Originally posted by Sikakoira
First session of the Illusion of Majesty over..... ! Look for AARs about all the interesting happenings tomorrow!
No, no, no!
(Looking forward reading your AAR`s
)-
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.
No, no, no!
(Looking forward reading your AAR`s
)
Originally posted by Gottwaldus
(Looking forward reading your AAR`s
Don't expect too much!
Please read the latest French AAR in our Diplo & AAR -thread. If you want to add comments, do it to our main thread
Sikakoira: would you mind playing Austra the first session (Sunday the 10th of August, 13-16 and 17-20 GMT), since Doffe shall visit a festival... ????
Dawkins argued against the maximum-2/3 human-players-per alliance-rule*:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) It would be impossible to enforce, since 2 allied groups can cooperate and would just act as unofficial allies. In this situation all this rule does is make peace negotiations far more complicated.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This isn`t true: when two alliances work together, there is a lot more BB involved which will make the cooperation more expensive and less benefitable. The alliance partners do not receive stability hits for dishonoring the alliance, either - so a such alliance may easily be broken. And - as you stated - peace negotations may be more difficult (but not neccessarily, since you can agree on peace between the sessions - and edit the changes decided (including BB, of course)).
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2) Large alliances are often needed to keep the game interesting by ganging up on a super power.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course they are - but the whole clue about this rule is to keep the AI nations relevant. If you will attack a super-power you can attack them together with your vast alliance along with AI nations, and maybe other alliances will follow the attack up. This also makes it very difficult for bad boys to form huge alliances which again prevents super-powers from growing.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3) Mass alliances are a symptom of a game stagnating due to cowardly/un-ambitious players. It is a symptom *not* a cause, since if those players wanted to win they would break their mass alliance voluntarily.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Or maybe they feel that they have benefits of being members of a super alliance? If 7-8 human players ally, no one can stop them, they don`t have to care about BB - and can conquer whatever they want! The AI become irrelevant and we got a Europe divided between the human players - which will harm the game enormously! Then the - possibly - two human alliances will clash together (very unhistorically), and.... nothing left.
*=I posted this post earlier too, but since I don`t think Dawkins has read it yet, I post it once more...
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) It would be impossible to enforce, since 2 allied groups can cooperate and would just act as unofficial allies. In this situation all this rule does is make peace negotiations far more complicated.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This isn`t true: when two alliances work together, there is a lot more BB involved which will make the cooperation more expensive and less benefitable. The alliance partners do not receive stability hits for dishonoring the alliance, either - so a such alliance may easily be broken. And - as you stated - peace negotations may be more difficult (but not neccessarily, since you can agree on peace between the sessions - and edit the changes decided (including BB, of course)).
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2) Large alliances are often needed to keep the game interesting by ganging up on a super power.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course they are - but the whole clue about this rule is to keep the AI nations relevant. If you will attack a super-power you can attack them together with your vast alliance along with AI nations, and maybe other alliances will follow the attack up. This also makes it very difficult for bad boys to form huge alliances which again prevents super-powers from growing.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3) Mass alliances are a symptom of a game stagnating due to cowardly/un-ambitious players. It is a symptom *not* a cause, since if those players wanted to win they would break their mass alliance voluntarily.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Or maybe they feel that they have benefits of being members of a super alliance? If 7-8 human players ally, no one can stop them, they don`t have to care about BB - and can conquer whatever they want! The AI become irrelevant and we got a Europe divided between the human players - which will harm the game enormously! Then the - possibly - two human alliances will clash together (very unhistorically), and.... nothing left.
*=I posted this post earlier too, but since I don`t think Dawkins has read it yet, I post it once more...
I strongly support Dawkins!
Don't play here, instead join our game! We need a player for Spain!
Don't play here, instead join our game! We need a player for Spain!
Thanks for the offer, but I'm sorry it's impossible.
Hope you get somebody else.
Last edited:
Although it is not my game, I believe that your intention will not be achieved.
AI nations in MP will always be irrelevant (maybe the first sessions they will have some relevance but I highly doubt that it will had in the next ones). You can defeat them in SP without many problems and with the major nations taken by players, why you should care about AI?
You are playing GC, suppose you are Castille. In SP you can defeat any big AI nation, but in your game the big nations will be player controled. How Castille could worry about AI Morocco or AI Tuscany? In MP you worry (and should worry) about human players.
OK. Does anyone know about others who may be interested in being a sub for our Austrian player this Sunday?
Originally posted by Sikakoira
Don't play here, instead join our game! We need a player for Spain!
Hmmm.
You use our great, marvellous, stunning, beautiful, funny, interesting, informative, compreshive, unbeatable, mp site to advertaise for your (small and insignificant) game?
You`re attempt is doomed to fail ...
Try to recruit one yourself, gak ... You`re the administrator.
Visit other mp`s and beg for help ...
Originally posted by Gottwaldus
Hmmm.
You use our great, marvellous, stunning, beautiful, funny, interesting, informative, compreshive, unbeatable, mp site to advertaise for your (small and insignificant) game?
You`re attempt is doomed to fail ...
I love stealing others' players
I already ICQ'd him
I`ll give it a try, but can`t promise anything... Austria and Castille - are these the only countries who need subs?
Originally posted by gak
Why not steal a sub for us, instead?
Because that wouldn't be stealing
And again, some advertising:
2nd session of the Illusion of Majesty over! Look for AARs and screenies about all the interesting happenings tomorrow!
2nd session of the Illusion of Majesty over! Look for AARs and screenies about all the interesting happenings tomorrow!
I`m trying to do the same now, Sikaoira! Some humble advertising at your main thread ...
So I hope I`ll succeed!
We need some great and nice Illusion of Majesty players as subs for GE!
So I hope I`ll succeed!
We need some great and nice Illusion of Majesty players as subs for GE!