Reign of Empires, A 1520 Campaign

[Fredrik82]

austria took 2 cores , poland took 1 prov from ai , isn't same

ill talk to bocaj first but let me know wich 2provs you and dutch wanna keep

Poland took one Turkish core too in the first war

 

[K'shar]

Well not what I expected, my purpose for responding was to add some sort of clarity not to initiate a conflict. I am in fact extremely put at odds as to why Devil is so emotional about this and would like a clear and concise explanation why my comments evoked such rabid behaviour. If I can take a guess its due to my cheating? A point that im rather confused about as well. I was never ever told about a timeline for Dutch independance, despite me asking about strategies, special rules being that im new to you people etc. never was this brought to my attention and to put perspective on the matter Spain has come to terms with the matter rather quickly and efficiently. Second point of "cheating", is the 4 provinces being taken, I was under the impression that it is 2 provinces a nation when cores in a war. Before the fight we confirmed this with Bocaj and after he even commented about timing and acquisitions (strategically) which implied he still saw nothing odd about the situation. I'd appreciate a clearing of this up and repeat that i'm rather put off by the voraciousness of the recent reply.

 

[Tonioz]

We couldn't colonize as much as we thought we would, because when we finally get naval explorers, the lands we discovered were mostly already owned bu the swedes or the english

France was lucky to establish two TPs at NA, where Denmark burned sweden tps. Besides i always can establish colony at Karolina, where France built it, but i let it for England

 

[devil]

Well not what I expected, my purpose for responding was to add some sort of clarity not to initiate a conflict. I am in fact extremely put at odds as to why Devil is so emotional about this and would like a clear and concise explanation why my comments evoked such rabid behaviour. If I can take a guess its due to my cheating? A point that im rather confused about as well. I was never ever told about a timeline for Dutch independance, despite me asking about strategies, special rules being that im new to you people etc. never was this brought to my attention and to put perspective on the matter Spain has come to terms with the matter rather quickly and efficiently. Second point of "cheating", is the 4 provinces being taken, I was under the impression that it is 2 provinces a nation when cores in a war. Before the fight we confirmed this with Bocaj and after he even commented about timing and acquisitions (strategically) which implied he still saw nothing odd about the situation. I'd appreciate a clearing of this up and repeat that i'm rather put off by the voraciousness of the recent reply.

I think you commited two big violations of the rules, hence I reacted to that. And I don't think you can just declare you didn't know, its your duty to check up on it if you are in doubt.

 

[Dragonheart]

I'll add my opinion regarding gameplay during last nights session. Let me start with saying that it obviously is up to the GM to write the rules or prohibit the kind of behaviour that I find unappropriate and I'm not interested in opening the can of worms that these kind of discussions often might lead to but I still find the following behaviour going against the spirit of any game.

1. Avoiding the Aztec inheritence to avoid future bancrupcies. Events that are possible to avoid have special triggers for this. As far as I know this event doesn't and therefore is designed to trigger.

2. Nations going protestant to earn 25d/province and then immediately changing back to its original religion again.

I know we aren't playing a RP campaign here (thx God) but these kind of behaviours I would most certainly discourage and ban if I was the GM. Of course its up to the GM's to take action against this if they feel so. I'm only stating my personal opinion regarding this here.

I dont see the point why this should be forbidden. How can a rule decide which provinces i take in a war or not.....a limit is ok ...but to be forced to take all? One should have the right to decide if one will take the consequences or not. On the other hand the ottomans are allowed to annex hungary to avoid austrias inheritance?

 

[K'shar]

I think you commited two big violations of the rules, hence I reacted to that. And I don't think you can just declare you didn't know, its your duty to check up on it if you are in doubt.

Yet matey thats exactly what I said I wasnt in doubt about independance it was posted no where nor stated as a game rule and I did check on my second doubt (the provinces) and was given the go ahead. So it leaves me wondering whats the issue.

 

[Dago]

Austria and Poland will have to give some cores back to OE or whatever ? :wacko:

we werent in same alliance btw

 

[patoche34]

we werent in same alliance btw

I agree dago, so it means that if we dow separately we can take 4, and if we dow as allies, it's only 2. Such a hypocrisy in the rule :wacko:
(not about you dago )

 

[K'shar]

I agree dago, so it means that if we dow separately we can take 4, and if we dow as allies, it's only 2. Such a hypocrisy in the rule :wacko:
(not about you dago )

Aye this is a rule i've seen in other games and never works out well. France and I allied only to simplify the matter and be more realistic (we had converging aims) we both had CB's so we could have simply done seperate dows with no difference in the end.

 

[K'shar]

double post

 

[Dragonheart]

Aye this is a rule i've seen in other games and never works out well. France and I allied only to simplify the matter and be more realistic (we had converging aims) we both had CB's so we could have simply done seperate dows with no difference in the end.

You bloody bastards

 

[unmerged(10894)]

OMG, guys you've gotta stop rarking yourselves up. Honestly.

I will be waiting to talk to Drake for some of this, I'm not ignoring it. However stop talking about the core rule for now. You have brought it up (well and truly...), and now it will be settled.

Right this must clearly be a violation of the rules. I was explained, would be forced to stay vassals of Spain until 1580, or at least 1560. I suggest we edit holland back as spainish vassals, cede a certain amount of money from holland to spain, and cede territory taken from spain back.
The date ingame is 1548!!!!

That is Spain's responsiblility to enforce the vassalship. It is by no means a rule.

1. Avoiding the Aztec inheritence to avoid future bancrupcies. Events that are possible to avoid have special triggers for this. As far as I know this event doesn't and therefore is designed to trigger.

2. Nations going protestant to earn 25d/province and then immediately changing back to its original religion again.

Truly gamey indeed, but I will admit the first one borders on smart. (I guess we will see how smart, but the fact of the matter is that the event triggers aren't exactly great, and I don't believe it is the GM's position to interfere in such a way for this type of thing).

Finally....

Also a lousy session for venice, as it was the only country that got no RNG leaders, because they where NOT generated. A lousy comfort that I will get double that next session, when fact is I lost 28 years of exploring and colonizing. And wooohooo get the honor of 22 possible leaders at the same time, its useless.... I want some serious compensation/repair for this... Even Poland is colonising and I am not...

I suggest: Maps to new world edited to Venice, and a explorer + conquistadore that lives 10 years from start of next session.

Yes it's true that I messed up. And yes, you do have a right to express your opinion (although once is enough). However I doubt that such edits are necessary.

Not for this post in particular or directed at any one person but rather to let us keep focus of what this game is about, I think it would be adventageous to quote the most important part of the first paragraph of this game:

...We would be looking for players that can accept GM rulings when necessary, and do not extensively whine or make other player's gaming experience dampened by their attitude towards the game....

It would be nice if we all could look over this, and then follow it. As I said in the first post, it should make for a more pleasant and enjoyable game.

 

[devil]

Yet matey thats exactly what I said I wasnt in doubt about independance it was posted no where nor stated as a game rule and I did check on my second doubt (the provinces) and was given the go ahead. So it leaves me wondering whats the issue.

Well its been obvious miscommunication, I was made clear that you where to stay a vassal, and I interpreted the 2 core rule as drake did. Sorry for my words, leave it to the gm's to decide once they talked

 

[unmerged(10894)]

can this saying be translated:
"-Edits before 1600 on map trading will carry a -1 stab penalty for both sides and may only be done if both parties have -2 stab or higher unless exchanges are equal in number of provinces, and are no more than 10 provinces in total."

i don`t get what is "unless" referred, and which way sentences are connected to each other.

I will take the time with Drake when we next have a chance to clarify any of these rules, but by this rule here is what I have meant:

No more than 10 provinces/sea zones can be exchanged in a deal
Trades must be province for province (if you give 10 you receive 10)

If those two conditions aren't filled, you get smacked with a -1 stabhit. After 1600, that stabhit is lifted.

The reason for edited maps only is to make people more conscious of what they are exchanging. The strict rules before 1600 are replaced by much freer rules after 1600, progressing until 1750, where maps may finally be traded in game.

I'm not sure how precise that explanation was, it's very late here and I am not the best at explaining things, so tell me if you still don't understand.

 

[admiral drake]

I dont see the point why this should be forbidden. How can a rule decide which provinces i take in a war or not.....a limit is ok ...but to be forced to take all? One should have the right to decide if one will take the consequences or not. On the other hand the ottomans are allowed to annex hungary to avoid austrias inheritance?

hungary is different tho , first austria got no cores on hungary till event iirc , secund its ai and its not because austria gets event to inherit it that it belongs to austria before that event

 

[admiral drake]

dutch was a stuppid mistake on my end , i agreed with devil dutch should be vassal till 1559 however i forgot to ask bocaj to at it as a rule , thus he didn't break a rule there


however.... spain lossed 4core provs , ottos lost 3 ill be arround for a while on icq so it can be setled once bocaj shows up

 

[Dago]

I agree dago, so it means that if we dow separately we can take 4, and if we dow as allies, it's only 2. Such a hypocrisy in the rule :wacko:
(not about you dago )

i dont think so : dow has costs anyway
and the enemy may force to peace (throught stabhit or exaustion) one,and then go vs the other
there are many more risks
and if we disallowed this,we may say adie at eventual gangs,that are part of game,and sometimes need to save it

 

[Tonioz]

No more than 10 provinces/sea zones can be exchanged in a deal
Trades must be province for province (if you give 10 you receive 10)

If those two conditions aren't filled, you get smacked with a -1 stabhit. After 1600, that stabhit is lifted.

The reason for edited maps only is to make people more conscious of what they are exchanging. The strict rules before 1600 are replaced by much freer rules after 1600, progressing until 1750, where maps may finally be traded in game.

i suppose this rule needs addition - not 10 provinces/sea zones in a deal, but set limit 10 provs in a session. Otherwise it doesn`t make sense to make exchange by so much provs as both sides want, specially after 1600.

did Venice get Spain maps ? or what was there talked about ?

ciao
Anton

 

[Dago]

I agree dago, so it means that if we dow separately we can take 4, and if we dow as allies, it's only 2. Such a hypocrisy in the rule :wacko:
(not about you dago )

in fact i m for the general rule : not more than 2 cores may be lost in a war vs human
it means,that if 2 humans allies or not,dow another,they may gain 2+2 provs (if cores of enemy),or more if none core is lost
but if this rule is disallowed,i d say that it should stay if the countries are not in same alliance
i think yesterday everything was made under rule,in fact OE and Spain are not bitching that lot
even coz the wars were balanced ,without backstabb or gangs

 

[Tem_Probe]

Right this must clearly be a violation of the rules. I was explained, would be forced to stay vassals of Spain until 1580, or at least 1560. I suggest we edit holland back as spainish vassals, cede a certain amount of money from holland to spain, and cede territory taken from spain back.
The date ingame is 1548!!!!

Actually the forced continued vassalage was in my game, Imperial Europe 3. I haven't seen any such rules written here. There is a rule about being forced-vassalised, which is 25 yrs, but this isn't the case.