One has to wonder if the Finnish have any sense of self preservation...
-
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.
One has to wonder if the Finnish have any sense of self preservation...
No to Tibet/Bhutan clause and I require 5 years to promote capitalists before switching other then that it is fine.
The government switch must be done immediately; are we to let a government unfriendly to our interests sit about in Beijing for five years? I think not! As for Tibet and Bhutan, we can dispense with that if Georgia is reasonably compensated with land elsewhere. Perhaps if the number of provinces to be annexed by Georgia were increased to nine? (Subject to confirmation by Georgia and the other coalition members that this is acceptable, of course.)
Let him have the cappies atleast if its the only thing preventing peace? Atleast HRE has always used word "negotiation" in its propaganda...time to put the money were the mouth is?
The issue is that the party capable of promoting cappies is also the one that limits taxes to 50%, which is what the whole war started over in the first place! I don't give a damn about cappies, as such, but when I go to war to enforce a treaty which says taxes are to be kept at 100%, and I win that war, then by God taxes will be at 100% from the moment the ink dries on the new treaty!
Edit: And anyway, the Conservatives are acceptable as a government, and they have Interventionism and can promote cappies, no?
Edit: And anyway, the Conservatives are acceptable as a government, and they have Interventionism and can promote cappies, no?
I find the unwillingness of the Coalition to completely and utterly destroy and partition the Dragon Throne a very brooding signal.
You will have plenty of time to tear each other apart when you finished dealing with China once and for all.
You will have plenty of time to tear each other apart when you finished dealing with China once and for all.
China might give each aggressor an port, but not whole areas! 
Those ports are only to be used as strongholds if a need arises for further warring?
And why do you try to keep the dragon in a coma?
It shall arise one day, sooner or later, and you better be allied with it when the time is ripe.
Those ports are only to be used as strongholds if a need arises for further warring?
And why do you try to keep the dragon in a coma?
It shall arise one day, sooner or later, and you better be allied with it when the time is ripe.
well the proplem is that nations that in this game that have any desire to tear down others, are Georgia (only one actually capaple of it and in past sole one aside french that have attempted it), Norway (wich has a big mouth but small army) and in some extend Indonesia (who seems to find better deal just moment before it's time start shooting), now as the former French player is most likely not going to be able to join us anymore
If china would be destroyed, nations like Germany, Transvaal and Italy would then hug themselves to death and be very contended behind their 900 year non agression agreements.
So keeping some sort of china alive, they atleast have some excuse to join some gangbangs once a century or so
works for Finland at least
If china would be destroyed, nations like Germany, Transvaal and Italy would then hug themselves to death and be very contended behind their 900 year non agression agreements.
So keeping some sort of china alive, they atleast have some excuse to join some gangbangs once a century or so
Yngling said:
works for Finland at least
Last edited:
Why allow China to stay in the game? They've continually broken rules and they're a potential hegemon. Annex, partition and destroy them. Otherwise you'll be confronted with this situation in another twenty years.
There are a few reasons. The first is that this is a MP game and it is in good manners not to destroy players and knock them out of the game. Disregard how many times this has happened in this game. Serbia, India, Byzantium, India again, India a third time. In addition most players don't have any interest in that region. Norway, Germany and France all would face difficulties in maintaining control and defense of the territory. Finland would never support such action, Georgia and Indonesia are the next 2 largest any way so no one wants to see them grow, Italy is focused on the Americas and would only be willing to take a bit of it. This just leaves Japan and one nation recieving most of the territory isn't the best case of "Partitioning".
With regards to the Treaty I would suggest that if (when) China violates the terms of the treaty that the coalition members place far more strict measures on them. The key focus of this later agreement would be on territorial concessions. Not long term demands placed on China.
Out of curiosity, what are the reparations, section 1, in the treaty to amount to? Movement of factories, large sums of money or are you just sticking to the in-game reparations option?
In the other forum, editing of Factories have been mentioned.
However, I cannot prevent myself mentioning that the treaty here in guestion (the one broken by China) was something of a haste suggestion by someone of the orginals who were first attacking china in 1830's. In our last Eu3 session, Both the opponents and Chinese player and myself (at that time woved to figth for China) agreeded that Chinese population would be edited out so that it would be in reasonable levels compared to rest (the figure was IMO lot larger than the later taxation alternative)
However, our GM King of Men ruled out for such edit, despite both parties agreeing, so we have to come up with alternative, and the proplem-prone taxation was ultimately agreeded.
Now, If King of Men allows this war winners to take their booty in form of edits, which by all means would be similar than the orginal "edit-china-to-be-reasonable" suggestion, I smell a friggin big rat hidden somewhere.
Reparations are the ingame reparations option, yes. No edits will be done, with one possible exception: If one of the clauses is, eg, "transfer 1 million pounds from China to X", then that'll likely be edited rather than using the ingame treaty maker, because clicking up to such sums is interminable.
Good to know
....But I still wage by hindsighted banner and say, It would have been all avoided if....
But Ill give it rest now. I wont be there next weekend, but I have (Or I hope I have) a sub, see you all in next week
....But I still wage by hindsighted banner and say, It would have been all avoided if....
But Ill give it rest now. I wont be there next weekend, but I have (Or I hope I have) a sub, see you all in next week
cant you use ctrl or shift to do that
EDIT: shift = $1000
ctrl = $10,000
ctrl + shift = $100,000
10 "ctrl + shift" clicks = 1 million pounds, thats not that hard
no need to edit
Last edited:
Indeed I thought this was well known :S (unless it is going into negatives and what not, as then you would have to take a loan for which it can't go faster... in that case it would be faster to edit)
Ah. I knew about the shift, but not the ctrl-shift. In that case I suppose there's no need for edits.
Indeed this war could have been avoided by edit; that's not a bug, it's a feature. If we just edit out every conflict, there's no game left!
We just acquired a perm for France, we hope. (It is of course possible that there will be serious connection issues, as happened with the previous player.) We often do need subs, though - I think we have one for everyone this Saturday, but there are some test sessions remaining before this is confirmed. So, um, stay tuned.