-
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.
AI. KJ was intending to sub starting when he got home, but it was difficult to include subs last night because V-net was down and we were all going in through IP address. As it was, the sub we arranged for Shigure, Fnuco, went link-dead fairly quickly, and by the time we dropped out to pick him back up, he wasn't on ICQ. So Carthage was AI as well.HALNY (HAL) said:
my actual relationships (0=worst enemy,5=neutral,10=my best friend)
Royalist : 3 --A question of Honor.These sailors will be annihilated,coz are a threaten for tribes barbarians living in Normandy.And when wind is strong,we can feel their smell of fish
HRE : 6 --The respect for these peole,and their leader claming the throne of Emperor,is great.And it will last until they wont interferir in our right and fair claims
Kazan : 7 --Our brothers of the East are spending difficult times,but barbarians are sure that before or later the Khan will get his old and powerful Empire
Carthago : 5 --Barbarians have got with such people some issue in the past,but i dont think they wanna have again a bunch of tombs in our land.Our relationships could upgrade,but only the Great Spirit knows this
Finland : 4 --Some barbarians,that went there for some hidden pillage,have noticed how much they are close at Royalist,and how much great is the plotting against our tribes.This is unaccettable!Barbarians wanna have some explanation,asap
Poland : 4 --They dared warred us two times.Barbarians respect their brave,but they are still a threaten,for our tribes living along Danube
Costantinople : 4 --The Dog of Costantinople has conducted by the start a policy against barbarian interests,and it wont be forgotten
Royalist : 3 --A question of Honor.These sailors will be annihilated,coz are a threaten for tribes barbarians living in Normandy.And when wind is strong,we can feel their smell of fish
HRE : 6 --The respect for these peole,and their leader claming the throne of Emperor,is great.And it will last until they wont interferir in our right and fair claims
Kazan : 7 --Our brothers of the East are spending difficult times,but barbarians are sure that before or later the Khan will get his old and powerful Empire
Carthago : 5 --Barbarians have got with such people some issue in the past,but i dont think they wanna have again a bunch of tombs in our land.Our relationships could upgrade,but only the Great Spirit knows this
Finland : 4 --Some barbarians,that went there for some hidden pillage,have noticed how much they are close at Royalist,and how much great is the plotting against our tribes.This is unaccettable!Barbarians wanna have some explanation,asap
Poland : 4 --They dared warred us two times.Barbarians respect their brave,but they are still a threaten,for our tribes living along Danube
Costantinople : 4 --The Dog of Costantinople has conducted by the start a policy against barbarian interests,and it wont be forgotten
in dagos example and since i have little to do right now ill post hre list to
Royalist : 5--nothing to say really neutral to them
Barbarians : 6-7 well same as dago outside the border wars and occasional war for honor over hre title barbarians in north got my respect
Kazan : 5-- don't really care neutral xept for fact that they may be ally vs the evil byzantiums
Carthago : 3--1of the 2main enemys of the hre right now fought several times and he holds some lands i'd like
Finland : 5-- neutral same as royalists to far from me or my enemys
Poland : 4--pretty neutral but i don't trust them especialy with hal always missing
Byzantium : 2-- competing for title of rome i barely survived his last treacherous attack and will get my revenge !
Royalist : 5--nothing to say really neutral to them
Barbarians : 6-7 well same as dago outside the border wars and occasional war for honor over hre title barbarians in north got my respect
Kazan : 5-- don't really care neutral xept for fact that they may be ally vs the evil byzantiums
Carthago : 3--1of the 2main enemys of the hre right now fought several times and he holds some lands i'd like
Finland : 5-- neutral same as royalists to far from me or my enemys
Poland : 4--pretty neutral but i don't trust them especialy with hal always missing
Byzantium : 2-- competing for title of rome i barely survived his last treacherous attack and will get my revenge !
Last edited:
I am flattered that the Barbarians dislike losing to the Home Fleet. I suppose someday, I might end up actually having to beat land forces instead.
DSYoungEsq said:I am flattered that the Barbarians dislike losing to the Home Fleet. I suppose someday, I might end up actually having to beat land forces instead.
i m trembling with fear
- Barbarian Chieften - You should downgrade our relations to a 2 or 3. No explanations should be needed silly barbarian.
- Glad to see the Barbarian/Western Imperial Love fest is still intact despite those nasty slap and tickle fights they have been having.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fine Monarchs. I think this game is flawed. The overall concept is good and I am having fun but there are problems.
1) War, War, War.. I know this game was set up to promote wars since war is great gaming fun but wars without purpose is like playing poker (my current pastime) for play money. Fun but not the real deal.
We've seen a lot of wars so far but with nothing at stake, there is no real tension. This tends to lead to more passive play as well as wars are easy and relatively bloodless. I can't help but point out the Patty-Cake wars between HRE and Songhai. They make a lot of noise and look good but what was the outcome? Were either of them hurt afterwards? Are either of them gearing up for revenge? War should lead to bad blood between neighbours not "6" ratings on the friendship scale
Now if there was something to actually lose (like territory) we would surely see some long bloody wars.
A few ideas to fix things:
1) Scrap the border wars and incorporate the Standards/Triumphs into regular wars. Rewarding war is good.
2) Add More Cores: It appears as though everyone has pretty much expanded to their core border and has for the most part stopped (Aside from our Barbarian friends).
Every border province in your neighbours territory should be considered Core (extending across sea zones as well). This will give players ample reason to wage real war.
3) Allow Player Alliances: Currently we have a situation where the 3 big boys have Cupcake wars with each other while the little guys outside look on. Occasionally one of the big boys deems it necessary to slap around one of the little guys for some standards.
Alliances offer a nice dynamic to the game. Some of my favourite wars have been the grand coalitions hammering away at each other. The little guys in this game need to be able to form Coalitons to take on the big boys. Hopefully this would promote some diplomacy as well. Aside from a few chats with Poland and the Royalists I haven't had any reason to conduct any (no contact from anyone else either).
The downside to Alliances are the eternal hand-holders. We need to promote Alliance wars and punish the Huggy-Buddies. Some suggestions:
- No Standing Alliances: Punish those nations that regularly help each other out for no good reason both offensive and defensive. This could be done at the end of the session via edited Loans to pay or stab hits. This would have to be a judgement call but usually we all know who the Hand-Holders are. No good reason is the key. (Perhaps force the caller to take out loans and pay the callee for their entry? At least make the caller think twice about calling in allies)
- No peacetime alliances: Alliances must expire after 5 (or is it 10?) years of peace. The Alliance Leader must let it expire or take the stab hit to break it. No joining alliances in peacetime either.
4) No Edited Land Swaps - In game only, take the stab hits and suck it up. Rulers of nations don't easily give up territory. Their people wouldn't support them.
5) Fix the Leader Generator: Already in the works I'm guessing but that has really hurt the game so far.
6) For next game - Alter the starting positions. Have England split between 3 nations (2 Western and Scandinavian). Have an Eygyptian player.... Basically all players should have 3 enemy nations if at all possible.
7) Fix Poland
..Anyway just a few thoughts from up north
- Glad to see the Barbarian/Western Imperial Love fest is still intact despite those nasty slap and tickle fights they have been having.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fine Monarchs. I think this game is flawed. The overall concept is good and I am having fun but there are problems.
1) War, War, War.. I know this game was set up to promote wars since war is great gaming fun but wars without purpose is like playing poker (my current pastime) for play money. Fun but not the real deal.
We've seen a lot of wars so far but with nothing at stake, there is no real tension. This tends to lead to more passive play as well as wars are easy and relatively bloodless. I can't help but point out the Patty-Cake wars between HRE and Songhai. They make a lot of noise and look good but what was the outcome? Were either of them hurt afterwards? Are either of them gearing up for revenge? War should lead to bad blood between neighbours not "6" ratings on the friendship scale
Now if there was something to actually lose (like territory) we would surely see some long bloody wars.
A few ideas to fix things:
1) Scrap the border wars and incorporate the Standards/Triumphs into regular wars. Rewarding war is good.
2) Add More Cores: It appears as though everyone has pretty much expanded to their core border and has for the most part stopped (Aside from our Barbarian friends).
Every border province in your neighbours territory should be considered Core (extending across sea zones as well). This will give players ample reason to wage real war.
3) Allow Player Alliances: Currently we have a situation where the 3 big boys have Cupcake wars with each other while the little guys outside look on. Occasionally one of the big boys deems it necessary to slap around one of the little guys for some standards.
Alliances offer a nice dynamic to the game. Some of my favourite wars have been the grand coalitions hammering away at each other. The little guys in this game need to be able to form Coalitons to take on the big boys. Hopefully this would promote some diplomacy as well. Aside from a few chats with Poland and the Royalists I haven't had any reason to conduct any (no contact from anyone else either).
The downside to Alliances are the eternal hand-holders. We need to promote Alliance wars and punish the Huggy-Buddies. Some suggestions:
- No Standing Alliances: Punish those nations that regularly help each other out for no good reason both offensive and defensive. This could be done at the end of the session via edited Loans to pay or stab hits. This would have to be a judgement call but usually we all know who the Hand-Holders are. No good reason is the key. (Perhaps force the caller to take out loans and pay the callee for their entry? At least make the caller think twice about calling in allies)
- No peacetime alliances: Alliances must expire after 5 (or is it 10?) years of peace. The Alliance Leader must let it expire or take the stab hit to break it. No joining alliances in peacetime either.
4) No Edited Land Swaps - In game only, take the stab hits and suck it up. Rulers of nations don't easily give up territory. Their people wouldn't support them.
5) Fix the Leader Generator: Already in the works I'm guessing but that has really hurt the game so far.
6) For next game - Alter the starting positions. Have England split between 3 nations (2 Western and Scandinavian). Have an Eygyptian player.... Basically all players should have 3 enemy nations if at all possible.
7) Fix Poland
..Anyway just a few thoughts from up north
... Just thought of a few more ideas:
8) Selling provinces/Fake Wars for provinces cost -2 Stability - Outraged Nobles, peasentry ...etc Plus it is very weak to do in a war game (I'm guilty of that over Mecklenburg as well) - Provinces this size were not given away willy-nilly like we do without a war.
9) No Verbally Fixing of Borders: Borders should be fluid and a cause for war. Personally, I have a fixed border with Kazan and since I very very rarely break deals there is no way I'm going to really war with Kazan without a good reason.
10) Game Set-Up (II) - Create "Ancestoral Thorn Provinces" to cause more friction. By this I mean having provinces in all your neighbours spheres of influence that cannot be sold, edited away, and cost stability if you lose them in war (Think British Hanover). They should also give you increasing benefits for simply holding on to them (Standards perhaps?)
8) Selling provinces/Fake Wars for provinces cost -2 Stability - Outraged Nobles, peasentry ...etc Plus it is very weak to do in a war game (I'm guilty of that over Mecklenburg as well) - Provinces this size were not given away willy-nilly like we do without a war.
9) No Verbally Fixing of Borders: Borders should be fluid and a cause for war. Personally, I have a fixed border with Kazan and since I very very rarely break deals there is no way I'm going to really war with Kazan without a good reason.
10) Game Set-Up (II) - Create "Ancestoral Thorn Provinces" to cause more friction. By this I mean having provinces in all your neighbours spheres of influence that cannot be sold, edited away, and cost stability if you lose them in war (Think British Hanover). They should also give you increasing benefits for simply holding on to them (Standards perhaps?)
Last edited:
Swap HolisticGod and Drake and the game would be as entertaining as anyone could want. No love fests would exist.
DSYoungEsq said:Swap HolisticGod and Drake and the game would be as entertaining as anyone could want. No love fests would exist.
I don't think so Khan. While HG has been fighting it has still mostly been
play-fights (aside from Sochi). Sparring versu Warring.
DSYoungEsq said:Swap HolisticGod and Drake and the game would be as entertaining as anyone could want. No love fests would exist.
well i did want byz originally milan secund choise but i wouldn't wan't to move at this point unles restarted
o
Love fest? :rofl:
watch the losses,guys
we ve :
Drake : 2,5 M
HG : 1,7
me : 1,5
all others are a lot lower
as u can call them love fest?at least we fight
watch the losses,guys
we ve :
Drake : 2,5 M
HG : 1,7
me : 1,5
all others are a lot lower
as u can call them love fest?at least we fight
Dago said:Love fest? :rofl:
watch the losses,guys
we ve :
Drake : 2,5 M
HG : 1,7
me : 1,5
all others are a lot lower
as u can call them love fest?at least we fight
.... Was there any lasting damage from these play fights? Are you burning for revenge because you lost provinces? Are you plotting and scheming to make the other nation pay?
Dave,
You have a point.
But I think there's a misunderstanding here. It was my intention for Triumphs to be viewed as the central goal of all players, the measure by which the game is won and lost.
You have a point.
But I think there's a misunderstanding here. It was my intention for Triumphs to be viewed as the central goal of all players, the measure by which the game is won and lost.
Dave,
Point by point:
1. Up for discussion, but so far those wars have worked rather well. The fault, it seems, rests with the smaller countries. The larger countries have little reason to fight at the moment. I do agree that there is something lacking from the diplomatic side, though, and we should dream up ways to fix this. I just don't think abolishing the system altogether is the best way of doing that.
2. Players don't need cores. Recent patches have almost eliminated BB for human-human wars, and the capital cores eliminate the stabhits. Cultures are a possibility, but the main chunk of contestable real estate is held by Poland, a country the HRE and Byzantium, at least, do not want to further harm.
3. Players can ally. They just can't use the code to do it. I am open to changing the rules so players can invite during wars.
4. Editing hasn't been a problem so far, and doesn't tend to reduce wars in any way.
5. In the works.
6. Actually, each country except York currently has four potential enemies on the basis of culture alone.
7. Agreed. We need a new perm Poland who can make the sessions.
8. Not really practical.
9. Agreed. This can't be done by rule or edit, but I do think there's quite a bit of reason for this game to see constant regular warfare. The main problem is that four countries-Carthage, the HRE, the Barbarians and Byzantium, and in particular the latter three-are considerably stronger than the rest. If I pushed Kazan for the rest of the Black Sea region right now, CF's only real option would be to push into Poland to compensate. Same with hitting Poland directly. We do need to shake things up, though. No question.
10. Hmm... An excellent idea. We may want to incorporate it for this game, in fact.
Point by point:
1. Up for discussion, but so far those wars have worked rather well. The fault, it seems, rests with the smaller countries. The larger countries have little reason to fight at the moment. I do agree that there is something lacking from the diplomatic side, though, and we should dream up ways to fix this. I just don't think abolishing the system altogether is the best way of doing that.
2. Players don't need cores. Recent patches have almost eliminated BB for human-human wars, and the capital cores eliminate the stabhits. Cultures are a possibility, but the main chunk of contestable real estate is held by Poland, a country the HRE and Byzantium, at least, do not want to further harm.
3. Players can ally. They just can't use the code to do it. I am open to changing the rules so players can invite during wars.
4. Editing hasn't been a problem so far, and doesn't tend to reduce wars in any way.
5. In the works.
6. Actually, each country except York currently has four potential enemies on the basis of culture alone.
7. Agreed. We need a new perm Poland who can make the sessions.
8. Not really practical.
9. Agreed. This can't be done by rule or edit, but I do think there's quite a bit of reason for this game to see constant regular warfare. The main problem is that four countries-Carthage, the HRE, the Barbarians and Byzantium, and in particular the latter three-are considerably stronger than the rest. If I pushed Kazan for the rest of the Black Sea region right now, CF's only real option would be to push into Poland to compensate. Same with hitting Poland directly. We do need to shake things up, though. No question.
10. Hmm... An excellent idea. We may want to incorporate it for this game, in fact.
Mrlifford said:
my behaviour is the same vs everybody
i declare only borders and honor war,as the spirit of the game wants
i probably dont want anymore land
btw a idea i told hg about after last session
add a vassal rule :
players vassalt are forced to stay that way for 20years and act like vassals /only able to vassal nations smaller then ***provs
once 20years is achieved the vassalt player is alowed to fight for his freedom but another player can help him with that
for example :
-byz vassals granada by force for 20years hes a vassal of byz but plots with kazan and hre for his freedom ,
-20year passes he dows byz tegeter with hre or kazan to fight for his freedom if he succeeds you can demand provs/standards and win youre freedom if he looses byz can revassal for 20years or take provs from hre and granada ect
if granada wins freedom he can't be revassalt for 20-30years ect
now this would encourage some player wars for sure where you can actually get hurt like lifford asked above
add a vassal rule :
players vassalt are forced to stay that way for 20years and act like vassals /only able to vassal nations smaller then ***provs
once 20years is achieved the vassalt player is alowed to fight for his freedom but another player can help him with that
for example :
-byz vassals granada by force for 20years hes a vassal of byz but plots with kazan and hre for his freedom ,
-20year passes he dows byz tegeter with hre or kazan to fight for his freedom if he succeeds you can demand provs/standards and win youre freedom if he looses byz can revassal for 20years or take provs from hre and granada ect
if granada wins freedom he can't be revassalt for 20-30years ect
now this would encourage some player wars for sure where you can actually get hurt like lifford asked above
All,
The thing is, you're perfectly able to fight a regular, no-frills war. The rules present alternatives, they don't force them.
The thing is, you're perfectly able to fight a regular, no-frills war. The rules present alternatives, they don't force them.
HolisticGod said:
...hmm... and I was hoping for a war game not a series of Play fights
I think it's a great system to reward players and measurement of wins/losses. It has really worked well to cause war to break out (outstanding really) but I think it needs to be tweaked a bit to cause real wars to break out as well. That's why I suggested incorporating the two. You could still have your Wars of Honour, Border Wars (if you like), and combine their benefits into a real war. Simply give the standards/Triumphs even if they take provinces.
- Dago/Drake - I know you're playing this game properly as it is set up, but I was just using your wars as an example of what I feel is wrong with this game. Your wars are loud and noisy but there is no consequence to them.
- Drake - Poland has been a basket case the past couple sessions. No reason to fight Kazan(Nothing I want, no role play reason to war, and he is getting whupped by Byzantium). Oh and only one leader last session in 1498 - Considering Dago has 2 good ones and a good admiral it's pointless to try to navally invade Songhai by myself.
- HG - Thanks for responding
I have to disagree on a few points though.- I think Cores are important. They give players reasons to war. Without looking, I would guess that most players have expanded to their cores and pretty much stopped. Cores would add a tangible CB to players rather than a nebulous one to make it easier to claim provinces. This should in turn spark bitterness and good solid warring.
- Selling Provinces- It would work if you edit in Stab hits between sessions. It's supposed to be a war game so why make it easy on players?
- Alliances - I'm glad there is some openess to change here
I think there is a desperate need for alliances to take down/protect the little guys from the big boys. We would just have to make sure countries are not eternal chums. - Drake - Interesting vassal idea