Veilwalker said:
The three big ones
.Well I wanted to hold off the state choosing till later but if you all want to, here goes:
1) Ottoman Empire
2) England
3) Austria
-
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.
The three big ones
.Well I wanted to hold off the state choosing till later but if you all want to, here goes:
1) Ottoman Empire
2) England
3) Austria
I like colonial latin nations, hate lagging in tech :-(. I am not sure how many we are naming but my next choices would be Venice, Sweden then Portugal especially if we give everyone exp/conqs so that all nations have a similar ability to colonize the world since that is what really catapults nations to the next level in this game.
Now if we could somehow speed our game up to normal during our non-war periods.
Now if we could somehow speed our game up to normal during our non-war periods.
Last edited:
@K'shar....the biggest difference I have found in the ToT game is the fluidity of the alliance system. In EGA 2 we have a fairly static alliance grouping, France-England and satellites vs. Spain-Austria and satellites. In ToT we have seen much more of 1v1 wars and regional conflicts, and less long term alliances. Also, people think more long term. Russia is cutting edge in land tech cause bocaj only built one kind of manu all game, weapons lol. The players tend to fight wars very very well, and their economics are excellent. A lot of it is, as you said, psycological, but then again I personally believe that I have a fairly good understanding of the game and its machanics, and have done very well for my super backwards OE (not Veil's fault he got it that way ). We almost have land 51!!!! Then I can finally compete. Though the rest of the game is just gonna be Prussia DOW'ing France every eight years or so.
@EGA3....hey if this keeps up then I can play China! Everyone wants to play what I want to play! LOL :rofl:
). We almost have land 51!!!! Then I can finally compete. Though the rest of the game is just gonna be Prussia DOW'ing France every eight years or so. @EGA3....hey if this keeps up then I can play China! Everyone wants to play what I want to play! LOL :rofl:
Veilwalker said:
Yep, you understood perfectly.
Which is realistic i think.It doesn't prevent player from forming alliance... but these alliance are only formal and based on diplomacy rather than game-engine.
And it doesn't involve stabhit either. You can just ganrantee the independance of human kingdoms.
Last edited:
I'm for this idea as well. It means that if you actually want to participate in a war, you have to take the stab and bb hits to do so, and as a result, will prevent alliances from becoming too entrenched because if a nation has to DoW, it will have to feel it is gaining by that DoW.
balinus said:
Two comments here:
1) Its kind of funny but the guy who most wants a more indenpendent diplomacy system is the one who stayed more static to his alliance in EGA2
2) I would love that Sweden had the same feeling...
BTW, I like your idea. It would force us to use more that Guarantee Independence more oftenly.
I told you to not choose nations until we finish this game, but as everyone is doing I'll tell what i think i'll get.
1) France (almost a must for me... i miss them 3 games in a row without it
)2) Russia (tempting, if I lost france i wont be upset at all)
3) OE (hehe never played a long-term with them, only NAPPYs and AORs, the turks sounds real funny).
Casluerj said:Two comments here:
1) Its kind of funny but the guy who most wants a more indenpendent diplomacy system is the one who stayed more static to his alliance in EGA2
Both are not mutually excluded. Its just that i dont see the reason to change alliance if the alliance is good. But on the other hand, it makes more static games. but also, it's my first MP game. But... your alliance didn't changed much either.
Too much but..t.
Casluerj said:2) I would love that Sweden had the same feeling...
lol
Well I rather not be a French Ally as I said before. I considered France as my archenemy until I saw an ubber Spain and an Austria being a satellite of it. My alliance with France was forced and not wanted.
But now, yes, we work as a team.Cas, if I hadn't gone against you, what would have happened?
I think that Russia and I would have chowed down on Poland, it would be at most half its present size. We'd soon be freaking unstoppable! I'd be Austria's equal and with Russia fighting off the OE I'd annex Poland inside of three wars. After that, Austria would soon fall to our combined forces. That is not balance, its domination. Poland could not possibly have stopped Sweden and Russia at the same time, especially if Veil was fighting as well as he was when we fought the Great Northern Conflict. The result would be England and France fighting Spain while Sweden and Russia cleaned up Austria and OE, and then total domination when Nappy showed up. I felt that if I didn't do something to change the then-present situation, that the BOP would be irrecoverably disrupted. As much as I enjoyed being on your side, and I did quite a bit, I also felt that it would be boring to be totally dominant. Though it isn't all that important on the world stage, Sweden has definitely pushed the BOP closer to even with its defection. The presence of even a few good leaders on the North German front will make a HUGE difference, since Austria has been forced to rely solely on Prinz Eugene (who is probably sufficient atm, honestly). You are just mad because Marlborough died and you are about to lose all those pretty little gains you made by beating on poor Bal.
So before you keep ridiculing me, consider that I might have had good reasons!
P.S. I wish one of you would get on ICQ, I'm bored.
I think that Russia and I would have chowed down on Poland, it would be at most half its present size. We'd soon be freaking unstoppable! I'd be Austria's equal and with Russia fighting off the OE I'd annex Poland inside of three wars. After that, Austria would soon fall to our combined forces. That is not balance, its domination. Poland could not possibly have stopped Sweden and Russia at the same time, especially if Veil was fighting as well as he was when we fought the Great Northern Conflict. The result would be England and France fighting Spain while Sweden and Russia cleaned up Austria and OE, and then total domination when Nappy showed up. I felt that if I didn't do something to change the then-present situation, that the BOP would be irrecoverably disrupted. As much as I enjoyed being on your side, and I did quite a bit, I also felt that it would be boring to be totally dominant. Though it isn't all that important on the world stage, Sweden has definitely pushed the BOP closer to even with its defection. The presence of even a few good leaders on the North German front will make a HUGE difference, since Austria has been forced to rely solely on Prinz Eugene (who is probably sufficient atm, honestly). You are just mad because Marlborough died and you are about to lose all those pretty little gains you made by beating on poor Bal.
So before you keep ridiculing me, consider that I might have had good reasons!
P.S. I wish one of you would get on ICQ, I'm bored.
Hey if you guys are both free want to play a little Nappy game, maybe pick up a few V-net floaters?
First of all i dont want to discuss with you this again, but for now on I will negociate with you very carefully, but not in EGA2.
Second, your arguments about the balance of power are reasonable (if you have stayed with us). But leaving my alliance didnt obligate you to go to your formal enemy. Sweden could be a totally independent nation or ally Russia against Poland and OE or with Poland against Russia. This would be the real fair and honest move. The last wars showed that Austra-Spain and France-England are really equal team, Austria lost some lands but Spain didnt any. And you didnt participated at all.
So for you that prefer a more dynamic diplomacy system moving to one of the big blocks instead of creating your own shows that you arent interested in "balance of power" but in the Spanish Gold. I am completely aware of it, i wont bring it to personal but I now know with whom i am dealing with.
And yes is a good reason, dont know if is the honest and fair one.
Second, your arguments about the balance of power are reasonable (if you have stayed with us). But leaving my alliance didnt obligate you to go to your formal enemy. Sweden could be a totally independent nation or ally Russia against Poland and OE or with Poland against Russia. This would be the real fair and honest move. The last wars showed that Austra-Spain and France-England are really equal team, Austria lost some lands but Spain didnt any. And you didnt participated at all.
So for you that prefer a more dynamic diplomacy system moving to one of the big blocks instead of creating your own shows that you arent interested in "balance of power" but in the Spanish Gold. I am completely aware of it, i wont bring it to personal but I now know with whom i am dealing with.
And yes is a good reason, dont know if is the honest and fair one.
CaptainBOB said:
I would love to, but as you know i work and study, i just arrive at home at 22:30 brazilian time which means 1:30 am GMT. If you still be able to play you will find me ready. Maybe we can call some north-americans like Veil or K'shar to join us, but the european might stay out.
Hmmm I can see your point and that honestly was my original plan (joining OE and Russia), but in the end K'shar found out I was going to jump ship to the "neutrals" and he offered me a whole lot of money to join Spain instead. While this probably would have been unbalancing normally, your capture of Sjelland (which I am still irked a bit about) and having Russia join you make it quite a bit more interesting lol. We will see the result in the next war. Besides, I could always BS Spain later! Then everyone will hate me! :rofl:
:rofl:
CaptainBOB said:Hmmm I can see your point and that honestly was my original plan (joining OE and Russia), but in the end K'shar found out I was going to jump ship to the "neutrals" and he offered me a whole lot of money to join Spain instead. While this probably would have been unbalancing normally, your capture of Sjelland (which I am still irked a bit about) and having Russia join you make it quite a bit more interesting lol. We will see the result in the next war.
Dont forget that I just took Sjelland and Russia only joined my side because your move.
lol
Cas your time is GMT -3? I thought you were -4 at least lol. I might be able to be on, but only cause it is Friday . However, ToT is probably gonna finish today so I may not be off till midnight US CST! I can't convert time well at all, so I have no idea if that clashes with the time you suggested lol. I'd love to play if we can .
. However, ToT is probably gonna finish today so I may not be off till midnight US CST! I can't convert time well at all, so I have no idea if that clashes with the time you suggested lol. I'd love to play if we can .
CaptainBOB said:Cas your time is GMT -3? I thought you were -4 at least lol. I might be able to be on, but only cause it is Friday
If I be France plz be Prussia or Autria... Or if I be Prussia be France ...LOLOLOLOLL
I'm sensing some pent up aggression here lol . If I let you beat on me will you stop calling me a traitor every two minutes? :rofl:
. If I let you beat on me will you stop calling me a traitor every two minutes? :rofl:
Bob, I think you are reading too far in to the future. If we were able to destroy Poland/Austria then what makes you think I wouldn't switch sides and kick Napoleon in the teeth?
The only reason I joined with France/England was because you switched to Spains side and everyone around me was a part of the Spanish alliance so if I joined that alliance as well not only would it be completely unbalancing but I would have noone to fight with unless I wanted to travel hundreds of miles and even then it would be difficult to hold any lands that I were to take.
England/France are only holding on by the fact that they have had some great leaders but isn't the era we are entering a bit dead for great leaders until Nappy shows up? Especially since Prussia is dead and there is no Frederick the Great? Suvorov doesn't arrive until 1770 and he is seemingly the only great leader that Russia gets :-(
The only reason I joined with France/England was because you switched to Spains side and everyone around me was a part of the Spanish alliance so if I joined that alliance as well not only would it be completely unbalancing but I would have noone to fight with unless I wanted to travel hundreds of miles and even then it would be difficult to hold any lands that I were to take.
England/France are only holding on by the fact that they have had some great leaders but isn't the era we are entering a bit dead for great leaders until Nappy shows up? Especially since Prussia is dead and there is no Frederick the Great? Suvorov doesn't arrive until 1770 and he is seemingly the only great leader that Russia gets :-(
CaptainBOB said:I'm sensing some pent up aggression here lol
Hey I am not calling you traitor anymore, I just said that i wouldnt do what you did and i will negociate with you very very carefully, in EGA3 sure.
And really, BOB, you dont need to "let" me beat you
. But maybe if i could throw away all my rage against you in this nappy maybe i can stop cheasing on you (kidding)Should we start an EGA3 discussion thread after next session? The game is going to be drawing to a close in 3 or 4 sessions anyways.