yes and this was a problem in CK, sometimes getting together such an alliance is overkill and ruins balance, made worse by the fact that the player sjoining should know better and themselves shouldn't join.
-
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.
So which is it? You have successively asserted that
At most one of these propositions can be true. Please pick one and argue consistently for that one thereafter.
- The coalition against China is too powerful and impossible for China to resist. This is bad because nobody playing China should ever lose a war, especially a gangbang; that's against the entire purpose of the game. Especially if the peace is punitive enough to actually reduce China's power by any significant amount. If that happens, the game is no longer fun for the Chinese player, and he is justified in quitting.
- China is sufficiently powerful to overcome the coalition, and will do so. Thereafter it will impose a punitive peace, significantly reducing the power of all the aggressor states.
At most one of these propositions can be true. Please pick one and argue consistently for that one thereafter.
Your missing the bit that I can only successfully defend myself after my backroom diplomacy, without that I would eventually lose.
So you are retracting, then, your allegations that the coalition is engaged in an illegal, game-destroying attack on China? Because presumably, if you're able to win - by whatever means - the war must in fact be a game-enhancing activity, as is anything that makes China Grow Larger. Or do you maintain that China should not have to stoop to actual diplomacy, and that the rest of us are obliged to only attack you in such numbers as you can readily defeat on your own, without - horrors - having to convince someone to help you?
I think that it is still very much game-destroying as a symptom of the thought processes behind it, we are not yet done ricky and still have a whole game remaining, all thoughts of statemen should be towards the relative balance of power, yes I'm powerful but what good does it due me if two of my neighbours combined is ample enough to hold me off? The vast majority of the "weaker" players are an oceans distance away from me, rather then attacking me they should be focusing on building up their own base closer to them.
It gets ridiculous when some of the people joining IE germany have no real reason to be joining in the first place other then "because they can", there was no thought put into it at all, like seriously why the hell is germany joining? He and Prussia should be trying to weaken France not supporting it in an effort that will simply make it stronger then them even more, the war makes very little sense and isn't very sportsmanlike at all.
And then there's the issue that I can't ever take anything anyone says with any value or trust as players at this point, seriously I asked "do you mind if I attack Japan to reclaim my provinces?" you said "No, I am more worried about France at the moment" and is largely the same response I got from everyone but France and no single inkling of any change in this until I was dowed at the last minute. This kind of dishonesty from players makes it literally impossible to actually do any real or significant diplomacy and that is why the game is losing its interest to me. When a part of the games appeal is now effectively impossible because of the rampant dishonesty of its players I have every reason to have reservations.
And DONT say you were simply looking for a bigger rock, I am not neighbouring you, dont use weak excuses there are certain minimum standards for truthfulness in negotiations so itll actually BE possible to do negotiations, had you said "its likely weld form a new coalition" I would've said nothing further and brooded and done nothing.
Last edited:
Much as I believe this war is unfair, there were numerous simple ways out of it.
The first and foremost one you cited yourself. Germany and Prussia on the homefront could have taken advantage of France being distracted and waged war on it during the coalition against you, which would have made France more readily willing to sign peace with you and focus there, thus weakening the coalition that much more. However, instead of discuss peacably with these two nations before you decided to go jingoistic, you just hoped they would think that before the war began - or, worse, and as evidence points to, after the fact.
Another option would have been to discuss with Japan and Indonesia the Indian question - with your eastern flank somewhat secured you'd have a much easier time making it against Georgia and co., and slowly begun to push into and even gain India for yourself and your allies.
The fact is that, ingame, you could have turned this powermongering on both sides into a very large advantage of your own through enough diplomacy from Day 1. Instead, you were either overconfident or naive. Possibly both.
This is not a lesson that diplomacy is insufficient for this MP game, merely that it is underutilized.
The first and foremost one you cited yourself. Germany and Prussia on the homefront could have taken advantage of France being distracted and waged war on it during the coalition against you, which would have made France more readily willing to sign peace with you and focus there, thus weakening the coalition that much more. However, instead of discuss peacably with these two nations before you decided to go jingoistic, you just hoped they would think that before the war began - or, worse, and as evidence points to, after the fact.
Another option would have been to discuss with Japan and Indonesia the Indian question - with your eastern flank somewhat secured you'd have a much easier time making it against Georgia and co., and slowly begun to push into and even gain India for yourself and your allies.
The fact is that, ingame, you could have turned this powermongering on both sides into a very large advantage of your own through enough diplomacy from Day 1. Instead, you were either overconfident or naive. Possibly both.
This is not a lesson that diplomacy is insufficient for this MP game, merely that it is underutilized.
As your not in my position and in no position to see what efforts I may have done your not in a position to lecture me, I HAD discussed very much in length the questions revolving Japan and ensuring diplomatically I could get a 1v1, at worst 1v2 Japan & France, nearly everyone lied. All the diplomacy in the world does no good if they lie to your face.
Rule one of diplomacy is to never make an enemy as long as possible. Why on earth would they out and say they're going to declare war on you later when they can gain things in the meantime?
No, what you should have done was make it clear in no uncertain terms that their best interests were your best interests - which was possible in, again, no uncertain terms - and thus make it so they wanted to assist you. Put your potential allies in a position where their being your allies outweighs their being your enemies - otherwise lies will continue.
Come to think of it, that PM exchange was on Sunday of last week, wasn't it? At that time I actually did think I was out of the land-wars-in-Asia business, and thus wasn't lying at all. I merely changed my mind later on. And as I've said, for me at least this war isn't about Japan; that was just a convenient casus belli, and then you (very rudely!) failed to oblige us by DOWing Japan! I don't know how you expect us imperialists to oppress the less advantaged if you won't be the aggressor. So; Japan may have a different perspective on what this war is about, but I don't think you can accuse him of lying about it - I assume you did not ask Kazmir whether he minded being attacked next session? As for me, I wasn't lying: I didn't and still don't care about Manchuria, I just want some Chinese land. Foelsgaard, in his PMs to me, appears to be more concerned for the balance of power, so I take it he doesn't actually care about Japan either. (Incidentally, while you're entitled to disagree about who is or isn't the largest threat for hegemony, you're not entitled to dictate other players' actions based on your assessment, so let's please not rehash that discussion. I note that if we were allowed to form coalitions based on when you thought you might have a shot at hegemony, that would happen after all of Eurasia was in your grip.) So, I don't think anybody technically lied. It's just that you failed to ask the right question.
On a different subject: If the war should end in victory for the coalition, Norway lays claim to the state of Kiangsu, where our treaty ports were located. Its population is, for those of you keeping track at home, slightly below 30 million - including 100k oppressed Norwegians, who are treated as second-class citizens! Ah, the sacrifices we make for our people: On purely economic grounds, I would prefer to take the state just north of Kiangsu, with its artillery and small-arms factories - my cappies have a strong tendency to build factories making products that people will buy, such as furniture and clothing, completely ignoring their duty to prepare Norway for 1936. But blood is thicker than gunpowder: Clearly we must liberate the Norwegians from the Chinese yoke, even though Kiangsu's industries are clothes and glass and suchlike useless products.
On a different subject: If the war should end in victory for the coalition, Norway lays claim to the state of Kiangsu, where our treaty ports were located. Its population is, for those of you keeping track at home, slightly below 30 million - including 100k oppressed Norwegians, who are treated as second-class citizens! Ah, the sacrifices we make for our people: On purely economic grounds, I would prefer to take the state just north of Kiangsu, with its artillery and small-arms factories - my cappies have a strong tendency to build factories making products that people will buy, such as furniture and clothing, completely ignoring their duty to prepare Norway for 1936. But blood is thicker than gunpowder: Clearly we must liberate the Norwegians from the Chinese yoke, even though Kiangsu's industries are clothes and glass and suchlike useless products.
Last edited:
Maybe if you can get an army there that can hold its ground for more then 2 months and a navy that actually had escourts you can try claiming something.
Side note, I completely raped the Norwegian Expeditionary Force that first landed outside Shanghai.
Side note, I completely raped the Norwegian Expeditionary Force that first landed outside Shanghai.
Well, I admit that landing with just my regular army was premature; I wasn't expecting you to muster so fast. I still inflicted rather more casualties than I took as long as we were just fighting; my mistake was in trying to retreat to the transports. Apparently that doesn't work in Vicky. If I'd known, I would have stood my ground.
As for the navy, if we look at modern ships, Norway's is the third largest in the world.
As for the navy, if we look at modern ships, Norway's is the third largest in the world.
Wrecks-in-waiting, you mean?
Man-of-Wars tend to fare badly against Monitors from what I recollect.
Right. That's why I made the comparison using only modern ships. Blayne's the one who insisted on drawing in MWs.
Until we get protected cruisers MW's can still be considered if for only cannon fodder anyways.
I would point out that Tibet being at war with you is an excellent opportunity to reabsorb it.
And I notice you never answered my previous question to you. I guess that means you have no answer?
fasquardon
You asked a question? If its an honest question repeat it, if it isn't don't. The comment of "having no answer" which sounds like internet epeen speak rather then an honest attempt at discussion makes me doubt that your question is honest however.
As for Tibet its not uncivilized it would be impossible to absorb it in one go and diplomatically speaking I am and was not in the position to do so, fact is you gave me no warning either and did not discuss it with me, you intentionally screwed up for the sake of screwing up, as such I repeat, irresponsible and abuse of position.
Blayne, you're the last one to accuse someone for dishonesty.
Your treaty wasn't honest either, that or you just plain suck at calculus. Dude, basic related rates.