HolisticGod said:
Funny enough, Morocco is still in far better shape than OE and it is keeping up in LT.
-
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.
Funny enough, Morocco is still in far better shape than OE and it is keeping up in LT.
I will be away from Wednesday till Sunday, so unavailable for diplomacy from then on. Get your ass on ICQ today Slargos.
Will the Russian-Swedish war prevent Sweden from grabbing precious Moroccan territories?
Will Spanish gold and Russian troops succeed in securing Kexlholm, Ingermanland, Pskov and Kola from Sweden?
Will other nations realise that Sweden is the grand agressor of this game? Will they help mother Russia in taking back her former provinces and deny Sweden taking a share of Morocco?
Will the Russian-Swedish war prevent Sweden from grabbing precious Moroccan territories?
Will Spanish gold and Russian troops succeed in securing Kexlholm, Ingermanland, Pskov and Kola from Sweden?
Will other nations realise that Sweden is the grand agressor of this game? Will they help mother Russia in taking back her former provinces and deny Sweden taking a share of Morocco?
Fancy unleashing the terrible wrath of Mother Svea by claiming more than one province, FAL? Pretty dangerous threats.
Slargos said:Fancy unleashing the terrible wrath of Mother Svea by claiming more than one province, FAL? Pretty dangerous threats.
Terrible wrath of Spain versus terrible wrath of Sweden. Though choice.
Perhaps you could cede Kexholm right now and make it easier for me.
Question about the MT rules:
Sweden dowed France, got Friesen without a fight. Does that count as winning a war?
Sweden dowed France, got Friesen without a fight. Does that count as winning a war?
FAL said:
err edit
first war was over oldenburg
secund over friesen did fight but surrendert quick cause i don't trust spain-austria
third was provexchange bought friesen back
so first 2should count , third shouldn't
admiral drake said:
The first one undoubtedly gives MT points and the third one undoubtedly not.
I am talking about the second one. Shouldn't be military tradition points be reserved for when there is a war, ie multiple battles?
I don't think they should be given if there is a dow, followed by a quick peace without battles.
Perhaps a war should at least take a year before it gives MT points.
FAL said:
makes no sence really you fight a war , fight some batles i realise its better to peace quick and surrender since he was winning and i didn't wan't to get ganged straight after a long war with sweden i don't see why i shouldn't get mt for that 1
mt should never be excluded to long wars only , what if england fights spain and within months england lost his entire/most of his fleet by a bad role and surrenders should he be excluded from mt to ? think about it fal cause i peaced quick doesn't mean you shouldn't get a mt point
Agreed. You would've had a case if there would have been peace without fighting. As far as I can remember, there was a large battle before peace where the initial french army was routed.
I think it could make a difference who declared the war. If I declare a war, send an army in, let it get defeated because I know I've set it up to lose, and then sue for a peace, I'm manipulating the system.Slargos said:
Still any Declaration of War does open you up for potential losses, which, one supposes, is the point to the award of MT points.
Speaking of which (well, actually, totally non sequitur) England claims Moroccan East Africa, from our city of Mogadiscu south. We are willing to negotiate the border with Spanish South Africa; we are willing to leave all provinces north of Mogadiscu to the Sultan in Istanbul.
admiral drake said:
Slargos said:
*shrug* I don't doubt it was a real war, so that's fine. I just saw potential problems with very quick peaces and wanted to discuss it.
DSYoungEsq said:
Obviously this is a rule that requires maturity from players, as is the case with any rule that isn't specified with 20 paragraphs and 5 prejudicating cases.
It then becomes a matter of investigating "suspicious" wars on a case by case basis.
If someone attempted to fight fake wars in order to gain mutual MT, I would kick them from the game. If it breaks the game, I would quit playing. I don't want to play with people whose only enjoyment is by getting ahead by any means possible.
The war between Sweden and France was declared by Sweden with full intention of following through. A large scale battle was fought where losses on french side was unless my memory totally deceives me in the range of 30-50k. France could've fought on but Drake decided that it was not worth it.
Sweden supports any English claims on moroccan territory east of the cape of good hope.
Wouldn't that give Daniel A something to do?Slargos said:
Having been declared by Sweden, obviously France gets MT from it. I guess that got lost in my post somewhere between mind and fingers.
o England is glad, nay, proud to have the support of Slargholm in this matter.
If England wants to discuss matter of South America, the Queen may appear at icq and answer.
DSYoungEsq said:Wouldn't that give Daniel A something to do?
I specifically wanted to avoid saying it, but it naturally crossed my mind as I wrote that.
since only Morocco position was the reason to boost OE and Russia to orhodox i claim this MP countries should be returned back to orthodox. Mostly that is about OE, which should benefit rapidly.
Both Russia and the OE is lagging behind in tech as it is, and i think it's good for this game that this two nations can somewhat stick up with the rest.Tonioz said:
you both have huge MP
besides Russia is catching LT. Since LT40 it is hard to lag at LT.
besides Russia is catching LT. Since LT40 it is hard to lag at LT.