Test Of Skill

[Gamlasemlan]

I kid! I kid! They were made by the best baker in Edinburgh, dont worry.

Hmm let's see. The best baker in Edinburgh = The worst baker in europe.

He he he. Me and John were just talking about Edinburgh and how it once fell to the brave soldiers of Brabant. This was of course before the ruler of Scotland got a brainsurgery and some common sence.

Nah I am just kidding ( about the biscuits ). They were delicious. ( Not that a Brabantish baker could have made them worse )

 

[unmerged(6147)]

The King of Scotland has a proposal to the King of Moldavia.

Scotland would like to buy the four provinces just south of Athabasca, two islands and two coastal provinces. Due to the war they have been isolated from the rest of the Moldavian provinces and Scotland would like to have them.

We would like an answer as soon as possible.

Sure, hand over 5000d and they are yours.

 

[unmerged(49182)]

Sure, hand over 5000d and they are yours.

No thanks, you can get 1.5k. If the stay Moldavian they can just be used for some easy WS some other time.

Hmm let's see. The best baker in Edinburgh = The worst baker in europe.

He he he. Me and John were just talking about Edinburgh and how it once fell to the brave soldiers of Brabant. This was of course before the ruler of Scotland got a brainsurgery and some common sence.

Nah I am just kidding ( about the biscuits ). They were delicious. ( Not that a Brabantish baker could have made them worse )

 

[unmerged(6147)]

Absolut,

After I had peaced with Saxony and agreed to your demands it took you 3 years and 4 months to capture 5 coastal provinces (most with minimal fortresses, some with small) on the West coast of Northern USA.

My question to you is if this was done
1. intentionally to stop my WE from dropping while that of your allies who had peaced did drop
2. or are you so unskilful that you need all this time to accomplish this :wacko:

In a normal campaign I would have asked for an edit. Since I do not believe you are allowed to play like this. The peace treaty would in RL have happened on the same day for all, but due to the game mechanisms forcing us to actually take control of what we ask for (unless it is cores) there is sometimes a delay. But I have never seen nor experienced anything even close to this.

After 1.5 years or so you commented that it would have gone quicker if you could have sailed around the Cape Horn instead moving across USA but that you cannot do that because you have nothing to transport them in.... :wacko: You owned 173 transport ships at the start of the session, not to speak about your war ships.

"Nothing to transport them in....." :wacko:

Then finally a year later or so you are transporting 70k by ships. That could have been done much earlier with proper play.

 

[unmerged(49182)]

Absolut,
My question to you is if this was done
1. intentionally to stop my WE from dropping while that of your allies who had peaced did drop

No, that was not the case.

2. or are you so unskilful that you need all this time to accomplish this :wacko:

If I am so unskillful that I need this much time to take the provinces, how in the world must you feel, being defeated by me? I feel sorry for you.

In a normal campaign I would have asked for an edit. Since I do not believe you are allowed to play like this. The peace treaty would in RL have happened on the same day for all, but due to the game mechanisms forcing us to actually take control of what we ask for (unless it is cores) there is sometimes a delay. But I have never seen nor experienced anything even close to this.

I did not delay it intentionally, believe it or not. I tried to be as fast as possible and tried to go through your American provinces, but that turned impossible when you refused to move from Spokane, and thus stopping my only way to the coast and trapping me in winter.

After 1.5 years or so you commented that it would have gone quicker if you could have sailed around the Cape Horn instead moving across USA but that you cannot do that because you have nothing to transport them in.... :wacko: You owned 173 transport ships at the start of the session, not to speak about your war ships.

Well, I was not aware I had 173 transports, I knew I had some 20 in Africa and another small fleet in India and those wouldnt be enough to carry a big army, thus I sent home my fleet from California and then built 25 transports more in Alba and loaded the army.

Then finally a year later or so you are transporting 70k by ships. That could have been done much earlier with proper play.

Yes indeed, should you not have stopped me in USA I could have sent 40-50k to take those provinces so I wouldnt blame me to much. If you actually start to listen during the sessions and look at your own faults before you start to attack others, I would be pleased.

 

[unmerged(6147)]

I did not delay it intentionally, believe it or not. I tried to be as fast as possible and tried to go through your American provinces, but that turned impossible when you refused to move from Spokane, and thus stopping my only way to the coast and trapping me in winter.

....

Yes indeed, should you not have stopped me in USA I could have sent 40-50k to take those provinces so I wouldnt blame me to much. If you actually start to listen during the sessions and look at your own faults before you start to attack others, I would be pleased.

Spokane does not block anyone, it is on the edge of tera Cognita. There is one province in the middle, Anasazi, where I had some 20k and that blocks should you take a southern way. But there is a way to the north as well and then it was more or less free. Anyhow, if it was the Anasazi army that was the problem how about just sending a couple of 1000 men to attack the Anasazi army and then retreat pretty soon. As you can imagine that would have triggered my attention.

Why on earth someone would prefer to march through 4-5 enemy provinces, including many montains to climb and rivers to cross, most of them being terra incognita, and with very low supply limit, to reach the target area when you can send them by the Sea is beyond my imagination.

 

[unmerged(6147)]

If someone wonders we played 22 full years.

 

[unmerged(10915)]

45 mins into session in EGA and we have still not started.

Makes you appreciate the effectiveness of ToS .
So well, thank you Daniel.

 

[unmerged(49182)]

Spokane does not block anyone, it is on the edge of tera Cognita. There is one province in the middle, Anasazi, where I had some 20k and that blocks should you take a southern way. But there is a way to the north as well and then it was more or less free. Anyhow, if it was the Anasazi army that was the problem how about just sending a couple of 1000 men to attack the Anasazi army and then retreat pretty soon. As you can imagine that would have triggered my attention.

Spokane did indeed block me as the province next to it was Terra Incognita for me and thus the only way for me to get to those provinces was to go through Spokane. You should check your facts before making these kinds of statements (Save from the session before). It was not the Anasazi army that was in the way, it was the Spokane army and if you just would look at the chat it would be much more easy for both of us.

Why on earth someone would prefer to march through 4-5 enemy provinces, including many montains to climb and rivers to cross, most of them being terra incognita, and with very low supply limit, to reach the target area when you can send them by the Sea is beyond my imagination.

Too bad for you then. I wanted to send them through USA because it would have been faster than sending my fleet back to Scotland, building some more transports, equipping an army and then sail back. Perhaps this does not make sense to you but it certainly does to me. If you hadnt blocked Spokane 40000-50000 men could easily have gone through it within a few months.

 

[unmerged(6147)]

Spokane did indeed block me as the province next to it was Terra Incognita for me and thus the only way for me to get to those provinces was to go through Spokane. You should check your facts before making these kinds of statements (Save from the session before). It was not the Anasazi army that was in the way, it was the Spokane army and if you just would look at the chat it would be much more easy for both of us.

Just send in your men in TI, sooner or later you will do that anyhow. Besides, I had no big army in Spokane, if you had 40-50 against my 9k you would just wipe them. Start moving your big army from the inner of USA. As soon as you attack in Spokane I would of course move them away. And you would of course not marsch with all yout 40-50k in one bunch, Then there would not be many left when they arrived (if you come from the East as you seem to imply).

Too bad for you then. I wanted to send them through USA because it would have been faster than sending my fleet back to Scotland, building some more transports, equipping an army and then sail back. Perhaps this does not make sense to you but it certainly does to me. If you hadnt blocked Spokane 40000-50000 men could easily have gone through it within a few months.

As I said, You had an enormous amount of transports and you have already admitted you did not know it. Apparently you had no control where they were.

And to repeat, your men could have gone through Spokane in a month. Just start marching them, or better, just start marching a little army to get my attention, I will of course away as you knew fully well that I was extremly anxious to get this war over quick.

To spend 3 years and 4 months to take 2 small fortresses and 3 minimal, one of which in a province without winter and with low attrition is a complete joke.

 

[unmerged(6147)]

Current standings. Do note that Tonio has accepted to implement a better COT point solution than the present one. We can expect him to do the first part, spreading points for percentage share of COT value instead of the number of COTs. Which is the main point. I hope he will do the embargo part as well but I am not sure he has time to do it. We will have to hope for the best.

         ALB     BRA     NA/CH    MOL    POR     SAX     SCO      SKÅ
         RA PP   RA PP   RA PP   RA PP   RA PP   RA PP   RA PP    RA PP
1434     4  34   2  48   3  35   1  48   8  26   5  29   7  27    6  27     
1455     4  48   5  48   8  26   2  51   3  50   1  58   6  37    7  29
1472     4  48   3  54   8  34   2  56   6  43   1  66   5  44    7  37
1500     5  53   2  66   8  37   4  60   3  62   1  89   7  45    6  49     
1530     5  60   1  92   6  59   3  84   4  71   2  88   8  45    7  56
1557     7  56   4  72   6  60   1 104   2  95   3  85   8  51    5  60
1587     4  68   5  64   8  45   3  91   2  96   1  96   7  46    5  63
1605     4  63   5  58   8  33   3  95   1 104   2 102   6  57    7  42
1624     4  74   5  66   8  33   3  82   2  83   1 101   7  45    6  46
1640     4  60   6  49   8  28   3  80   1  88   2  84   7  47    5  54  
1662     4  77   7  39   8  31   3  87   1 112   2 100   6  49    5  65
1680*    4  70   8  47   7  48   3  79   1  98   2  89   5  62    6  56     
1700     4  60   8  30   5  53   3  70   2  71   1  79   6  46    7  43
1728     3  82   8  33   5  57   2  86   4  59   1 104   6  51    7  44
1754     3  66   8  40   6  47   2  97   4  63   1 105   5  59    7  45   
1776     3  66   8  24   5  57   2  85   4  63   1 107   6  56    7  48   

*From this session Naples switched to China

As can be seen the session was a distaster for Moldavia. The only thing that helped us was that the number 3 and 4 were to far away and could not reach us. So we are still number 2.

Saxony now leads by an enormous amount of points.

China finally starts climbing seriously, something long awaited. Plust 10 points on the session, now threatening POR and ALB. Well done by Joohoo to keep Albania's points although being defeated twice.

The low score for Brabant prolly have to do with them being in war just now, as is POR BTW, it may well be that POR in reality have overtaken ALB and thus are currently number 3.

---------


EMBARGOES IN THE END GAME

Regarding the end game I have thought a little about embargoes. Well incidentally I have thought about them a long time. We also have a rule that no DOWs are allowed after 1814. So if someone embargoes someone else after that date and they are at peace the embargoed nation cannot do anything about it. I believe it might be best to forbid embargoes after say the same year, 1814, and that embargoes in force must be lifted unless the parties are in war with eachother in which case it must be lifted when the war ends.

As usual this is a decision I do not make myself but all of you are wellcome with your views and for us to change the rule I want the decision to do so being unopposed.

 

[unmerged(49182)]

Just send in your men in TI, sooner or later you will do that anyhow. Besides, I had no big army in Spokane, if you had 40-50 against my 9k you would just wipe them. Start moving your big army from the inner of USA. As soon as you attack in Spokane I would of course move them away. And you would of course not marsch with all yout 40-50k in one bunch, Then there would not be many left when they arrived (if you come from the East as you seem to imply).

Yes, indeed. I could have done like you said, but I didnt, perhaps I didnt think of it then.

As I said, You had an enormous amount of transports and you have already admitted you did not know it. Apparently you had no control where they were.

And to repeat, your men could have gone through Spokane in a month. Just start marching them, or better, just start marching a little army to get my attention, I will of course away as you knew fully well that I was extremly anxious to get this war over quick.

To spend 3 years and 4 months to take 2 small fortresses and 3 minimal, one of which in a province without winter and with low attrition is a complete joke.

Yes, perhaps you would move away, I did not think of it then, you are better than me when it comes to these things. Perhaps if you just would avoid losing to me things would be better.

 

[unmerged(49182)]

EMBARGOES IN THE END GAME

Regarding the end game I have thought a little about embargoes. Well incidentally I have thought about them a long time. We also have a rule that no DOWs are allowed after 1814. So if someone embargoes someone else after that date and they are at peace the embargoed nation cannot do anything about it. I believe it might be best to forbid embargoes after say the same year, 1814, and that embargoes in force must be lifted unless the parties are in war with eachother in which case it must be liften when the war ends.

As usual this is a decision I do not make myself but all of you are wellcome with your views and for us to change the rule I want the decision to do so being unopposed.

Could you explain a little bit more how much embargoes affect PPs during the end game? Or is this perhaps posted somewhere where I must have missed it? If that is the case, care to point me in the right direction?

 

[unmerged(6147)]

Well embargoes lower the income of those being embargoed and income is the main source of PPs for most players.

However, as you have seen we have asked Tonio to implement the new COT solution and in that solution we also asked for a removal of COT points if the owner embargoes human players. So the effect of an embargo may hit back at the embargoer. However, I have made no calculation as to if the embargo then hurts the embargoer more than the one being embargoed.

 

[unmerged(49182)]

Well embargoes lower the income of those being embargoed and income is the main source of PPs for most players.

I know that, I was more curious as to how the embargoes affect the PPs.

However, as you have seen we have asked Tonio to implement the new COT solution and in that solution we also asked for a removal of COT points if the owner embargoes human players. So the effect of an embargo may hit back at the embargoer. However, I have made no calculation as to if the embargo then hurts the embargoer more than the one being embargoed.

When will that calculation be done? Id like to know that before I lay my vote on something.

 

[unmerged(6147)]

If you embargo say me then my income from trade will decrease and thus I will get fewer power points from income.

If Tonio adds the embargo feature of the new COT solution that would decrease the points given the Embargoer for his COTs.

The new COT points rule was presented in post 1874.

 

[unmerged(49182)]

If you embargo say me then my income from trade will decrease and thus I will get fewer power points from income.

If Tonio adds the embargo feature of the new COT solution that would decrease the points given the Embargoer for his COTs.

The new COT points rule was presented in post 1874.

Ok. Thanks.

 

[unmerged(10915)]

---------


EMBARGOES IN THE END GAME

Regarding the end game I have thought a little about embargoes. Well incidentally I have thought about them a long time. We also have a rule that no DOWs are allowed after 1814. So if someone embargoes someone else after that date and they are at peace the embargoed nation cannot do anything about it. I believe it might be best to forbid embargoes after say the same year, 1814, and that embargoes in force must be lifted unless the parties are in war with eachother in which case it must be liften when the war ends.

As usual this is a decision I do not make myself but all of you are wellcome with your views and for us to change the rule I want the decision to do so being unopposed.

Sounds good .

 

[unmerged(6147)]

IMPORTANT MESSAGE

We have a little more than 43 years left to play. That would normally be quite suitable for two sessions. However no one knows what may happen.

I say that we make a serious effort to reach at least Jan 1 1799 the next session so that we can be a little relaxed the last session, only needing 20 years to be played in that last session.

But without playing under stress, wars on BN or slow speed.

This means that the participants should mentally be prepared to play a little longer than 23 CEST the next session.

I hope no one objects to this.

 

[unmerged(10915)]

IMPORTANT MESSAGE

We have a little more than 43 years left to play. That would normally be quite suitable for two sessions. However no one knows what may happen.

I say that we make a serious effort to reach at least Jan 1 1799 the next session so that we can be a little relaxed the last session, only needing 20 years to be played in that last session.

But without playing under stress, wars on BN or slow speed.

This means that the participants should mentally be prepared to play a little longer than 23 CEST the next session.

I hope no one objects to this.

There is a risk that i might not be able to attend the entire session in such a case, since i will be getting up very early the next day. However, i am fine with being zombied, if for the common good.