New sunday game: Götterdämmerung, Kaffeeklatsch und Auspufftöpfe!

[ForzaA]

i could count two of five. So France should thank god, i see.

Brandenburg:
neighbour? check
would be out? check
Bavaria:
neighbour? check
would be out? check
Austria:
neighbour? check
would be out? check

Did you mean one by three ?

the expression is one-by-one..

but I'll rephrase ""so you think it is normal conditions, when France can pick off her neighbours piecemeal, with noone lifting a finger to stop them?"

 

[Tonioz]

Austria:
neighbour? check
would be out? check

Check. Austria has two provinces near France, but rest of lands are achievable only via Venice or Bavaria.

but I'll rephrase ""so you think it is normal conditions, when France can pick off her neighbours piecemeal, with noone lifting a finger to stop them?"

I found pretty balanced 3 on 1. As i told it was with chances for both sides. Your intension was to screw the balance on your side by easy efforts.

For some misterous reasons i suppose the first thing as normal, while the second one is unnormal. Am i so mad ?

 

[Aladar]

Am i so mad ?

I believe the short answer is YES

 

[ForzaA]

I found pretty balanced 3 on 1. As i told it was with chances for both sides. Your intension was to screw the balance on your side by easy efforts.

..based on the numbers (from the 1625)
175 total manpower for our total alliance, 171 for you..
On the leader front, we have a little different picture though..
our best leader (over the three of us combined) is a 4/4/3/1 (DP adjusted)
yours a 5/6/6 (DP adjusted)

So I'd say that is at least slightly in France's favour...

I wonder what the "easy effort" is, though?

For some misterous reasons i suppose the first thing as normal, while the second one is unnormal. Am i so mad ?

oh, I dunno, "retaining the status quo" is practically the definition of normal.
...and having the POSSIBILITY of calling in other countries to avoid losing land comes closer to "retaining the status quo" than hoping a far better general doesn't kick your troops around too much.

 

[unmerged(18425)]

Well since my manpower is 35, yes i invested quite a lot of mercenaries in this war. Which once again shows that historical leaders like Turenne, PE and other, in my view, have a too large impact on the game.

They surely do and I will remember you again about this when Napoleon will pay Lisbon a visit

 

[Aladar]

Let's not forget the mighty Portugeuse general Rui 2/4/3/1 who was beaten time and again by the mere 5/6/6 Turenne

 

[unmerged(53580)]

This thread is overcrowded with post that serve no purpose. My advice: let the matter fall before this foolishness escalate further and ruins the game. Accept it, people do what they think is best for them, it may or may not be the best alternative, but it's what they think is best for them. It may be "unfair" to backstab and take advantage of the trouble of others, but staying your hand just because of abstract principles like fairness is just stupid. Most likely such behaviour will be remembered by your potensial allies and enemies and you risk to taste your own medicine. So stop complainig and argumenting down into fixed trenches. If you get banged it's because your diplomacy has failed (or the bangers has succeded, depending on view), or you have become so strong that it's obvious to everyone that you'll have to be stopped...by joint effort.

 

[Tonioz]

175 total manpower for our total alliance, 171 for you..

As i mentioned troops losses for your alliance is twice more, while my MP pool was never full. MP is ability to have the troops, while losses in long period show real situation of existed troops.
Besides you occupied my provinces from time to time limitting MP.
In conclusions stats shows that your ability to have troops were more than twice more than France.

So I'd say that is at least slightly in France's favour...

I wonder what the "easy effort" is, though?

Instead of fighting 3 on 1, take two more countries to get easy victory.

oh, I dunno, "retaining the status quo" is practically the definition of normal.
...and having the POSSIBILITY of calling in other countries to avoid losing land comes closer to "retaining the status quo" than hoping a far better general doesn't kick your troops around too much.

Forza, 5 years of fighting France has the POSSIBILITY to lose lands, not your alliance.
But indeed, your way of thinking is what i describe above - why to fight in near equal position, if the solution can be easily called, giving secure victory for you.
And after all to justify your action you can always claim "Turenne !!! MP !!!" Not meaning you attacked, and not France, for more than 5 years and you lost twice more troops.

Or follow Aladar`s way of arguement

 

[ForzaA]

As i mentioned troops losses for your alliance is twice more, while my MP pool was never full. MP is ability to have the troops, while losses in long period show real situation of existed troops.
Besides you occupied my provinces from time to time limitting MP.
In conclusions stats shows that your ability to have troops were more than twice more than France.

my MP pool was ALWAYS EMPTY rather than "never full"

.....Since when does "getting more troops killed" prove that your ability to HAVE troops was higher?
By that reasoning, Canada, France and India COMBINED, were clearly the weaker party compared to Yugoslavia In World War II

Instead of fighting 3 on 1, take two more countries to get easy victory.

Minor "nitpick": that situation would require FRANCE to start the war.

Forza, 5 years of fighting France has the POSSIBILITY to lose lands, not your alliance.

Let me put it like this.... Last war, our side had Spinola, France had no spectacular leaders..
Yet the war ended with a WP (closer to something for FRA than for the alliance, really)...
Now France has Turenne, and we no longer have Spinola...

I don't think it's much of a stretch to expect, then, that a war where Turenne IS present, and Spinola ISN'T, would end in a disastrous loss for the alliance.

But indeed, your way of thinking is what i describe above - why to fight in near equal position, if the solution can be easily called, giving secure victory for you.

The question is not "why fight near equal"... the question WAS, for me, "why fight at all".

France WANTED the war (you admitted so yourself, threatening Venice) - I didn't.
When you joined the war against the Germans, there were basically two options:
1) Not joining, and waiting for France to come after us, at the time most convenient to France.
2) joining, in hopes that the multiple fronts would prevent France from gaining anything of significance.



I'm sure you would argue that Stalin should've ordered the allies NOT to land in Normandy

 

[Aladar]

Had i not had the funds to spend 15.000d (or more) on mercenaries would would have long lost this war. Everytime i took 5-7 french provinses costing me atleast 100k to war and attrition, Turenne took them back in 6 month loosing a minimum of troops.

True Bodvar, but we are just trying to convince old Tonioz here, that our DOW was made as an preemptive strike due to Turenne. Had we waited till the war was over and then dow'ed France we would have surely lost long ago.

The fact that France can hold off 1 vs. 3 shows that Franced needs to be ganged (also Tonioz fought well but we knew he would). France is at the moment militarywise strong enough to take down all it's neighbors in 1 vs. 2-3 atleast, and only an 1 vs. 4 would secure a victory.

Is that a gang, not in my view, and as Forzaa said, you are a moron if you only fight wars you know you'll lose.

 

[Tonioz]

my MP pool was ALWAYS EMPTY rather than "never full"

Was never full is correct definition, because sometime it was raised upto 100.

.....Since when does "getting more troops killed" prove that your ability to HAVE troops was higher?
By that reasoning, Canada, France and India COMBINED, were clearly the weaker party compared to Yugoslavia In World War II

Forza, you jump from topic to topic You announced that French MP is more than your alliance. I gave instead more proper value to judje. As reply you offer me to discuss completely another topic - killing rate.

Let me put it like this.... Last war, our side had Spinola, France had no spectacular leaders..
...
I don't think it's much of a stretch to expect, then, that a war where Turenne IS present, and Spinola ISN'T, would end in a disastrous loss for the alliance.

You perfectly know that i`m out of judje previous war and how it was held and what mistakes were done.

When you joined the war against the Germans, there were basically two options:
1) Not joining, and waiting for France to come after us, at the time most convenient to France.
2) joining, in hopes that the multiple fronts would prevent France from gaining anything of significance.

I'm sure you would argue that Stalin should've ordered the allies NOT to land in Normandy

Which way do Stalin arguements cross with mine ? :wacko:

In fact i don`t see much difference in meaning of fighting for you between 1 & 2, if that is meant that germans wp. Simply because i had troops near my limit at this time, and i need some time to retake provinces back.
But you hoped, like you told, that germans will invade France. And that returns to our previous discussion - option 2 would let you have the whole honour and be the victim. Option 1 means that you are aggressor and wanted to have secure victory.

 

[Tonioz]

France is at the moment militarywise strong enough to take down all it's neighbors in 1 vs. 2-3 atleast, and only an 1 vs. 4 would secure a victory.

The critical moment that you want to get 4 vs 1 and take secure victory, right ? or not ?
Forza wants.

Is that a gang, not in my view, and as Forzaa said, you are a moron if you only fight wars you know you'll lose.

As i mentioned several times in those situation i find 3 on 1 pretty balanced and give the chance for both sides. I wouldn`t see much difference on this war despite the fact who is aggressor, if your alliance was prepared. And your alliance was prepared.

So who is the moron ? Probably France, who helped Poland & Austria, not trying to get NAP with you :rofl: At such cases i usually bet on people honour and usually lose

 

[Aladar]

There is a difference between secure victory and to secure a victory.

We never had a secure victory, but we needed atleast BB to secure our victory. Since the others bailed out, we had to face Turenne on our own, and the borders of Venice/Spain are not far from each other.

 

[Tonioz]

There is a difference between secure victory and to secure a victory.

We never had a secure victory, but we needed atleast BB to secure our victory. Since the others bailed out, we had to face Turenne on our own, and the borders of Venice/Spain are not far from each other.

Sorry, i can`t understand you. So what is the difference ?
You gave the cases with 3 on 1 and 4 on 1. For me it is same meaning to secure victory or to take a secure victory, because it is same, but means the intension and the execution.

 

[Waldzwerg]

After the austrian betrayal and all the times the Archduke had let all of us down (refusing to come to our defense when we were attacked) it was no secret that we all wanted it severly punished. I had no trust for the austrian perm, which imho was totaly justified in view of his later actions. So we acted against Austria, yes.
Then again : Last week Smn offered an honourable 1-on-1 against Austria and what happened? It´s perm said "he had to go" and left.....leaving Smn stranded with Tilly wasting year for year - hardly a fair way to deal with Austria´s own mistakes.
Now yesterday Austria got defeated after a long and bloody war in which we all had suffered a lot and then W. decided to quit - at which point I got severly mad. I apologize for my tone but not for my intention in this matter.
I just find it beneath total lowness to leave after ruining ones country and thus cowardly fleeing from the consequences of one´s own mistakes.

After all : It was W´s decision to betray us. He must have know what the consequences would be. IMO it was Austria´s CENTRAL mistake to betray us and ally with Poland. It was VERY imprudent for so obvious reasons as that Austria, in the thick of things, cannot afford to piss of so many powers - not when the OE is also knocking at the doors of Vienna.

So in conclusion : I do not view any whining about Austria as justified.
Poland, on the other hand, fought both with honour and fierceness. To them we remain deeply respectful.

I am replying to this more out of courtesy to the other participants in the campaign.
First it was not smn who wanted an smn 1vs1 last session, but his sub. I accepted his challenge, but his connection was so atrociously bad that Fal got fed up and decided to carry on after he dropped multiple times out of the game. So the war got white peaced out and i announced immideatly that i would most likely not be available for a second round this evening because i had to leave in 40 mins.
Nest thing was that i got treated to 5 minutes of whining from you about this fact, so i can assume the news had actually reached your brain. But what happened after the next rehost 40 minutes later and smn joined as bavaria? I got at once ganged by the three of you (and this time nothing of an 'honourable 1vs1', because now i had actually a couple of good leaders, while earlier i got exactly none against bavarias tilly). That must have been done on purpose, and smn is quite certainly not the culprit there, because he could have not known about this, but you certainly did know. That you did it then spoke already volumes about your character, that you blatantly lie about it now, even more so.
That you manage to combine this character with a playstyle so gamey and low risk taking that even Mulliman would blush (sorry Mulli ) made my decision to quit a rather easy one. I would have soldiered on and try to battle it out to the death with bavaria (even if this entire campaign was not that much fun from the beginning), but dealing with an unpleasant player like you on top of it is certainly not worth my time.
For the rest of you, sorry for the bother, i hope you will still have a fun campaign.

 

[ForzaA]

The critical moment that you want to get 4 vs 1 and take secure victory, right ? or not ?
Forza wants.

No -- what I WANT is the POSSIBILITY/THREAT of Brandenburg being ABLE to join to keep you from starting the war in the first place.

As i mentioned several times in those situation i find 3 on 1 pretty balanced and give the chance for both sides. I wouldn`t see much difference on this war despite the fact who is aggressor, if your alliance was prepared. And your alliance was prepared.

Prepared? Not me, or not well in any case, I was neither at max MP, nor at max support (blame the last war)

the issue is NOT "balanced or inbalanced war" the issue is "war or no war".

I don't WANT war, but if there is to BE a war, I prefer one that has a better chance of me not losing.

So who is the moron ? Probably France, who helped Poland & Austria, not trying to get NAP with you :rofl: At such cases i usually bet on people honour and usually lose

..And I'd be more than happy (likewise my allies, I assume) to NOT fight that war, if we had any reason to expect you'd NOT attack us afterwards.

 

[Ampoliros]

I am replying to this more out of courtesy to the other participants in the campaign.
First it was not smn who wanted an smn 1vs1 last session, but his sub. I accepted his challenge, but his connection was so atrociously bad that Fal got fed up and decided to carry on after he dropped multiple times out of the game. So the war got white peaced out and i announced immideatly that i would most likely not be available for a second round this evening because i had to leave in 40 mins.
Nest thing was that i got treated to 5 minutes of whining from you about this fact, so i can assume the news had actually reached your brain. But what happened after the next rehost 40 minutes later and smn joined as bavaria? I got at once ganged by the three of you (and this time nothing of an 'honourable 1vs1', because now i had actually a couple of good leaders, while earlier i got exactly none against bavarias tilly). That must have been done on purpose, and smn is quite certainly not the culprit there, because he could have not known about this, but you certainly did know. That you did it then spoke already volumes about your character, that you blatantly lie about it now, even more so.
That you manage to combine this character with a playstyle so gamey and low risk taking that even Mulliman would blush (sorry Mulli ) made my decision to quit a rather easy one. I would have soldiered on and try to battle it out to the death with bavaria (even if this entire campaign was not that much fun from the beginning), but dealing with an unpleasant player like you on top of it is certainly not worth my time.
For the rest of you, sorry for the bother, i hope you will still have a fun campaign.

Meh,
For one thing your "suddenly having to leave" popped up in the middle of our session. The right thing here would have been to state so at least before the begin of the session in order to give us a chance to find a sub. This way valuable years of Tilly were wasted because you decided in an egoistical manner to just leave us in the cold. And you call my gamestyle gamey after having left in the middle of a session at the first sign of conflict? Don´t make me laugh... :rofl:

As for yesterday :
We fought another massive war, plain and simple. We (OE, Bav, BB) were pitched against you (Pol, Aus, Fra). After a long and bloody conflict we were on the verge of victory at which point you left again - what I cannot define other than downright pathetic.
I didn´t even speak to you during the war, I was fully concentrated on fighting.

For me it is just totaly obvious that you decided to quit because you knew you had lost. You knew we wouldn´t leave you in peace and consequently you inflated this entire affair here to find an excuse for leaving.

Well I for one won´t miss you at all - I prefer playing with players who actualy have the balls to stand up for their actions, to live with the consequences of their misdeeds. We really don´t need anymore bad quitters...

 

[Tonioz]

No -- what I WANT is the POSSIBILITY/THREAT of Brandenburg being ABLE to join to keep you from starting the war in the first place.

1. Then you lacked the devices of communication to talk to me to sign NAP while i fought germans.
2. You stabhitted me for something, right ?
3. You never offered white peace&agreement until all you realized lack of progress when your offensive failed after about 3-4 years of war.

But anyway i don`t see the difference between "POSSIBILITY/THREAT of Brandenburg being ABLE to join" and making it. According the laws the actions to make the crime is threated same way as crime.
Besides i`m sure that if Brandenburg didn`t have his prime task, everyone would come here and everyone would be with their demands - you, Venice, Brandenburg, perhaps even Portugal, if they permanently dow France

Both intension to make a secure war and secure war itself don`t smell for me any good.

Prepared? Not me, or not well in any case, I was neither at max MP, nor at max support (blame the last war)

When you dowed me, all three countries made offensive. If you were not at max support, well... i don`t know.
I warned Venice beforehand and tell him he has enough time to prepare.

I don't WANT war, but if there is to BE a war, I prefer one that has a better chance of me not losing.

To be secure

..And I'd be more than happy (likewise my allies, I assume) to NOT fight that war, if we had any reason to expect you'd NOT attack us afterwards.

As i mentioned you didn`t use any given diplomatic ability when conflict in Germany involved France. Instead you hoped for Brandenburg.

 

[unmerged(18425)]

Meh,
[...]

Wonko, please leave out words like 'downright pathetic and such in the future.

Now, I would like to ask the both of you to continue this matter on ICQ, if you must, since it has went from 'friendly' to 'hostile' already...

 

[unmerged(34338)]

I am replying to this more out of courtesy to the other participants in the campaign.
First it was not smn who wanted an smn 1vs1 last session, but his sub. I accepted his challenge, but his connection was so atrociously bad that Fal got fed up and decided to carry on after he dropped multiple times out of the game.

Few small corrections. The planning of the attack was done before the session and smn was fully aware of what was going to happen.
And while I did have some connection trouble the initial rehost was because you had lag. My connection was reasonable up to then (being out-of-sync wasn't that big a problem). But during rehost my connection was a mess