Thirst for Glory

[HolisticGod]

Drake,

That's a different question. Since we don't allow alliances except for supply/visibility, alliance-wide stabhits should be off-limits. That's my opinion on it.

But with Dago... That was open and shut. He couldn't stabhit because he was using ghost warscore. It was a bug. I had huge tracts of the Balkans, Egypt and even Isfahan at one point, far superior battle score and no provinces occupied by the OE. And we were in a sep. war. Somehow, he's stabhitting me?

That's really not up for debate, I don't think. But the larger issue definitely needs to be decided, I agree.

 

[admiral drake]

Drake,

That's a different question. Since we don't allow alliances except for supply/visibility, alliance-wide stabhits should be off-limits. That's my opinion on it.

But with Dago... That was open and shut. He couldn't stabhit because he was using ghost warscore. It was a bug. I had huge tracts of the Balkans, Egypt and even Isfahan at one point, far superior battle score and no provinces occupied by the OE. And we were in a sep. war. Somehow, he's stabhitting me?

That's really not up for debate, I don't think. But the larger issue definitely needs to be decided, I agree.

alliance wide stabhits should definatly not be oflimits if you ally you risk getting alliancepeaced

 

[HolisticGod]

All,

Drake and I have discussed this in depth. I offered a compromise, but he's threatened to quit if he doesn't get his way. Frankly, at this point, I'd rather replace him than compromise the diplomatic fluidity at the heart of this game. So I strongly recommend plans A or B.

A. My favorite. No alliance-wide stabhits of any kind ever. All peaces are seperate peaces. For this period, it's more accurate historically and more in-keeping with the game we've created here. This is basically how we've been playing thus far.

B. My compromise. A country can stabhit an alliance, but not on behalf of its own. If the OE/France are allied against Germany/Austria and the Ottomans have enough warscore to stabhit the alliance leader, it can do so, but only seperately. It can't arrange peace for France through a stabhit. Consider that alliance leadership was meaningless by this era-after Austerlitz, alliance-leader Austria peaced out but Russia didn't, after Jena-Austerdadt Prussia peaced out but Russia didn't, Prussia constantly peaced out during the mid-eighteenth century, etc. Also, it runs contrary to the spirit of the original alliance rule-which forbade them altogether. Still, it's a middle ground I'm willing to accept. Not great, but not terrible either.

C. My least favorite. Alliances can stabhit alliances. This runs contrary to three hundred and eighty years of practice. It's the same tired shit from every other game-alliances stabhit together so nobody's left in the cold. That's not the way it should be. Drake will quit if we don't do this, but I oppose it anyway.

That's all I can think of. Any other suggestions?

 

[admiral drake]

All,

Drake and I have discussed this in depth. I offered a compromise, but he's threatened to quit if he doesn't get his way. Frankly, at this point, I'd rather replace him than compromise the diplomatic fluidity at the heart of this game. So I strongly recommend plans A or B.

A. My favorite. No alliance-wide stabhits of any kind ever. All peaces are seperate peaces. For this period, it's more accurate historically and more in-keeping with the game we've created here. This is basically how we've been playing thus far.

B. My compromise. A country can stabhit an alliance, but not on behalf of its own. If the OE/France are allied against Germany/Austria and the Ottomans have enough warscore to stabhit the alliance leader, it can do so, but only seperately. It can't arrange peace for France through a stabhit. Consider that alliance leadership was meaningless by this era-after Austerlitz, alliance-leader Austria peaced out but Russia didn't, after Jena-Austerdadt Prussia peaced out but Russia didn't, Prussia constantly peaced out during the mid-eighteenth century, etc. Also, it runs contrary to the spirit of the original alliance rule-which forbade them altogether. Still, it's a middle ground I'm willing to accept. Not great, but not terrible either.

C. My least favorite. Alliances can stabhit alliances. This runs contrary to three hundred and eighty years of practice. It's the same tired shit from every other game-alliances stabhit together so nobody's left in the cold. That's not the way it should be. Drake will quit if we don't do this, but I oppose it anyway.

That's all I can think of. Any other suggestions?

i suggest c or no alliances at all again and if i quit it won't be for this rule only really

 

[admiral drake]

btw i'm going to resign i have abolutly no desire to play next session especially not another 1of those extremly late sessions and asfar as i'm concerned i did my part in this game playng well after 1820

have fun with the game i'm sure england will get ganged and raped after i leave


i'm sure you will have no problem finding a new player for this england

edit : dsy will play england friday and possible the next to

 

[Zeitgeist]

I'm not going to make any rules regarding alliances for a simple reason: Nobody HAS to be in an alliance, and you have to face some risk of losing if you decide to take the step of inviting others to your war and they start to perform poorly. It's a calculated risk.

 

[HolisticGod]

Zeit,

Then I don't think you understand the issue.

What I object to isn't the risk one takes joining an alliance, but the advantage and protection conferred on alliance members. This way, a country that has no warscore, that has accomplished nothing, is provided a peace on a stabhit from the alliance leader. It doesn't make alliances risky-it reduces the risk of fighting wars.

At the very least, we should use Plan B.

 

[admiral drake]

I'm not going to make any rules regarding alliances for a simple reason: Nobody HAS to be in an alliance, and you have to face some risk of losing if you decide to take the step of inviting others to your war and they start to perform poorly. It's a calculated risk.

Zeit,

Then I don't think you understand the issue.

What I object to isn't the risk one takes joining an alliance, but the advantage and protection conferred on alliance members. This way, a country that has no warscore, that has accomplished nothing, is provided a peace on a stabhit from the alliance leader. It doesn't make alliances risky-it reduces the risk of fighting wars.

At the very least, we should use Plan B.

i agreed with zeits

and hg you can have both that what you say + what zeit sayd its both a risk and a possible easy way out but the risk of getting alliancepeaced is higher then somebody doing nothing and getting peace

 

[HolisticGod]

Drake,

Just the opposite.

Anyway, I've discussed it with John and he feels the same way. We'll see where the others stand, but honestly I'd rather scrap alliances altogether again than compromise the spirit of the game with BS coat tail peaces.

 

[HALNY (HAL)]

Hm... I have no idea about what is this whole discussion... really...

I will try to read it tommorow again

 

[HALNY (HAL)]

i dont remember to have dowed spain.I m pretty sure i didnt

Yea, right You are italian/austrian/ottoman warmonger Spain will revenge!

 

[unmerged(41172)]

i dont remember to have dowed spain.I m pretty sure i didnt

and yeah : zeit give us the points

Well you didn't invaded but you DOWed. Have no idea why. We had not a single clash with armies and at first I thought you DOWed Austria but neither moved his armies towards other. At that time I was chewing England and I had no time for you so Spain and Austria blocked Gibraltar strait with some 500-800 ships (can't remember how much excatly) so this so called war progressed with many casualties among bees and then we decided to WP. Still have no idea why you did it except to tie my fleet to Gibraltar strait, in which you have succeded
!!!

 

[Zeitgeist]

The point is that they didn't accomplish nothing, and in defeating your erstwhile ally have indirectly defeated you. Inviting allies to your war is and should be a double-edged sword. I agree that it is somewhat gamey to use WS from an ally to stabhit the alliance leader for something (especially land), but that alliance leader ought to think long and hard before he involves others in his war. Especially since alliances are banned during peacetime.

 

[HolisticGod]

Zeit,

That's not the main issue though. This doesn't punish alliances-it rewards them.

Let's say Germany and Austria didn't ally in the last war. Great. The OE racked up most of the WS against Austria. And yet England, as alliance leader, could stabhit Austria without WS?

Country A and B go to war with Country C. Country B does well against Country C. Country A either does poorly or serves only a limited role-like naval support-and does not have stabhitting warscore on its own. Country B stabhits Country C until it's required to accept. However, it includes Country A, with +5 warscore of its own, in the forced-peace. Country C is now forced into a peace with Country A even though it didn't enter an alliance of its own and it wasn't beaten by Country A. Country A is a piggyback. Riding coat tails. Country C is fucked because it can't peace on ally and punish the other, as was done countless times historically. The diplomatic scene is the same putrid nonsense we see in all other games but TfG.

I'm not saying it'll ruin it. The main thing we have going for us is the players, but let's not diminish that. Plan A or Plan B or no alliances at all. Anything else is contrary to the spirit of TfG.

Also, right now, DSY, John and I are all in favor of Plan A. We need to hear from the rest. And Zeit, please read my proposals and this post and consider at least the compromise Plan B. That way, alliances are still punished but we don't have coat tails.

 

[King John]

Gah Drake, I wanted to beat you, not the next British player, though I'm sure DSY will fill in nicely.


Indeed, I think the alliance peace rule HG suggests would be a good idea. The reason we allowed alliances during war was to share supply, while alliance peaces are really only a side effect of allowing that rule, not an intended one. I believe it falls under the category of reasons we had a no alliance rule in the first place, actually, because it encourages too so much cooperation between alliance members, not the kind of cutthroat behavior we love.

Not that it's imperative one way or another. I don't really care that much, and I hope nobody else will quit after whatever decision is reached .

 

[Zeitgeist]

I see what you're saying. In that case I would lean towards B, with the stipulation that an alliance leader may still ask for indemnities (i.e. money, which seems perfectly reasonable), but cannot take any territory for itself using warscore from its allies. I think that's a fair solution that will prevent the peace rules from being abused.

 

[admiral drake]

Zeit,

That's not the main issue though. This doesn't punish alliances-it rewards them.

Let's say Germany and Austria didn't ally in the last war. Great. The OE racked up most of the WS against Austria. And yet England, as alliance leader, could stabhit Austria without WS?

Country A and B go to war with Country C. Country B does well against Country C. Country A either does poorly or serves only a limited role-like naval support-and does not have stabhitting warscore on its own. Country B stabhits Country C until it's required to accept. However, it includes Country A, with +5 warscore of its own, in the forced-peace. Country C is now forced into a peace with Country A even though it didn't enter an alliance of its own and it wasn't beaten by Country A. Country A is a piggyback. Riding coat tails. Country C is fucked because it can't peace on ally and punish the other, as was done countless times historically. The diplomatic scene is the same putrid nonsense we see in all other games but TfG.

I'm not saying it'll ruin it. The main thing we have going for us is the players, but let's not diminish that. Plan A or Plan B or no alliances at all. Anything else is contrary to the spirit of TfG.

Also, right now, DSY, John and I are all in favor of Plan A. We need to hear from the rest. And Zeit, please read my proposals and this post and consider at least the compromise Plan B. That way, alliances are still punished but we don't have coat tails.

england would need to take provs to be able to stabhit tho unles its a core and by taking provs he gets ws himself to

 

[DSYoungEsq]

btw, just a heads up. As HoG and John know, I've been experiencing annoying connectivity problems thanks to the cable company I get my broadband through. It cuts out at annoying times without any notice. Last night, I got all the way through the 4 hours fine, and then cut out just as I had administered a tremendous defeat to John's rampaging Spanish forces in Italy. Curious to see what happened after that; I was stuck on July 13 and never did see anything else.

I will try to be here Friday at the appointed time. I will try to play. If it doesn't work, don't be horridly surprised; I won't be.

HoG, I'll get back to you this evening, if I can.

 

[King John]

DS, you won the battle, but you lost the war . No, I didn't annhilate any of your armies after that, but from the looks of it, all your leaders perished with Karl, and you have no defensive depth considering I can land wherever I want in Italy.


Zeit, somehow the two new wars I fought last session against Spain and England didn't register for MT. I should have 13.49, not 12.49. I should have another 3 points for power also which weren't counted for Spain's DOW on Austria. The last time this happened, the points seemed to transfer to England. Maybe that's what's still happening?

 

[King John]

tag = HAB
prestige = 98.75
power = 17.99

manpower 351 2
manpower 350 2
manpower 353 2
manpower 328 2
manpower 315 2
manpower 393 2
manpower 389 2
manpower 365 2
manpower 390 2
manpower 369 2
manpower 401 1
conversion 354
conversion 364
taxvalue 351 2
taxvalue 393 2
taxvalue 397 2
taxvalue 368 2
taxvalue 365 2
taxvalue 370 2
taxvalue 819 2
taxvalue 328 2
taxvalue 350 2
taxvalue 362 2
taxvalue 353 2
taxvalue 371 2
taxvalue 389 2
taxvalue 315 2


EDIT: Points added for AAR