I would have had if these backstabbers would have spoken with me.
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.
I would have had if these backstabbers would have spoken with me.
I did offer him quite attractive deals just prior to the session... Ike refused, knowing (perhaps even better than I ) that what was going to happen if he would let the thing escalate into war between france and Denmark.
Maybe you could have found a patron elsewhere? Or, when Denmark started to sign NAPs with everyone else, you could have offered Cornwall immediately in return for protection?
that was actually the deal I offered him, even when the war started and was still 1 on 1 I was willing to help Ike if he would immediately surrender. But I cannot make diplomacy in behalf of the both belligrents can I ?
Cornwall was not an option to give away without a fight. A fight that could have ended in a stalemate if it wouldn't have been for the treacherous Arabs. If i cant trust my neighbours i wouldn't have had any one else to turn to. Russia has its own problems. Croatia is frigthened by Byzantium. And there rest of the muslim nations wouldn't have lifted a finger for a nation on the other side of the map.
A deal that wouldn't have prevent this from happening. That hyena would still have attacked and Bavaria would have joined him to prevent him from getting it all. You said that in 20 years, in twenty years! I don't have the luxury to wait 20 years. If i would have given Cornwall to you we would be in the same position. The deal wouldn't have prevented this from happening. I even told you that i was pretty sure that they were going to attack me which I said i need Cornwall for.
thats severe understatement for someone's diplomatic skills, expecially someone's who has conquered more provinces with MSN than many in actuall game-play wars
thats severe understatement for someone's diplomatic skills, expecially someone's who has conquered more provinces with MSN than many in actuall game-play wars
You mean that you have been given them out of pity? =D
Well in that case there was absolutely nothing you could do and your loss was a direct consequence of France's inability to expand earlier.
har har.
But as to add one more nail to this great hindsigth galore, Wonder who much the Blayne's persian adventure played part in these events? if France would have then focused on issues that rationale human player would have, we migth see completely different european map alltogether... But noooooo..."I must zend mine army to the farest corner of the map while I pretend to sub france and coverly still sub russia in exile!!"
aur revoir...
I for one am not to terribly happy about France getting annexed just like that, and without prior warning. Granted by old friend and allies, so I'm not to terribly worried by it, but still.
As for Ike's diplomacy; he could have asked me for protection before this session, indeed had he promised to convert I would have been forced to do so. He could have convinced Golle Bavaria needed to be partitioned, and offered Cornwall as a price to be paid after victory in Germany. He could have asked for pacts with Russia and Croatia. The point is he did nothing, and he should have seen it coming. A warning to us all.
That said I don't think lacking diplomatic ability counts as a valid CB for annexing all of France. Perchance the aggressors would out of the goodness of their hearts wish to create a buffer between them?
As for Ike's diplomacy; he could have asked me for protection before this session, indeed had he promised to convert I would have been forced to do so. He could have convinced Golle Bavaria needed to be partitioned, and offered Cornwall as a price to be paid after victory in Germany. He could have asked for pacts with Russia and Croatia. The point is he did nothing, and he should have seen it coming. A warning to us all.
Frosty said:
That said I don't think lacking diplomatic ability counts as a valid CB for annexing all of France. Perchance the aggressors would out of the goodness of their hearts wish to create a buffer between them?
You are entitled to your opinion; Al-Andalus respects it and deplores your feeling of betrayal. Al-Andalus, however, felt it would be better if defenseless Loire would at least not entirely be swallowed by its local peers, Denmark and Bavaria. I think you will agree with me that the way things are now is preferable to having Bavaria eat it all, right?
I don't quite see how this would make me a backstabber - I did not violate any treaty. I pretty much stabbed you from the front, but that will still kill you.
Thing is, Al-Andalus always prefers the peaceful solution. However, the strategic circumstances were simply of such a nature that continued Loirean survival was unlikely, and we had to act to safeguard our own long-term survivability. Being hemmed in by Bavaria (who has NAPs and DAs with its other neighbours!) is no picnic.
Ostensibly, he did not. Hence, the analysis that his strategic situation was hopeless.
Let it be known that it does not please me to have attacked Ike; my enmity is in no way personal, simply a necessity of circumstances. In fact, I am still grateful to Ike for his subbing of Al-Andalus.
You can lie to yourself and your minions. You can claim that you haven't a qualm. But you never can run from, nor hide what you've done from the eyes. The very eyes of Crom.
Well Denmark had never inclined any ambitions to annex france. I think our Conquest CB were so obvious to everyone to the point of making mockery out of my misery when it first appeared that Ike couldn't join in for the session.
As for Bavaria, I think it was also rather evident that Denmark and Bavaria where allied and one could assume that allied nations share the same perspective for grand strategical goals.
So I think jumping to the conclusion that Al-Andalus "must" eat all of france at once is bit...well jumping into conclusions
One could argue that Al-andalus had planned their move all along, and used my war as just as excuse to achieve it?Because I must wonder why would annexation + all the human BB it gives to be anywere preferable solution than either 1) A joint agreement between france's other neighbours how to "protect" the french people and the strategical situation or 2) Retaining Cornwall-less Loire as harmless puppet nation between the western great powers.
Unless the plan was alltogether annex france and everything else is and was just teather?
Or the whole thing was just rush to action without carefull thinking from rather new comer nation to the great politics and thus all the damage was unfortunate accident and repearable in future diplomatic manouvres??
(hint, hint
)
Last edited:
Unless the plan was alltogether annex france and everything else is and was just teather?
Or the whole thing was just rush to action without carefull thinking from rather new comer nation to the great politics and thus all the damage was unfortunate accident and repearable in future diplomatic manouvres??
(hint, hint
The only diplomacy Ireland will do with Andalus is with steel and fire.
Al-Andalus guarantees the Imperial Fatimid Caliphate that the percentage of Europe in favour of Caliphate policy has increased considerably last session.
I'm going so far as to say that, strictly speaking, this is true. With a decent king, Ireland can field upward of 100k men (maybe even more). With tactical skill, ambition and careful diplomacy this is not a trivial force.
If you can pull a miracle and display those three qualities, you should be able to make a comeback.
Nor do I intend to. Al-Andalusi, and that includes French, people are free to worship whatever gods they please, even the ones who do not care they are being prayed to.
Well Denmark had never inclined any ambitions to annex france. I think our Conquest CB were so obvious to everyone to the point of making mockery out of my misery when it first appeared that Ike couldn't join in for the session.
As for Bavaria, I think it was also rather evident that Denmark and Bavaria where allied and one could assume that allied nations share the same perspective for grand strategical goals.
So I think jumping to the conclusion that Al-Andalus "must" eat all of france at once is bit...well jumping into conclusions
Because I must wonder why would annexation + all the human BB it gives to be anywere preferable solution than either 1) A joint agreement between france's other neighbours how to "protect" the french people and the strategical situation or 2) Retaining Cornwall-less Loire as harmless puppet nation between the western great powers.
Unless the plan was alltogether annex france and everything else is and was just teather?
Or the whole thing was just rush to action without carefull thinking from rather new comer nation to the great politics and thus all the damage was unfortunate accident and repearable in future diplomatic manouvres??
(hint, hint
I see your 'rah, Andalusi aggression' and I raise you the following:
* It was not Al-Andalus who struck the first blow.
* It was not Al-Andalus who was first to get DA's with all of Western Europe. Indeed, I think I was just in time in doing so.
* Bavaria and Denmark, instead of coming to Loire's aid and declaiming Al-Andalus, stepped up their conquests when Al-Andalus intervened.
Carillon was stable, and would have functioned as a useful buffer state. A disintegrating, unwisely sides-switching, diplomatically erratic Ike is a liability, no matter how much Oddman personally appreciates Ike's presence.
Al-Andalus is willing to entertain alternatives, but is obviously not so unhappy with the current situation, and obviously declines to honour of being labeled sole aggressor. Any discussions would have to include Denmark and Bavaria.
Well, I did say to everyone (whom I had NAP and DA with) that I want 1 on 1 war against Loire over Cornwal, for to prevent what eventually happened.
Well It would have been most akward of Denmark to figth Loire in the isles and at same time figth for loire in the continetal (thougth It sounds something worth of trying sometime in future in some other conflict just for the lulz sake
)Denmark is not on path for demonising Al-Andalus and its reputation without giving Al-Andalus change and opportunity to defend itself. The relationships between the great western nations are from our perspective so good that they allow bit of danish inqvisition to provocate straigth actions and answers, don't you think?
This is indeed good proposal and the great western Nations should hold conference over the france situation.
Denmark is not on path for demonising Al-Andalus and its reputation without giving Al-Andalus change and opportunity to defend itself. The relationships between the great western nations are from our perspective so good that they allow bit of danish inqvisition to provocate straigth actions and answers, don't you think?
Quite right
Excellent proposals all around. Hear hear!