GRAND EUROPE - smalltalk and others

[unmerged(18211)]

I am doubting the stability of our games with all these players.... And really, I think we will crash and restart and crash and restart many times...

And all of these players coming reliably to the same place at the same time... I don't believe that.

 

[selfparody]

If you guys are really worried about stability and since I came relatively late, I'll volunteer to go. I would like to stay though.

That said, I've been doing some playtesting of Savoy, they're a very minor minor. If no one has any objections and since the game is still a week or so away I'd like to switch to Brandenburg. They're in a better position and have less enemies and more favourable events. Up to you.

 

[unmerged(3756)]

Originally posted by selfparody

That said, I've been doing some playtesting of Savoy, they're a very minor minor. If no one has any objections and since the game is still a week or so away I'd like to switch to Brandenburg. They're in a better position and have less enemies and more favourable events. Up to you.

I think that would be a wise decision. Currently there is already France, Austria and Venice in southern europe/italy while there is no one in the german states.

 

[unmerged(18211)]

I really don't like the rule "no more than two human players in an alliance".

What is the sense in preventing players to form larger coalitions?

Will I put up a poll for that?

 

[unmerged(18211)]

gak, could you add the game rules and all the stuff to the "Current Status of Grand Europe" -post in the Diplomacy forum? So they could be easily seen.

 

[selfparody]

Originally posted by Osweld
I think that would be a wise decision. Currently there is already France, Austria and Venice in southern europe/italy while there is no one in the german states.

Yes, that is exactly what I was thinking.

 

[unmerged(18307)]

Originally posted by Sikakoira
I am doubting the stability of our games with all these players.... And really, I think we will crash and restart and crash and restart many times...

And all of these players coming reliably to the same place at the same time... I don't believe that.

I support you there. We`re currently twelve, soon thirteen players. He must be the last. You agree?

 

[unmerged(18307)]

Originally posted by selfparody
If you guys are really worried about stability and since I came relatively late, I'll volunteer to go. I would like to stay though.

That said, I've been doing some playtesting of Savoy, they're a very minor minor. If no one has any objections and since the game is still a week or so away I'd like to switch to Brandenburg. They're in a better position and have less enemies and more favourable events. Up to you.

To selfparody; you`re going nowhere! Understood?

And the country-changing matter; It`s okay with me, as long as our relations will be the same (that include Non-aggression Treaty and Royal Marriage.

 

[unmerged(18307)]

Originally posted by Sikakoira
gak, could you add the game rules and all the stuff to the "Current Status of Grand Europe" -post in the Diplomacy forum? So they could be easily seen.

Yes, that would be nice ...

Have registrated your change of shield; Fine!

 

[unmerged(18307)]

I`ve just updated my posts at both the "official treaties and important information -" and the "vote" thread.

Just wanted you to know.

Please visit ...

 

[unmerged(9338)]

selfparody: you are definetely not leaving! But if you would consider Saxony instead of Brandenbur I would be glad...

Sikakoira: yes, I will add the overview in the Game Status post imideatley

 

[unmerged(9338)]

Abput the stability of the game with a lots of player: I`m told that the real troubles start at 14 players, so we will stop at 13.

 

[unmerged(9338)]

The rule of only two human players in an alliance will not be removed. If we allow a lot of human playesr to ally we risk to end up with one or two huge alliances which will make the game very little interesting. The rule is accepted as a part of our well known compromise, so no one can start a poll on this and expect the result to be recognized... Even if you love polls as you do Sikakoira...

 

[unmerged(18307)]

Originally posted by gak
To Gottwaldus: well probably you`re right I really don`t know...

You`re talking about the Jämtland-matter her?
Please quote the "old" message your reply is related to, that will make it much easier to avoid misunderstandings ...

 

[Rezag]

Originally posted by gak
The rule of only two human players in an alliance will not be removed. If we allow a lot of human playesr to ally we risk to end up with one or two huge alliances which will make the game very little interesting. The rule is accepted as a part of our well known compromise, so no one can start a poll on this and expect the result to be recognized... Even if you love polls as you do Sikakoira...

Now sometimes it might be needed more human countries to wage war agains some opponenet/allianse so is it legal then that two or more allianses wage war at same time agains same opponent? If not we might have lots of trouble later as only two human player can be at war agains one.

 

[unmerged(18307)]

I see your point Rezag, but then it`s no use for the max-two-in-one-alliance rule. If for example a two human alliance makes an agreement with another two human player alliance, and declare war against a third, we have no guarantee for that the third don`t ally with a fourth, and so on ...

Then we in reality have two large alliances, just that they then are looser conected ...

 

[unmerged(18211)]

I would find it much more interesting with large human coalitions... Really. This two-humans-only rule kinda ruins the joy... You could do some real war strategy... I just find no sense in that rule! Tell me, what is the idea of it?



*sniff*

 

[Rezag]

Originally posted by Gottwaldus
I see your point Rezag, but then it`s no use for the max-two-in-one-alliance rule. If for example a two human alliance makes an agreement with another two human player alliance, and declare war against a third, we have no guarantee for that the third don`t ally with a fourth, and so on ...

Then we in reality have two large alliances, just that they then are looser conected ...

Now this is going to be problem because some players have mutch less resourses that others example Human Saxony has alliance with human Venice and on the other side is human France and human Austria and because of the rule no outside force cant interfere the war now this is my prime concers as countries arent equal and so alliances will allways be unequal as well. Another concern is that nobody has to be worried that his country is ever going to be punished by large player coalition as its impossible have more than 2 human agains him at one time.

Then there is another problem that comes with this rule if AI country that is on alliance with human declares war on human that allready is war with 2 human he is forcer to unhonor reques of allies and you can see what problems this causes.

Yes small alliances wagin war agains same opponent gives partial hole on this large allianse rule but I think this rule followed strigly might cause mutch more unbalance.

 

[unmerged(9338)]

I have said it before, and I say it again: the target of our game is not that the human players shall share Europe among them - if 8 or 9 human players ally no one will be able to stop them - they can expand freely, and it is as unhistorcal as it can be! To ensure a healthy game the maximum-two-humans-in-one-alliance rule is needed.
It will not be changed: and due to the compromise this is out of discussion. Sorry, but I have been adviced, in order to make a interesting game, to avoid 100% human dominance. I don`t understand how an alliance consisiting of Scandinavia, Austria, England, the Mamelukks, France, Saxony, Lithuania, Venice, Portugal and the Ottoman Empire can bring any new aspects to the game - it will make it boring! And if two or more alliances commit themselves to assist each other - which may happen - I doubt that they always will be true to eachother. The badboy points for declaring war - and the fact that they doesn`t need to lose stability for dishonour the "call" - make them less tighter, and less dangerous. AND - Gottwaldus: We have the possibility to forbid two alliances to cooperate that near, too - since you mean it could be a problem... (which I don`t)

 

[unmerged(9338)]

...

EDIT: took it all away!