• 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.
Oct 5, 2005
3.735
1
Im glad I didnt send that gift to you Bob, I was thinking about sending it to Ozzeh but I thought Id try it out on an AI first...
 
Dec 17, 2004
1.887
0
balinus said:
ok, this week's edits :
- Baluchistan back in Ottomans evil empire ;)
- Enkan sold to Russia evil empire ;)
- Monarchs
- Leaders
- Actions (to come)
Anything more?
The portugese queens advard for the quest? ;)
 

unmerged(36826)

Antipope
Dec 11, 2004
4.650
0
balinus said:
Well, it was easier for you to advance quickly and attack hard in mainland Russia than for me with small troops in Siberia.

Well I had no army there but.... ;)
and I also was unable to pay any attention to it whatsoever till after the ottos went away....
 

unmerged(30948)

All life with EU II
Jun 22, 2004
1.967
0
cobjor said:
Ozzehs rule seems fine to me! :)

Well, if the wars already started the single winners didn't break that rule because they are 2 different wars and 2 different alliances.
We can only imagine that there was a deal about a simultaneous attack ...
Anyway I usually prefer a 1 vs 1 war and in this situation I could ask to 2nd alliance:
pls no DoWing before the end of 1st war ...
 
Oct 22, 2001
8.242
0
Visit site
Yes WE is a bit difficult as I have discussed with Elio in his own campaign. Good you bring it up here Elio. WE in cores and non-cores differ, as it does in state religion provinces and non-state religion when you are DotF. Better not include anything about WE or specify that the WE number refers to, for example, the WE in the capital province.
 
Oct 22, 2001
8.242
0
Visit site
Elio Vasa said:
Well, if the wars already started the single winners didn't break that rule because they are 2 different wars and 2 different alliances.

Eh :confused: Ozzeh's rule states that you only view the problem from the view of the loser. He cannot lose more than 5 province points during one "war" (as defined by Ozzeh).

The most simple solution would have been to define a war as a period of being not at peace, regardless of whom you are at war with. Unfortunately Ozzeh included this WE-thingie which obscured the question a little (see my previous post).

As a matter of fact it might be so that it is only wars with humans that is intended with the rule; if so it might be best to be explicit about that.
 
Dec 17, 2004
1.887
0
Once upon on a time in Prussia of all places, they tried to make laws describing every detail. For example, they made a law about in which order the books in a libary should be placed. Many §, so many it became ridculus.

I think we have a good general rule now. All rules have to be interpreted (not bended) based on each situation. And we all try to follow the spirit of Oz rule (and not look for loop-holes), we should not have any problems. ;)

Go, Oz the rule-giver! :D
 

unmerged(38752)

Field Marshal
Jan 26, 2005
2.917
0
cobjor said:
Once upon on a time in Prussia of all places, they tried to make laws describing every detail. For example, they made a law about in which order the books in a libary should be placed. Many §, so many it became ridculus.

I think we have a good general rule now. All rules have to be interpreted (not bended) based on each situation. And we all try to follow the spirit of Oz rule (and not look for loop-holes), we should not have any problems. ;)

Go, Oz the rule-giver! :D

Ozzeh I Kanuni :D

Anyway Daniel, WE is always defined as the war exhaustion in the capital (or the penalty to your stabcost but at +3 that is not readable). I thought you knew that :D