Well I've not said so. Don't worry I give vonr a hell of a more credit than many, many other players out there.
Children of the Fatherland: MP conversion game
- Thread starter King of Men
- 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.
Well I've not said so. Don't worry I give vonr a hell of a more credit than many, many other players out there.
Come now. vR has a different estimate of how the war is going, and believes he can get better terms than the ones we offered by fighting on. He may be right or he may be wrong, but he did not rant, rave, or go into a tantrum. He stated calmly that he would prefer to fight rather than accept the terms; no drama or whining. Please let's keep accusations of kindergarten behaviour for occasions that actually merit it.
vR, do you have a counteroffer? I note in passing that our One-Fourth solution is not intended as a bargaining position from which we can be negotiated down; given the current correlation of forces, these are our real demands. But if there's any way to make the loss to you more palatable by moving concessions around, we might be willing to accept it.
I think the most interesting thing to know is the Fatimid and Croatian thoughts on all this. They can certainly have a direct impact if they disapprove.
Plus, do you guys really want to piss off VR too much before EUIII rolls around?? Maybe you are just brave men??
Well already before our official peaceoffer (before the war even) VR repeatedly stated how he is going to "annex all of us" which makes proposing a lenient peace problematic for our side.
I credit him for his honesty about his intentions, but with an attitude like that you certainly don´t push your opponents into thinking "hey keeping that massive gigablob around is surely the smart thing to do".
The current peace offer leaves him still as the most powerful nation in the region by far and as the second most powerful in europe meaning his vengeance plan to "annex all of us" is still well within the range of what´s possible.
Is it a too harsh offer ? Yes it is.
Is it a not harsh enough offer ? Yes, that too.
In defense of that statement: It's the ultimate goal of every one of us to "annex all of us". We're in this game to conquer the others, after all, not to remain friends, neighbours, allies or whatever forever.
Or, atleast that's my goal. I play to "win".
Or, atleast that's my goal. I play to "win".
Last edited:
hmm I was about to comment that Denmark doesn't get enough out of it..But then again..The 1/4'th solution removes Russia from the baltic. That might simplify things for Denmark in times to come..Finland wont be big enough to be a threat on its own, leaving Bavaria and Croatia as the only ones to challenge the Danish Fleet in the Baltic..If those 4 bavarian provinces on the eastern baltic had been Russian, Danish demands might have been somewhat different..
ohh, and of course vR, everybody should play to win!
ohh, and of course vR, everybody should play to win!
A small addition. Setting precedents - again - for peacedeals demanding one fourth of any opponent is a bad idea. Especially this early. I wish we'd not get into this again. Partly because I'm on the receiving end, partly because it will make small, low-risk wars impossible in the future. You know, the fun ones, like the Danish-Bavarian one over Hamburg.
I seem to recall a war not long ago where someone demanded a lot more than a fourth of someone else.
I don't believe in precedence though.
Sure, but issuing such threats specifically for the EU3 period is still different from pointing out that sometime during HOI it will be "on".
The latter is merely an observation, the former is an aggressive stance. Which is naturally okay to have in a game like this, but it will likely be countered by a similar stance on your opponents´ parts as is evident in this very war.
You feel the offer is inacceptable, but in the end it does not come down to whether the offer feels fair or not. In the end it comes down to whether we are able to enforce it or not.
Personally I honestly can´t predict whether we are able to enforce well... anything since enforcing a peace in CK means occupying everything and that is a huge task with Mordor.
But if you refuse any negotiations by not posting a counteroffer of your own and instead just comment "well have fun occupying me completely" you have to be aware that there is a certain risk we might actually succeed in that. And what would happen in that hypothetical case is probably not "nice".
Last edited:
Prior to the Two Emperors War, Persia had 269 basetax and Rome had 201. In the peace treaties that ended that war, Persia lost 46 basetax, about 17%, and Rome lost 28, or 14%. However, had the initial demands been enforced, Rome would have lost 57, which is more than one-fourth of 201; and Persia would have lost 84 (!), a whopping 31% and not too far off a One-Third Solution. So our demands are actually more moderate than what Russia and the Caliphate fought for in 1251, and which they backed down from only after being threatened with intervention by all of Europe. I won't even go into the maps Frosty posted as threats if we didn't agree to the initial demands. I don't think Egyptian fractions go up that high.
Edit: Actually the numbers above are too low; they are based on the map in post 1745, which was toned down from the initial demands. Looking at post 1626 I see Frosty was also demanding the Aegean islands from me, the TransCaspian border was drawn further south, and by dog I think there are a few extra provinces in Iraq as well. That certainly brings it well over one-third of Persia's base tax, and probably over 30% of Byzantium's.
Edit: Actually the numbers above are too low; they are based on the map in post 1745, which was toned down from the initial demands. Looking at post 1626 I see Frosty was also demanding the Aegean islands from me, the TransCaspian border was drawn further south, and by dog I think there are a few extra provinces in Iraq as well. That certainly brings it well over one-third of Persia's base tax, and probably over 30% of Byzantium's.
Last edited:
Note: I'm not defending the excessive demands Frosty made 40 years ago.
You do have to realize that Frosty presented his demands and you presented your demands in far different ways. Frosty presented his demands as an upper limit from which he expected to be bargained down from. You are presenting your demands as a bottom limit, which you will not lessen and you will merely increase them as you continue fighting.
Frosty started high, you started low, and your demands are about the same.
Frosty later claimed that his initial demands had been a bargaining position, from which he intended to be beaten down. Nothing about the initial posts indicated this. Rather he made blood-curdling threats to ensure the acceptance of his starting position.
Well yeah, it's called bluffing.
But even in our discussion forming the peace demands we were planning on it being a negotiations ceiling.
So then, what precisely was the difference in presentation, did you say? Kindly do not count the information you may have had at the time about Frosty's intentions; you were comparing the presentations, which are public knowledge. Point again to the difference, after admitting that Frosty did not in fact say "These are our maximum demands, we don't expect to get them." He said, and I quote,
Frosty said:
What can I say? He's an idiot who didn't present his demands as they had been discussed. Posting them right as the war started was his first flagrant mistake. His second mistake was never listening to me about toning down the demands. His third was leaving Croatia out of the peace deal...
Either that, or your presentations were the same; however, he posted his as soon as the war started. Any normal person would realize that those demands would be unattainable. You actually have a chance to get your demands if you carry the war on unmolested for 20 years. Your threats of never backing down are much more tangible than his.
Again, Frosty's demands were too much. Your demands are arguably too much. There is precedent for the demands, but not for actually taking that much. I'm not going to defend either one of you, simply because I think you're both wrong. But at the same time, you can't claim to be in the right just because someone else did something vaguely similar.
Last edited:
OrangeYoshi said:
Yes, by the threatened intervention of three Great Powers! If Frosty, Jakalo, you, and Fivoin all say you'll go to war rather than accept Russia being reduced like this, we're prepared to be flexible about them. But if the correlation of forces remains as it is, these are our demands. I note that Frosty has a NAP with me and Foels, that Fivoin and you have already tried intervention, and that Jakalo was the one who very kindly restrained Fivoin. Nothing is certain in diplomacy, but it looks good to me.
Last edited:
I was not speaking as OOC or in Personal level, So once again Apoligises to everyone who thougth so and got offended.
As a country level behavior, loosing a war and continue it beyond one's own need simply to get attention and hope others invention by that is IMO akin to Kindegarden tantrum's. I do recall my own "kindegarden days" for playing not so far away from this very campaing itself
What comes to big peace deals and huge demands...Well Its different to figth decicive and winning war against average country, when exessive peacedeals can effectively drop the nation into minor level and into unplayability.
But when figthing against the biggest nation of the roster (with considerable lead), the porpotions and precedents works on different ligth. If Vr is crying over dwingling into an average power, then Wyhyy, a Tear...I light a candle for its memory...
If one blobbes himself into monsterous porpotions, be prepared for monsterous porpotions in peace demands.
Von Runsteds said:
I think you should have played enough MP megacampaings that you know it just never works that way in game of early bloppings. Unless difficould arragments and pre-setted claims and demands, the next time this lot gets to figth in solitude, is in Eu3 when the paga-whacking starts...untill in vicky atleast that sort of wars again got their global ends.
West Rome at the start of it´s civil war...
...and at the end.
Strikes me as well over one third judging from the looks, although counting fractions wasn´t as popular back then.
I also recall a peace deal where Poland lost 1/1th of it´s realm if I may be so bold as to force it in a fraction, which it really isn´t.
This does not make our demands any better or any worse, it just defeats the argument that they are somehow setting a new precedent.