-
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.
Nabukodonosor said:
he lost 4 to me in the first war. 3 later. rest to braburg probably.
Zeitgeist said:
I hate the fact I'm blind to what is happening in Europe edit: not that I was really paying attention though
Last edited:
Nabukodonosor said:
angry on me, my friend?
Zeitgeist said:
How could BB took 5 provs and France took another 5 if they were cleary fighting the same war? (I'm ok with the other 3 later)
Therefore i ask CO-GMs about that. In the first war or France or BBurg have to give me back 5 provs (since they only can claim 5 provs per alliance).
Casluerj said:
tbh if france was just a opurtonistic bastard and got 5provs without even caring what would happend to bb, then bb is fucked and shouldn't have been able to peace for anything in that case ^^
It wasn't the same war in my opinion. Austria was still down some 30+ war score to BB just on battles, so it was just a matter of time before it ended. I did not request that France joined the war-- I figured all I really had to do was hold on until Russia triumphed over Sweden, and then Austria would fold quickly.
France's involvement just made it worse. I guess it smelled easy prey, so it came for it. Not that I blame Earandil-- that's exactly what he ought to do while he has Turenne. Once again, I did absolutely no diplomacy to make this happen, nor did Tem to the best of my knowledge, therefore it wasn't the same war. El Greco did his best, but it was just crushing odds, you can't hold him responsible.
Mulli gave me instructions to show Austria no mercy, so that's what I did, hence the five provinces. Although I didn't have the heart to DoW Austria while it was being subbed, which would have again been too easy, and chose to embark on another English adventure instead. Prinz Eugen will no doubt make me regret that shortly.
Although I will easily admit, that I don't think the victory would have been as crushing if it wasn't for France. But, how the hell am I supposed to control what other players do?
The bottom line as I see it is that France was acting in his own best interests and we weren't allied, officially, or unofficially. Therefore I don't think that BB should give up any of its hard fought gains, and frankly if the GMs rule this way, my apologies to Mulli, but I won't bother subbing the next two weeks. I enjoy playing with you guys, but this is something I cannot stomach.
France's involvement just made it worse. I guess it smelled easy prey, so it came for it. Not that I blame Earandil-- that's exactly what he ought to do while he has Turenne. Once again, I did absolutely no diplomacy to make this happen, nor did Tem to the best of my knowledge, therefore it wasn't the same war. El Greco did his best, but it was just crushing odds, you can't hold him responsible.
Mulli gave me instructions to show Austria no mercy, so that's what I did, hence the five provinces. Although I didn't have the heart to DoW Austria while it was being subbed, which would have again been too easy, and chose to embark on another English adventure instead. Prinz Eugen will no doubt make me regret that shortly.
Although I will easily admit, that I don't think the victory would have been as crushing if it wasn't for France. But, how the hell am I supposed to control what other players do?
The bottom line as I see it is that France was acting in his own best interests and we weren't allied, officially, or unofficially. Therefore I don't think that BB should give up any of its hard fought gains, and frankly if the GMs rule this way, my apologies to Mulli, but I won't bother subbing the next two weeks. I enjoy playing with you guys, but this is something I cannot stomach.
What I cant really stomach is too lose, while being subbed, 10 provs in one war. This is "unstomachable"
Casluerj said:
I was semi to completely AFK. I was sending merchants here and there when I was passing by the computer but I wasn't really in the game. I haven't even saw that Aus lost so much. I though Eng attacked Spa and I'm still learning details of what came to pass in this session. However, I wasn't only co-GM there so Tem will tell us what was going on.
The prov rule is flawed in more than one way.
Who is to say if it is one war when more nations attack?
I got dowed by Russia.
While the war was still on, got dowed by England,they got 5 provs off me.
Still fighting Russia.
England Dowed again, other 3 provs.
Russia got other 3 provs.
So, Cas, if i were to make the same request as you did, Russia + England (twice) should have only gotten 5 provs off me, and not 5+3+3 = 11.
It is very annoying for one who gets trampled like this, but hey! that's the way the cookie crumbles.
In what concerns my wars, i blame it on my poor diplomacy, but also largely on the fact that my nominal ally at the beginning of last week's session (Spain) only informed me in-game, a few seconds after we entered the game and a year(in game terms) after i got Dowed by Russia, that he "had a NAP with England until 1681" so i better prepare.
Anyway, as you have all seen, the alliance switch, change, and your losses in one war may be your gains in the next.
Who is to say if it is one war when more nations attack?
I got dowed by Russia.
While the war was still on, got dowed by England,they got 5 provs off me.
Still fighting Russia.
England Dowed again, other 3 provs.
Russia got other 3 provs.
So, Cas, if i were to make the same request as you did, Russia + England (twice) should have only gotten 5 provs off me, and not 5+3+3 = 11.
It is very annoying for one who gets trampled like this, but hey! that's the way the cookie crumbles.
In what concerns my wars, i blame it on my poor diplomacy, but also largely on the fact that my nominal ally at the beginning of last week's session (Spain) only informed me in-game, a few seconds after we entered the game and a year(in game terms) after i got Dowed by Russia, that he "had a NAP with England until 1681" so i better prepare.
Anyway, as you have all seen, the alliance switch, change, and your losses in one war may be your gains in the next.
I thought it only applied to actual alliances, not just countries that happen to be fighting the same enemy.
But regardless, apart from Fnuco's post, the rule is retarded for the reason Drake pointed out. IMO we should drop this stupid rule
But regardless, apart from Fnuco's post, the rule is retarded for the reason Drake pointed out. IMO we should drop this stupid rule
EIDT: This whole thing will be discussed!!!
EDIT 2: K' is called to help with presedans and we'll make a decision based on them
Rules will be clarified though.
EDIT 2: K' is called to help with presedans and we'll make a decision based on them
Rules will be clarified though.
Last edited:
Fnuco said:
Firstly, it is hardly from a retarded rule John, this is not a game solely for realpolitikers, EGA has many different manner and styles of play all coexisting and conflicting togethere.
In such a game, it becomes essential to allow some form of extraneous security for states, so that their obliteration takes at least a little time. Because everyone is not as cutthroat as you or I they are giving more breathing room, to prevent one nation losing for example 10+ provinces in a single war.
That being said, it is very difficult to construct a rule on peace demands and alliances, that is "fool-proof". Most only designate alliances as being of the in-game model, or those who peace togethere etc. allowing a million different ways to circumvent such a rule and still rape nations with no chance for reprisal.
For myself, what is essential is not that a nation or alliance becomes too powerful, but rather that the losing nation doesn't become too weak. So we crafted a difficult compromise, where any nation at war with several other nations could only lose a maximum amount of provinces, no matter how the attacking states tried to swing it. For the purposes of those/that war they would be considered as unified aggressors.
Now, there are many, many, many ways that attacking nations can now be stifled and taken advantage of in such a ruleset, but most can be avoided with careful planning, plus there is only 5 yrs between wars, most defeated nations are hardly rdy to go another 12 rounds after that time.
And no, I won't be getting into a 10 page debate on this now. Feel free to petition your GM's for a new rule or rule scrapping, I myself was in favour of a much more extensive and specific peace/demand rule-set.
The concept of a province-limit John, will be inherently in opposition to your play style, of course some may argue that you are meant for another sort of game
.
Basically, I agree with K'. If one country doesn't want to peace other country, just because it doesn't want that, it doesn't mean that 10 other countries can take 5 provs each in the meantime since victim was unable to defend.
Decision will, for my part, go in that direction.
However, rule must be clarified to prevent such problems.
Decision will, for my part, go in that direction.
However, rule must be clarified to prevent such problems.
Well K'shar, what this does is forces players to make consecutive gangs on a country to accomplish anything worthwhile. Just as an example, say England controls a bunch of coastal provs all around Europe, and has close to 2000 naval support because of it. All the other European powers combined can barely counter this together, so they form together and try to stop England.
They win the war, but, oh, sadly they can only demand 5 provs. Thus England only loses 50 naval support despite losing a huge war against the gangbangers. And lets say that the English player was smart enough to hide his fleet during the war, and just said "fuck it, take whatever 5 provs you want to devide amongst yourselves, I'm not even going to fight over this".
5 years later, he DOWs one country, rapes it easily, then another, and another. The coalition won a major war against England, so it should be crushed, right? But 5 provs wouldn't even make a dent against such a power country.
England defeats all its enemies in turn, we'll say it attacked 6 countries. All in all, it takes 30 provs off them combined and is now far, far more powerful than it was.
The nations pull together and try to defeat England again, but so what if they win? The best they can do is take 5 provs between all of them, who cares if they accomplish that much? War is hardly worth fighting for such scraps.
And no, 5 years is not a short amount of time. It's 1/4, or often in our cases, 1/2 of a session. And assuming a country is not at war with another country in the interval, it's ussually more than enough time to recover and start over again.
-------------------
That's just one argument. There are quite a few other reasons that this peace rule is indeed retarded, and why it does not belong in this game. Most of the other reasons, whether you choose to ignore them or not, have been touched on already, so I may let them go.
However, whatever the final decision is on this, I expect the decision to not be retroactive. If sufficient clarity was not given about this rule earlier, it's the GM's fault, not mine or Zeits, so I expect no editor to lay a cursor on the provinces I or any other country gained during the session.
They win the war, but, oh, sadly they can only demand 5 provs
. Thus England only loses 50 naval support despite losing a huge war against the gangbangers. And lets say that the English player was smart enough to hide his fleet during the war, and just said "fuck it, take whatever 5 provs you want to devide amongst yourselves, I'm not even going to fight over this". 5 years later, he DOWs one country, rapes it easily, then another, and another. The coalition won a major war against England, so it should be crushed, right? But 5 provs wouldn't even make a dent against such a power country.
England defeats all its enemies in turn, we'll say it attacked 6 countries. All in all, it takes 30 provs off them combined and is now far, far more powerful than it was.
The nations pull together and try to defeat England again, but so what if they win? The best they can do is take 5 provs between all of them, who cares if they accomplish that much? War is hardly worth fighting for such scraps.
And no, 5 years is not a short amount of time. It's 1/4, or often in our cases, 1/2 of a session. And assuming a country is not at war with another country in the interval, it's ussually more than enough time to recover and start over again.
-------------------
That's just one argument. There are quite a few other reasons that this peace rule is indeed retarded, and why it does not belong in this game. Most of the other reasons, whether you choose to ignore them or not, have been touched on already, so I may let them go.
However, whatever the final decision is on this, I expect the decision to not be retroactive. If sufficient clarity was not given about this rule earlier, it's the GM's fault, not mine or Zeits, so I expect no editor to lay a cursor on the provinces I or any other country gained during the session.