-
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.
Takes time to check this (this must have taken you several ours to check 
).
Just a quick observation: You included Slargos last game. As it is on the last two pages I had seen it as well but it was never started. I believe you showed your true character by trying to get it included However, you were caught with your fingers in the honey jar
That you include old games like the Tsunami is quite sick. Long back there were very few rules because it takes some time to understand what rules you need.
This discussion begun by me stating
"It is very rare to have games where you are allowed to buy maps from the AI "
It is as if we were discussing the frequence of people having cars. I say most have and you say few have. I begin by enumumerating a lot of people who have and then you start reciting a lot of people long dead who lived in the 19th century and did not have a car... :wacko:
). Just a quick observation: You included Slargos last game. As it is on the last two pages I had seen it as well but it was never started. I believe you showed your true character by trying to get it included
However, you were caught with your fingers in the honey jar That you include old games like the Tsunami is quite sick. Long back there were very few rules because it takes some time to understand what rules you need.
This discussion begun by me stating
"It is very rare to have games where you are allowed to buy maps from the AI "
It is as if we were discussing the frequence of people having cars. I say most have and you say few have. I begin by enumumerating a lot of people who have and then you start reciting a lot of people long dead who lived in the 19th century and did not have a car... :wacko:
Daniel A said:Takes time to check this (this must have taken you several ours to check
Slightly less than one hour. I am not *that* crazy.
Just a quick observation: You included Slargos last game. As it is on the last two pages I had seen it as well but it was never started. I believe you showed your true character by trying to get it included
I knew you would mention this
However, I don't see why games that never started should not be included, so long players signed up for that game. Slargos' game would have started without a clear rule against AI trading, you know that full well
In fact, I have to thank Slargos and HoG for the many games they started and the lack of rules in those games.
Finally, there are at least two games that also did not start, but did have a rule against map trading with the AI. I have included those as well.
Sick perhaps. But valid
You should note that I only searched back to 20 pages. There are 95. The more games I would include, the older they would be. And thus the statistics would end up more and more in my favour.
Tsunami is only there because PJL performed some necromancy.
Last edited:
iirc, Tsunami did tacitly disallow AI map trading, and I'm fairly sure HG or Slargos would in any of their games.
You should find one that explicitly allows it, Fal.
You should find one that explicitly allows it, Fal.
Damocles said:
They probably would.
You should find one that explicitly allows it, Fal.
Finding Neverland! And each game where r-y-oken is the GM. And a couple of other games.
But it's true that the vast majority of games just don't have clear rules about it (That's why I dared to bet with Daniel after all
), but probably would disallow it. All in all, I have to admit that it indeed looks like AI map trading is considered as an exploit by the majority of GM's. Certainly in the newer games.
Daniel was right in this aspect, but don't tell him this
So, I am convinced and it's official:
map trading with the AI is banned in this game too.
Last edited:
Get the save for next sunday here
Any more things?
- Generated leaders
- Edited Austrian-Spanish deal
- Edited French-English deal
- Edited Spanish-English deal
Any more things?
Fredrik82 said:
No edits will only lead to fake wars.
And if I consider someone as an enemy, I won't make a deal with him anyway.
Fake wars are still better then edits.FAL said:
Also, people are less eager to do fake wars if they loose stability, or if there enemies can strike etc.
When stuff is being done after the game, the game loose stuff like this. And also loose a feeling for the game. Because edits after the game is always more safer then doing stuff ingame.
Fredrik82 said:
I disagree.
On the other hand, a fake war can also increase your stab. Or allow someone to 'trade' maps
If players want to make a deal, they will make a deal. Fake war or edit, it's just a matter or preferences I guess.
No-one can prohibit a edit, everyone can prohibit a fake war.
And the game should be played ingame, not in a texteditor.
And the game should be played ingame, not in a texteditor.
Fredrik82 said:No-one can prohibit a edit, everyone can prohibit a fake war.
And the game should be played ingame, not in a texteditor.
If players make a deal and decide to swap provinces, and another players dow to prevent that, it would be exploiting simultaneously.
Also, if everyone can prohibit a fake war, then why did you not prohibit the trading of maps per fake war in your game? I wouldn't call that a very realistic opinion.
As for the game 'should be played ingame': You sure you don't conduct diplomacy outside of the game?
For me, the inability to swap provinces properly (especially stuf like TP's) is a flaw of the game engine.
Why's that?FAL said:
If the dowing nation feels they are getting screwed by such swap or take it as a hugh threat etc, i see nothing wrong in trying to prohibit the deal.
And this is not possible when it is edited.
Diplomacy doesn't change the savefile.FAL said:
Because that is included in the "No map trading" rule.FAL said:
For me, that is the exact same thing.
And everyone in BF is aware of this now.
No its not, not like "swapping provinces" happend historiclyFAL said:
You can always leave the land that you wish to give to anyone else, by releaseing it as a vassal etc.
I fail to see why you should get away with BB hits and other "unpleasent" stuff in a edit.
Fredrik82 said:
An example:
I make a deal with a player ingame to sell my trading post for 100 ducats. I give him the cash. I dow him to take the TP. Someone else dows too and burns the TP.
He has prohibited the deal ingame, but I also have lost my cash.
In a real world, the deal would be made instantly and one would not be able to prevent it.
This is of the same order as someone making a deal ingame, taking the cash and then refuses to hand over the province.
A deal should be treated instantly. Since it is something that happens instantly.
No, but it sure as hell does change the game. I would say that out-of-the-game diplomacy has an enormous inpact on the game.
Fredrik82 said:No its not, not like "swapping provinces" happend historicly
Didn't it? Then why isn't New York Dutch anymore?
Fredrik82 said:No its not, not like "swapping provinces" happend historicly
Colonies and TP's swapped historically quite often. As did, more rare, European provinces.
I fail to see why I should accept a stab hit (or give someone a stab hit for free) if it's a deal and the game engine can't deal
D) with player deals properly. Nor can I understand why I should become a bad boy if I trade a province. Afterall, badboy should be limited to when one behaves agressively.