Stabhits are not force-peaces, dear victor. Apples and oranges.
Searching through the history is generally frowned upon, but you surely know this.
-
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.
Stabhits are not force-peaces, dear victor.Apples and oranges.[/ QUOTE]
ok lets say that you may stand correct there(debatable), however you definatelly have a double standard on this approach, that is very clear
man where you come with all this stuffyou JUST can not admit when you wrong lol
it is ONLY frowned upon due to diplomatic circumstances WHILE in game and someone saving, tabbing and looking in the save to see the PRIVATE talks between his enemies. for example, while at war with england i would tab to see when russia is due to join the war. now that would be a big "no no" game breaking even. i am sure you get the point.
however when session has ended is always used AS PROOF, when one has a player that does not believe someyhing. since matramol just did not believe me that i asked demands from england to end war the LOG is the only solid proof and will ALWAYS be
Apples and oranges Mats))
you can just simplly admit you wrong here, and not just in private to some of your friends
thanks.
Last edited:
geez lets stop with the comments, im still waiting on u guys to play! wanted to play 2hours before going to bed
there can always be new games starting, with a few players, and less dependable for everyone to show off, or dependable on playing in the forums and not in the eu2.
Wait what? I am wrong? Preposterous. I am never wrong.
More seriously, how did this come to be a matter of being right or wrong?? There is no problem.
Yes, yes. This is all very interesting, but the more important thing is what do we do now? I'm guessing Poland will not peace as long Spain and England is still at war so none of this really matters.
typical: first defend you point on a serious tone. then defend some more and expand arguments to some small details maybe you can CHANGE the topic and narrow it down to some small irrelevant argument that can be debated in itself as to avoid the MAIN issue that you were wrong about. then if that STILL does not work, say that it was an "inside joke" and your opponent does not have a sesne of hummour... but NEVER admit you are wrong...
and that coming from you, the one that made this a whole argument by defending tonioz in his actions
i guess i just can't EVER take you seriouslly can i?
Last edited:
Sorry for not saying anything about sub yesterday. Had to go out quickly and just came home in fact. As I had said previously, always feel free to play when the basic roster is filled as I cannot possibly be able to play everyday. And it wouldn't be fair to postpone the game because of just one player.
No stats?
No stats?
Nah, I don't think so, it was just the session yesterday that died.
I hope everyone agrees upon the interpretation of the rules ahead of today's session however, don't want to bring that sh*t there.
I'm aiming at 19 CET like usual...
well, i read beginning of post of victor, and enough to understand that is he pretty stubborn person, and he made more offends, so i give up.
The only one comment i made that is interesting thing that he believes that England should try to build the fleet from 15 galleys bigger than fleet of Spain and Poland, that already once sunk the fleet of England.
The funny thing that he believes he can teach me how to make tactic. Mats, Martmol, Chaingun, do you believe in that ?
As the conclusion victor found the problem where there is no problem, that was enough to properly (with pause to bring attention) notify me about force-peace conditions and then he started to produce really weird arguments and offends. That is very bad behaviour.
P.S. and do i understand correctly that poland wouldn`t peace without spain ? Then whole claims by victor are weird and idiotic to rise force-peace issue, if he didn`t use this option.
The only one comment i made that is interesting thing that he believes that England should try to build the fleet from 15 galleys bigger than fleet of Spain and Poland, that already once sunk the fleet of England.
The funny thing that he believes he can teach me how to make tactic. Mats, Martmol, Chaingun, do you believe in that ?
As the conclusion victor found the problem where there is no problem, that was enough to properly (with pause to bring attention) notify me about force-peace conditions and then he started to produce really weird arguments and offends. That is very bad behaviour.
P.S. and do i understand correctly that poland wouldn`t peace without spain ? Then whole claims by victor are weird and idiotic to rise force-peace issue, if he didn`t use this option.
this is one of the most arrogant posts i seen in a while coming from an "expert":rofl:
you obviouslly do not give up , or otherwise would not come with further insults. reading only the begining of posts makes one just THAT much more arrogant. at least do yourself a favour and do not claim that you read them, would really help. most of this things i explained already and i do n ot enjoy repeating myself unless i really have to .
in my books , your tactics are not bad overall in the field , i will be the first to say it, yet you definatelly lack any STRATEGY as it pretains for a long term game such eu2. tactics and strategy is not exactlly the same thing but they must go hand in hand together.
let me rephrase your main mistakes:
-falling for 1 full year to see that poland has had militarry access on england
-dowing spain with NO NAVy
-falling to check the status of polish navy
-falling to aknoladge the spanish/austrian/polish alliance and the possibility of austria/poland dowing you as a result of your aggression against spain
-keeping only 45 k home army in england MOSTLLY infantry(pure luck for you that teutons lifted my london siege by "fleeing", teutons were in my alliance with austria and could not ban due to vassal status)
- dowing spain when she got her best leaders
-your whole approach on playing england was short term as it comes out by looking at england as of now.
-NEVER talked ANYTHING about peace
it is OBVIOUS that you were hoping for a quick victory, probablly thinking AS WELL that you inflict fear on the opponent and he will give up in despair and colapse the PLAYER'S morale...i might be wrong but this is the only explanation that makes any sense ast he situation has been at that particular time when you dowed.
claiming that you failed to see warscore during 7+ years of war, is definatelly not something i have ever heard from any "expert". i am sure you know that yourself. but feel free and keep boosting your tactic skills in front of the other players and ask them for support instead, your choice.
-bad behaviour is when a player RFUSES to accept defeat and instead starts complaining.
i was made by you "moron" , "not having any brain",etc . now "idiotic". apparentlly your great tactics are giving you the right to offend or something. if you think such comments are pissing me off ( i do not see why else would you keep going on this arguments where we both know you are wrong) you are barking at the wrong tree)))
point is that your tried to win by playing on other peoples fear, and assuming that we will just give up or fear your lt 9 or something. or maybe your fame? not sure.
you obviouslly do not give up , or otherwise would not come with further insults. reading only the begining of posts makes one just THAT much more arrogant. at least do yourself a favour and do not claim that you read them, would really help. most of this things i explained already and i do n ot enjoy repeating myself unless i really have to .
a long term play for england must meet this demands. therfore you were aiming for 1 session game unless you considered that. nobody forced you to dow spain unprepared and you already have the best tech speed and economy in the world.so what was with the "hurry" "expert". probablly wanted to show your awsome tactics i guess
The funny thing that he believes he can teach me how to make tactic. Mats, Martmol, Chaingun, do you believe in that ?
in my books , your tactics are not bad overall in the field , i will be the first to say it, yet you definatelly lack any STRATEGY as it pretains for a long term game such eu2. tactics and strategy is not exactlly the same thing but they must go hand in hand together.
let me rephrase your main mistakes:
-falling for 1 full year to see that poland has had militarry access on england
-dowing spain with NO NAVy
-falling to check the status of polish navy
-falling to aknoladge the spanish/austrian/polish alliance and the possibility of austria/poland dowing you as a result of your aggression against spain
-keeping only 45 k home army in england MOSTLLY infantry(pure luck for you that teutons lifted my london siege by "fleeing", teutons were in my alliance with austria and could not ban due to vassal status)
- dowing spain when she got her best leaders
-your whole approach on playing england was short term as it comes out by looking at england as of now.
-NEVER talked ANYTHING about peace
it is OBVIOUS that you were hoping for a quick victory, probablly thinking AS WELL that you inflict fear on the opponent and he will give up in despair and colapse the PLAYER'S morale...i might be wrong but this is the only explanation that makes any sense ast he situation has been at that particular time when you dowed.
claiming that you failed to see warscore during 7+ years of war, is definatelly not something i have ever heard from any "expert". i am sure you know that yourself. but feel free and keep boosting your tactic skills in front of the other players and ask them for support instead, your choice.
-bad behaviour is when a player RFUSES to accept defeat and instead starts complaining.
i was made by you "moron" , "not having any brain",etc . now "idiotic". apparentlly your great tactics are giving you the right to offend or something. if you think such comments are pissing me off ( i do not see why else would you keep going on this arguments where we both know you are wrong) you are barking at the wrong tree)))
point is that your tried to win by playing on other peoples fear, and assuming that we will just give up or fear your lt 9 or something. or maybe your fame? not sure.
Last edited:
Knowing the conflict just happened, i couldn`t even imagine that poland has MA over England.
Sure, navy was sunk. That was choice
- to build army and accumulate money for army.
- to build both army and fleet. Then spend for fleet race about 10 years, and after all poland and spain can build more ships in their ports than England. Poland and Spain has more money than England. Besides in 1502 Spain gets shipyard. What is the sence to build ships to be sunk ?
Your problem that you consider other is idiot. I checked page 25 and enough information for me not to invest in lost solution.
-falling to aknoladge the spanish/austrian/polish alliance and the possibility of austria/poland dowing you as a result of your aggression against spain
I knew you are doing three sides alliance, and with LT9 you will dow England for sure. Like in previous sessions in this conditions i prefers to fight gangbang (i fought 1 vs 2) than doing "diplomacy". Diplomatic victory is boring for me, i play eu2 for fighting.
So i tryed to use my chances with LT9, despite Therion killed Norfolk. Anyway each year worked for your alliance.
Mats were not unable beginning of the session, but i talked Venice, and he dowed Spain.
I left 50K in England, half infantry, half cavalry. I couldn`t let bigger army to be there, as my total limit is 200K. Rest are for main fighting in France.
That was proper decision. Infantry let me retreat in fire phase without losses (while attition works for me), and assault forts without protection by your cav. What i miss is sneaky MA by Poland. When it was revoked, you immediatly leave the island. The goal was reached - island got protected without huge investments in doubtful naval race. You were lucky to have MA over previous player, and when you lose this luck, you left the island.
Pure cav would be killed against your good leader. Or i should put 100K in island, and leave only 100K in France.
All people who played with me, knows that i like challenge. And i dislike gangbangs hardly. Despite Spain had best leaders, it didn`t stop your gangbang.
When you all get LT9, the situation will be only worse. Now i killed el Gran, and if poland+austria force peace england, that is not big problem to crash spain alone now.
Or should i wait that 400K with el Gran and Frunds dow me by themselves ?
You are wrong once again. You attacked England by three countries previous session twice. It is typical for England-France. England got advantage with LT9. What England should wait ? While everyone rest get LT9 and Alba and Farnese ?
Lol, what should i talk against pure gangbang, that already banged England twice ? :rofl:
After i killed two great leaders, and Poland move east, if not force-peace, England recovers in this war, as assaulting occupied forts is easy. Anyway kicking Spanish butt if the force-peace happens, is most likely.
Your point is pretty arrogant of point who just left sandbox and thinks he knows everything and what he does is only proper thing.
tonioz DID raise a valid point regarding my demand to peace spain( wich is not in our alliance). this is not in rules and he is right i can not "demand" as the rules goes.
HOWEVER , i am expecting that an expert would realize that such claim is valid as it would affect his nation's further development. he COULD have accepted my demandinds of him, but if he would have stayed at war with spain , he should expect that the spanish player might not be a pushover and will stay at war at least for a while( since spain was NOT in bad position as well and england could not force peace on him at 99 ws at LEAST for a while). +25 ws for spain as well as last stast show.
so the point is that spanish -english war would have kept going long enough as for england to keep haing high rr until 5 years later when he would get dowed again by the austria-polish alliance since he did not meet the demands in the first place. it is true that russia could do the same thing in keeping me and sweeden at war but this would create a continuous war for everyone and would drive england into the grounD FIRST. as it stands right now england has the LOWEST income due to his rr... it becomes a vicious circle when A player chooses ONLY one option available in eu2.
the reason i pruposed A nappy was exactlly becouse the continuous war mode( i had a hunch of tonioz "taste" in eu2 since i seen his "skills" with regards to lithuania). i LOVE long wars myself but not when this is the ONLY objective for a LONG term play. wars are for a PURPOSE , otherwise we might play some rts game where one does not have to think, just fight and use engine exploits(written as much as unwritten)
HOWEVER , i am expecting that an expert would realize that such claim is valid as it would affect his nation's further development. he COULD have accepted my demandinds of him, but if he would have stayed at war with spain , he should expect that the spanish player might not be a pushover and will stay at war at least for a while( since spain was NOT in bad position as well and england could not force peace on him at 99 ws at LEAST for a while). +25 ws for spain as well as last stast show.
so the point is that spanish -english war would have kept going long enough as for england to keep haing high rr until 5 years later when he would get dowed again by the austria-polish alliance since he did not meet the demands in the first place. it is true that russia could do the same thing in keeping me and sweeden at war but this would create a continuous war for everyone and would drive england into the grounD FIRST. as it stands right now england has the LOWEST income due to his rr... it becomes a vicious circle when A player chooses ONLY one option available in eu2.
the reason i pruposed A nappy was exactlly becouse the continuous war mode( i had a hunch of tonioz "taste" in eu2 since i seen his "skills" with regards to lithuania). i LOVE long wars myself but not when this is the ONLY objective for a LONG term play. wars are for a PURPOSE , otherwise we might play some rts game where one does not have to think, just fight and use engine exploits(written as much as unwritten)
Last edited:
btw could i have some edits? my sub 2 days ago made some really big slider mistakes...
why???the previous sub did make the venice possible. and his slider movments were ACCORDINGLLY. but once he would have reached a certain size he would change them in a diffrent manner as situation would requier. for example high aristicracy is a must for him to get where you are(ai wars) and diploannex.
no pun intended, what i mean that ThIS venice might have not been possible otherwise. it is up to you to change now sliders as DESIRED and as game engine allows everyone to do so.
well he went 2 to land. im just asking the GM and you dont have to get mad. jeesh
this is the only thing in your explanation that makes sense. indeed you right.
HOWEVER AGAIN you missing the long vision:
first of all england did not get sieged only becouse teutons 1k made my armies flee( this was my mistake i agree, to have them in my alliance)
secondlly and MOST important. in the end you DID end up raising 60k cavalery in england wich remained STRANDED for the whole war duration and restricted your income levels.
so you ended up doing EXACTLLY what you needed do in first place
as i been saying before. if you look carefully london can host 50k ENEMY troops at NO ATTRITION costs regardless of ma or not. and nothing could stop me from resupllying them etc. i just simplly lost interest in england since your troops were defeated in france, and a quick defeat against a REALISTIC player was withinsight. you had NO MAPS at that time, so the interest in england was for warscore ONLY...probablly less the flander would offer. you basically gave me +5 ws in the fight for england wich definatelly plays in my favour and NOT yours
intreasting that i am thinking the exact same thing about you. just becouse you KNOW the tactics does not make you an "expert" , not in eu2 at least, as it has been developed to be played as a strategy game and NOT an "rts"... to be honest, in no way i expected you make such mistakes as you did, maybe you read too much "faq" and remained stuck on the militarry part... or maybe you assume that you dealing with "noobs". yet, once you get some modest chalange at least( i do not consder myself an expert) and loose, you start insulting your opponent.
funny that i hear you dislike nappy....this is quiet odd for someone as famous as you in tactics...oh wait, nappy is not risky and fights requier a lot of effort to get them right and lets not forget PATIENCE...i guess that is why?
i formulated my opinion that YOU assume that everyone IS ( or SHOULD) play ONLY by faq rules as independent of the whole picture....
Last edited: