-
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.
cheech said:I think we will reactivate the spanish bankurptcys for this
ROTFL :rofl:
cheech said:I think we will reactivate the spanish bankurptcys for this
dohhhh mega-lol
HALNY (HAL) said:
well we are still going to fight for greece all the time because there is no way i'm gonna give greece away for free
After edits only. Without them it looks even worse.
At least in my version Poland has Baltic culture.
It is easy enough to avoid, especially now when the provinces that trigger
it are not worth taking.
Kindjal said:
Hm, than we have some diffrent versions. In mine I have only core on Ruthenia.
Some additional things (involving war) to clear up before Thursday:
Should war be restricted to colonies?
This idea has come up before. The focus of the game is empire, but this does not mean wars must be fought exclusively in the new world. Expansion in Europe is limited to cores, but fighting there is expected. Is this what we really want? Limiting wars to the colonies might better promote competition, but this rule is a bit silly. If Spain attacks the colonies of France, why on earth shouldn't the French be able to walk into Spain to make it stop? Likewise, fighting in Europe can be used to help force a peace, just like in real life.
However, if war is allowed in Europe, we might need a rule to prevent this from being abused. For example, we don't want to see OE over-run Poland and start demanding colonies they haven't even been able to take. Using Europe exclusively to take colonies must be prevented.
Cores on every capital?
Another suggestion that has come up is to give every nation a core on the capital of everyone else. This will provide a free CB, and the loss of the associated stab hit for DOWs may encourage more war. The problem is, this rule would render the alliance rule pointless. See below.
Alliances
As is, alliances are banned. This is to encourage more diplomacy, more 1vs1 wars and hopefully prevent the traditional gang bangs. With this rule, informal alliances come at a cost. Supporting an ally will result in a stab hit, which hurts if wars are frequent. If the free CB's are handed out, this rule becomes pointless.
I think the alliance rule should be scraped. To prevent gang bangs and such, we could use a rule like: no nation may take provinces when supporting an ally in war. Or, the 3 prov rule could be modified to take into account the kind of war being fought. 1vs1 wars could have a 3 prov limit, while a 2vs1 situation could result in a *one province* limit. I think that would really encourage 1vs1 wars.
Thoughts?
Should war be restricted to colonies?
This idea has come up before. The focus of the game is empire, but this does not mean wars must be fought exclusively in the new world. Expansion in Europe is limited to cores, but fighting there is expected. Is this what we really want? Limiting wars to the colonies might better promote competition, but this rule is a bit silly. If Spain attacks the colonies of France, why on earth shouldn't the French be able to walk into Spain to make it stop? Likewise, fighting in Europe can be used to help force a peace, just like in real life.
However, if war is allowed in Europe, we might need a rule to prevent this from being abused. For example, we don't want to see OE over-run Poland and start demanding colonies they haven't even been able to take. Using Europe exclusively to take colonies must be prevented.
Cores on every capital?
Another suggestion that has come up is to give every nation a core on the capital of everyone else. This will provide a free CB, and the loss of the associated stab hit for DOWs may encourage more war. The problem is, this rule would render the alliance rule pointless. See below.
Alliances
As is, alliances are banned. This is to encourage more diplomacy, more 1vs1 wars and hopefully prevent the traditional gang bangs. With this rule, informal alliances come at a cost. Supporting an ally will result in a stab hit, which hurts if wars are frequent. If the free CB's are handed out, this rule becomes pointless.
I think the alliance rule should be scraped. To prevent gang bangs and such, we could use a rule like: no nation may take provinces when supporting an ally in war. Or, the 3 prov rule could be modified to take into account the kind of war being fought. 1vs1 wars could have a 3 prov limit, while a 2vs1 situation could result in a *one province* limit. I think that would really encourage 1vs1 wars.
Thoughts?
anevilclown said:
I am not sure about that...
anevilclown said:
But this idea I like very much.
anevilclown said:
Well, again you are right, but I think 'life' will prevent such situations. To take some colonies agressor will have to first reach them and assault. If he will be not able to do so, demanding this colonies will be not allowed, even if all victim's land in Europe will be occupied.
Btw, we will play on wednesdays and thursdays? Only on thursdays? Or only on wednesdays?