Give vR some credit. He isn't Falador.
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.
Give vR some credit. He isn't Falador.
Hurray, so is the game once again going on into a kindergarten show where the lost party can rave in his tantrum and hope for others to rescue it?
If you just want me to fight on, why make the offer in the first place? Just to appear benevolent?
Well, here you go. I'll not accept these terms.
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.Plus, do you guys really want to piss off VR too much before EUIII rolls around??
Is it a too harsh offer ? Yes it is.
Is it a not harsh enough offer ? Yes, that too.
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.
Sure, but issuing such threats specifically for the EU3 period is still different from pointing out that sometime during HOI it will be "on".We're in this game to conquer the others, after all, not to remain friends, neighbours, allies or whatever forever.
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.
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.
Frosty said:Should however the OA prove themselves resistant and belligerent to the point of continuing this war beyond gentlemanly seasons of campaign and attempting drag the respective realms into destruction when the war is obviously lost our demands will harden. Such behavior is indicative of the future inability to coexist peacefully and will result in the breaking up of the OA realms into more manageable and peaceful entities by the creation of the AI kingdoms of Azerbaijan and Rum, that the OA may war upon them in their own time and not trouble us.
Should the war drag on even further and cause much strain and destruction upon the AP we will join Azerbaijan and Rum together and put Ike as king under our protection.
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,
OrangeYoshi said:Frosty was bargained down from his demands.
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.
Von Runsteds said: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.
West Rome at the start of it´s civil war...There is precedent for the demands, but not for actually taking that much.