bad England quitted, their rebuilt fleet would be on time 
Or at least Russia at this side to balance
Or at least Russia at this side to balance
-
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, Deil losed Nappy at first battle vs Blucher and Davout died in Franche Conte because of lag
So after all it was easier to fight same leader as Blucher (-1 fire, +1 shock)
So after all it was easier to fight same leader as Blucher (-1 fire, +1 shock)
Daniel, i think you did mistake not sending your meat to France. So Prussia hordes ended French MP after all and kicked him out of the game.
Tonioz said:
Indeed, though he did manage to do quite some damage in Italy. Main victory for him there was the killing of Duke Karl; I regret I sent him that far south without reinforcing supporting infantry.
Also, it should be noted we're lucky we got a restart.
I screwed up pretty badly at first assault attempt at the maximum fortress in Serbia.
hmm, I thought Daniel's aar said England had lost Sjaelland to Sweden, why then is it red?
interesting war though, good to see Nelson himself being beaten up badly
interesting war though, good to see Nelson himself being beaten up badly
Avernite said:hmm, I thought Daniel's aar said England had lost Sjaelland to Sweden, why then is it red?
interesting war though, good to see Nelson himself being beaten up badly
It will be edited to Sweden because OE forgot to demand it in peace deal.
A few observations.
1. The bad quit
When we started this campaign I almost quit it before it started. It was one certain player (whose name I gave to the GM van Engel) I had in mind, I knew from experience he could not be trusted, he might well quit before the end had been reached. You can read e.g. posts 11 and 37 in this thread. I was finally persuaded by the insertion of a special quit rule and by Engel asking me to please stay.
Well, what happened this session? When that player was crushed in a war (although he lost very little territory in the peace) he quit. This is pathetic, not to be able to take as a man that you lose a war and or the campaign.
2. The question of Russia.
The Ottoman empire have had great relations with Russia thorugh all the game. We have aided them and given them territory. This session we again got on very good terms and it was decided that they would join our side. For some reason - perhaps the GM intervened? - they first said they would wait one year to enter the war and then when that year had passed I forgot to ask them. It is a problem for our game that we have no perm in Russia.
But it would be very bad if the current war was decided by chance, by whoever persuades the sub for Russia in the last session to join his side. It would be sad to end our campaign like that.
As it is PRU and AUS (the Axis) made a diplomatic blunder when they DOWed me and SWE before having secured the position of the French. France is, by decision of their perm, and has been for some time in a semi-alliance with OE although that was not known to the Axis. If you lose the war because of this it is a fitting end. But you have now been able to push them out of the war so the situation is now as you expected from start, it is PRU+AUS vs OE+SWE. Thus to bring in Russia at this point is a rather incredible suggestion. Prussian MP (as well as OE MP) is untouched by the first years of war and thus the Prussian war effort in the West has not diminished their fighting ability. AUS and SWE are not that important in the MP math - but are of course extremely important as players. Face it, it is 2 vs 2 as you wanted right now. And you have been tricked by OE-FR-SWE diplomacy but you succeeded in kicking FRA out of the war. These are the facts. Thus the conclusion must be that Russia is AIed the last session - although OE if anyone should be able to count on their support because of our friendship through all the game.
3. The problem of the empty England
ENG is another problem. We have no formal vassal rule in our game, thus they are technically allowed to break the vassalage when truce ends (which already happened I believe). But to take in a new player who may chose to join any of the 3 possible alliances is as chancy as for Russia.
And the core of the matter is this with the quits, this that I tried to emphasize at the start of the campaign. It is so important to keep all perms in the game from start to end. That gives the possibility of playing a longterm diplomatic game which is so fun and rewarding. When these quits occur it becomes more like a 1-session Nappy... which is a nice game but not the one that you sign on to when you promise to play some 10-15 sessions of consecutive playing in one campaign.
1. The bad quit
When we started this campaign I almost quit it before it started. It was one certain player (whose name I gave to the GM van Engel) I had in mind, I knew from experience he could not be trusted, he might well quit before the end had been reached. You can read e.g. posts 11 and 37 in this thread. I was finally persuaded by the insertion of a special quit rule and by Engel asking me to please stay.
Well, what happened this session? When that player was crushed in a war (although he lost very little territory in the peace) he quit. This is pathetic, not to be able to take as a man that you lose a war and or the campaign.
2. The question of Russia.
The Ottoman empire have had great relations with Russia thorugh all the game. We have aided them and given them territory. This session we again got on very good terms and it was decided that they would join our side. For some reason - perhaps the GM intervened? - they first said they would wait one year to enter the war and then when that year had passed I forgot to ask them. It is a problem for our game that we have no perm in Russia.
But it would be very bad if the current war was decided by chance, by whoever persuades the sub for Russia in the last session to join his side. It would be sad to end our campaign like that.
As it is PRU and AUS (the Axis) made a diplomatic blunder when they DOWed me and SWE before having secured the position of the French. France is, by decision of their perm, and has been for some time in a semi-alliance with OE although that was not known to the Axis. If you lose the war because of this it is a fitting end. But you have now been able to push them out of the war so the situation is now as you expected from start, it is PRU+AUS vs OE+SWE. Thus to bring in Russia at this point is a rather incredible suggestion. Prussian MP (as well as OE MP) is untouched by the first years of war and thus the Prussian war effort in the West has not diminished their fighting ability. AUS and SWE are not that important in the MP math - but are of course extremely important as players. Face it, it is 2 vs 2 as you wanted right now. And you have been tricked by OE-FR-SWE diplomacy but you succeeded in kicking FRA out of the war. These are the facts. Thus the conclusion must be that Russia is AIed the last session - although OE if anyone should be able to count on their support because of our friendship through all the game.
3. The problem of the empty England
ENG is another problem. We have no formal vassal rule in our game, thus they are technically allowed to break the vassalage when truce ends (which already happened I believe). But to take in a new player who may chose to join any of the 3 possible alliances is as chancy as for Russia.
And the core of the matter is this with the quits, this that I tried to emphasize at the start of the campaign. It is so important to keep all perms in the game from start to end. That gives the possibility of playing a longterm diplomatic game which is so fun and rewarding. When these quits occur it becomes more like a 1-session Nappy... which is a nice game but not the one that you sign on to when you promise to play some 10-15 sessions of consecutive playing in one campaign.
Chaingun said:It will be edited to Sweden because OE forgot to demand it in peace deal.
Well I never tried to ask for it because I believed that would mean more than 100%. To ask for vassalisation costs 70%. But perhaps I was wrong.
Tonioz said:
I admit. But he is not out of "the game" only out of the current war vs you. As you can see in my AAR I fully expect him to slaughter the Iberians and then later on join us in the next war between SWE+OE and the evil axis. I am sure you will want such a 2nd war after you have been smashed in this current war
I only ask for one thing and that is that we have peace the last year, 1819, in the campaign. I believe it would be nice to get time to sort out some domestic affairs.
Daniel A said:
nah, it's true that you can't ask vassalisation if you have less than 70% WS remaining. I forgot
Avernite, good to hear from you. I suppose you are proud of your Sweden that now got its revenge on the evil Englishmen and have decided to join forces with the moral majority of the Ottoman Empire...
I really should not have played last night. My mouseless laptop was really too much of a disadvantage, and I quit because I assumed the game was over, instead of having one more session left, although I perhaps should have stayed on to the end of last night. The circumstances of me leaving were exceptional, it was certainly not to do with the destruction of my fleet. Had that been the case I would have left 100 years ago when you did a similar thing last time.
What right do you have to assume anything about a premature end of the game?
In the abscence of a clear statement to the opposite this game of course goes on until the end, which is December 29 1819 if you need to be reminded about that.
Now go and read our special quit rule for this game and be ashamed of your behaviour.
In the abscence of a clear statement to the opposite this game of course goes on until the end, which is December 29 1819 if you need to be reminded about that.
Now go and read our special quit rule for this game and be ashamed of your behaviour.
PJL said:
Well that time it was you who destroyed your fleet in an attack vs mine
Daniel A said:
I told him he is free for any alliance, because Russia had stable relations with all neighbors for a lot of time. In game i asked Enigma to make some diplomacy with Russia, contacted Art by myself only in 1797.
Daniel A said:
I don`t think so. We needed to kick Napoleon and France out of the war, and i`m afraid Iberians will suffer from that. Then France can redow us after the truce expires, then we won`t be able to do any offensive, which is kind unfair to spirit that top and uber nation should be tryed to be ganged at least
Despite it should happen much more time before. Instead OE got 3 vs 2 advantage. War is currently 2 vs 2 only because we made partly damage to ourself, but could reach success at most important vector of attack by concentrating vs France. Like von Klauzewitz taught us I think our success because of our plan is our pure deserve, and doesn`t cancel unbalanced starting setup.Besides Russia doesn`t have Suvorov to be very big threat.
Daniel A said:
What you wrote is correct. We are doing different judjements of it though. Besides don`t forget that prussian "almost untouched MP" is twice less than OE
Daniel A said:
I doubt you can put this arguement. All countries had near same peaceful relations with Russia after Engel had to leave it. Before it BRA, for example, settled relations with Russia, and i`m more than sure that Engel would attack OE, according our previous talks with him. So i just don`t think OE has more claims to count on Russian support than other countries.
My claim for Russia support, because you made starting conditions OE+FRA+SWE pretty unfair vs PRU+AUS. You may say that SWE is not important, but they bother with nice leader and 100-150K and decreased my income by blockading by 45%, which is over 250 ducats per month. Anyway i can still live with Russia AI
Daniel A said:I admit. But he is not out of "the game" only out of the current war vs you. As you can see in my AAR I fully expect him to slaughter the Iberians and then later on join us in the next war between SWE+OE and the evil axis. I am sure you will want such a 2nd war after you have been smashed in this current war
Ah, so you confirm what i wrote in my previous matter that you want 3 vs 2 and still tell Russia shouldn`t join the war on our side to balance it. Interesting.
I didn`t understand what you meant as "smashed in this current war". For now i`d say we are doing better by excluding France.
Indeed i meant "game" as war, not C&C game
Well, I believe RUS should be AI as we have no perm, thus it becomes a lottery who they will join. It will be tragic if our campaign was decided by that.
But the SWE/OE-alliance have been secretly and succesfully negociating friendship with the French. You failed to do that. Thus we deserve to have them as our friends. But the two of you have SPA and POR as some kind of friends, so I fail to see what is unfair in that? Not that fairness have much to do with the outcome of the game, it is a game with three distinct parts, economy, war and diplomacy.
But in practice I believe FRA will be occupied with the Iberians and we will in practice have 2 wars, one in the West and one in the East. And with OE funding FRA and POR funding AUS. Quite fair I believe. But the one victorious on the Western front might go on and make war on the Eastern frontier. Especially FRA that lost territory to you in the last war.
This "smashed in this current war" was only a joke, I implicated that you were going to lose our... However, presently I merely hope so, we will see if superior Prussian leaders and EU-war skill will stand up against the quantity of the OE army - sad I cannot have all my 1.5 million men on the Balkan . From the size of the armies it appears that SWE and AUS will play lesser roles although very important ones. When we heard about the death of Karl bottles of Champagne were opened in Top Kapi.
What do you say Dud, what are our war aims? Danzig for you and perhaps Istria for me? I am not gready.
What are your war aims Enigma and Tonio?
But the SWE/OE-alliance have been secretly and succesfully negociating friendship with the French. You failed to do that. Thus we deserve to have them as our friends. But the two of you have SPA and POR as some kind of friends, so I fail to see what is unfair in that? Not that fairness have much to do with the outcome of the game, it is a game with three distinct parts, economy, war and diplomacy.
But in practice I believe FRA will be occupied with the Iberians and we will in practice have 2 wars, one in the West and one in the East. And with OE funding FRA and POR funding AUS. Quite fair I believe. But the one victorious on the Western front might go on and make war on the Eastern frontier. Especially FRA that lost territory to you in the last war.
This "smashed in this current war" was only a joke, I implicated that you were going to lose our...
However, presently I merely hope so, we will see if superior Prussian leaders and EU-war skill will stand up against the quantity of the OE army - sad I cannot have all my 1.5 million men on the Balkan . From the size of the armies it appears that SWE and AUS will play lesser roles although very important ones. When we heard about the death of Karl bottles of Champagne were opened in Top Kapi. What do you say Dud, what are our war aims? Danzig for you and perhaps Istria for me? I am not gready.
What are your war aims Enigma and Tonio?
Daniel A said:Avernite, good to hear from you. I suppose you are proud of your Sweden that now got its revenge on the evil Englishmen and have decided to join forces with the moral majority of the Ottoman Empire...
offcourse I'm proud, though it still hurts that the OE has a bigger fleet, my plans were such that in the end Sweden would have been the *sole* great naval power.
But I expected those plans to fail even without me dropping
Russia didn't get any GM intervention, I just didn't have a clear enough grasp of relations to enter a war that has been brewing with just 20 mins left of the session
Last time I looked, Russia had a x-5-x leader and 700k troops under arms so I think they could play an important role in the war, but indeed it would be a lottery who they'd join - a gamble for victory if you so want
Last time I looked, Russia had a x-5-x leader and 700k troops under arms so I think they could play an important role in the war, but indeed it would be a lottery who they'd join - a gamble for victory if you so want
Daniel A said:
Daniel... you know, i told Deil to look for friendship of OE to get his fun for some fighting. I could easily persuade him to be our ally.
At this time i didn`t know England will be kicked totally from anti-OE coalition and Russia suprised a bit.