-
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.
FAL said:
The thing is, FAL, that either you edit Denmark and/or Sweden somewhat, or you don't have a player there. I have a hard time seing it being realistic to find someone who would want to play either of the 2 nations in the state they where in.
Now I know that you personally would prefer to play with both nations AI then. And that's fair enough, but the others here seem to prefer having a player there. Simple as that.
If you can find someone who would want to play either Denmark or (more likely, yet I doubt it) Sweden as they where, by all means have them do it. I'll step down with no hard feelings in that case. But I doubt you'll find such a person. And even if you do, it would just be a filler: neither Sweden nor Denmark will ever be a power again in this game as they where.
Try playing fair.Hive said:
FAL's position, if nothing else, has been consistent. He wants nations to live by their choices, and a player Sweden and/or a player Denmark.
Peter Ebbesen said:
I know that, but who would want to play a 2 province (in Europe) Denmark with a few colonies and 17% inflation? Or a Sweden with a whopping 39% (IIRC) inflation? Not I...
But if there's a broad sentiment against me taking this 'Kalmar Union' nation, I can just drop. I'm really not interested in hearing the "but you where given it all for free, it's unfair" every time I make a move...
Peter Ebbesen said:
The position of FAL is in general perfectly reasonable but in this case: What nations to live by their choices? There was not player Denmark and Sweden was AI or subbed the last two sessions.
You probably will not hear it all the time when you make a move. ASSUMING you make a move, rather than just hunker down to "repair and rebuild". If you intend to be merely a horse-trading pacifist merchant power, well, we have got altogether too many of those in the game already.Hive said:
Giving up Vorpommern to regain Jylland..... Hopefully, it is just a temporary ruse to rebuild the Danish armies, so you can retake Vorpommern from Brandenburg by force. After all, Brandenburg viciously conquered Jylland from Denmark only a few years ago, and the Danish and Swedish nobles see the issue of Jylland as the test of the Danish king's mettle. SURELY, the Germans should not stand to gain by their dastardly act in the face of a resurgent Denmark. That would be weakness indeed.
Thus I am eagerly anticipating the Danish armies marching into Brandenburg, to retake Vorpommern.
There is no "broad opinion" against it, Hive. Only FAL. And he's been nay-saying the entire game.
I concur with Peter though. If nothing else, Holstein should be very interesting to the king of the kalmar union.
I concur with Peter though. If nothing else, Holstein should be very interesting to the king of the kalmar union.
Peter Ebbesen said:You probably will not hear it all the time when you make a move. ASSUMING you make a move, rather than just hunker down to "repair and rebuild". If you intend to be merely a horse-trading pacifist merchant power, well, we have got altogether too many of those in the game already.
Giving up Vorpommern to regain Jylland..... Hopefully, it is just a temporary ruse to rebuild the Danish armies, so you can retake Vorpommern from Brandenburg by force. After all, Brandenburg viciously conquered Jylland from Denmark only a few years ago, and the Danish and Swedish nobles see the issue of Jylland as the test of the Danish king's mettle. SURELY, the Germans should not stand to gain by their dastardly act in the face of a resurgent Denmark. That would be weakness indeed.
Thus I am eagerly anticipating the Danish armies marching into Brandenburg, to retake Vorpommern.
I'd like to at least have TC's all over my nation before I start a war...
Slargos said:There is no "broad opinion" against it, Hive. Only FAL. And he's been nay-saying the entire game.
I concur with Peter though. If nothing else, Holstein should be very interesting to the king of the kalmar union.
Well excuse me, guys. It just seemed like a good idea to exchange a non core province of wrong culture and no land connection for a core with right culture, land connection and a manu...
Peter Ebbesen said:
On that, Brandenburg viciously conquered Jylland as Denmark was constantly denying us access to the CoT. It was deamed the conquest of Jylland would act as a way of maintain their good behaviour.
However if the Danes wish to come south, I'll be happy to meet them.
Lord_Robertus said:
Interesting...Surely Brandenburg chooses to:
- insult the Emperor
- Give up a province they swore to protect
- Not talki with the Emperor about the matter
- Chickening out in the war with the Ottoman Empire and thus betraying house Habsburg
- stating they want to create a new reich (haven't they already expanded their territory with 600% ?)
- and finally: calling for a new alliance
The emperor wonders why he took the effort to befriend with such a dishounorable, untrustworthy and hostile nation? (because no other conclusion can be made).
Indeed, Brandenburg better can look for other allies...
About Denmark:
I already agreed with the creation of super-denmark, so it's not fair to throw me for the feet that I'm still bitching about that.
I'm bitching about something else
- Denmark has 10% inflation, which is NOT the 19% of AI denmark OR the 42% of AI Sweden, so why 10% inflation?
- Denmark is editing their way in a colonial trader nation. Let's face it, they gained about 6~8 provinces in edit deals. Absolutely no ingame deals were maden. Futheremore, they befriend with everyone and his dog.
Now, I am NOT saying Denmark has to go to war immediately, but they SHOULD have a hostile Russia (which warred constantly with Sweden) AND/OR a hostile Brandenburg (which took 4!! provinces from Denmark).
If Denmark just chooses to happily conolonise and trade their way in a country where already a dozen of exists, it's a slap in the face of the history of this game and the same as saying no RP exists and finally completely disgarding the whole discussion about the western nations being too peaceful.
Well, it's up to you to do with it what you want, but I am just annoyed by it.
I already agreed with the creation of super-denmark, so it's not fair to throw me for the feet that I'm still bitching about that.
I'm bitching about something else
- Denmark has 10% inflation, which is NOT the 19% of AI denmark OR the 42% of AI Sweden, so why 10% inflation?
- Denmark is editing their way in a colonial trader nation. Let's face it, they gained about 6~8 provinces in edit deals. Absolutely no ingame deals were maden. Futheremore, they befriend with everyone and his dog.
Now, I am NOT saying Denmark has to go to war immediately, but they SHOULD have a hostile Russia (which warred constantly with Sweden) AND/OR a hostile Brandenburg (which took 4!! provinces from Denmark).
If Denmark just chooses to happily conolonise and trade their way in a country where already a dozen of exists, it's a slap in the face of the history of this game and the same as saying no RP exists and finally completely disgarding the whole discussion about the western nations being too peaceful.
Well, it's up to you to do with it what you want, but I am just annoyed by it.
FAL said:
And you have made your point quite a number of times. Repeating it does not equal giving it more weight. Enough already.
While I agree that the west has been too peaceful (far, far FAR too peaceful) I have myself to blame for this. I put a couple of aggressive players in the east and failed to realize that the west would be silent as a tomb. I made a huge mistake casting myself as Venice where I am unable to throw a torch into this slumberparty...
But enough is enough. If the west wants to be quiet, so be it. I won't dictate to anyone how they're supposed to play, and since I am leaving for the US in May, I won't have to sit through another campaign of silence.
On the subject of next campaign btw.
As I will be away for a couple of months starting in May, I'm not too keen on starting a new campaign in march when this one is over. Either someone else can pick up the GM helmet or we can run a casual 1617 or 1700 game which I'll be able to finish off before I leave.
Anyone ready to GM/Host?
As I will be away for a couple of months starting in May, I'm not too keen on starting a new campaign in march when this one is over. Either someone else can pick up the GM helmet or we can run a casual 1617 or 1700 game which I'll be able to finish off before I leave.
Anyone ready to GM/Host?
Slargos said:
No idea if anyone is ready to be GM/Host but I definitely find interesting the idea of a 1617 game.
FAL said:
How about actually giving me a chance before accusing me of planning to be a peaceful trader for the rest of the game?
Of course, I can just dow Russia in a few years - raking up inflation and having them crush me. That would perhaps entertain you, but I fail to see the purpose of it.
And there's a difference between Denmark and Sweden: ugric culture. I'm not saying Denmark should have that, but I'm saying that not having it doesn't make me too eager to try to take Ingermandsland and such from Russia...
So what if I made some between session deals? Since when is that banned? I'm just trying to use diplomacy to achieve my goals. I believe you do the same.
FAL said:
Now Russia and Denmark fought together many long and bitter wars against Sweden that finally was merged to Denmarks court after countless failures in wars against Russia that took huge toll on swedish people who wanted wind of change blow brighther future for them. So why would Denmark want to as its first new act as united scandinavia DOW Russia
????.
Hive said:
Yes going after ingerman the only Russian port what great advice given for Denmarks new king and united people who together with Russia fought the madness of Sweden :rofl:.
Hive said:
Ok, that's true. I should perhaps back off abit before I begin whining