Originally posted by RedPhoenix
I see no point enforcing alliance wide peaces thats just utter ****. In many cases historically some enemies were bought off or just peaced out during a conflict and sides switched rapidly during one single war.
The point about max 2 human nations per alliance sounds good to me though, this doesnt prevent lets say 10 nations from grouping up and taking on one big nation, but it means they can't all be in the same alliance, thus in the end will be forced to make separate peace deals.
But anyway, atleast it would in general restrict the conflict to a certain area as the other nations are not "obliged" to help, as too often people feel they are, even though this truly should not be the case if you atleast made an effort to play like a real leader.
About war aims... well its dandy and fine to state you have a goal when you attack, and yes that should be a case. However it was not allways the case in reality, nor should it be that you can't change your goals during a war.
Well I have to add my 2 cents on this issue, Red you and I have discussed to some length about this issue. And frankly you know where I stand on this, Red.
Red I know you hate big multinational alliances. It leads up to large conflicts and usually global wars where huge swings in empire power can happen. And you rightly point out that if the conflict is global, there can be massive shifts in changes to power.
Smaller Alliances will lead to less damage to nations that are involved since everyone doesn't need to get something out of the lossing side. I can see where you are coming from on this issue.
But where I think you lose out on the larger picture is what is clearly happenning in your Destiny of Nation's game. Think on this Red, you yourself have said that if your enemies are going to create large alliance's to fend you off, so will you, even tho your against this, your not stupid either. So you do what need's to be done. Remember that war that I was in against you when I was playing Austria. My side lost that war, not to brilliant warmongering ability, but the fact that Austria was gangbanged by France, the Dutch, Prussia, Venice and the Ottoman's. Through some inventive diplomacy, you were able to convice the Russian's and the Ottoman's to intercede in that war which forced Poland to defend itself and Austria to pull armies from your border.
Austria alone lost 7 provinces, Spain at least 6 with Zactecas being once of them. Portugal also lost several provinces and a CoT as well, plus England who lost the Manhattan CoT to you in another war, lost several more provinces in the colonies. In total my alliance lost well over 20 provinces. And Red that was just one war. This wasn't anything close to an RPG type game where nations would lose 1 or 2 provinces. But a powergaming envirnment where the goal is to weaken your enemies and keep them weak by further smacking them down.
So the fact that Spain and Portugal lost CoT's and further more that Austria was bled dry in that war. If you wanted smaller alliances and more regional war's. How on earth do you realistically expect to achieve this if you go for the throat everytime you get into a war against another nation? After a nation gets raped like this, do you honestly expect them to forget and forgive and go on? Its not going to happen, they will want their CoT's back and more importantly the next war, they will want to win it. So you can expect bigger alliance's and the trend to involve more nation's in any war to come.
Look at what happenned with Sweden when it got too big. It got gangbanged by Russia, Poland, Prussia and Austria. With England and Spain sending in fleets to support. 6 nation's against 1. Stein did an incredible job of fighting them all off for as long as he did, but he got too big and too threatening. So how on earth would this conflict ever be a regional one when the nation's surronding it felt threatened. You can't keep it regional despite what you want, since people will feel threatened and will set up coaltion's to take the larger nation down.
Now lets look at mightly France. A nation that no single nation wants to fight alone. And even with a coalition, it would be very iffy if they could even win against France. France that has well over what was it? 800 income? And who's next? Not Spain, but the Dutch, which had over 500 income. So if Spain and Austria can't fight France alone, and try to bring in more allies to prevent another thrashing. Yet here you are saying I don't like big alliance's because it forces bigger war's. Yet look at France and tell me if any 2 nation's can fight France? There is no way they could, and you know this Red. Other nation's are literally forced to ally up and group up into a massive alliance just to look threatening enough so you need to think twice about starting a war against them. And they have alot of cause to be threatened by you Red. After I stopped playing DoN. You beat up on Spain yet again and took Naples and Apulia and even more of mexico from them. You have no intention of ever letting any other nation crawl out of the hole you put them in. Your going to keep thrashing nation's that even look remotely threatening to you and keep bullying other nation's around.
So you wonder why people don't do regional wars now? Its because they aren't cattle anymore Red. And I think finally they all decided that they had enough of you deciding which nation lives and which should be thrashed. Look at the current war your in, in DoN. The fact that your fighting Austria and demanding all of Italy from them plus Baden to you is not alot. Yet for Austria its 5 provinces. And to the other player's in the game, its rape of one of the strongest contenders against France. A nation they obviously do not want to see get hammered down anymore. So who are you fighting now and who is throwing support for Austria? Surprise surprise its not Spain or Prussia, but the 3 muslim player nation's. Now that must of shocked you and frustrated you to no end. Here you are wondering why on earth is Fate, Peter Ebessen, and Wyvern supporting suppossedly an enemy against France? The Ottoman Empire, Persia and the Mughul Empire intervening and supporting Austria against France. Now to me this is amazing and kind of funny since it smacks of the hated words, Balance of Power. After all everyone has their own definetion of what Balance of Power means to them. I don't know what happenned to that war, since I haven't read the latest installment, but the fact that 3 muslim nations who normally would not involve themselves in an Austrian/French war, did involve themselves. And did it to fight off France in their belief that France is getting too powerful and too greedy. And that Red to me is very telling to how your game is evolving.
Red you may not like massive alliance's, you also are not an advocate of alliance peace deals because your all for peacing other nation's out and then tearing a nation apart. But for alot of player's here, alliance peace deal's makes sense since they see what you've done in DoN and I'm sure people have experienced being left out in the cold and forced to deal with a large alliance on their own. Its very machevelli to arrange war's that certain nations will get hammered and in some instance's allies get hurt because you got what you want, but left your allies who joined the war because of your insistance.
Surely you can see where some of these people are coming from in this discussion?
Duma
