand that to me yielding to the authority of a power like Russia, which - while it was of considerable strength - did not wield any overpowering omnipotence, was never an option.

This just runs contrary to what I believe in, to my basic instincts. If I had known that Brandenburg was a vasall and that this status wasn´t allowed to be changed I would have simply refused to sub it. You didn´t tell me beforehand and hence you cannot blame me - simple as that.

So, dear community, the next time you need a sub for a semienslaved realm of rabble don´t come to me. For I don´t accept vasallisations.

 

[Sir Dud]

EDIT: Not a reply to previous post, posted this before seeing it...

Hmm some sad things have happened here in my absence, I have only skimmed through the last couple of pages, so forgive me if im wrong on some issue or whatever. Plus I feel like I gotta say something on this, I'm not trying to "redeem" myself (I accept the stab hit or whatever), I guess this is a sort of eulogy...

First off, I would like to sincerely apologise for inadvertently "ruining/killing" the game as a result of my two (proclaimed) absences .

Second, I can only comment on the "situation" to a limited extent, and I really dont have much clue wat has happened outside the Rus/BB "theatre". Now it is clear that this whole situation came to be as a result of my folly wars back in my first two sessions as BB, the first as defender, the second as avenger. Both wars were extremely risky (even the second, as I had no means of direct communication with anyone but Fraese - my enemy). When I accepted Russia's peace terms, I already knew that (unfortunately - yes really) I would not be the one who would have to bear this "burden" which I was partly responsible for. However contrary to other suggestions that I left no instructions, I say that actually I did. Though they were not particularly "visible" I guess, and they were very very limited in scope. However basically the "misdunderstanding" came about as I had no access to internet during the last two weeks, and thus it was very hard for me to find a sub 2 weeks in advance and provide instructions etc unforunately.

In post 392 I said : "I will provide some instructions, though there aint really much BB can do :s, and Ill give them to Fraese too just in case. Though as BB is Russia's "bitch" now anyway, the sub just has to follow his instructions lol ^^."

These instructions make it reasonably clear to basically just do what Fraese says . However they have of course one paramount weakness: in the absence of both Dud and Fraese this does not work. And this seems to have been the case of last session, thus leading to this misunderstanding or whatever.

Basically I should have made it clear that this was in effect a voluntary vassalship and that any subs should uphold it.

Well, I really hope that this game can be resuscitated and continue, I for one would favour a continuation, though then again I lack the knowledge of just how deep this hole is...So is there any chance or have you all given up hope?

Anyway, thanks to my subs for subbing, Fnuco and Wonko. Ashame that this misunderstanding had to lead to the demise of AM, however I understand that my instructions were nonetheless rather unappealing and had you made your assumption of enmity between Rus/BB just a session or two before you would have been very correct , bad timing ultimately ^^.

 

[unmerged(18425)]

So, dear community, the next time you need a sub for a semienslaved realm of rabble don´t come to me. For I don´t accept vasallisations.

Very well put

 

[unmerged(6147)]

Dud,

It was not you who killed this campaign. Anyone is allowed to be temporary away, especially if he gets his own sub.

What killed it was
- the low average number of perms being present (I thnk around 50-60% during the sessions I played)
- the amount of perms not securing a sub by themselves
- the amont of perms not telling in beforehand they would be absent
- the amount of perms not arriving on time and being away during the session

One of the main fun-killers was that I guess in average the first 45 minutes of every session was spent waiting for latecoming perms or arranging subs.

It is a question of reliability. Several players in this campaign proved to me that they are unreliable and should be avoided. You do know Dud, that I do not count you in among them. Far from it!

Cheers!

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

Many complain about the longevity of our alliance. Well the reason for this is that it from start existed to give Italy to Venice. John could have accepted it but when he did not it transformed into an iron-alliance. The decisive wars were planned to take place in the middle of the 17th century but because of this damned non-prescence of perms we only made one single war during the lifetime of Turenne. It was this that made the alliance continue for so long and it was John's stubborn defence in the first war and later his ruthless two winning wars vs FRA and VEN that made us so truthful to eachother.

Any longterm play gets destroyed when the perms are not present and this killed the campaign.


--------

Wonko: well put!

 

[unmerged(6147)]

Anyhow, it was interesting to see John's strategy about selling the gold in America. I know he likes wars the most but he deleted his main income basis and when he was too lazy to trade (and due to his sell of Peru and Mexixco lost 2 COTs and thus got too few merchants to be able to expand his trade much) he pretty much sealed his fate and proved that this game is not just about wars. It is about economy and diplomacy. And based upon that you can then make war. The better economy and the better diplomatic position the more successful will your wars be in average.

I was happy to buy Mexico. I have a very high inflation but when the game ended the fact is that the number one in income is no one less than France (to be truthful due to the embargoes made to the right and to the left, POR is normally the one with the highest income in the game). Inflation does not matter if income is high. Many make the mistake of believing that there is something basically bad with high inflation. That is not so. Let this France be a lesson for you.

 

[King John]

Well, it could've paid off had my stab costs not turned out to be so high, and combined with plenty of stabhits. Granada's muslim provs never were editted to catholicism like I requested 100 years ago, but I think the higher number of provs affected it more than that, along with being low on serfdom and over time, high on inno.

The frequent wars hurt too. Please keep in mind that had I not sold both, or any of my NW posessions, I was suffering major problems from the gangbang you, HG, and Venice inflicted on me. Had all the money from Mexico and Peru been invested in economic things like manus and colonies I could've made a better lategame economy, but I don't think my aggressive strategy was a mistake at all. What caused it to fail was that I 1) missed a crucial session with Alba and Farnese, in which I could've destroyed what remained of Venice and possibly inflicted a major defeat on the OE, and 2) signed way too long of a NAP with France.

The deal I offered you, Daniel, was very good, I think. I wish I would've slammed into France again and taken several more provs off you. I certainly could've. If I had been patient enough to wait on making my mexican offer, until after putting you in a desperate situation, or looking harder for someone else to sell it to, or perhaps just making a gift to Austria, Spain could've won the game by eliminating France as a longterm major threat. Live and learn.

Your speed at claiming DOTF was a big problem for me later on. The war where I had Spinola and you had no leaders should've been a victory for me, but for that. It was impressive, and showed that I no longer had the ability to play a major role, but could only try to hold onto what I'd gained for as long as possible.

One thing I resented quite a bit was when after I'd been afk, Gascogne defected to France, and after I made a little fuss over it, you didn't offer to give it back. When I had only demanded 3 provs over a major defeat of France, losing 1/3 to being afk was really annoying. Though, perhaps I wasn't direct enough about this and you assumed I didn't care.

Spain was in deep trouble when it was ganged and almost demolished by the uber OE, Fra and Ven alliance. It survived, and defeated France and Venice, and sold Mexico and a NAP to France, defeated the OE. And could've annexed Venice had I not wasted 20 years. I know my absences have been an annoyance, but if I hadn't missed that one session I would've killed Venice and probably won the game. Sooo, it actually helped you Daniel, being able to draw on Venice as a casus belli to run Spain out of Italy without looking selfish, and giving you the relative resources to do it.

Daniel, I think you've executed your strategy very well. I think I can sum it up pretty easy- focus on the economy and eliminate all threats to this end, which I guess was Spain's powerful position. Securing Venice as a longterm ally with united Italy put you in a very good position, as he might very well have remained an ally to the end of the game(had it gone to 1820).

Early efforts were thwarted by Spanish leadership, which also showed the necessity of making those efforts in the first place. Making peace with Spain when you had it under control turned out to be a mistake, since I ended up attacking you 5 years later anyway.

Good job with your economic buildup. Mexico helped greatly, but good administration had no small part to do with it.


I think Maciej had a good game. The early gang on him was weathered with grace and later years proved that it was a power to be reckoned with in the defeats over Sweden and its ever growing income. If the game had went on it might've been able to effectively counter the French, and probably been successful with the help of Portugal and Spain.


Fraese's Russia was very interesting. The acquisition of Peru gave it potential that most Russia's never start with, and the extra income allowed it to spread out in Europe earlier than most Russia's do. I was disappointed that he never went to war with OE, but it was probably the smartest thing for Russia. OE can be easily defeated with Russian leaders in the 18th century anyway.

The OE started off in excellent shape, and kept that preeminence for the entire game. It lost a couple wars with Spanish leaders, but won every war with Austria, except for one in the early 1600s that also involved Spinola fighting in Hungary (and the last one with Cheech?). I didn't want to mess with the OE at all after my leaders died, because the fact is anyone who did would need a leader advantage to make headway there.


Portugal was both an obnoxious and beloved country to me. When I learned of Seen's plans to go reformed, I wanted to stop this, but the early gang kept me too busy to contemplate such things, and when it was over my situation was too tense to consider widening my range of enemies by another, even if small, nation. So it was finally accepted as a longterm, probably permanent ally.

My original hope was to sell Mexico to Seen, but since he was reformed and most of the provs were already converted to catholicism(though two weren't yet), he prefered not to buy. A factor in my decision to sell it to France on pretty good terms was that I wanted to spite Seen for this.

Portugal was played very well, the economy was managed expertly with trade developing at a healthy pace, and by the late 1500s he was the funder of Austria, not Spain. His income was also higher than Spain's. I think Portuguese aggressiveness as the game went along was perfectly justified. Seen's country was strong, his navy was powerful, and he had Spain as a buffer against France and the OE.

Austria had the misfortune of having HG as a neighbor early on. He's an expert on that country, which I have had to suffer as Austria before. Having Suleyman boosted to 6 fire/shock stats didn't help either. Brent inherited the country after these times were mostly over, but the damage was done. The OE had built up enough momentum that it would've taken a major alliance to take it down, so the many times it fell on Austria's shoulders alone, Austria suffered.

During the early 1600s Austria tried to help me with the growing French menace. It's diplomatic pressure prevented Daniel from demanding maximum provs in his first victory over Spain, but after this, mostly thanks to my absence, participation in the effort to stop France died out.


I didn't see much of what happened with Sweden and Brandenburg, so I can't really comment, except that Dud seemed to take Brandenburg's setbacks well. Patience would've paid off in the 18th century, but oh well.

 

[unmerged(34993)]

My 2 cents )

It was my first global MP game and I hope I have not failed )
Venice had been an underdog for whole game, but I managed to bring it to glory with last two sessions. I took Venice when it was pretty dead, unfortunately greedy Spain attacked me and gangbanged me. I managed to make a good deal via backstabbing OE... Later I backstabbed again, this time Spain. Unfortunately at one session sub acted badly and I lost all my possesions, though I managed to recover them with French help. We would have fully gangbanged Venice if OE sub were more active. Last session I developed economicly and built 6 manus. My fleet and admiral together with OE fleet crushed Portugese and English fleets, but unfortunately greedy imperialistic Austria attacked me and I had to retreat my fleet. That was the beginning of the end - OE fleet was sunk without my admiral..

Now some report on sides...

France

Daniel was my eternal ally and I do believe that it was a right decision to stay true to alliance with him, cause I managed to build great power and gain positive amount of points at the end.

OE

My ally too, but unfortunately I had to bertray him once.. Well, it is all diplomacy, I still believe that bertraying OE on my first session was right decision.

Spain

Nasty, evil, greedy Spain. It totally failed at the end - warfare is the waste of money, and he always fought wars. I am glad Spain failed.

Porto

Nasty, evil, imperialistic Porto... Pity we have not managed to destroy it too...
England

Unfortunately England joined with nasty Porto, so Venice considers them nasty too

Austria

Aus was destroyed by OE and managed to make war on the last session only because of porto's donations.


Can't say much about other nations....

I liked the game and I enjoyed playing with you all. Hope to play with you all again

 

[Brent15]

My Overview of Animal Farm

Well, guess I ought to contribute too.

Animal Farm was my first real campaign. I inherited a weak position, no doubt. The Ottoman Empire was in an excellent position and occupied a majority of Hungary. This was unacceptable to me on all levels, muslim "jihad" toward the core of Christian Europe is offensive.

My stubborness with the Ottoman Empire was probably a weakness. I secured understandings with my neighbors early in my efforts and made a successful gain of two territories in my first war with the OE, but I made it too obvious that I would not relent against the Ottomans. This gave the OE a chance to factor Austria into every equation.

I failed in all of my future wars with the OE, they had more resources than I did and they directed alot of them at holding Austria at bay if not just pushing their weight around.

I spent some time trying to convince my neighbors to assist me in my wars with the OE. I even built a pretty stable peace with France despite the wars between that nation and my close ally Spain. However, my efforts to gain allies failed. I received promises for future aid from two major powers but distractions in more immediate concerns always created delay. My last session in Animal Farm I was quite frustrated, Europe was content with the status quo between OE and Austria. My last war with OE was just stubborn unwillingness to cow to an abusive super-power and I was beaten.

On Spain my comments will not be much different than that of others here. KJ gets my award for origionality in game play, this may be my first campaign but he never failed to surprise me and a few of the veterans too. He has proven to me an intimate knowledge of the events and leaders (something I have tried in single player to avoid: I like being surprised, but its something to value highly in MP). I will always be wary of warring against him in further campaigns, Fraese's cpmparison to Napolean was well placed.

France did an excellent job of making himself look like the good guy in this game. There were no outrageous moves by France which I can recall, and it means something to me when players go to war with a real-world casus belli (something France did well) and honor agreements. No doubt the France that Daniel built would have continued to grow in power until the end of the game.

Russia was one of the few players not in my alliance that I had alot of cordial conversation with. My initial opinion on the outset of the campaign was that Russia was too strong. My immediate problem offset any desire to aggress Russia. I tried very hard to get Russia to come to my aid against OE, however, Russia had other plans. I think Fraese's Russia is a close second place for victory in this campaign. I also think Fraese was a good and fair GM.

Portugal was a very good ally. Seen gifted money to me on more than a few occasions. I paid very little attention to his foreign policy, as I always seemed distracted. Needless to say, Austria was courted on several occasions for a gang on France. I can say with confidence his play of Portugal will modify my perspective on that nation entirely.

Brandenburg was well built and played. I made an early understanding with BB that established peace on that front for the entirety of the campaign (excepting Bobs expansion ). I couldn't help but feel sorry for BBs plight against Russia, I had some hope early on that the north and south HRE would dominate Europe together.

It is probably bad diplomacy on my part, but I didn't have much discussion with or interest in England. My impression was that the perm was very reliable, and he played England very well. I only wish he had joined our alliance sooner.

I really sypathized with Venice in this game. I was not part of the initial aggression against Venice, and had Spain not been OE's only real enemy I might have looked at the situation entirely differently. I regret, however, that I did not take strong action against the nation after hostility had been established. I think an arrangement with KJ for the COT would have benefited me tremendously, and I certainly didn't feel Venice was entitled to all of Italy. I think with concentration we would have eliminated Venice early on.

The Ottoman Empire, well, the struggle was fun and appropriate. Epic for me. The most powerful nation at the beginning, and with a perm who was consistent and forward thinking, the OE would have taken the win. No doubt, two subs stand out in my mind as most worthy opponents and proved to be very talented in their warfare (if only I was better with names ).

Unfortunately, I remeber little of Swedens activities. I think the lack of a cohesive strategy was the nations downfall (too many subs). I believe Cheech subbed for Sweden two sessions ago, I think he did very well against Russia under the circumstances and I commend his efforts.

France and Spain are both winners to me in this campaign. France for building the nation that would most likely have dominated continental Europe by end game. Spain for awesome generalship. Both proved to be the focus of the game, and I their wars against one another always seemed to always steal the spotlight.

Anyhow, thanks for the lessons in EU2, and all of the time that you guys invested in this game. I look forward to seeing you guys in future playings. Sorry for a long post , and I definitely apologize for the times my connection prevented me from participating in the game. I hope to have earned a reputation as dependable.

 

[unmerged(6147)]

A lot of interesting points of view here.

The deal I offered you, Daniel, was very good, I think. I wish I would've slammed into France again and taken several more provs off you. I certainly could've.

Hehe, of course you could have taken more John. I was very pleased it only happened once.

One thing I resented quite a bit was when after I'd been afk, Gascogne defected to France, and after I made a little fuss over it, you didn't offer to give it back. When I had only demanded 3 provs over a major defeat of France, losing 1/3 to being afk was really annoying. Though, perhaps I wasn't direct enough about this and you assumed I didn't care.

John, when Gascogne defected to me I opened a bottle of champagne. If you really believe that I would give it back to you after

1. we had a 100% victory over you in the 1520-30 war and despite this when Venice separate peaced for some 80-90WS I and OE peaced without taking anything since that was we had promised form the start of the war

2. and then you kind of raped me 5 years later in that war where I was chanceless and you took Gascogne and two more provinces and even all my cash

then you surprise me. Let it be known that the word "surprise" was carefully chosen, it does not truthfully reflect my true emotions

There was exactly zero% probability that I would give Gascogne back. I had in fact observed the fact it was reb controlled for some time and just sat hoping you would miss it.

Making peace with Spain when you had it under control turned out to be a mistake, since I ended up attacking you 5 years later anyway.

Well, we are back to this 1520-30 war. I stupidly believed that you would understand that it was a hopeless case and that you would give up on your Italian plans, especially if we were honorable and stayed true to the stated war aim that the war was all for Venice and not for me and OE. But to no avail. And when you attacked me 5 years later the sub in OE at that time declined to assist me - so I just had to say to the sub in Venice that he should not assist me since it was a lost war. Oh that subbing ruined the plans. But perhaps you would have won that war anyow since you had a CRT on me.

The non-prescence of the perms destroyed this game


----------

Fot those who played their first MP game in this game I can only say that if you are so unlucky to end up in a nation bordering one of the truly great warriors in our community (as KJ and HoG are) and you fail to achieve friendship with them, well then you must realise that you will lose some wars.

For AUS that is very bad since a strong OE will take most of the potential expansion area from Austria and Austria'sr later leader superiority will be balanced out by OE expansion to the East - a properly played OE will expand a lot to the East (although few play them properly).

For FRA it is easier. Try not to lose to much up to 1630/40 and then the Spanish leader superiority ends. With both nations properly played this means SPA after this is a dead duck vs FRA. Their only chance is a strong alliance. 1 vs 1 they are chanceless - not only because of leaders but because of MP as well.

Exception: if SPA succeeds in grabbing large parts of North Africa and there is a strait between Girbraltar and Africa, then they will be able to match the MP of FRA, perhaps even surpass it.

--------

I really think historic leaders destroy some of the game. I strongly prefer random leaders. But I admit that historic leaders to give a nice flavour to the game.

 

[King John]

Daniel, Gascogne rebelled while I was afk. It wasn't a matter of me "missing" it, I just wasn't there to do anything about it. It defected about a month or two after I returned. I know you didn't like how things turned out up to that point, but that's a different matter. If you had been afk and Lyon had rebelled and defected to me a month after you returned, would you feel the same way about this?


I was entirely justified in making my wars against France, Venice and the OE after the ubergang. And, for that matter, was justified in trying to wipe out Venice afterward. After all, what almost happened to Spain in the 1530s? And as you say, it wasn't really generosity that convinced you to peace me. The OE lost Suleyman, and you were afraid of being stuck in a 1v1 with Spain. I think Venice ended up gaining a couple provs. It was hard during the game to keep this in memory, but that war to destroy Spain's power was what set all my aggressive movements in motion(or at least, justified them ).

 

[unmerged(6147)]

Daniel, Gascogne rebelled while I was afk. It wasn't a matter of me "missing" it, I just wasn't there to do anything about it. It defected about a month or two after I returned. I know you didn't like how things turned out up to that point, but that's a different matter. If you had been afk and Lyon had rebelled and defected to me a month after you returned, would you feel the same way about this?

If you were away all the time while it was reb controlled I certainly agree. But was it? I doubt that.

I was entirely justified in making my wars against France, Venice and the OE after the ubergang. And, for that matter, was justified in trying to wipe out Venice afterward. After all, what almost happened to Spain in the 1530s? And as you say, it wasn't really generosity that convinced you to peace me. The OE lost Suleyman, and you were afraid of being stuck in a 1v1 with Spain. I think Venice ended up gaining a couple provs. It was hard during the game to keep this in memory, but that war to destroy Spain's power was what set all my aggressive movements in motion(or at least, justified them ).

What did I say?

Was I afraid of being stuck in a 1 vs 1 vs SPA?

"Convinced us to peace with you"?

What are you talking about?

As far as I am concerned the war was not about destroying your power, it was about increasing that of Venice. Did you fail to understand that?

Do you not remember that huge war, more than 10 years, close to 20 I think and the outcome of it? In the war where you did not give up until we had control of all your European land. You DO NOT remember it? :wacko:

It was the worst war I ever have been in. And it was what Rinak again and again came back to in his descriptions of SPA - read e.g. the messages from the last session in the last save and you will understand what impact your behaviour and this war had on him - as it had on me. This war was one of the most memoreable wars I have ever participated in. Never before have an opponent forced me to control all of his provinces with land connection to his capital and on the same continent, before he accepts peace. And obviously only to inflict economical damage upon us, as attrition etc makes it much more expensive for us to wage war on your soil than it does for you.

 

[King John]

My phrasology wasn't very good. "Convinced you to peace me" does sound kind of dumb. And I know it was a little redundent, but some new facts that are contradictory to what you said. One, you never had 100 percent ws on me. You had stabhitting warscore(well, not YOU, but both your allies did), but not since Suleyman died was I truly at risk of being force peaced.


As for Gascogne, I said I was back a couple months before it defected. I can't prove that I was afk until that time of course, but this should be in the save.


As far as you were concerned, the war might've been about fulfilling some nationalistic vision for Venice that you had, but for me and for HG it was about destroying Spain's power.


What I meant by memory of the war was the brutal ruthless nature of it, and the destruction it caused for Spain. That aspect was barely acknoledged by the participants of the war, and for other nations it passed within a couple decades as my wars with the gangbangers took precedence.


Despite that it was a bad war for you, it was worse for me. The cost for your alliance was split between three countries, whereas my expenses all fell upon me(though Portugal did help a little with a few gifts). In the end I had to sell Incan lands to finance it. Your inflation rose more than mine, but had I not sold these lands mine would've certainly risen more.

 

[unmerged(18425)]

Those of you who like another sunday game, please look here:

http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?t=241460

 

[billy bob]

Billy,

The normal procedure is for the one missing a session to get his own sub. It is just normal courtesy but nevertheless people now and then write a post like you just did.

If you do not know so many people you can always advertise in this thread or in the stickid thread for sub-finding or create a new thread where you ask for a sub.

My computer was broken I did not have the ability to get a sub.