Hive said:
What exactly is the way how you view the game should be played, dear Hive?
-
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.
What exactly is the way how you view the game should be played, dear Hive?
now where's the stats, FAL? 
And I DO wonder where the Dutch fleet was when I was fighting them- I located some 200 in the east, 200 in the west... but surely they had more
Ofcourse, the 200 in the west stood no chance against the Swedish Royal Navy- fortunately for *most* of the sailors, the foolish Embargo was lifted, and Dutch and Swedish traders now work side by side happily (somehow I doubt that - but anyway )
Was also *quite* unfortunate to twice see an attempted invasion of Austria fail due to secret peace meetings :wacko:
And I DO wonder where the Dutch fleet was when I was fighting them- I located some 200 in the east, 200 in the west... but surely they had more
Ofcourse, the 200 in the west stood no chance against the Swedish Royal Navy- fortunately for *most* of the sailors, the foolish Embargo was lifted, and Dutch and Swedish traders now work side by side happily (somehow I doubt that - but anyway
)Was also *quite* unfortunate to twice see an attempted invasion of Austria fail due to secret peace meetings :wacko:
Talk about the great ego here, yes only you and slargos wish to play like that, no one else is even close to your standards... Get off your high horse for a second will you?Hive said:
But sure thing lets pretend your statement is true. Cause I certainly never cared for any balance, I play to hypertech and ruin games via gamebreaking alliances right?
And it is certainly me and Peters fault nobody even f**ing cares a monster alliance, same size as the swe-rus alliance was formed. I might have been naive thinking we would get dowed, but I tried stirring up some action. Obviously I should have continued fighting france so all would be pleased, I didn't see you nor slargos try and form any alliance against the others. Why the hell is that job left to the sub. But who cares about diplomacy these days right? Lets all put on tin foil hats and try to mind control eachother.
Go ahead start flaming me... I don't care this is ridiculous. Blame Austria/me for all your misfortunes.
EDIT: Or just ignore my ramblings, I am in no way saying I am better than you, slargos or anyone else. I just don't like the way you put everyone out to be assholes.
Last edited:
ForzaA said:now where's the stats, FAL?
I don't know
(I don't want anyone see the new Turkish Fleet numbers....Especially not Barnius
devil said:
Heh. I'm saying that it's obviously only me and Slargos who thinks a France-Austria alliance breaks the game. And since you were a part in that alliance, I fail to see why that statement is false.
Yes, it would have been logical if ppl just established an opposition to your alliance - but you both knew that the players in this game wouldn't do that.
And I'm not flaming you or blaming you for any misfortunes, that's Slargos' job.
Heh, reading the messages from last 15 hours in this thread reminds me rather well why I prefer CK MP over EU2 MP
Jarkko Suvinen said:Heh, reading the messages from last 15 hours in this thread reminds me rather well why I prefer CK MP over EU2 MP
Heh. Just you wait untill all us aggressive, whiny EUII vets start playing CK...
My alliance with Peter, was to stop Spanish aggression. When Slargos ran over france, I concluded I could be next in line, so I allied Peter to set him straight. If slargos really wanted a common front against the others, he could have at least talked to me, I am as always very open to suggestions. Problem is just even France, Spain and Austria allied wouldn't be able to stop the naval/trader nations. I pray to god, for the day people will start using diplomacy more.Hive said:
I am sorry for being a optimist I thought people had changed, I definately thought you, poland, england and netherlands would dow us.Hive said:
I am sure he will.Hive said:And I'm not flaming you or blaming you for any misfortunes, that's Slargos' job.
devil said:
Oh I would have loved a common front against you. But there were a number of problems:
- Poland ignored me when I asked him about it
- Netherlands, on the few times he bothered responding to messages, stated to me and England (his allies at the time) that he didn't feel like cooperation in any wars together with us.
- England lost his entire navy, and thus couldn't do anything
- Prussia dowing France or Austria alone would be insane. Prussia dowing both of them alone would be beyond insane - especially knowing that Poland would fall in my back right away should I do so....
devil said:
:rofl:
Whatever else you are, Devil, you certainly are funny.
You've subbed in this game before. You've seen the constant fighting back and forth of the pyrenees. The Languedoc situation was no different from the Gerona situation a couple of sessions ago.
Yet you think Austria could be next?
Let me rephrase that: You think Spain could fight France, replenish its forces and fight Austria BEFORE France is able to rebuild and defeat Austria BEFORE the Truce with France expires, ASWELL as rebuild forces for the inevitable French counter-DoW 1 day after expiration of truce.
I would've believed it had you been a 1 game newbie, but given that you are not, you must be either trying to cover a poor decision by making things up as you go along, or having made an extremely poor error in judgement.
I'm guessing the latter, and that you were taken in by Peter's coy talk. He can be very persuasive, and he's always the victim of others' brutality. Nevermind that France has taken more provinces off Austria and Spain than they combined have taken off France.
But hey, salutations where salutations are due.
Peter: You thought the fact that no one attacked me during last night's session was a great feat of diplomacy? I beg to differ. Convincing Austria that poow widdle fwance needed his help in beating up Big Bad Iberia was a far greater one. Or not, depending on how much credit you give Devil.
I pray to god for the day when people will start using their heads more, Devil.
Heh heh, the aggressive ones in CK MP tend to do the flight of Ikaros: They fly too close to the sun and go down in flamesHive said:Heh. Just you wait untill all us aggressive, whiny EUII vets start playing CK...
For example in the Sunday morning game we've seen it two times already... If some of the actions you've had in your game last session would have happened in CK, they would have been in massive civil wars at the end of the session
Thank you.Slargos said:
Right might be poor judgement, might be my greed to fulfill one of my only instructions, blinded me. But who says you have to keep fighting franceSlargos said:
Some weird way I thought, it would be fair, and that Spain would have allies, I certainly thought Porto would help, and was quite sure poland and prussia would intervene. I was very disapointed when only OE dowed, and he was quite easy to get rid off. My mistake, and I apologise.Slargos said:
The alliance with france was certainly not set in stone, I could just as easily have turned on france the next war. Hell i just wanted to fight.Slargos said:
I do too... I admit I didn't realise the full complications of my alliance with france, but it certainly wasn't over for you. You like Hive got extremly pissed for losing one single war, instead of trying to get back at them. I think we all do that sometimes, I certainly did, and look how well that went.. not.Slargos said:
My only question is how is it austria, france nor spain can fight any of the hypertechers?
If you want to bear a grudge against me, for this go ahead. I certainly won't, It would have been just as game breaking had I allied you. But whatever... This is history.
EDIT: I understand now I should have talked to you about it during the game. It was lacking diplomacy on my part.
Last edited:
Except that Gerona was an incursion into 1 (one) Spanish province at a time when French/Spanish wars were for one province apiece, while Bearn, Roussillon and Languedoc (with CC) was an incursion into 3 (three) French provinces at a time when French/Spanish wars were for as many provinces as could conveniently be grabbed.Slargos (to devil) said:
Additionally, the wars were no longer France vs. Spain, not even beaten up France vs prepared Spain, they were Spain and Portugal, or Spain and England+Prussia vs. France. (Though I appreciate that Prussia possibly acted of her own accord rather than in accord with you, it makes little practical difference)
Apart from that, however, I will agree that the situation was no different from the Gerona situation where we fought 1v1 wars for limited gains.
You apparently got tired of those, when you ended up losing more often than not and changed the nature of the wars to multiple conquests, kicking when the other was down. Then I got tired of losing more often than not and adopted the methodology to let me win. If nothing else, we are both certainly pragmatic.
Actually, the alliance was in the main devil's suggestion, and he was kind enough to even wait until after you had conquered southern France, rather than invading Spain separately during the Spanish+Portuguese war against France, which might have netted him most of southern Italy, while possibly allowing me to survive with smaller losses.
As for big-bad-Iberia, I can only say that it is my conviction that until the advent of the French-Austrian alliance in the end of last session, the Portuguese-Spanish alliance was the strongest alliance in existence. 1000d+ income per month (thrice the French income) lavishly spent on fleets, CCs, high level fortifications, cannon heavy armies, and as much manpower as Austria - only Sweden-Russia came close.
Until you chose to release Mexico in a fit of pique after the French-Austrian war that returned Languedoc and Roussillon to France, and gave Napoli to Austria, Spain could truly be said to both being at the pinnacle of its strength and having had its own way for more than 30 years.
As to the "poor, weak, <nationname>" arguments, please, let them rest all of you. Unless I missed a Polish attack on Lichtenstein or Atlantis, there is only one nation such arguments can truly be said to apply to last session, and that is Poland. Attacked, repeatedly, from several sides, with all invaders demanding core Polish territory as the price of peace. BTGs playing - attempting to defend as much as possible, while giving up as little as possible but cutting his losses when necessary, was good to see.
Hive said:
Although a french-austria alliance is quite powerful and all, let remind that France after being absolutely outclassed by Spain-Portugal (once) and being attacked by Spain/England/Prussia (other time) asked for allies. Peter said publicly that he was going to get allies for some time ingame.
At that time little Prussia offered his help in exchange for Hessen, not the best of actions to get alliances. Is not France fault that the only country that offered help (without asking for provinces) was Austria, and it was clear that France could use some help. I did not answer because, if a french-austrian alliance is game breaking, think of a russian-french alliance (plus Poland).
Hive said:
It is funny because is clearly cynical: Using the 'homeland' argument against a country that you occupy her homeland is well, at least, no the most believable argument.
Peter Ebbesen said:
"Creative historywriting" in effect.
The contested provinces were Bearn and Roussillon. Going into Languedoc was effectively equal to going into Gerona. I never grabbed 3 provinces at a time, the most I ever took was 2 at any one time.
Please cut the bullshit, Peter. I know you're the king of obfuscation. Everyone thinks you're top-notch at it, only rivaled by Damocles and Barnius. You don't need to show off.
Again, very creative but missing some extremely important facts.
The Spain and England+Prussia war was when you attacked after a spanish civilwar that not only removed half the spanish army, created revolts in perhaps so much as 30% of the spanish colonies, but also removed the only spanish leader while you had ample reserves yourself. It became only barely a draw. Some great anti-french coalition.
Yes. You were perfectly content fighting 1 vs 1 wars knowing that you had the upper hand and once you lost the ability to defeat me cleanly, you decided to ally Austria.
It was ridiculous, as has his previous play been. Giving up provinces to Austria willy-nilly because he knew this is endgame and all he wanted to do was to fight Hive.
But go on, Peter. Tell me how righteous you are.
arcorelli said:
NO. PETER ATTACKED ME AFTER THE CIVILWAR IN WHICH I LOST HALF MY TROOPS AND MY ONLY LEADER.
It's great though, how he manages to spin it.
Clap, clap, Peter.
Clap, clap.
Slargos said:
Well change that one for attacking Spain and being attacked for England/Prussia. Actually, the war that made Peter change policy was the outclassing one (Champagne under spanish control and the like; almost all the french fleet sunk).
And Slargos, you should know that Peter attacks in civil wars, he did exactly the same in the previous unleashed when OE suffered civil wars twice in a row.
Because I accepted 3 stabhits rather than losing all three provinces (Gascogne, Bearn, and Languedoc), as you kept asking, and sent you a two province counteroffer, which you accepted. Moreover, I did not state that you grabbed three provinces at a time - which you failed to do - but that you were at a stage of a three province incursion into France, namely Bearn, Roussillon, and Languedoc, after that war - which you were.Slargos said:
I am somewhat righteous, but not exceedingly so. I feel justified in hammering Spain after having been severely hammered by Spain in a couple of wars, but not particularly righteous.
NO. SLARGOS ATTACKED ME AFTER THE WAR WITH AUSTRIA IN WHICH MY MANPOWER WAS REDUCED TO 0, MY ARMY REDUCED TO 100K-150K, AND MY WAR EXHAUSTION 8%+.
I guess screaming does some good.
Of course you did attack, and of course I did attack. We both attack when our enemy is weakened, and I have a stated policy of attacking enemies when they suffer civil wars. You happened to gain most from attacking in the 1770-1800 period, I gained most from attacking 1740-1770, and have now after 1800 restored the status quo from around 1740. That does not make either of us righteous, just pragmatic.