mr. lifford's wed night MP game AAR thread

[Count Drew]

Stop argueing a dead point and take it up the rear like Austrian-OE<to a slightly lesser degree>-Dutch have! You lost... or have you? Now you know how a gangbang feels
Yeah, but the difference is the Poles fought me once. They have held those same cores since the mid 1500s. The OE as well, who gave up several of my cores and parts of Hungary to me.<payed back in blood for return of Mantua-Venice-Tirol-and several other Italian Provinces> The only difference is the land you took was not Core territory...Lombardia, Mantua, parts of Deeper Italy and the last bit of Holland... Some in your sphere of influence but in the end you hogged the entire boot to yourself... Lastly it was a relationship of neccessity. You didn't offer any friendship till much later, and then you broke that and DOWed Netherlands. You could have held Spain back and the Brits back... Selfish was your plot to take down Netherlands. England's Army is never capable of taking on France's Army. Spain can only barely do it. Takes both of them. Together with the Dutch you could have fended both of them, off! If you don't believe me ask them

Valid Points.. Also as I remeber, you taunted me the worst at the end of WW1 when I refused to be a 4-6 state Nation and give up Land to you "You'll be REASONABLE! OR ELSE!" Lets not forget during the Hessen War your attempt to retake Tirol... Enemy of the Emperor France you showed your true colors in the passing century, how can I put my trust in one who would backstab me more than once. Noone else has

 

[unmerged(3571)]

Originally posted by Shigure
France tried convincing us that we needed to attack the Netherlands again. However, it was glaringly obvious that they were going to take the opportunity to dishonour and ally with the Dutch. Nonetheless, we decided to spring the trap. So, while this is technically a defensive war, the French obviously wanted it to happen.

It certainly wasn't a defensive war from the Dutch perspective. We attacked nobody, and have been repeatedly betrayed by pretty much every country, combined with a collossal gang-bang.

 

[unmerged(3571)]

Re: Re: Re: Victory Points, 1709 - 1808

Originally posted by Shigure
Bah, we went over this the first time I pointed out that people were taking missions, over a century ago. They are exceedingly easy to find in the save file -- just do a search for "vpvalue". (As with the first time, I ran into this quite by accident searching for "vp".) Then page up to find which country took the mission. In this case, when I was going through the August 1792 save, I noticed:

[color=white]    mission = { 
        type = 1 
        id = { type = 4712 id = 6182523 } 
        date = { year = 1796 month = october day = 12 } 
        vpvalue = 20 
        penvalue = 13 
        province = 380 
        } 
[/color]

That's a "Hold Flandern" mission, I think. I'm shocked that satan would be taking missions, though.

In any case, we really need to talk Johan into disabling mission taking entirely unless the Dynamic Missions option is enabled or something. Otherwise, we may need to ignore mission points (this includes event-given VP like Versailles and whatnot) entirely.

Yeah, that one was an accident. I did know that it appears in the save, so it was hardly an attempted deception. I was sort of curious about them since I've never used missions.

I was actually looking at them because Dave had suggested possibly using them. I'm not sure whether that is a good idea or not.

 

[unmerged(7580)]

I think missions would be a bad idea. They are either incredibly easy, or insanely hard.

 

[unmerged(3571)]

Originally posted by tpc
while i empathize w/ you kleves, i do not sympathize.

imo, i think you made a mistake in not pressuring the netherlands not to attack hessen, which was an obvious provocation of the swedes & the poles. (i think it is possible that satan & you thought we were so insignificant in terms of our power that it didn't quite matter what we thought at the time. ) it was even more annoying when netherlands/austria refused to peace out even though it was clear that the swedes had accepted peace w/ austria in the belief that that wd be an end to the general war in northern germany. the rather harsh peace enforced on hessen by the netherlands (& not, significantly, austria) further upset his neighbors.

i'm not saying you didn't make a political effort to keep us out -- we spoke in-b/tw sessions -- just that the attack on hessen was unnecessary to either the french or dutch position & provocative (& my guess is probably driven by victory point considerations.) i do know that prior to hessen the swedes were more interested in revenge on another party altogether.

i think that although spain's plea for help was maybe slightly overdone, it did look like the war b/tw the two of you had been finished rather quickly given that you offed duke wellington so quickly. you gave poland, at least, no guarantees of safety following such a victory & had been the primary sponsor of an earlier austrian attack on poland. the dutch had similarly made no such guarantee. furthermore, the dutch had refused a royal marriage proposal. indeed, there has been no diplomatic activity b/tw the dutch & poland since the 16th century. thus joining the war to prevent a land/victory-point grab at the end seemed reasonable. (yet another reason to discount vp's ... the tendency to do non-strategically useful/interest-based things in order to get them in the end.)

there was also -- from poland's perspective -- an old debt to pay both the netherlands & france.

&, yes, it's less boring to be in the war than just to watch it ... that, too.

Really? I feel no need to defend my actions, but if you are curious about them, it was an entirely essential operation for the Netherlands.

As I mentioned to TAF, Hesse had previously grabbed provinces from my vassal Palatinate. That, combined with the French annexing Kleves, deprived me of a land border to annex my vassal. The war was essential.

Sweden WAS still at war with me, and fought me. I didn't understand what the purpose would be in white peacing since I needed those provinces.

Also, the peace wasn't nearly as harsh as it needed to be - I did no damage to Brandenburg/Prussia (which I was certainly capable of doing), nor did I damage Sweden except when Sweden attacked me. I could also easily have grabbed Denmark, which I also didn't

Anyway, if anybody has wanted to talk about it I probably would have been flexible, and I carefully stayed behind the border that Sweden and I agreed to as our sphere's of influence long ago.

 

[unmerged(3571)]

Originally posted by KlevesWarrior
Near even?

England and Spain have: 6x my economy. More troops, and more manpower. And that's not factoring in the other 5 player nations at war against me.

Against Spain and England the odds were in their favor, the only way I could evercome it was through careful planning, and execution. It took me years to save up the funds and recruit the troops. It was my one supreme effort against enormous odds and opposition.

And then the east arbitrarily enters the war out of boredom, and "glory" (not much glory in a gang-bang ).

France was jumped in real life because it threatened others. I did not. All I want in the same chance Spain has had the whole game, as they've declared war on me 6 times. In fact, I went out of my way and secured neutrality from almost all of you.

The rest of the game was so good. We didnt fight mindless wars for "fun".

/rant mode off

Actually, as we discussed the other night, I think you shot yourself in the foot.

You would have had a good chance to win this if you hadn't convinced Spain/England to attack me. By betraying me there, you got what you deserved. If you were a good ally you would not have done something that I specifically asked you not to do.

It all went down pretty much exactly as I warned you it would. If you had just attacked Spain without getting them to attack Netherlands you would probably be winning now.

So you don't really have my sympathy either, even though you are my only ally at the moment. I am more pissed at you for engineering the Spanish/English attack than I am at them for attacking.

True allies listen to the concerns/advice of their partners.

 

[unmerged(3571)]

Re: re: gangbangs

Originally posted by tpc
hrm ... well, kleves, methinks thou dost protest too much. i'm reaching way back in my memory for just a few examples ... oh ... yes:

let's see, was the french/polish/oe war against austria a gangbang, unworthy of you?

how about the french/english/dutch war against spain?
.
.
.

There was no such war that I recall. Wasn't it Spain who attacked us, combined with Sweden, OE, Poland? I honestly don't remember for sure, but I don't think the Dutch participated in any 3 on 1 attacks.

 

[unmerged(3571)]

Originally posted by KlevesWarrior
Actually, my France has been the least greedy compared to Tuesday and Sunday. I think it's hurt me, I should have been more expansionist.

Really? I've done little offensive fighting on Tuesday except to help my allies. I wouldn't really call you greedy now though Kleves. Perhaps at the beginning though, with the partition of Austria.

 

[unmerged(7580)]

Originally posted by satan
Actually, as we discussed the other night, I think you shot yourself in the foot.

Maybe, maybe not, we'll never know, now.

Though if I were you, I would have built an army, instead of a navy.

 

[unmerged(7580)]

Originally posted by satan
Really? I've done little offensive fighting on Tuesday except to help my allies. I wouldn't really call you greedy now though Kleves. Perhaps at the beginning though, with the partition of Austria.

You have not really been greedy, but you do have more of Germany than I do. And I think, more of Europe.

 

[unmerged(8301)]

Originally posted by satan
It certainly wasn't a defensive war from the Dutch perspective. We attacked nobody, and have been repeatedly betrayed by pretty much every country, combined with a collossal gang-bang.

Of course. I won't claim any moral superiority, since I know I haven't any -- the first war was a blatant power grab, and the second a trap for the unwitting French, with the Netherlands as an unfortunate victim.

In any case, I was trying to imply that the French brought this war upon themselves, so they're hardly in a position to whine about it. The actual sequence of DoWs, dishonours, and invites is only a technicality.

 

[unmerged(8301)]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Victory Points, 1709 - 1808

Originally posted by satan
Yeah, that one was an accident. I did know that it appears in the save, so it was hardly an attempted deception. I was sort of curious about them since I've never used missions.

I was actually looking at them because Dave had suggested possibly using them. I'm not sure whether that is a good idea or not.

Fair enough. I'll take your word for it. Editing your VP down by 20 points should fix things well enough, then.

In any case, it's my opinion that missions are utterly broken. If we want missions, we should perhaps discuss offering some challenging, long-term missions for bonus VP -- maybe things like "+500 VP for France, Spain, or Austria if they own the entire Kingdom of Italy by 1650" or something like that. I don't see any way that random missions in their present form could add to the game, though.

 

[unmerged(8301)]

Re: Re: re: gangbangs

Originally posted by satan
There was no such war that I recall. Wasn't it Spain who attacked us, combined with Sweden, OE, Poland? I honestly don't remember for sure, but I don't think the Dutch participated in any 3 on 1 attacks.

Maybe he's talking about World War 3?

 

[unmerged(7580)]

Originally posted by Shigure
Of course. I won't claim any moral superiority, since I know I haven't any -- the first war was a blatant power grab, and the second a trap for the unwitting French, with the Netherlands as an unfortunate victim.

In any case, I was trying to imply that the French brought this war upon themselves, so they're hardly in a position to whine about it. The actual sequence of DoWs, dishonours, and invites is only a technicality.

Bah! You told me yourself that you didnt know anyone but Spain was going to fight. Some trap.

Though, it eventually worked out in your favor.

 

[unmerged(3571)]

Originally posted by KlevesWarrior
Maybe, maybe not, we'll never know, now.

Though if I were you, I would have built an army, instead of a navy.

My army was already over my support limit. Didn't seem to help much, especially since no French soldiers ever fought on our soil to defend the Netherlands (some would have been nice, especially any leader (even a mediocre/poor one like Bernadotte - Dutch get no leaders of any worth after 1675 or so). Without a leader I had no chance, especially since I was facing about 4x as many troops as my max support limit).

Edit - just added the bit about even a mediocre leader. When your only leaders are 322s you're in pretty bad shape during the Napoleonic Wars.

 

[unmerged(3571)]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Victory Points, 1709 - 1808

Originally posted by Shigure
Fair enough. I'll take your word for it. Editing your VP down by 20 points should fix things well enough, then.

In any case, it's my opinion that missions are utterly broken. If we want missions, we should perhaps discuss offering some challenging, long-term missions for bonus VP -- maybe things like "+500 VP for France, Spain, or Austria if they own the entire Kingdom of Italy by 1650" or something like that. I don't see any way that random missions in their present form could add to the game, though.

You'll have to ask Dave to explain his logic, but I think part of the idea was to help even out the VPs.

If the missions weren't broken I think they could be fun, (especially such things as "remove Spain from Italy" etc), but I agree, they are somewhat messed up.

Perhaps the random ones from dynamic missions, at least that way you can't pick the easy ones. Anyway, like I said, I am sure Dave can explain better what he was thinking.

 

[unmerged(3571)]

Originally posted by KlevesWarrior
Maybe, maybe not, we'll never know, now.

Though if I were you, I would have built an army, instead of a navy.

Well, we do know that your plan failed spectacularly, and had the added benefit of pissing me off

 

[unmerged(7580)]

Originally posted by satan
Well, we do know that your plan failed spectacularly, and had the added benefit of pissing me off

It would have worked, had the east not mindlessly gone to war!

 

[unmerged(8301)]

Originally posted by satan
My army was already over my support limit. Didn't seem to help much, especially since no French soldiers ever fought on our soil to defend the Netherlands (some would have been nice, especially any leader (even a mediocre/poor one like Bernadotte - Dutch get no leaders of any worth after 1675 or so). Without a leader I had no chance, especially since I was facing about 4x as many troops as my max support limit).

Edit - just added the bit about even a mediocre leader. When your only leaders are 322s you're in pretty bad shape during the Napoleonic Wars.

Yes, I was very surprised that the French offered no assistance to the defence of the Lowlands, and I think letting you die so easily was a strategic and diplomatic mistake on his part. We shall see what happens, I suppose. I wish I had known ahead of time that France would offer you no help -- I would have invaded years ago before Sweden and Poland joined the fray.

 

[unmerged(7580)]

Originally posted by Shigure
Yes, I was very surprised that the French offered no assistance to the defence of the Lowlands, and I think letting you die so easily was a strategic and diplomatic mistake on his part. We shall see what happens, I suppose. I wish I had known ahead of time that France would offer you no help -- I would have invaded years ago before Sweden and Poland joined the fray.

I think everyone underestimates the Spanish, all reserves were going to that front.

I assumed the Dutch could defend themselves. Though I think I only got one call for help, and I did send troops, then.