A late breaking deal between France and Spain. More Edits:
Pfalz, Alsace, Bern, Provence, Languedoc to Spain.
See you all in a few hours!
Pfalz, Alsace, Bern, Provence, Languedoc to Spain.
See you all in a few hours!
-
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.
So, Spain gained ten provinces between these two sessions. I've never seen such lack of interest in trying to reach BoP. It has as much income as the three just behind it, before the deal. 
Just because some consider themselves crappy players compared to HoG it doesn't mean they should give up!! (All credit to HoG for playing the diplomatic game excellently!! )
In the rules you say:
EDIT: Why do we even continue this game, instead of starting a new one? Wouldn't that be much more fun for all?
Just because some consider themselves crappy players compared to HoG it doesn't mean they should give up!!
(All credit to HoG for playing the diplomatic game excellently!! )If only edits were prohibited, then at least we would see some fights. Tell me GM, how can you both ask for more wars, while allowing for unlimited editing!!? You are so much into EDITS, that you even edited my deal with OE, just assuming it was another edit! :wacko:fraese said:
In the rules you say:
EDIT: Why do we even continue this game, instead of starting a new one? Wouldn't that be much more fun for all?
Last edited:
Norrefeldt said:So, Spain gained ten provinces between these two sessions. I've never seen such lack of interest in trying to reach BoP. It has as much income as the three just behind it.
Just because some consider themselves crappy players compared to HoG it doesn't mean they should give up!!
If only edits were prohibited, then at least we would see some fights. Tell me GM, how can you both ask for more wars, while allowing for unlimited editing!!? You are so much into EDITS, that you even edited my deal with OE, just assuming it was another edit! :wacko:
In the rules you say:
EDIT: Why do we even continue this game, instead of starting a new one? Wouldn't that be much more fun for all?
There are big components to these latest spanish deals that don't involve edits, so don't get your panties in a knot - it's not like the HoG is getting a free lunch. The point I made about fundamental edits had to do with repairing mismanaged countries, not diplomacy. Finally, I don't see anyone giving up except you, so I suggest we play this one out and everyone will learn something, and maybe even have some fun.
We have a very experienced player in France now, and I think that goes a long way towards restoring a balance to Europe. However, France (and the NL, Sweden, Austria, etc) take time to come into their own. I imagine the situation will look quite different in 100 years.
That's selfevident. But handing out ten very valuable European provinces to the strongest country is irreversible, as long as it's a competent player. More importantly, it also means that Spain can expect to have good relations to those it made deals with for some time, which kills any threat to him. That is of course a large part of such a good diplomatic move, since unthreatened for some more time, Spain can organically grow way fatter than any opponent, and be totally unstoppable.fraese said:
OK, I was too quick to start as a player in this campaign then. Since the rules said nothing about edits, I assumed they are were allowed. I tend to give up mentally in campaigns that are decided by edits, and not by playing. I like to edit mods and events, not the actual campaigns I play.fraese said:
Sorry, fraese, I hereby withfraw from your game, but I will sub tonight unless you can get a new permanent player, since it's playing time so soon, and I don't want to ruin the game for the group. I had really looked forward to playing here, but it turned out to be something completely different than I though it was.fraese said:so I suggest we play this one out and everyone will learn something, and maybe even have some fun.
I'm certainly not trying to blackmail you into changing any rules for me, since the rest are happy with it and apparently have fun! Considering the amount of time one spend in a campaign, we all want it to be fairly interesting, and that differs from person to person.
I appreciate that you will try to stick it out at least another session, though very disappointed to lose another perm player. Would it make a difference if the provinces were exchanged by fake wars? Just curious - I personally think fake wars are rather silly, but as there is no good in game diplomatic option for dealing provinces, I use edits. I just don't see how that decides the outcome of the game more than fake wars would.
Why would it make a difference if it were fake wars instead of edits Norre?
The outcome is as sickening: Spain gaining 10 European provinces in one go...brrr.
The outcome is as sickening: Spain gaining 10 European provinces in one go...brrr.
Fake wars are better, they cost stab, cause BB, nationalism and opens up for backstabs and broken deals, which should of course be allowed! Also, some other country can attack for real meanwhile.
Some campaigns also add a cost of one stab for each province changing hands, for each player. That also minimizes it, as do fake wars, due to the costs involved.
EDIT:Wars are costly, and with full edit right people naturally avoids it, except for warmongers of course. (I love them, they livens up a campaign!) Now I know from repeated personal experience that HoG can be a warmonger, so I don't blame him, he's just playing by the rules.
Some campaigns also add a cost of one stab for each province changing hands, for each player. That also minimizes it, as do fake wars, due to the costs involved.
EDIT:Wars are costly, and with full edit right people naturally avoids it, except for warmongers of course. (I love them, they livens up a campaign!) Now I know from repeated personal experience that HoG can be a warmonger, so I don't blame him, he's just playing by the rules.
Norrefeldt said:
You do realise that this would exploit simultaneously eh?
Also, I fail to see why badboy and stab costs are 'better'.
*shrug* I guess the GM could make it a bit more costly, but it's quite artificial to do fake wars for selling lands (Something that ought to be possible especially with TP's and colonies), only because the engine can't do that properly.
No, I don't understand, please explain. I don't say it's 'better', I just say I prefer campaigns with wars, not edits. I think those things that come with very little edit give excitement to the game. If I want to play a merchant game I play a merchant game, not EU2. (I edited my post above slightly.)FAL said:
Real monarchs never sold lands. The few unique instances when this happened can be covered by events. We are talking of ten provinces in one go here.FAL said:
Norrefeldt said:
Exploiting of simultaneously:
If two players make a deal, this ought to happen at the same time, without the possibility of another country ruining that deal.
Example: I buy a TP from spain for 100 ducats, I send a gift with 100 ducats to Spain, but then France dows Spain and burns the TP.
Then I have lost my money, while I in reality should have the TP at the same time as when I send the cash.
This is the same as one player accepting cash for something in game, but then refuses to hand it over.
I understand you prefer wars, I do so too, but fake wars are no wars either. I would just generally dislike such deals between players instead of fighting for it, but how it happens (be it an edit or a fake dow) ultimately doesn't matter much.
One big example: Louisiana. There are multiple smaller examples of colonies swapping hands in history. Alaska is a good example for a later time period.
As long as the money was needed, European monarchs would sell their colonies.
As I said: it's more about colonies and trading posts than about European provinces. The first should be possible between players without restrictions.
Last edited:
Thanks for elaborating. I accept these problems and as a matter of fact I like them. There were risks in real politics too, and countries could cheat. That adds thrill for me, but some want peaceful safe dealing, it's just different.FAL said:
I thought of Louisiana, and Corsica too. Two examples, and we could probably find a few more. Very few of them in Europe, and certainly we'll never get up to the 10 transfers done so far, after 50 years.FAL said:
Norrefeldt said:
Well, I ban exploiting of simultaneously in my own games (see list with exploits link in my sig), but that's of course a matter of opinion.
My main point was: Ultimately the provinces will end up in the hands of someone else, be it per fake war or per edit. If you allow deals between players, if you accept players that swap territory, why then quit if it happens per edit instead of per fake war?
Afterall, the outcome would be the same.
I agree. 10 European provinces is too much.
I am thinking to limit it to 2 European provinces in my own game and an unlimited amount of colonies.
I disagree, the costs of a fake war are much greater than of a free edit. (Sometimes much greater, if the situation are exploited by neighbors.) Thus, as from the limited numbers of campaign I played, campaigns with edit gives much more transfered provinces, than those without allowed edits. So apparently players tend to include those costs in the calculation.FAL said:
Norrefeldt said:
My own experience is that without edits players just trade tp's and colonies less, since the costs would not outweight the gains. If players would want to trade European provinces, they gladly do a fake war (especially because it's often about selling core provinces). And we both seem to agree the problem lies with European provinces, not with TP's and colonies.
So, I still am in favour of edits over fake wars (also because I think it's silly a peaceful deal would cost stability, not to mention people stirring up nationalistic trouble when their own nation doesn't want them anymore
)A swap of 10 provinces is just..quite huge. Not something you see often.
All in all, we both agree that this deal about 10 European provinces is not good for the game.
Last edited:
I strongly agree with Norred and won`t go on playing without any real discussions on changes! That is really not the way a game should work and not the way a GM should act.
This game has nothing more to challenge anyone. HG dominating whole world and obviously all others too scared of him to stop him. On one side of it is cause of HG`s strong playing but on the other side he had from the beginning of the game no real oponnent (no Portugal, weak France at start). Maybe HG sees this game as a possibility to get some great record but in fact that is no motivation for any other player to continue this game.
This game has nothing more to challenge anyone. HG dominating whole world and obviously all others too scared of him to stop him. On one side of it is cause of HG`s strong playing but on the other side he had from the beginning of the game no real oponnent (no Portugal, weak France at start). Maybe HG sees this game as a possibility to get some great record but in fact that is no motivation for any other player to continue this game.
I think there are two solutions to save this game:
1.Start new game with strongest player not having the strongest country.
2.Create Kingdom of Italy taking away all Spainish provs in Italy.
I know that Nor and FAL agree with me and suppose that others are of the same opinion. This game won`t go on without a real solution.
1.Start new game with strongest player not having the strongest country.
2.Create Kingdom of Italy taking away all Spainish provs in Italy.
I know that Nor and FAL agree with me and suppose that others are of the same opinion. This game won`t go on without a real solution.
Bismark,
That's inexperience showing.
Those deals were all made in exchange for something quite considerable that has a greater longterm benefit than my own (Spanish manpower increased by 7 points and income, because of land connection, by less than twenty). Spain's decline (because of leaders and MP) is hard-coded if I do what I'm doing, which is making deals instead of steamrolling my neighbors. And those deals were made, in one case, by one of the strongest EU II players there is.
That's inexperience showing.
Those deals were all made in exchange for something quite considerable that has a greater longterm benefit than my own (Spanish manpower increased by 7 points and income, because of land connection, by less than twenty). Spain's decline (because of leaders and MP) is hard-coded if I do what I'm doing, which is making deals instead of steamrolling my neighbors. And those deals were made, in one case, by one of the strongest EU II players there is.
I wasn't in the mood to accept edits done to my nation against my will. Raising BB above half matters. I know it was just a mistake and not from a malicious GM It's hell for Russia to keep up in the tech race anyhow. I thought that for the case of the campaign you had better get a new Russia straight away, and there was someone with a fitting name.
It's hell for Russia to keep up in the tech race anyhow. I thought that for the case of the campaign you had better get a new Russia straight away, and there was someone with a fitting name.
Last edited:
OE has a much more severe decline, worse monarchs and leaders, change of tech group or a lot of stab hits. Still, if set firmly enough, it will still remain formidable until the end. A strong Spain should have no problem doing that. It's mostly about keeping up trade income of course, should even be comparably easier with naval slider set at 5 for all, since Spain often has to go land.HolisticGod said:
Turenne with a CRT against it isn't very promising either, even if KJ is good.
But speculating is one thing, what's correct will be seen in the game.
Last edited: