There is simple logic.
1. Any player, who is able to stabhit for his war goals, is doing that. Speaking something else is pretty lie.
2. We stabhitted for all small points in peace demand (colonies) and avoid to demand big points (eu provinces).
3. Turboannexation means we got all what we stabhitted for (colonies) + extra (eu provinces). As it is known HAL is getting back this extra.
4. After all it means that France got about 35 badboy more for same war goals. My question why ?
4.1 Was France guilty that Spain refused from peace ? No. Spain took responsibility to live under stabhits, but failed. That was their own choice and mistake.
4.2. Should France (or alliance leader) not stabhit ? The answer is #1, so No.
4.3. Could France avoid government collapse ? No, France did only normal stabhits, while fully responsibility was HAL.
1. Technically, you're wrong. There are other situations where a person will wait to stabhit, even though they can stabhit for their war goals. For example, someone might wait in order to help another country secure their war goals(in a case where they are not in the same alliance). Or someone might wait to send a stabhit if a rehost is impending. Or they might wait because they hope to stabhit out an entire alliance instead of just one member. You're right that usually a person will send stabhits as soon as they can, but there are some times when it's more sensible to wait to stabhit, and perhaps, when another person's capital is occupied and there are already rebels everywhere, that is also a sensible time to hold off on that. Or at the least, to appreciate that there is a greater risk of this happening if one presses on.
.
2 and 3. It's very noble, but if you're just giving the land back, then what difference does it make to you whether he gets it back via edit or not? It would be simpler to just have the stuff edited, wouldn't it?
4. This reminds me of a time when I played the OE, and was on the verge of annexing Mali, a pagan country. After occupying all the territory except for a couple provinces, they had some rebels spawn, which led to a government collapse. Instead of gaining no BB, I ended up with enough to put me at the BB limit. I asked the group I was playing with if I could have it reduced, since this occurrence was such a disproportionate punishment for a bit of bad luck on my part- giving such high BB instead of zero BB. But the majority ruled against that(and you were a part of that majority. I don't remember the name of this game, but it was the one where you played Sweden). You could argue the same thing about it being a bug: If Johan had more time, he surely would have programmed in new turbo-annexing rules that made so you never gained BB for turboing pagans. In other games where similar things have happened, whether it was a government collapse of a player or a human, I don't recall the conquerer ever receiving BB reduction afterward. I grant that there is a difference between when this happens with a player country and an AI country, but from the perspective of the victor, is it much different? I don't think so. It comes down to bad luck either way, and seldom does the one turbo-annexing receive any remorse from other players.
4.1. No, France is not guilty of Spain's gov collapse. It is, as I've said, mostly bad luck from France's perspective, though there is a point where this result could have been anticipated(I think it can happen as soon as Spain loses control of its capital, if there are enough rebels about, right?). So, in spite of precedence, I've said I'm willing to compensate France by removing its badboy if it goes back to pre-collapse demands. It ends up with what it wanted originally. That's hardly a punishment. Many GMs would tell France to just deal with the badboy, so I think I'm being very fair.
Moreover, I'm worried about the kind of precedent it would set to remove badboy after a turbo-annexation. The warscore limitations are there for a reason- to limit the pace that someone can strip another country of land. I really don't think it would be a good idea to establish a convention allowing countries to rape other countries with gov collapses, and then not have to face the normal BB consequences. Much simpler to just not open the door to that sort of thing.
It's also bad form to change standard practice during a game. If we'd agreed beforehand that if a person turbos another on accident, that they will have their BB reduced, then that would be one thing. But we have not done that.
I see pretty political interests to find other argues and decision in this very simple situation.
Tonio, I'm trying to be fair. I could say the same about your motivations for asking for this for France, but where will such accusations get us? I thought about just giving you what you want in order to avoid a debate. I also don't really care about the details of what countries are helped or hurt in this way or that. What we are arguing about are small details, after all. But I care about fairness, and I don't think that it would be fair to let France have its cake and eat it too. Not when the normal practice is otherwise.
As always, I'll bow to the majority, if it's not just you and Ampo.
(I still find it retarded that pagan Cherokee's rebels formed the US and then all my content colonies decided to join it)
