mr. lifford's wed night MP game AAR thread

[unmerged(8301)]

Re: Sweden

Originally posted by TAF
The English "proposal" was a war ultimatum, and the Netherlands announced its support of the same. It did not even agree to the bone of Shanghai that England and Spain were willing to throw in the general direction of Sweden.

Sweden recognizes no claim of England to any territory other than the province of Anglia(unsettled at this time). If Sweden decides to re-enter the arena of obtaining colonies outside Europe(also unsettled at this time), it regards English colonies as rating first on the list, especially as England claims most of the world as its private territory. The Netherlands may come to regret throwing its lot in with such a rapacious "ally", one that sees fit to claim a subcontinent they both have colonies on, including the province the Dutch just tried to obtain.With friends like these, the Netherlands hardly needs enemies.

Tap, tap, tap, the sound of Swedish shipbuilding. Not a huge navy by colonizer standards, but concentrated and perhaps just enough to turn the tide in a closely-fought war.

Denmark may remember that I offered to ally with it, before it inaugurated the war that led to the loss of Norway, and that, my English correspondent, is hardly "aggressions" against your alleged Danish client.

Pippo Longstockingsson, acting Foreign Minister of Sweden, illegitimate son of Pippi Longstocking and a Norwegian sailor on shore leave

I see. England makes a gesture of friendship, and we get naught but threats in return. Not only that, you then continue on to threaten your Dutch friends. If this, good sir, is the modus operandi for the Swedish foreign ministry, then I am thankful that our offer of friendship has been spurned. I ashamedly retract my offer, in the hopes that the rest of Europe does not look poorly on England for trying to befriend such a nation of barbarians.

 

[unmerged(10269)]

Sweden

Side-Note to Netherlands:

I did not see any private messages, but those were hectic times. I will check the diplomatic log to see if there were ones that I missed.

Cheers,
Pippo

 

[Count Drew]

Disposition: Netherlands

Do not judge the tiny sized nation. She is in worse a position than Austria considering that at least some nations may seek to support her. It is merely by the Will of France that Netherlands Survive and a promise Austria wishes to keep on is that if any nation should break her independance they shall meet someone's steel. Down the Road perhaps under Austrian Leadership

Leave them be, to grow and develop. It's impossible to mantain a nation with 20k in troops... in this type of game

 

[unmerged(5034)]

Kleves Fairy Tales Part 1

Nice posts Kleves. Unfortunately you seemed to have confused this game with other games you may be playing. Why dont you repost when you get your facts straight.

 

[unmerged(7580)]

Re: Kleves Fairy Tales Part 1

Originally posted by Nap Bonaparte
Nice posts Kleves. Unfortunately you seemed to have confused this game with other games you may be playing. Why dont you repost when you get your facts straight.

And which post would that be? The others seem to think I've told it as it actually happened. Perhaps you are the one confusing our game with another?

 

[unmerged(10269)]

Sweden

Message to Perfidious Albion:

I never threatened the Dutch and will not. You are simply trying to broaden the blame for your own backstabbing. Portraits of the Dutch monarch hang in every house in Sweden, by order of his Majesty, as the savior of Russia and therefore, indirectly, of Sweden. The Netherlands would have to show much worse intent to void our high regard for them, and I hope that never occurs.

I have been looking around for possible colonial territory and notice that there is a wild, pagan area in the British isles, near the Scottish border.This tribe calls itself "Yorkshiremen" and seems ripe for the benefits of Swedish civilization. Remember, tap, tap, tap.......the best of British luck to you Albion.

I take this opportunity to introduce the newest addition to the Swedish foreign office, Eric Bloodaxe, for reasons that will be clear below. Eric wishes to make a communication and I allow it as follows:

"Ho! Me Eric Bloodaxe. Me kill many Danes. Me like to kill Danes, but few Danes left. Me want to kill English now. Die, English pigs, die!!......me go now."

A fascinating first communique from the future Swedish Talleyrand.

Eric ( or "Mad Dog" as he is affectionately known in the foreign office ) is the Swedish king's double's wife's second cousin twice removed, but that has had nothing to do with his rapid rise in our ministry. Most of that can be attributed to his murder of the 14 people who outranked him in the Military Intelligence Section.

I am presently assigning Eric to an expedition north of the Arctic Circle to count the number of reindeer owned by the King's Lapp subjects. He is under strict orders not to kill any of those subjects, but a strait jacket has been given to his team, "just in case". Well, perhaps not just in case, as I saw his team fit him into the jacket and throw him in the back of an oxcart before heading northward.

I am concerned that relations between Sweden and England have seriously deteriorated due to incessant English backstabbing, undermining, and overt threats against the Swedish people. I wish to repair the relationship and intend to assign Eric, upon his return, as the Swedish ambassador to the Court of St. James. I believe that he can connect to the English on their level, which admittedly is difficult for me, since I don't sleep on straw and eat entrails. I have anecdotal evidence of this suitability, as, whenever we send Eric out to get lunch here in Stockholm, everyone he attacks on the street thinks he is English.

One note of warning to England. Eric, in addition to being a serious killer, is also a pyromaniac, so I would not let him near any buildings of which you have grown fond.

Pippo Longstockingsson, acting Foreign Minister of Sweden, Hammer of the Danes, Friend of the Dutch, and temporary Babysitter of the Psychotic

 

[manitou333]

To England and Sweden

Surely this rift can be repaired and this misunderstanding fixed. I see this situation escalting for no real reason and Russia would like to see the matter dropped. Sweden knows that Russia gives Sweden it's full support, but perhaps forgivness is the right route here. The situation is already resolved, with your claims in Zimbabwe excanged for those in China and Russia also will support your claims in China. I feel that this divsion between the Channel Coaltion and NEETO is destructive and self-defeating. Though in Sweden's defense we hade been planning the invasion of Zimbabwe for many years so it can as a great surprise that it was already secretly partioned and the Tsar can see Sweden frustration in this. It is our hope that this matter will be forgotten and relations restored before it gets out of hand.

Mike D.

 

[unmerged(7580)]

The King of France agrees with the honorable Tsar. Although it may have been unfair when Zimbabwe was handed to Denmark, that is in the past, and Sweden was compensated. Let us put this behind us, for the CC and NEETO have been strong and loyal allies for a long while.

Yours,
Kleves, Minister of Foreign Affairs, on Behalf of the King of France

 

[unmerged(12740)]

Re: Re: Kleves Fairy Tales Part Innumerable

Originally posted by KlevesWarrior
And which post would that be? The others seem to think I've told it as it actually happened. Perhaps you are the one confusing our game with another?

well, i think he was describing your aar and it certainly does not accord with the polish sense of events.

1) no such speech was made.
2) military force? twas an accidental discovery, had you not been a catholic nation (that had turned on all her co-religionists) in a province long reserved for spain by his holiness the pope it wld not have effected you.
3) "victory after victory", this does not accord w/ other descriptions of the tide of time.
4) the ottoman left w/ his tail between his legs? seems you had to give up two provinces, not the other way around.

it has long been noted by the polish foreign ministry that the french minister is fond of tall tales, unfortunately, they are never as enlightening as rochefoucauld's.

 

[unmerged(7580)]

1) I added a bit to the speech, otherwise it was true
2) He annexed a French province with his army, what would you call it?
3) There were indeed many French victories, after France began to mobilize troops. There were French defeats also, I never said there were not.
4) After France actually began turning forces against the Ottoman Empire, he called for peace, even against the wishes of his Spanish ally. France was forced to give up two provinces, but they were poor, and not worth the price of retaking them.

 

[unmerged(8301)]

Re: Sweden

Originally posted by TAF
Message to Perfidious Albion:

[snip vitriol and posturing]

This deserves no comment.

 

[unmerged(5034)]

OE at War 1621-1627

I seem to have a different perspective on the events that occurred during World War 3 as opposed to the French monarch.
I was conducting the war as a sub and as such did not feel as if I could make policy decisions independent of my instructions. My instructions were to support Austria's attack on France by invading Italy 1st and then , depending on how events transpired, continue with the offensive to southern France. Victory conditions were a little more nebulous, something to the effect of helping Austria secure some Italian provinces for herself with no real finite territorial objectives for the OE . No mention was made of intervention with regards to the Poles and I was not going to make an independent decision that could jeopardize the success of the war against France. In all these events I was to follow the lead of Austria.

The session started in 1621 with Spain getting close to exhaustion with the war against France and pleading with Austria/OE to open a second front. Austria was facing -3 stab and high WE so an immediate DoW was out of the question. Every diplomat received by the OE was sent to Austria with the maximum amount of gold allowed by the game engine. Finally Austria promised that we would be ready to intervene by March 1622. The Sultan had pre-positioned a vast army for the upcoming battle: 57k in Steirmark,32k in Krain, 19k in Croatia with another 71k floating aimlessly around the Adriatic on a 120 ship armada.Approximately 15k of these forces were lost to attrition prior to the opening of hostilities.

Austria opened the action in March 1622 by quickly assaulting Tyrolia and then beseiged Mantua.The OE offloaded their 71k Marines onto Romagna and also beseiged Emilia and Firenze. The OE land forces came thru the Alps and supported Austria's seige/assault on Mantua.Severe attrition losses occurred to OE while beseiging Mantua and staging in Tyrolia. There was a 14k French army in Italy(not 7k) and it was hiding in Marche where we couldnt get at it. When it finally came out to Romagna to play it was fixed in position by a couple of suicide attacks and was then crushed when the big boys were brought up. I seem to remember the remnants of the French Italian army scurrying across the Po towards Lombardy "with their tails between their legs".

In short order, Tyrolia and all the French owned Italian provinces were liberated from their oppressors. The French then started sending a series of pleas to the OE every 2-3 months begging for peace(the OE never sued for peace during the entire conflict). Unfortunately the French only offerred 1 province (Tyrolia) and since I had been instructed to secure Italian provinces for Austria I asked Spain and Austria if we should settle for peace. The decision was then made to continue prosecution of the war to the French homeland.

The OE had no overland access to France so the 120 ship Armada was brought over to the west coast of Italy and 90k troops were embarked. Provence and Languedoc were beseiged and a 17k calvary force was sent north to scout on French troop dispositions. By this time Drew had just arrived inside the French border and the our scouts observed a 60k French army headed straight for the Austrian army. We warned Drew and he was able to withdraw back into Switzerland. The French army then turned and headed towards the OE invasion force. I informed Austria and Spain that a battle royale was about to occur in Lyonnais where the OE had a 40k army laying seige. Provence had fallen and the seige of Languedoc had been withdrawn so all 3 OE armies of 90k total were ready to support each other. Just as France attacked Lyonnais Drew arrived with his Austrian army and attacked from the rear. The French army was destroyed. Another 40k OE troops were ferried from Italy to France. An army of 45k was sent to northern France while the seige of Lyonnais continued. The French then massed another 90k army in the north and and annihilated the northern OE army. They also finished off the remnants of the Austrian army. The OE had gathered another 40k troops in Italy for transport to France but they could not arrive in time so a strategic withdrawal was begun back to our port in Provence. At this time the French again sued for peace, this time offerring Mantua as well as Tyrolia to Austria. I asked Austria and Spain if the offer was sufficient and they agreed that it was provided France also WP Spain which she agreed to.

So the OE role in the war was over, except for 2 more years of helping Austria and Poland kill off all their rebels. 130k troops had been sent to France, 50k were withdrawn at the end of the war. Combat losses for OE 1621-1627 were 61k infantry and 52k calvary against the forces of France, Aden, and Austrian and Polish rebels. At least 2000 ducats were given to Austria in support. The OE war against France was limited as were the victory objectives. The OE started the war with available MP of 233k and also ended the war with 233k MP. I agree with Drew that if the OE had prosecuted the war to the full extent of her capabilities that a portion of southern France could have been partitioned off. However I feel that a result of that nature would have been beyond my role as a sub.

I had a blast that session. Thanx Dave!

 

[unmerged(12740)]

screencaps

damn ... i just wish to hell that somebody had taken some screencaps of the battles in spain, mexico & esp. the battle royale in lyonnaise .. wld have made not being able to see it a little more bearable.

the way to do it is to pause and hit f11. it will save to your eu2 folder. i think shigure wld be happy to post any that turn out to be interesting.

 

[unmerged(7580)]

Hmm... interesting take on things Nappy. My version, however, is closer to the truth.

1) In the large battle, I was outnumbered 140,000 to 50,000, I still killed enough that the Ottoman Empire was not able to conduct another attack, and I annihilated the Austrian army that followed.
2) Southern France? I only fought the OE with about 1/2 my forces (if that), and never began to mint cash to pay for more troops. In the OE had faced the full might of France... well, perhaps we'll get a chance to see?

 

[unmerged(1631)]

An Idea to Determine a "Winner"

Bonjour O Monarchs!

I've been playing our games on the assumption that VP's were King at the end. However, it's been pointed out to me that since all nations are not equal then obviously this can't be a fair way to determine a "Winner".

I've never finished a campaign before, but the one I got close in, at the end, it was a dog pile affair to take down the first place nation. Lots of fun but not really realistic.

So my suggestion is this:
A poll at the end of the game is taken amongst all the players to determine who "won"

Players rank the nations that they think came in 1st ,2nd ,3rd and whoever has the most #1 votes wins- most #2's 2nd, and most 3rd place votes, 3rd.

This would allow for the different perceptions of "victory" out there amongst the players to come into play.

So if Sweden is in control of Germany at the end of the game but is in 4th place in vp standings someone might think this achievement is worthy of 1st Place whilst another might give this a lesser vote.

We should agree on some method of determining victory pretty soon though while it is still relatively early in the game. We seem to have a hodge-podge of thoughts on this and I'm sure it's influencing our various nation strategies.

What do you fellows think?


Dave (The Sultan)

 

[Count Drew]

Victory

Dave I think you definitely have a point.

Victory is achieved by Greatness... Even the loser technically sometimes is remebered with more fondness..i.e. Rommel

 

[unmerged(3571)]

Re: An Idea to Determine a "Winner"

Originally posted by Mrlifford
Bonjour O Monarchs!

I've been playing our games on the assumption that VP's were King at the end. However, it's been pointed out to me that since all nations are not equal then obviously this can't be a fair way to determine a "Winner".

I've never finished a campaign before, but the one I got close in, at the end, it was a dog pile affair to take down the first place nation. Lots of fun but not really realistic.

So my suggestion is this:
A poll at the end of the game is taken amongst all the players to determine who "won"

Players rank the nations that they think came in 1st ,2nd ,3rd and whoever has the most #1 votes wins- most #2's 2nd, and most 3rd place votes, 3rd.

This would allow for the different perceptions of "victory" out there amongst the players to come into play.

So if Sweden is in control of Germany at the end of the game but is in 4th place in vp standings someone might think this achievement is worthy of 1st Place whilst another might give this a lesser vote.

We should agree on some method of determining victory pretty soon though while it is still relatively early in the game. We seem to have a hodge-podge of thoughts on this and I'm sure it's influencing our various nation strategies.

What do you fellows think?

Dave (The Sultan)

Well, I think that VPs are the one and only guide. Ideally there would be a handicap for each nation, but I don't think it is that important because VPs are self-balancing.

Obviously Spain has an enormous advantage, but any intelligent England for example will act with that as a consideration. The inherrent VP advantages of certain nations should cause other nations to form coalitions against them. The trick for the weaker nations is to be below the radar of the strongest nations.

Any "vote" at the end will too much encourage nations to maintain static alliances, which (IMHO) aren't good for the game. Pretty much any nation in the game is capable of winning, as long as all the other nations consider VPs to be important.

PS. I've had more than a few to drink, appologies for the probably many typos.

 

[unmerged(3571)]

Originally posted by Nap Bonaparte
Nice posts Kleves. Unfortunately you seemed to have confused this game with other games you may be playing. Why dont you repost when you get your facts straight.

Originally posted by TheArchduke
Great stuff people. At least some guys can play a game without arguing all the time!

You were saying?

Personally I like the impartial posts the most, from either side.

I didn't notice anything obviously wrong with Kleves' post, but I wasn't paying detailed attention to the area at the time. On the other had, despite having many obvious disagreements with TPC, I thought his post was very accurate/impartial. The truth is clearly in the eyes of the beholder. Sometimes the rhetoric gets a little vocal in the AAR's, but it is no worse that the USA's media. Personally I just tend to disregard the obviously biased comments.

 

[unmerged(3571)]

Re: Re: An Idea to Determine a "Winner"

Originally posted by satan
Well, I think that VPs are the one and only guide. Ideally there would be a handicap for each nation, but I don't think it is that important because VPs are self-balancing.

Obviously Spain has an enormous advantage, but any intelligent England for example will act with that as a consideration. The inherrent VP advantages of certain nations should cause other nations to form coalitions against them. The trick for the weaker nations is to be below the radar of the strongest nations.

Any "vote" at the end will too much encourage nations to maintain static alliances, which (IMHO) aren't good for the game. Pretty much any nation in the game is capable of winning, as long as all the other nations consider VPs to be important.

PS. I've had more than a few to drink, appologies for the probably many typos.

Post Script: While I strongly believe in this, it is definately true that some nations have VP advantages over others. For this to be self-balancing all nations involved in the game have to want to "win" or come as close as possible. If nations are content to settle for "second place" then this no longer works.

 

[unmerged(1631)]

... For having a few drinks you're surprisingly coherent. I probably would have ended it rambling on about a friends hot sister then a series of random key strokes...

Just trying to make sure we're all on the same page when it comes to determine victory. 3 players now have expressed suprise when I say I play for vp's so obviously vp's are not as important as that "feeling" of knowing who won.

At end game I would probably still take a look at vp's. However I know some nations can collect great number of vp's via events, huge colonial empires, or in the economic arena so that does skew it.
I would vote for the nation that has had the most "Power", interaction with other nations via confilct, who expanded their borders past the historical outcome and who basically "rules the roost".
So if the Dutch Republic sprawled into Germany and France, had a huge colonial empire, played an active role in world events ie. duking it out with a number of various nations, but came up short vp-wise, it would probably get my vote.

... shoot gotta run... at work and all = (

more later