By the Ballot: An Elective Succession Game
- Thread starter Tabanese
- Start date
-
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.
I'm not adding up the successive cycles, and I doubt anyone will oppose such a respected ruler. Shall we say that the Deadline is tomorrow at 20:00GMT?
(ELECTION: Andre Massena)
(ELECTION: Andre Massena)
By a landslide then, Andre Massena has being selected to save Tuscany. God speed, House Saltalamacchia. 
Sorry for the delay, I will be more diligent from now on.
Tuscany is facing perhaps its greatest crisis since the first (?) Anglo-Tuscan war many years ago. Native rebels and foreign armies have overrun most of our colonies, though the Armata d'Americana has struck a blow against British American colonies. Our Italian army was badly mauled and our maintenance was low.
The brilliant Francesco Allori was chosen as Prince of Tuscany due to his military and diplomatic prowess. Prince Ippolino Buontalenti from the prestigious Buontalenti dynasty was nearly chosen but he chose to lead the troops in Mexico after Signore Allori was elected.
The Armata di Napoli in Sundgau was nearly mauled by Burgundians but Allori quickly took command and decided to retreat to the nearby Armata d'Italia in Switzerland to prevent a total catastrophe. The Burgundians, afraid of attacking the dug-in Tuscans in the Alps, decided not to give chase. A small Milanese army and fleet were destroyed by the Armata d'Italia and Tuscan War Fleet. The Armata d'Italia then attempted to retake Genoa from Milanese control as Genoan soldiers attempted to take Milan for Tuscany.
Situation of the front on January 27
The Ottomans offered a white peace, which the prince quickly accepted. Tuscan diplomats also indicated that the Mamluks would not accept a white peace but would be willing to end hostilities if Tuscany admitted defeat.
With the Tuscany's colonies overrun and her armed forces stretched to the limit coping with Burgundy and Britain, the prince strongly recommends his fellow princes vote for the concession of defeat to the Mamluks.
-------------------------------------------------
So what do you guys say? I think it would be best to peace out with the Mamluks so we can focus on the Europeans.
PEACE VOTE: Aye/Nay/Abstain
PEACE VOTE: Aye
Tuscany is facing perhaps its greatest crisis since the first (?) Anglo-Tuscan war many years ago. Native rebels and foreign armies have overrun most of our colonies, though the Armata d'Americana has struck a blow against British American colonies. Our Italian army was badly mauled and our maintenance was low.
The brilliant Francesco Allori was chosen as Prince of Tuscany due to his military and diplomatic prowess. Prince Ippolino Buontalenti from the prestigious Buontalenti dynasty was nearly chosen but he chose to lead the troops in Mexico after Signore Allori was elected.
The Armata di Napoli in Sundgau was nearly mauled by Burgundians but Allori quickly took command and decided to retreat to the nearby Armata d'Italia in Switzerland to prevent a total catastrophe. The Burgundians, afraid of attacking the dug-in Tuscans in the Alps, decided not to give chase. A small Milanese army and fleet were destroyed by the Armata d'Italia and Tuscan War Fleet. The Armata d'Italia then attempted to retake Genoa from Milanese control as Genoan soldiers attempted to take Milan for Tuscany.
Situation of the front on January 27
The Ottomans offered a white peace, which the prince quickly accepted. Tuscan diplomats also indicated that the Mamluks would not accept a white peace but would be willing to end hostilities if Tuscany admitted defeat.
With the Tuscany's colonies overrun and her armed forces stretched to the limit coping with Burgundy and Britain, the prince strongly recommends his fellow princes vote for the concession of defeat to the Mamluks.
-------------------------------------------------
So what do you guys say? I think it would be best to peace out with the Mamluks so we can focus on the Europeans.
PEACE VOTE: Aye/Nay/Abstain
PEACE VOTE: Aye
AYE
If they want to believe they could've done anything to us let them, but we all know who would win if we invaded there lands
If they want to believe they could've done anything to us let them, but we all know who would win if we invaded there lands
(PEACE: AYE)
The Russians got out during WWI but nobody remembers them as losing the war, as German still failed. Inversely, nobody will recall how Tuscany conceded defeat when we are victorious in the larger war.
The Russians got out during WWI but nobody remembers them as losing the war, as German still failed. Inversely, nobody will recall how Tuscany conceded defeat when we are victorious in the larger war.
Sure a lot of people got killed and stuff but they became a super power in the end, so I guess that was... a win?
A number of posts have disappeared in the upgrade as was expected. If people can recall their game relevant comments that would be helpful.
From what I recall there was a discussion on how the game should continue post unification. I hadn't made up my mind on this and was willing to let the idea mature more.
From what I recall there was a discussion on how the game should continue post unification. I hadn't made up my mind on this and was willing to let the idea mature more.
I saved my last post but nothing more. Here it is:
Hmm... I do see where you are coming from. I observed a silence on the issue for fear of creating a decline. However, that would be a good end note and a drive towards the end might create a more dynamic ending.
I'll write up a bit on this end condition though; we shouldn't vote for slider change but not game ending, it seems to have the priorities wrong.
Actually, it seems ye should have input on this as well and I'm currently going in circles. So here are some thoughts:
1) Do we want an end condition that is different than the standard time out?
1.1) Do we want a 'win' condition? (As in, should there be a possibility of failure when the game ends)
1.11) Do we want an individual win condition?
1.2) Should that end condition be something we have control of or just a closer time-stamp?
1.21) Perhaps a relative victory? (1st in pres., army size, income, and stability)
1.3) Do we want to play passed Italian unification?
For example, an answer to these would be:
1) Game should end when the republic is made a dictatorship or Monarchy.
1.1) The player reigning during this transformation wins if the country is Italy and we have most prestige, no infamy, +3 stability and most income.
1.11) If the player gets voted in as dictator or monarch, all those who voted for him get partial credit and are counted as non-defeated. If the player illegally switches to dictatorship or monarchy, a revolt occurs. In the event of a revolt, a jury of 5 is formed randomly from a list of players who voted in the last three elections, excluding the ruling player. If they condemn his action, he is removed from power and banished. He can no longer win or vote. If the uphold him, then the jury members who voted to uphold him win partially and are counted as undefeated.
1.2) Yes, we have control.
1.21) It is relative as a win is only fired when we have the requirements mentioned in 1.1.
1.3) Yes, Italian unification is needed for victory.
(Do this if you want to add your own observations)
2) Tabanese will not be permitted to win his own game and therefore is free to act as GM.
2.1) Votes on dictatorship are secretly cast but publicly revealed.
2.11) The GM will take votes from all players.
Hmm... I do see where you are coming from. I observed a silence on the issue for fear of creating a decline. However, that would be a good end note and a drive towards the end might create a more dynamic ending.
I'll write up a bit on this end condition though; we shouldn't vote for slider change but not game ending, it seems to have the priorities wrong.
Actually, it seems ye should have input on this as well and I'm currently going in circles. So here are some thoughts:
1) Do we want an end condition that is different than the standard time out?
1.1) Do we want a 'win' condition? (As in, should there be a possibility of failure when the game ends)
1.11) Do we want an individual win condition?
1.2) Should that end condition be something we have control of or just a closer time-stamp?
1.21) Perhaps a relative victory? (1st in pres., army size, income, and stability)
1.3) Do we want to play passed Italian unification?
For example, an answer to these would be:
1) Game should end when the republic is made a dictatorship or Monarchy.
1.1) The player reigning during this transformation wins if the country is Italy and we have most prestige, no infamy, +3 stability and most income.
1.11) If the player gets voted in as dictator or monarch, all those who voted for him get partial credit and are counted as non-defeated. If the player illegally switches to dictatorship or monarchy, a revolt occurs. In the event of a revolt, a jury of 5 is formed randomly from a list of players who voted in the last three elections, excluding the ruling player. If they condemn his action, he is removed from power and banished. He can no longer win or vote. If the uphold him, then the jury members who voted to uphold him win partially and are counted as undefeated.
1.2) Yes, we have control.
1.21) It is relative as a win is only fired when we have the requirements mentioned in 1.1.
1.3) Yes, Italian unification is needed for victory.
(Do this if you want to add your own observations)
2) Tabanese will not be permitted to win his own game and therefore is free to act as GM.
2.1) Votes on dictatorship are secretly cast but publicly revealed.
2.11) The GM will take votes from all players.
Do note: that win condition isn't perfect. For one, it prevents 1anrs, a regular contributor that doesn't stand for election, from having a win other than undefeated. I'd like if we could find cooperatively arrive at a fairer and more interesting solution. Keywords I think should be exciting and inclusive.
Also, what do people think of our shiny new forum?
Also, what do people think of our shiny new forum?
Now that we're back I will continue
Seems like most people are pro-limited peace so I'll only grab Treviso.
I don't think we should have an exact "win condition" but maybe we should end if there is a consensus. We are still vulnerable and haven't united Italy so we should keep going for now, though we need more people to run in elections.
Seems like most people are pro-limited peace so I'll only grab Treviso.
I don't think we should have an exact "win condition" but maybe we should end if there is a consensus. We are still vulnerable and haven't united Italy so we should keep going for now, though we need more people to run in elections.
Well, on the 'more people in elections' note; we will always have 'enough' people. If nobody is free to step up to the plate, then the game in a waiting mode until they do. Activity will come when people are free to be more active and if between now and then a single player or a small group want to play on, well that can hardly be seen as unfair. That's my perspective on the situation anyway.
Sorry, I don't really have the heart to finish the whole turn. I've taken way too long as it is.
Here is the save: https://www.mediafire.com/?bsmod5uagc3bnng
I made peace and took only Treviso (along with some cash and making Burgundy cancel their alliance with GB)
We are low in mp and our South American colonies are overrun but we are making great money.
Here is the save: https://www.mediafire.com/?bsmod5uagc3bnng
I made peace and took only Treviso (along with some cash and making Burgundy cancel their alliance with GB)
We are low in mp and our South American colonies are overrun but we are making great money.