HALNY (HAL) said:
is impossible to have barbarian slaves : they prefer to die,suffering,rather than be slaves of vile poles
anyway,u r right about a thing : in ur land live little tribes of warriors,that wanna a new chief
-
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.
is impossible to have barbarian slaves : they prefer to die,suffering,rather than be slaves of vile poles
anyway,u r right about a thing : in ur land live little tribes of warriors,that wanna a new chief
It appears borders are finally beginning to shape up, & most of the world is now under the control of human players. So major wars should begin soon (aka all nations contributing to one or two great wars across Europe), but one thing I really fear is long term alliances. I do not really want to see any two countries allied most of the game or in an unproductive manor. I would like to see no long term grudges which inhibit alliances which should come naturally. Example, so far HG & I have fought two wars (both rather costly from my end, & probably his too) & I would guess we have a lot more to fight, but that does not mean if the balance of power called for it that we would not be allies. One of the reason I choose Kazan is because I know HG would fight many wars with me, but would not be embittered against me forever if he lost a couple of them. So as a warning, there is no colonizing so all wars will be continental, & because of this the balance of power will shift dramatically by a couple a key victories (more so than games where defeated or naturally weaker European powers can turn to colonizing for compensation). With that in mind no one power should attach itself to another because that would create an unfair dynamic in the game where two powers could carve up Europe & end the game prematurely.
CF,
Agreed on all points, and I think that's probably how it'll be apart from the Dago-Drake situation. If I'd been thinking clearly, I would've put the on opposite ends of the continent. My hope, though, is that they'll get serious-they are without question the most natural enemies in the setup as it's developed.
Another interesting point about our wars is that, although costly considering they were both real and fought early, neither of us demanded more than Sochi. I was certainly in a position to demand more, and you probably were too (I destroyed a fair portion of your armies, so I'm not sure what shape you were in but if I had to bet). That kind of limited warfare for one specific plot of territory can still be enjoyable without shifting the balance overmuch, and at least right now, my manpower/wealth advantages are balanced out by your significantly better morale and edge in leadership.
I hope that'll be the trend. Or, at least, that as we develop the major powers will fight for Standards rather than provinces the majority of the time. If York were to take a large number of provinces on the continent right now, that wouldn't do more than establish a new (in my mind, better) balance. If Byzantium did the same thing, taking five or six provinces from Milan in one go, that'd be a different story. Especially if there were two wars of that kind.
But I think everybody with the Standard program, so I suspect your advice will be followed.
I certainly don't intend to fight against Kazan constantly, and I imagine there are future circumstances in which our cooperation would be called for, just as there are circumstances (existing naturally right now, I believe) in which Milan and the Barbarians would be called upon to fight each other. And York and the Barbarians might have reason to ally, or the Emperor and the Barbarians, etc.
Agreed on all points, and I think that's probably how it'll be apart from the Dago-Drake situation. If I'd been thinking clearly, I would've put the on opposite ends of the continent. My hope, though, is that they'll get serious-they are without question the most natural enemies in the setup as it's developed.
Another interesting point about our wars is that, although costly considering they were both real and fought early, neither of us demanded more than Sochi. I was certainly in a position to demand more, and you probably were too (I destroyed a fair portion of your armies, so I'm not sure what shape you were in but if I had to bet). That kind of limited warfare for one specific plot of territory can still be enjoyable without shifting the balance overmuch, and at least right now, my manpower/wealth advantages are balanced out by your significantly better morale and edge in leadership.
I hope that'll be the trend. Or, at least, that as we develop the major powers will fight for Standards rather than provinces the majority of the time. If York were to take a large number of provinces on the continent right now, that wouldn't do more than establish a new (in my mind, better) balance. If Byzantium did the same thing, taking five or six provinces from Milan in one go, that'd be a different story. Especially if there were two wars of that kind.
But I think everybody with the Standard program, so I suspect your advice will be followed.
I certainly don't intend to fight against Kazan constantly, and I imagine there are future circumstances in which our cooperation would be called for, just as there are circumstances (existing naturally right now, I believe) in which Milan and the Barbarians would be called upon to fight each other. And York and the Barbarians might have reason to ally, or the Emperor and the Barbarians, etc.
first of all we may apear friendly but i'm not even close to allyd to dago
well fight but it will be mainly borderwars wars for honor ect not asmuch for provs but that doesn't mean the won't be bloody tho , last session that short border war with dago had about same if not more losses then entire war vs granada
secund war of granada was a change i had 6-7shock general and wanted standards dago was already fighting 2wars so wouldn't be nice to make it 3vs1 granada however was barely fighting asfar as i could tell
i will not protect dago if ganged but i will not gang dago or help gangers vs him unles dago starts ofcourse if some of my neigbors gang him nothing prevents me to grab some standards from them
well fight but it will be mainly borderwars wars for honor ect not asmuch for provs but that doesn't mean the won't be bloody tho , last session that short border war with dago had about same if not more losses then entire war vs granada
secund war of granada was a change i had 6-7shock general and wanted standards dago was already fighting 2wars so wouldn't be nice to make it 3vs1 granada however was barely fighting asfar as i could tell
i will not protect dago if ganged but i will not gang dago or help gangers vs him unles dago starts ofcourse if some of my neigbors gang him nothing prevents me to grab some standards from them
HolisticGod said:
guys,really,this is getting hilarius ; ppl that wanna convince me and Drake to fight each one.
As drake and me have said a lot time,we are not allis,just friend
But if these complains will continue,i ll offer at Drake one strong and sincere alliance; it is not too much suspicious that everyone here wants ours inimicity?
Then, natural enemies? that does not turn out me, as an example, prussia and Austria are natural enemies.Maybe i should consult with Drake, for protect the shoulders of each one of us 2, and expanding ourselves in the respective directions.
if u r men,try solve it by diplomacy or steel
and not coming here to cry as a bunch of babies
and not coming here to cry as a bunch of babies
Dago,
I think what bothers people is that your diplomacy has nothing to do with the actual game. By cultures, cores and geography you two are natural enemies, yet you haven't opposed each other at all. Out of game friendships are great-I consider both of you friends outside the game. But they have no business inside of it.
The problem isn't that we can't cope with the two of you leaving each other alone or, as is evident, helping each other out. We can. The problem is that you force everybody else into a diplomatic corner because you can't be broken up. I don't like that. I don't think anybody here likes that. It's bad for the game. It's not competitive. It's no fun. And if it were alone a matter of the two of you being stronger, I wouldn't care. It's that your little tea party disrupts the game for everyone else.
I'm not saying you have to fight right now or that you can't ever ally. It's your approach that makes me skeptical, not your play. This isn't a game for friendship. It's ruthless, cut-throat. All you should care about is the interest of the Barbarian horde, not your habit of cooperating with Drake.
If he were Granada and you were Finland, it wouldn't be such an issue. But when natural enemies make it clear that they don't intend to really fight each other all game, and that's what Drake has said, limiting it to border wars, it's bad pool.
I think what bothers people is that your diplomacy has nothing to do with the actual game. By cultures, cores and geography you two are natural enemies, yet you haven't opposed each other at all. Out of game friendships are great-I consider both of you friends outside the game. But they have no business inside of it.
The problem isn't that we can't cope with the two of you leaving each other alone or, as is evident, helping each other out. We can. The problem is that you force everybody else into a diplomatic corner because you can't be broken up. I don't like that. I don't think anybody here likes that. It's bad for the game. It's not competitive. It's no fun. And if it were alone a matter of the two of you being stronger, I wouldn't care. It's that your little tea party disrupts the game for everyone else.
I'm not saying you have to fight right now or that you can't ever ally. It's your approach that makes me skeptical, not your play. This isn't a game for friendship. It's ruthless, cut-throat. All you should care about is the interest of the Barbarian horde, not your habit of cooperating with Drake.
If he were Granada and you were Finland, it wouldn't be such an issue. But when natural enemies make it clear that they don't intend to really fight each other all game, and that's what Drake has said, limiting it to border wars, it's bad pool.
HolisticGod said:
I'm not sure that's necessarily the reason. The reason is much more simple -- they're cowards.
Now, I don't mean that in a denigrating sort of way. Cowardice is generally the rational response, as opposed to the pointless bloodshed we're trying to encourage.
Drake and Dago are clearly each other's most dangerous threats. So, instead of risking real battle with each other, they leave each other alone to pick on easier targets. After all, a standard from Granada is a lot easier to take than a standard from the Barbarians, and worth just as much. And so long as neither backstabs the other, it is virtually impossible for either to lose. (Well, a Carthage-Byzantine alliance stands a good chance of defeating Rome, but the Barbarians would have little to fear against even a York-Finno-Polish alliance.)
we arent cowards ,shigure
we did the deal for partition of france-germany before the start of game,and not after when we became the strongest
apart this,i dont think we are anyway or we ll be for the rest of the game the strongest countries in europe
i m a very bad economist,and i bet on finland's grow (Liff,one of few men still existing in vnet )
then,Kazan and Byzantium are powerful by now
btw,neither me neither Drake thought that our "friendship" endures for the entire game
we did the deal for partition of france-germany before the start of game,and not after when we became the strongest
apart this,i dont think we are anyway or we ll be for the rest of the game the strongest countries in europe
i m a very bad economist,and i bet on finland's grow (Liff,one of few men still existing in vnet
)then,Kazan and Byzantium are powerful by now
btw,neither me neither Drake thought that our "friendship" endures for the entire game
HolisticGod said:
i tought you wanted to limit most wars to wars of honor/borderwars/wars for standards ?
admiral drake said:
yeah,that make decide who wins the game
but these guys seem are more worried about other things
Shigure said:
i will not dow anybody thats already at war with 2other nations not granada not byz and not barbarion horde unles there is no other way
i have no intention of ganging everybody 1vs1 wars should be the norm unles you got no change of beating him alone but if you do intend to gang me shig well talk in thrace-grenada if you try
All,
For the record, Byzantium is the Roman Empire, headed by his August Majesty the Roman Emperor. The Holy Roman Empire with all its pretensions is not its namesake.
As a matter of policy, the Empress has no intention of forming any kind of unholy alliance against her distant Italian relations. If she ever sees need for war, she will undertake it by her own power.
She merely notes the realities of the situation.
For the record, Byzantium is the Roman Empire, headed by his August Majesty the Roman Emperor. The Holy Roman Empire with all its pretensions is not its namesake.
As a matter of policy, the Empress has no intention of forming any kind of unholy alliance against her distant Italian relations. If she ever sees need for war, she will undertake it by her own power.
She merely notes the realities of the situation.
Last edited:
The Barbarians dont recognize any emperor,and neither such ancient myths as the roman empire
But while the Lord of Rome acconsented at our claims,the Dog of Costantinople was a threaten,when our warriors wanted free the pole land.
And it wont be forgotten
But while the Lord of Rome acconsented at our claims,the Dog of Costantinople was a threaten,when our warriors wanted free the pole land.
And it wont be forgotten
admiral drake said:
I have no chance to beat Barbarians alone, will you help me Drake?
HALNY (HAL) said:I have no chance to beat Barbarians alone, will you help me Drake?
Bonjour HAL! (King of the Poles) What's your icq address? You're the only one I don't have now.
I didn't really direct my words towards any one party, it was just a general warning against such things when power is solely based in Europe.