Thirst for Glory

[Dago]

and then,remember a thing about OE
my OE was able,in first sessions,to fight 1vs3 against austria (ended in a WP),russia(victory) and spain(victory)
i played one crucial session without any core in my empire (or better 1,in corsica :rofl: )
and i think i ve payed a great price for that bug (i realized i didnt have cores just 2 years before end session) : all my matters started after that session

i ll complete ur destruction,as i was near to do in TOT5


http://www.europa2.ru/cgi-bin/leagu...=ic&season=Valkyrie.net V&lang=eng&choicet=16

 

[admiral drake]

Drake,

Not really. I don't think it's unreasonable to implement a stabhitting rule now that wars could presumably be fought indefinitely with the losing party steadfastly refusing to give up even a single province.

That's no fun. And I say this from central Europe, were a rapid blitz to stabhit me out of a war is most likely. Incidentally, so does John.

you and kj can handle stabhits better then any other now i dunno about tem but i'm not gonna take stabhits forever for a single prov i'd refuse to give cots in asia unles i'm beat pretty bad eitherway tho

 

[King John]

i think adding stabhit rule should be done from start not late game there is no reason why it should aply more then before just cause the player fights harder
so my vote is nope well fight if the player isn't reasonable and drags the war he risks a goverment collapse ect

Drake, if a player's government collapses in a war, it's not just that player who suffers. That ruins the game for a lot of us, because that player, if the damage is bad enough, will either cease to be a contender, or will probably just quit the game. Imagine if I controlled half the OE's territory again, and it's gov collapsed. We'd lose Dago as a player, and my country wouldn't be fun anymore because it'd be so huge, and ugly.

So basicly, if you're playing against someone who decides to be stubborn, you can't win, even if you do win. If you decide to just give up and peace for something insignificant, you lose. If you decide to push it until their gov collapses, you lose, because it ruins the game for you. We need to do something about this.

 

[King John]

you and kj can handle stabhits better then any other now i dunno about tem but i'm not gonna take stabhits forever for a single prov i'd refuse to give cots in asia unles i'm beat pretty bad eitherway tho

Fair point. Would you agree at least that we need SOME kind of way to force peaces though? Perhaps stabhits aren't the best way, perhaps they are. Something though is needed.

 

[King John]

and then,remember a thing about OE
my OE was able,in first sessions,to fight 1vs3 against austria (ended in a WP),russia(victory) and spain(victory)
i played one crucial session without any core in my empire (or better 1,in corsica :rofl: )
and i think i ve payed a great price for that bug (i realized i didnt have cores just 2 years before end session) : all my matters started after that session

i ll complete ur destruction,as i was near to do in TOT5


http://www.europa2.ru/cgi-bin/leagu...=ic&season=Valkyrie.net V&lang=eng&choicet=16

I guess I don't remember all my wars this game. I remember kicking your ass pretty consistently in the beginning, just like France .

 

[King John]

u got four islands,and ur ws wasnt that high
1 year before we peaced,ws arrived at -33
obviously,is clear that with ur large fleet u could attacke everywhere with some blizniek and get enough ws for stabhit
i think alexandria alone gives about 30%
not mention for rome

u ve more troops?yeah,i stopped to build in last year for get some bonus more for MP,that is a lot higher than ur

You should've peaced for the islands right away, Dago. You can be such a stubborn fool sometimes. How could think you could come back after I killed those main armies of yours, and still held naval supremecy?

 

[King John]

BTW Dago, it's pretty poor play to turn the rest of the game into a vendetta. You're being a poor sport if you really intend to do that. I've lost my share of games, but never became a suicidal extremist like you seem to want to do now.

 

[admiral drake]

Drake, if a player's government collapses in a war, it's not just that player who suffers. That ruins the game for a lot of us, because that player, if the damage is bad enough, will either cease to be a contender, or will probably just quit the game. Imagine if I controlled half the OE's territory again, and it's gov collapsed. We'd lose Dago as a player, and my country wouldn't be fun anymore because it'd be so huge, and ugly.

So basicly, if you're playing against someone who decides to be stubborn, you can't win, even if you do win. If you decide to just give up and peace for something insignificant, you lose. If you decide to push it until their gov collapses, you lose, because it ruins the game for you. We need to do something about this.

well no nobody would go to that point unles there are more then just a prov or 2 on the line i think

 

[King John]

well no nobody would go to that point unles there are more then just a prov or 2 on the line i think

I see. So, if I go to war with you or Dago, and demand more than a couple provs, I should be prepared for this sort of thing?

 

[admiral drake]

I see. So, if I go to war with you or Dago, and demand more than a couple provs, I should be prepared for this sort of thing?

not really

i just won't give asian cots cause you can stabhit for them
we should drop the whole discussion really now youre calling dago poor play/sport ect while i think you deserved it you constantly attack people and asume we don't get pissed eventually same for russia and me why would tem attack me when prussia is the 1 that attacked him i'm giving him provs in scandinavia peacefully

france got forcefully vassalt and had tons and tons of beatings on hands of prussia and austria why would it turn vs me when i pay/help him and would just be matter of time before you hit him again after i get beat
same for russia if he attacks me only matter of time before prussia probaly austria to will turn on him again once i'm ou of the picture for a while

only 1 that would really gain from beating me besides you 2 in the end thats spain but hey if you don't need him anymore after only matter of time before you strike him to most likly to if he controls a cot or provs you wan't

you war all sides just a matter of time before people have enough personally same here perma ban on austria-prussia from now on and i already got troops in asia ect thanks to frence expansion

 

[unmerged(6147)]

Drake, if a player's government collapses in a war, it's not just that player who suffers. That ruins the game for a lot of us, because that player, if the damage is bad enough, will either cease to be a contender, or will probably just quit the game. Imagine if I controlled half the OE's territory again, and it's gov collapsed. We'd lose Dago as a player, and my country wouldn't be fun anymore because it'd be so huge, and ugly.

So basicly, if you're playing against someone who decides to be stubborn, you can't win, even if you do win. If you decide to just give up and peace for something insignificant, you lose. If you decide to push it until their gov collapses, you lose, because it ruins the game for you. We need to do something about this.

Extremely good point of view. Anyone making another post should be forced to reply to this before writing anything else.

Time for the GM to enter the debate.

 

[HolisticGod]

Drake,

If that's the true direction this game is going, then why are we even bothering to play?

You don't seem to understand that the Prussian/Austrian policy of fighting different countries is exactly what's strong about this game. In the course of a century and a quarter I've fought Austria five or six times, Russia twice, Spain twice, England twice, France four times, Sweden twice. Nobody has suffered more for my policies than John and no target would be more lucrative for me right now than John, but what are we doing? Cooperating with absolutely no acrimony over our incessant conflict of the eighteenth century. Because it's most enjoyable dynamic now.

Your giving provinces to Russia peacefully so all of you can sit back and beat on the Germans until the end of the game is the opposite approach. Your expectation that past friendships and animosities should preclude any shift in the diplomatic scene is the opposite approach. And, I think it should be very clear, the less entertaining one for all of us.

 

[Dago]

I guess I don't remember all my wars this game. I remember kicking your ass pretty consistently in the beginning, just like France .

u started kick my ass after i gained italy,and when u got naval supremacy
is amazing u always remmeber and forget what u wanna
HAL and temu anyway may confirm that war
but this isnt the point,KJ
u got naval supremacy also coz u joined vs me while i was in war against spain,and we had our "friendship"
now,yes : i m pissed off coz u crushed my 700 ws in a single battle,and so?
u may keep those islands,coz i wont waste a single ducat anymore for naval
but dont worry,i wont turbo u
u ll mantein wien,those 4 islands and some TP somewhere

 

[King John]

u started kick my ass after i gained italy,and when u got naval supremacy
is amazing u always remmeber and forget what u wanna
HAL and temu anyway may confirm that war
but this isnt the point,KJ
u got naval supremacy also coz u joined vs me while i was in war against spain,and we had our "friendship"
now,yes : i m pissed off coz u crushed my 700 ws in a single battle,and so?
u may keep those islands,coz i wont waste a single ducat anymore for naval
but dont worry,i wont turbo u
u ll mantein wien,those 4 islands and some TP somewhere

I vaguely remember leaving a war because you whined so much about it being a gangbang. You're an ingrate if you think my WP was any less than a benevolent response to your complaints. Sometimes I think you whine more than HG.

You like to called me a dishonorable player before because I don't stick to friendships for a long time in the game, and other reasons. Frankly Dago, that's a narrowminded approach. This is what I do Dago: Though I know the way I play diplomatically is not very beneficial to my country in the longterm, and am well aware of the fact there are many players who would consider it grounds for making me a longterm enemy, I do it because it makes the game a lot more interesting, for myself, but as well for everyone else. I shift alliances and seek enemies, and always try to go on the offensive because it keeps the game moving. To sacrifice my country's diplomatic positioning over and over again so the game is funner. I'm giving up advantages to make the game funner.

Here is what you do, Dago. You whine. You call people names. You threaten to turbo-annex. When you're losing badly, you fight on and on and on, risking a gov collapse until your opponent gets tired of it and offers a lenient peace just because he's not immature enough to WANT to collapse your government. And you say you're going to pursue a vendetta that obviously is personal, doesn't have much to do with the actual game. This behavior all in all does not contribute to the fun of the game. There's a word I could use to categorize your behavior. I'm going to let you guess what it is.

 

[admiral drake]

Drake,

If that's the true direction this game is going, then why are we even bothering to play?

You don't seem to understand that the Prussian/Austrian policy of fighting different countries is exactly what's strong about this game. In the course of a century and a quarter I've fought Austria five or six times, Russia twice, Spain twice, England twice, France four times, Sweden twice. Nobody has suffered more for my policies than John and no target would be lucrative for me right now than John, but what are we doing? Cooperating with absolutely no acrimony over our incessant conflict of the eighteenth century. Because it's most enjoyable dynamic now.

Your giving provinces to Russia peacefully so all of you can sit back and beat on the Germans until the end of the game is the opposite approach. Your expectation that past friendships and animosities should preclude any shift in the diplomatic scene is the opposite approach. And, I think it should be very clear, the less entertaining one for all of us.

i'm tired of waiting to get ganged or attacked hg same as dago i was giving provs eitherway was desided when he agreed to give me finland for 1session

 

[Dago]

I vaguely remember leaving a war because you whined so much about it being a gangbang. You're an ingrate if you think my WP was any less than a benevolent response to your complaints. Sometimes I think you whine more than HG.

You like to called me a dishonorable player before because I don't stick to friendships for a long time in the game, and other reasons. Frankly Dago, that's a narrowminded approach. This is what I do Dago: Though I know the way I play diplomatically is not very beneficial to my country in the longterm, and am well aware of the fact there are many players who would consider it grounds for making me a longterm enemy, I do it because it makes the game a lot more interesting, for myself, but as well for everyone else. I shift alliances and seek enemies, and always try to go on the offensive because it keeps the game moving. To sacrifice my country's diplomatic positioning over and over again so the game is funner. I'm giving up advantages to make the game funner.

Here is what you do, Dago. You whine. You call people names. You threaten to turbo-annex. When you're losing badly, you fight on and on and on, risking a gov collapse until your opponent gets tired of it and offers a lenient peace just because he's not immature enough to WANT to collapse your government. And you say you're going to pursue a vendetta that obviously is personal, doesn't have much to do with the actual game. This behavior all in all does not contribute to the fun of the game. There's a word I could use to categorize your behavior. I'm going to let you guess what it is.

i ve not risked any collapse : only guirat defected at russia,but coz i forgot was in hands of rebels.Also now,i dont think more than 2 provs are in hands of rebels (and both sieged by me or with army going there)

apart this,how i whine?if u count my chat,is very low.Same for posts in which i "whine"

about ur behaviour,let me remember u that last time we planned to dow another country together,for a 2vs2,i found myself involved in a 1vs3
:rofl:
i m more dynamic now than a time,but why u never advice me ?neither for break a frienship.No,neither for this.A "Hey Dago,i think that the time for friendships and deal is ended,but dont worry : end ur wars"
i didnt have problems to accept that
In this campaign,u dowed me about 10 times?maybe.And me at u?about 5,and at least 2 were done while ur fleet was coming in my sea zones
I dont think u should complain much,if i m firm to dow u every 5 years for the rest of game

 

[Zeitgeist]

Too much talk of turbo annexing. I personally absolutely, completely hate peace rules, but if we can't have reasonable wars, we need one.

I think the following rule will be in effect.

You must accept a stabhitting peace if the following three conditions apply.

1) The war has been going on at least 2 years
2) You are at -99 WS
3) You are at -3 stability

That should allow some time for a comeback vs a blitz or something, while not allowing wars to drag excessively on.

Once again, I don't like peace rules, being somewhat of a diehard myself, but John is right here. Nobody wins from a government being collapsed.

RE: the whole Sweden situation, it was a little shady to annex what had been a player country, but in drake's defense, it hadn't been declared off limits -- clearly a fault of mine. Certainly Russia didn't hesitate to eat Finland (or was that under a sub... don't know). So, I think it was fairly reasonable. What I don't understand is the static diplomacy going on here. You're all great guys, etc, etc, but you don't have to hold each other's hands and sing songs all day. Play for your national interests!

 

[Tem_Probe]

You must accept a stabhitting peace if the following three conditions apply.

1) The war has been going on at least 2 years
2) You are at -99 WS
3) You are at -3 stability

Make 1) Your WE is 10 or more. The only reason for stabhit rules is to prevent collapse. Nobody has a chance of collapsing after 2 years, and this stop blitzkrieg that are so, so easy to do with land(60) and a good leader or two.

Certainly Russia didn't hesitate to eat Finland (or was that under a sub... don't know).

It was under a sub, and not any sub if I might say so. Bâbur aka World Conqueror is possibly one of the best subs out there. I would happily entrust him with my nation tomorrow. Few subs could actually have given a challenge to Suvorov with my massive MP, even if only a brief moment.

Play for your national interests!

Which is what I've been doing thus far. Time for some war.

 

[King John]

i ve not risked any collapse : only guirat defected at russia,but coz i forgot was in hands of rebels.Also now,i dont think more than 2 provs are in hands of rebels (and both sieged by me or with army going there)

apart this,how i whine?if u count my chat,is very low.Same for posts in which i "whine"

about ur behaviour,let me remember u that last time we planned to dow another country together,for a 2vs2,i found myself involved in a 1vs3
:rofl:
i m more dynamic now than a time,but why u never advice me ?neither for break a frienship.No,neither for this.A "Hey Dago,i think that the time for friendships and deal is ended,but dont worry : end ur wars"
i didnt have problems to accept that
In this campaign,u dowed me about 10 times?maybe.And me at u?about 5,and at least 2 were done while ur fleet was coming in my sea zones
I dont think u should complain much,if i m firm to dow u every 5 years for the rest of game

Dago, what are you talking about, with the 2v2 that turned into a 1v3? I'm curious, refresh my memory. I don't doubt what you're saying, but I don't remember planning a 2v2 with you.

I did give you a warning, Dago. I told you that I thought we should let our deal go because things were getting too quiet. And then gauranteed Spain's independence right before you attacked them. It's not my fault you didn't interpret this as my willingness to fight you.

In that earlier war, yes you did risk a collapse. For a long time I was stabhitting you while you were at -3 stab, -99 ws. I'm sure there were rebels around, and there were some rebel controlled provs at times. If you were a little less lucky, your gov could've collapsed. You have your good fortune to thank that it didn't, and my impatience.

I don't mind fighting you every 5 years if you don't turn every war into a war to the death. But either way, past aside, I think you're better off not focusing all your attention on me. If you force me to do the same, you're going to regret it.

Why can't you rebuild your fleet? You're being lazy, Dago . Ships are inexpensive compared to how much money we have floating around now. You should be minting constantly for the rest of the game, and with your income that's more than enough to buy thousands of warships between now and then, with enough left over to fund many wars.

If you had showed a little more interest in helping vs Drake with your fleet, I wouldn't have gone to the trouble of destroying it. But since you didn't, and since you have a higher naval support than me, equal income and since I've been your worst enemy for most of the game, I took your hesitancy to fight Drake as a clear sign you ultimately intended to use that fleet against me. Who else was there to use it against?

 

[King John]

Make 1) Your WE is 10 or more. The only reason for stabhit rules is to prevent collapse. Nobody has a chance of collapsing after 2 years, and this stop blitzkrieg that are so, so easy to do with land(60) and a good leader or two.

I agree, but we'll have to make the requirement 6 WE or so. For some nation's, that is max WE now.