Children of the Fatherland: MP conversion game

[Foelsgaard]

My main point is that while in CK you are not wrecking the nation, merely being annoying by treating the AI like that. No one in the EU3 community would ever treat an AI'd nation like that. If this kind of treatment of an AI nation is continued into the EU3 phase, the nation will be broken and would need major edits just to become playable again.

See, this is where we really need to distinguish between the games.

CK: Occupation doesn't really do anything.
EU3: Occupation destroys you.

So don't do that in EU3!

EDIT: Aaaaaand we've reached the point where this discussion is off topic! Continue in the ederon forums guys!

 

[FrozenWall]

In EU3..

Your argument would have been valid, this is however ck and the AI will annex my vassls land if I stay on the defensive.

Retaking your own land is one thing. That is fine. Occupying his entire nation is another.

But it refused peace! How the devil will I protect my coasts if it refuses peace even after I have occupied it entirely?

You had some border skirmishes you could easily win.

Hundreds of thousands of Imperial troops landed on my beaches!

Unless his troops somehow regain manpower while occupied

They do.

 

[King of Men]

My main point is that while in CK you are not wrecking the nation, merely being annoying by treating the AI like that. No one in the EU3 community would ever treat an AI'd nation like that. If this kind of treatment of an AI nation is continued into the EU3 phase, the nation will be broken and would need major edits just to become playable again.

In EU3 the AI would have peaced out if it got its ass handed to it in this fashion; and wouldn't have had the ability to mess up Frosty's realm-internal arrangements with the Fatimid Counts. Allowing the AI to annex is not an acceptable solution; the dynasty does actually matter, remember. It seems to me that both Frosty and the HRE are victims of a piece of plain AI stupidity, perhaps even buggedness; and Frosty has done what he could do mitigate it. It is the AI and not Frosty that is being annoying. Let it go, please.

somehow regain manpower while occupied

In fact I think they do.

Edit: Whoa, triple cross-post! At any rate, Foels is right. Please continue this, if you must, in the Ederon forum where we have a dedicated thread for it. No need to let the peanuts see the epic-scale bickering that lies behind our glorious wars and noble causes!

 

[unmerged(31994)]

Dedicated to Persia and Egypt: Shiite hip hip!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vk-3hQnnlCY

From your loyal Muslim peanuts!

 

[fasquardon]

Excomms? I'm Muslim! I eat Popes for dinner!

Treaty of Cyrene is still in force though.

fasquardon

 

[FrozenWall]

Treaty of Cyrene is still in force though.

Hm? Could you link to this arcaic text?

*edit

I suppose you refer to the agreement of Morocco for me not taking continental Italian land from Naples? Voided the second Imperial troops set foot in Sicily.

 

[fasquardon]

Nobody has complained of any breach of treaty; consequently no excomms have been imposed. Do you know of a treaty that Frosty has broken?

I'd assumed that Frosty would be doing a better job of keeping track of the treaties he'd signed... The Treaty of Cyrene is still in force. The main clause that would cause Frosty problems is the non-interference in continental Europe clause, which he's broken in a major way at least twice now.

http://forums.ederon.net/default.aspx?g=posts&t=2085

The Treaty of Cyrene

Recognising the needs of the peoples of Roman Mauretania to be governed according to their own laws and traditions, and also recognising the just reputation of Ala'i Fatimid, known in his own lands as the righteous Caliph and in all lands the ferocious slayer of Greeks, the Augustus Friedrich de Toulouse hereby accepts Ala'i Fatimid as his vassal, and grants him the fief of Mauretania as a kingdom. This kingdom to be passed on to his sons, and they to their own sons in the hereditary manner, so long as Ala'i Fatimid and his blood honour their feudal obligations to administer with justice all peoples of the book dwelling in the lands of Mauretania, to defend the weak, render hospitality when his liege travels to Mauretania, to aid his liege in time of war, and provide council. In view of Ala'i Fatimid's duties as Caliph and protector of the Saracen holy sites, the obligation of aid shall only apply to wars West of Cyrene. In view of Ala'i Fatimid's duel status as vassal king of Mauretania and sovereign Caliph, and with the aim of avoiding conflict between the duties of these offices, the Caliph Ala'i Fatimid and his descendants shall swear to not interfere with the affairs of the Emperors of Rome in Europa, though the king of Mauretania may, should his liege - the Emperor of Rome - invite him. To this both parties swear and charge their descendants to swear, on their immortal souls and on their love of the Lord God, and attest that any who breach this oath is a contemptible cur not worthy of the de Toulouse or Fatimid name who should be thrown out on the street to starve like a dog.

Signed on behalf of Augustus Friedrich I de Toulouse

Translation:

- Egyptian noninterference in continental Europe

- Egyptian military support in the west

- from German Gascony [ARMA] the vassal [c844] to Caliphate [FATI]

- from German Aragon [ZARA] the titles [c840, c843] and vassals [c845, c846] to Caliphate [FATI]

- from Germany [GERM] the vassals [TANG, c848, c834, c835] to Caliphate [FATI]

- unemployment subsidies to Imperial bureaucrats of Africa paid by Caliph Ala'i (-250 gold to id = 328011)

fasquardon

 

[fasquardon]

I suppose you refer to the agreement of Morocco for me not taking continental Italian land from Naples? Voided the second Imperial troops set foot in Sicily.

Hm, I don't remember any agreement like that between us. As you can see, the Treaty of Cyrene is quite a bit broader in scope. And is not voided by West Rome invading Sicily, or otherwise intervening in Egyptian affairs.

fasquardon

 

[FrozenWall]

Hm, I don't remember any agreement like that between us. As you can see, the Treaty of Cyrene is quite a bit broader in scope.

I was quoting from a PM, being to lazy to fing the treaty itself.

Also in the treaty thread: "I have not joined any power block, nor signed an agreement to last until the days of HOI III, I have bought some land and peace for an equivalent commitment of troops (the specifics of which are a state secret) and not taking Naples for myself."

And is not voided by West Rome invading Sicily, or otherwise intervening in Egyptian affairs.

That is an interesting legal theory.

 

[fasquardon]

I was quoting from a PM, being to lazy to fing the treaty itself.

Also in the treaty thread: "I have not joined any power block, nor signed an agreement to last until the days of HOI III, I have bought some land and peace for an equivalent commitment of troops (the specifics of which are a state secret) and not taking Naples for myself."

I can see how that might be relevant if I were claiming that the treaty obliges you to be an ally of Rome when there are nukes flying. But I'm not. I'm just pointing out that you signed a treaty that imposes nasty consiquences if you do things in continental Europe during CK without West Roman permission.

That is an interesting legal theory.

Given all you've said to me about your moral approach to diplomacy, if you start any semantic weaseling, I'm gonna be really disappointed... It's not like the treaty can even hurt you at this point, given that you've already fought and won your wars with West Rome.

In any case, it does answer my question about how the Caliphate was able to perform so well militarily, given the treaty limits placed upon it.

fasquardon

 

[FrozenWall]

Given all you've said to me about your moral approach to diplomacy, if you start any semantic weaseling, I'm gonna be really disappointed... It's not like the treaty can even hurt you at this point, given that you've already fought and won your wars with West Rome.

I am a Swedish law student, my approach is based on western legal principle founded on historical moral philosophy. And by any legal theory a contract is voided if your counterpart burns down your house.

Partaking in a gangbang that took 40% of my basetax of me is not semantics. The trouble here is that the treaty was based on a relation and certain understandings and agreements between us that changed when Jakalo took over. He was not intent on continuing understandings, and so neither did I.

In any case, it does answer my question about how the Caliphate was able to perform so well militarily, given the treaty limits placed upon it.

?

 

[OrangeYoshi]

The trouble here is that the treaty was based on a relation and certain understandings and agreements between us that changed when Jakalo took over. He was not intent on continuing understandings, and so neither did I.

Which is why I've also thrown out the GM decision that you make treaties with nations instead of players.

No you don't. You make them with players.

 

[fasquardon]

I am a Swedish law student, my approach is based on western legal principle founded on historical moral philosophy. And by any legal theory a contract is voided if your counterpart burns down your house.

The moral principal is a good one. But treaties in this game are not part of Swedish law. They are regulated by the game rules, their own text, and the GM's rulings.

Partaking in a gangbang that took 40% of my basetax of me is not semantics. The trouble here is that the treaty was based on a relation and certain understandings and agreements between us that changed when Jakalo took over. He was not intent on continuing understandings, and so neither did I.

And what you're doing isn't semantics, it's worse. You are taking your law (which I am not familiar with, and nor are most of your fellow players) and imposing it on the people you're playing with. How can I judge the worth of your word if you take a hidden rule set external to the game, which you don't explain to me at the time I sign treaties with you, and use it to try to get out of the consequences of the treaties you sign?

Further, while Jakalo playing West Rome may have changed the understandings between Rome and the Caliphate, the treaty does not mention any of these understandings, so their existence and possible change is irrelevant. (I suspect the change of players changed things less than you think. At the time I left, the nature of Caliphate diplomacy had made me think you were not a faithful friend and in fact the treaty of Cyrene was specifically written to hamstring you in the event of a backstab.)

If I had been in your place, either when Jakalo took over West Rome, or when he participated in the gangbang against Egypt, I would have tried to negotiate a termination of the Treaty of Cyrene. If I had been unable to, I would have bided my time, and attacked him at a point when I was confident I could win while also taking the excom. I would not be using external legal systems to argue that the treaty was invalid, though I might draw upon Scotish law to argue why the treaty was nasty. But something being nasty doesn't make it invalid.

In any case, it does answer my question about how the Caliphate was able to perform so well militarily, given the treaty limits placed upon it.

?

You forgot the limits were there, and so did not suffer them.

fasquardon

 

[OrangeYoshi]

If I had been unable to, I would have bided my time, and attacked him at a point when I was confident I could win while also taking the excom.

Now I don't agree with Frosty, but this makes you just as bad as him.

"A treaty is only a treaty until I don't want it anymore."

 

[Gollevainen]

Which is why I've also thrown out the GM decision that you make treaties with nations instead of players.

No you don't. You make them with players

I think treaties are made with Nation. Thats accordingly who we used to play in TWBW and How I've played here. Like for example, when the Dôn rose into the Danish throne, I automatically assumed and stated that all the treaties Denmark had, would still remain valid, despite how poorly I would regard some of the players involved

 

[fasquardon]

Now I don't agree with Frosty, but this makes you just as bad as him.

"A treaty is only a treaty until I don't want it anymore."

No. It my take would read:

"A treaty is a treaty, unless you abuse me so much that I am forced to break my word."

Breaking your word and backstabbing is a part of multiplayer. It is dishonourable, and there should be consiquences, but I think people should nonetheless be free to be dishonourable, and to suffer those consiquences if they think the benefits of breaking their words outweigh the costs of being an oathbreaker.

Personally I wouldn't break a treaty by choice unless it was a matter of life-and-death. A good reputation is worth far more than provinces or riches.

fasquardon

 

[OrangeYoshi]

I think treaties are made with Nation. Thats accordingly who we used to play in TWBW and How I've played here. Like for example, when the Dôn rose into the Danish throne, I automatically assumed and stated that all the treaties Denmark had, would still remain valid, despite how poorly I would regard some of the players involved

That's fine and you can play how you want to, but don't expect everyone to do the same.

When another player begins perming a nation, I reset all diplomatic ties. That includes treaties, past histories, everything. Deals I had with vR are gone now. Deals I had with Jakalo are gone. Deals I had with Michael are gone. Me and the new perm can restart diplomatic relations, but don't expect that the old treaties will automatically be upheld.

This is why I didn't steal vassals off of Italy while it was collapsing. We have a NAP and a DA. I will not break that. However, now that he's gone, all deals I made go with him.

 

[Sid Meier]

Clearly this must go to the Hague for arbitration.

 

[oddman]

"A treaty is a treaty, unless you abuse me so much that I am forced to break my word."

Breaking your word and backstabbing is a part of multiplayer. It is dishonourable, and there should be consiquences, but I think people should nonetheless be free to be dishonourable, and to suffer those consiquences if they think the benefits of breaking their words outweigh the costs of being an oathbreaker.

Personally I wouldn't break a treaty by choice unless it was a matter of life-and-death. A good reputation is worth far more than provinces or riches.

fasquardon

+1.

This man speaks truth; also, he represents my take on the matter.

 

[fasquardon]

When another player begins perming a nation, I reset all diplomatic ties. That includes treaties, past histories, everything. Deals I had with vR are gone now. Deals I had with Jakalo are gone. Deals I had with Michael are gone. Me and the new perm can restart diplomatic relations, but don't expect that the old treaties will automatically be upheld.

I thought KoM had made a ruling that treaties were with the country, unless otherwise stated?

fasquardon