-
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.
Re: Peace deals
A very important post that went nearly unnoticed. A war that ends in 3 provinces changing hands in Europe should be considered an absurdly major victory. We should move away from these Napoleon and World War like total war scenarios.
A very important post that went nearly unnoticed. A war that ends in 3 provinces changing hands in Europe should be considered an absurdly major victory. We should move away from these Napoleon and World War like total war scenarios.
About the whole situation in general. I have no hard feelings against anyone. I only wanted to do what is good for the game.
Right now I think it is the best if we terminate it.
Right now I think it is the best if we terminate it.
Termination should be the absolutely last option. Come on people, we cant let all this work be for nothing! Think about all the AARs and stuff! We have restarted this for the third time now! If it is possible to solve this conflict by kicking someone, then by all means, do that, we just HAVE to get past the first hundred years at least!
If some people want to quit let them. If enough people are left we could go on. I cannot see that a restart really solves much, the players are mostly the same anyhow.
I did, since any new European MP game in general attracts the same players, they can all be considered restarts, right? 
Anyhow for me it would be a restart, since I prolly would get on a new 1492 diplomatic campaign, since that's what I like.
Semantics...
Anyhow for me it would be a restart, since I prolly would get on a new 1492 diplomatic campaign, since that's what I like.
Semantics...
Re: Re: Peace deals
Absolutely agreed. Can you talk to Johan and influence his decisions?
Absolutely agreed. Can you talk to Johan and influence his decisions?
I would definitely prefer some solution that allows us to move on, rather than terminate or restart. I put in a huge amount of work in the AAR posts and secret behind-the-scenes diplomacy, and I don't want my efforts to be in vain.
We all put much effort in this but the general atmosphere is spoiled. Me especially you know.
If any host is prepared to keep this one going it would be much more worth to go on than any restart I can dream of. Even more so since there is no assurance whatsoever that the next game I'll join will go on longer than this one. (That's the life of being a EU2 multiplayer, dedication is hard to find.)
Re: Re: Peace deals
Thanks for noticing BiB, i was hoping to spark more debate and ideas as the current system gets played to the limit which is unrealistic
One European province changing after a war was a great victory and as bib says three should be a rare happening. I feel it is nessecary to get this parameter right to have more enjoyable MP games.
Thanks for noticing BiB, i was hoping to spark more debate and ideas as the current system gets played to the limit which is unrealistic
One European province changing after a war was a great victory and as bib says three should be a rare happening. I feel it is nessecary to get this parameter right to have more enjoyable MP games.
Wouldn't you get much more gobbling up of smaller states, since that would then be the easiest way to get many new provinces? And also less player vs player wars ones the states grow big? It would never be worth to wage war. But I don't think this is a big problem really, hardly ever seen more than a few provs changing hand anyway.
The idea is to look at the relative value of the continents, In Europe the cost of annexing 1 province should be higher than it is.
A "few" in Belfast equates to 5 and 5 provinces changing hands after war in Europe is excessive and every game I have been involved in has had problems with excessive demands.
This problem somewhat stems from the fact that the countries in EU are not equals.
Originally posted by BiB
...that a nation's internal business are no one else business (and Genoa is a HRE nation and as such an internal HRE matter and attacking a HRE nation is a direct attack on the Emperor)...
Oh, and violating spirits of treaties is in my opinion even worse than just breaking it as in the latter case at least ur honest about it
Sultan is back, and he knows the ToV to the letter. To that, I must reply to former Emperor: NO, NO, NO, BIG MISTAKE: the ToV says nothing about some Hollow
Roman Empire, it refers to real countries, speciffically Austria and Ottoman Empire. Genoa is as much internal matter of Austria as is of Venice.And when we draw out the spirit of the Treaty, we said we are far from being friends, OE will not help Austria, in fact OE will try to make her problems. Supporting strong Venice instead partitioning her with Austria is an example.
This particulat sub was thrown into a very confusing situation, you as the new Emperor made only more complex: you didn't respond on my ICQ messages and demands in the forums to re-sign ToV. So I had to leave instructions for both cases: ToV still existing between Austria and OE and without ToV.
Perhaps after some reevaluation you would agree SMN played it in fact VERY fasr and it was not him who betrayed any contract. I mean, as I understood, OE under his leadershin never enterred Austria, although I clearly explained before the last session how I see ToV. You choose to ignore it and let the time pass and leave a standin in even more confusing situation, from which he got out very good.