The Return Unleashed: Exploded

[admiral drake]

And as this game looks atm, in the final save, i must say that Morrocco and Sweden is by far the winners in this setup. It sure doesnt sound right for me,
and i very much prefer games to be open and fair played, In games were the players decied things, not individual players that happens to be very convincing in his preaches ( ), or the GM himself for that matter.
.

i actually agree with this part

 

[HolisticGod]

Drake,

Except, of course, that that's what this game was. Look at the first post, several of Slargos' posts throughout and the stuff on SlutNet. Everyone had the same opportunity to review, object, argue and suggest.

I won't apologize for actually taking the time to keep up with the saves (and help with the editing, incidentally), review the situation and run tests, nor for being capable of making logical (and balanced) arguments on that basis. Not only for Morocco, but for Austria, Russia, Sweden and Venice too.

If you didn't do any one of those things, it's Your Own Damn Fault. And if you did the first three, and I don't believe anyone but Fred did and for him it was only on one subject wherein I turned out to be right , consider the possibility that you were wrong. Or that, for whatever reason, it didn't go over well. The only large protests I saw were addressed in favor of the protestors, apart from the roster. So anything else was a matter of opinion.

Either you didn't pay attention despite ample opportunity or your position just didn't go over. One way or another, it wasn't Slarg's fault.

 

[Fredrik82]

Fred,

As for Venice, what it got is what I wanted in one of Hive's old games. Cores, N Italian provinces, shipyard, factories, CC, etc. Plus a manpower boost I didn't. The only real penalty was that you lost knowledge of one COT, and that was because I was under the impression you'd have 3 and no one else would. Now that you don't, I'm in favor of editing Isfahan and one of the Indian COTs into your Known Provinces table. .

And he downgraded Venetian trade tech, cut the starting cash by 75 percent (Which i hope he did with everyone). That is pretty harsh for a small nation like Venice that is extremly dependent on the start in order to even stand a chance in a game like this.

But this is not just about Venice, it's just parts of it.

As for the rest, what you mean is that you objected to not having a Brandenburg and merged Sweden, two principles of the game, and because you didn't get your way you're up in arms. However, reasons for that were explicitly stated. The roster was non-negotiable, and I was opposed to Scandinavia too. But it was one of the reasons he started the game.

Any other issues... Slargos said, for weeks, that the file was updated regularly on the forum for general perusal and objections. He went so far as to say that not looking at it and lodging complaints ahead of time would be your own damn fault. And here we are.

It's your own damn fault.

You and Slargos created this scenario with limited influence by others, and it did end up to favour Sweden and Morrocco significantly.
All my efforts to come with ideas was ignored or simply rejected as shit.
Same for lots of other players. And in the meantime Morrocco was boosted in a extreme way. With zero insight by others etc etc.

But perhaps its my own damn fault, but in my world, the GM listen to the players and create a game based on what the player majority wants.

 

[DSYoungEsq]

1. To the extent there were changes between TRUE v 1.06 (which I downloaded that morning) and the save game downloaded at the start of the game, there would be a legitimate complaint. I was mildly surprised to see my 150d treasury in TRUE v 1.06 turn into a 0d treasury in the save game we started with! But the 500d were in Venice's treasury in TRUE v 1.06 and at the start of the game.

2. I think it is not very nice, nor wise, to assert collusion and bad intentions, just because someone isn't happy with what he has.

3. The sub deserves an apology. He was grabbed last minute, could have turned us down, played as long as he said he was available. Venice could have been AI instead.

 

[HolisticGod]

Fred,

Morocco was brought up to par with England. Period. We said we were going to do that and we did.

The argument on input is bull shit. I'm done being nice about it. The saves were posted as each version became available and if people didn't bother to give it so much as a fucking glance, tough. That's nobody's fault but theirs.

You got virtually everything you wanted. Now you're making a big deal over what you didn't. But that doesn't amount to being ignored and dealing with a dictatorial scenario. I agree Venice deserves knowledge of two more COTs to make up for the trade tech, but bear in mind you had a lot of investment and no one else did. And the starting cash was cut to even with Morocco (which has far, far, far more expenses, mind you) at 500. I didn't know that was going to be Slargos' solution until the final edit was done, and I think that's a lot better than either of us having 2K.

Now, for Christ's sake, read back through the thread. If you're pissed about your position, fine. But there's no larger moral issue here. Slargos was very careful to leave it all open to scrutiny and he did. End of story.

 

[Fredrik82]

I won't apologize for actually taking the time to keep up with the saves (and help with the editing, incidentally), review the situation and run tests, nor for being capable of making logical (and balanced) arguments on that basis. Not only for Morocco, but for Austria, Russia, Sweden and Venice too.

I did offer my service aswell, mostly because i wanted more insight when creating the scenario. That didnt happen.

Either you didn't pay attention despite ample opportunity or your position just didn't go over. One way or another, it wasn't Slarg's fault.

I'm not blaming anyone for anything, i'm spimply trying to say how i prefer a game to be developed.
And that im displeased with the way this one was created.
That is all...

And you nor slargos didnt post or telling one third of the edits done in the game, some of them pretty large one etc.
I was actually kind of surprised with the way morrocco ended up, with that most of the players being put in Southern Europe with limited spaces of expansion while Northern Europe got enourmus spaces for two nations to expand as they please.
Powergame you called it, SP game, AI bashing MP game, i call it

 

[HolisticGod]

Fred,

See my post at the end of page 13.

And southern Europe isn't hemmed in at all. In fact, none of Europe is, which is part of Slargos' reason for merging Sweden. Austria, Russia, Spain, et al can move about as they please.

The only exception is Italy, and as you know I opposed that too. So essentially, you're hemmed in. And I'm sorry for that, but there's really nothing to do about it. And I should point out, it's not much different than Holland geographically, except you have far higher manpower (thanks to the edits).

 

[Fredrik82]

2. I think it is not very nice, nor wise, to assert collusion and bad intentions, just because someone isn't happy with what he has.:

Its not about Venice, the main issue here is that this game is more or less created by two people, with very little, if any significant insight by any of the players. The saves was released, suggested changes by others ignored or simply slargos said several times, "good ideas", "that's reasonable" etc, still nothing happend.

I'm actually happy with the outcome of venice, without my constant "whining" Venice would have been shit, with no manus, cores etc.
I had to put down alot of effort to atleast get some of my demands accepted.
But what really pissed me off was that in the final save, much was changed in last minute. Whithout telling anyone about it after, not even before game started that this edits will be implanted etc.
And that Venice lost COTs in previus edits just for the reason of having trade 3, and then later also loose trade 3 was just too much.
But overall, i was ok with venice.

3. The sub deserves an apology. He was grabbed last minute, could have turned us down, played as long as he said he was available. Venice could have been AI instead.

I've done that, i didnt know that Venice had been idle/AI. I was told that Venice was subbed from start.

 

[arcorelli]

I actually agree with Holistic: Saves were available, discussion was open. It is true that final decisiones were with Slargos, but that was clear from the beginning.

And regarding Morocco and Sweden receiving the most advantages. It was clear from the beginning that Morocco was receiving a heavy boost. We wanted a new colonial player. And there are other players with very good room to expand: Austria without Brandenburg to worry about can be said to be in a good position, Russia without Poland can become a really nasty country. Actually England is the real loser here (with the bad luck with random explorers

 

[admiral drake]

Fred,

Morocco was brought up to par with England. Period. We said we were going to do that and we did.

The argument on input is bull shit. I'm done being nice about it. The saves were posted as each version became available and if people didn't bother to give it so much as a fucking glance, tough. That's nobody's fault but theirs.

You got virtually everything you wanted. Now you're making a big deal over what you didn't. But that doesn't amount to being ignored and dealing with a dictatorial scenario. I agree Venice deserves knowledge of two more COTs to make up for the trade tech, but bear in mind you had a lot of investment and no one else did. And the starting cash was cut to even with Morocco (which has far, far, far more expenses, mind you) at 500. I didn't know that was going to be Slargos' solution until the final edit was done, and I think that's a lot better than either of us having 2K.

Now, for Christ's sake, read back through the thread. If you're pissed about your position, fine. But there's no larger moral issue here. Slargos was very careful to leave it all open to scrutiny and he did. End of story.

question why should moroco be up to par with england ? moroco is suposed to be a medium power like venice in my opinion

 

[admiral drake]

I actually agree with Holistic: Saves were available, discussion was open. It is true that final decisiones were with Slargos, but that was clear from the beginning.

And regarding Morocco and Sweden receiving the most advantages. It was clear from the beginning that Morocco was receiving a heavy boost. We wanted a new colonial player. And there are other players with very good room to expand: Austria without Brandenburg to worry about can be said to be in a good position, Russia without Poland can become a really nasty country. Actually England is the real loser here (with the bad luck with random explorers

nah spain-france-england-ottos are the loosers
austria-sweden-moroco are the winners

not that it matters much tho austria screwed himself with annexing half of germany despite the boost it got :rofl:

 

[arcorelli]

nah spain-france-england-ottos are the loosers

I think is fine. Losers were the countries usually more powerful. And easy, England is damn easy after all, so no complaining from me if they are losers in the exchange. So I can wreck England and blame the scenario afterwards

 

[admiral drake]

I think is fine. Losers were the countries usually more powerful. And easy, England is damn easy after all, so no complaining from me if they are losers in the exchange. So I can wreck England and blame the scenario afterwards

well spain is weaker no historic explorers
ottos got moroco to deal with and cots close to austria and on moroco borders stead of egypt+capitol
france well paris cot is in alsace and boosted austria nough sayd
england got no historic explorers more competition but also more mp due to 5/5sliders

 

[Tonioz]

If this was a misunderstanding, fair enough. It's quite possible, given that you've failed to hear me on the Ivoria issue and the Zanzibar issue, and that you believe I'm now excluding South Africa. I said the Cape. I.e. the Cape of Good Hope. The region of South Africa to which we agreed.

There is Cape Verde, so as you see not giving detailed explanation leads to misunderstanding only.

Well, as summary i don`t see the reason why your point of view (what you`ve thought about the agreement) deserves more than mine (what i`ve thought about the agreement). And i don`t modify existing agreement, stop claiming to blame me

 

[Tonioz]

well, i think we all know Slargos and his GM style, which doesn`t mean a lot of negotiation with players. I didn`t take part in modifying scenario at all, was thrown to 4 countries (refuced only from England as just played and without fun) during roaster, finally received Spain without explorers, but i really didn`t want interfere scenario edition even if i would be suspicious that some country are uber-editing.

Just sit in conditions you are given and play. You can`t hope that editions are always redestributed fairly, and you should mean the fact that Slargos is rare visittor (he informed about that from the beginning). I don`t see nothing much wrong with Venice. Their trade tech was decreased like for other ones (like Spain), their land tech was boosted, their treasury was cut, they got more cores and MP + Mantua included, which saves 7 BB + additional random leaders. Some countries received more boosts indeed, some ones less. I would be happy to play such Venice. And specially meaning that Spain owns 32 european provinces and gains 70MP, while Venice could get 75MP from 13 provinces. I don`t think, Fred, that editing boosts topic deserves special place - of course some things can be seemed unfair, but we obey GM, and GM created such earth for us.

 

[admiral drake]

well, i think we all know Slargos and his GM style, which doesn`t mean a lot of negotiation with players. I didn`t take part in modifying scenario at all, was thrown to 4 countries (refuced only from England as just played and without fun) during roaster, finally received Spain without explorers, but i really didn`t want interfere scenario edition even if i would be suspicious that some country are uber-editing.

Just sit in conditions you are given and play. You can`t hope that editions are always redestributed fairly, and you should mean the fact that Slargos is rare visittor (he informed about that from the beginning). I don`t see nothing much wrong with Venice. Their trade tech was decreased like for other ones (like Spain), their land tech was boosted, their treasury was cut, they got more cores and MP + Mantua included, which saves 7 BB + additional random leaders. Some countries received more boosts indeed, some ones less. I would be happy to play such Venice. And specially meaning that Spain owns 32 european provinces and gains 70MP, while Venice could get 75MP from 13 provinces. I don`t think, Fred, that editing boosts topic deserves special place - of course some things can be seemed unfair, but we obey GM, and GM created such earth for us.

according to rule slargos made yuu can't vassal below central 8 so technicle any vassalholders outside france-austria and england can kiss there vassals goodbye asuming we keep the rule that is up to slargos

6. Vassals not allowed for nations 0-7 CENTRALIZATION. Nations with vassals ending a session at <8 CENT will lose their vassals. Exceptions will possibly be made for nations with small starting manpower up to the discretion of the GM. See rule 1.

 

[Slargos]

*** INFORMATION REMOVED ***​

*** TO PROTECT THE WORLD FROM POTENTIAL CHEATING HOSTS ***​

​

Some information is best left unknown

I actually had a faint idea about this, glad to have it confirmed. :rofl:

I'll most likely be able to get online thursday evening, I'll have a few hours to sort out details by then. For now, I'll only read the thread to keep up with the chit-chat.

 

[Slargos]

Ok. I don't have a lot of time to go into specifics, therefore I'll just list a few items that I deem of importance here:

1. I made it perfectly clear from get-go that this scenario would be created as I conceived of ideas for it. I also made it clear that input would be valued and added or discarded.

2. Those who have played with me before (most of you) know that I follow the school of GM-is-God. You knew yet you still signed up for the game. I don't see the complaints as neither constructive nor valid when it comes to the way I GM. You can either play, or quit. I would rather you quit if you are immensely unhappy with the current situation. Though why you'd join in the first place is an astonishment. We have several players who are itching to take your places so I'm not going to blow cotton candy up your asses.

3. The last week before the game started was extremely hectic to me. I had little time to edit the scenario, I had no time to post ALL the changes. I made this clear, and I told you to check the saves as they were added to Slargos.se. Some changes were made minutes prior to the game and for that, I am sorry. There was simply no time to do otherwise. None of them were important however. The 150d cut from the english starting treasury was reflective of the event fired early that creates the shipyard and CoT.

4. MT will be used for next session. THe details are forthcoming. HoG has expressed that it may need weakening.

5. You all had ample opportunity to haggle, argue and suggest for the scenario. The only player who did this actively was HoG. Little wonder that his suggestions made so much difference. No, Fredrik, making suggestions is not enough; you need to make constructive suggestions. Compromises were made and perhaps decisions were wrong but hey, everything can be corrected.

6. Expect a hard look to be taken at Venetian and Moroccan manpower. I don't like what I'm hearing.

7. The only players who have cause to whinge, Robertus and Tonio, have not done so. They were moved from location to location and deserve massive amounts of praise for doing so with a happy smile. I appreciate it, guys. If all players had your patience, GMing would be a breeze.

 

[Fredrik82]

The MT system is indeed a bit unbalanced, it need some changes to avoid a game full of 6-6-6 leaders. Which with its current form will happen in the later part of the game when the most nations gubbled up high MT points.

 

[admiral drake]

The MT system is indeed a bit unbalanced, it need some changes to avoid a game full of 6-6-6 leaders. Which with its current form will happen in the later part of the game when the most nations gubbled up high MT points.

kj recently tryd a change in mt in thirst for glory i suggest you do the same for this game as it seem to lower mt values in general (harder to get high scores) was tryd last week iirc and worked out fine