Originally posted by TheArchduke
Well there would be only one thing I would wish for England. Inflation to be cut a bit. The tech is already bad enough.
I think he was refering to Burgundy not England
.-
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.
I think he was refering to Burgundy not England
.
Originally posted by Wyvern
I think he was refering to Burgundy not England
Well if you can have a happy wish I want a happy wish too as I have to give up OE.
And I don´t know why but England has been going offensive as clearly England needs more expensive fortresses.
Hello long time no play
iwe been spying on this game and have had some talks with Mowers, so far it is looking rather interesting... If i get to play Sweden id like to get some talking with Muscowy, Teotonic, poland and lithuania...
Well i only say ... so se ya all
/H
iwe been spying on this game and have had some talks with Mowers, so far it is looking rather interesting... If i get to play Sweden id like to get some talking with Muscowy, Teotonic, poland and lithuania...
Well i only say
... so se ya all /H
Originally posted by TheArchduke
And I don´t know why but England has been going offensive as clearly England needs more expensive fortresses.
Seems appropriate - Englands strategy and actions were highly offensive throughout the first 50 years after all
.Seriously, if she'd managed to conquer all or most of France, being offensive wouldn't have necessarily been a bad decision.
Additionally, since England (without France), is usually low on manpower and depends on a navy to keep intruders out of England proper, going offensive for the +1 shock would give her manpower more punch per unit that is sorely needed. It could be a viable strategy.
Originally posted by kurtbrian
Congratulations to Hive for his Custom Title...
He he thanx...
How bad do I have to screw up to gain a custom avatar as well?
Don't ask. Do you really want a Goofy Avatar?Originally posted by Hive
He he thanx...
How bad do I have to screw up to gain a custom avatar as well?
Hmm... yeah I really want a custom avatar - but it kinda depends on exactly how goofy it will be... it's had to draw 28 loans at least...
Well, I figure I should respond after looking at how everyone feels about loans.
I took over a Poland with 4 loans, the first being due within a year and a half of when I started. The treasury slider was maxed out minting money and that left me with losing near 10 ducats a month. I tried to mount some defense against Peter's German Death Squad, but I ended up losing Poznan to Pommern. And a bankruptcy.
So inflation was near 30, the monthly income was just a tad over 5. Not a good time to be Poland, but at least I wasn't losing money a month anymore.
Now, I knew it was going to be bad when a little later I saw Peter massing troops in Prussia, as the Polish army was near non-existant. My allies situation in Lith was just about exactly the same. Soon, the Dow came from both the Teutons and Moscow, so I had to make a decision. Bow out gracefully, or put up a fight.
I don't know if it was gamey or not from what you've said, and I apologize to Peter if it was. The coffers were thin, next to nil, so I knew loans would be the only way to stop the attack. So I took them, thinking it more honorable to put up a fight. Not 5, but I ended up auto-loaned once again into bankruptcy.
So now as it stands, with 50+ inflation, alone in the war (Lith's gov. fell), and against the Teutonic German Death Squad + Moscow... its enough to make a Polish man hide in a hole.
I took over a Poland with 4 loans, the first being due within a year and a half of when I started. The treasury slider was maxed out minting money and that left me with losing near 10 ducats a month. I tried to mount some defense against Peter's German Death Squad, but I ended up losing Poznan to Pommern. And a bankruptcy.
So inflation was near 30, the monthly income was just a tad over 5. Not a good time to be Poland, but at least I wasn't losing money a month anymore.
Now, I knew it was going to be bad when a little later I saw Peter massing troops in Prussia, as the Polish army was near non-existant. My allies situation in Lith was just about exactly the same. Soon, the Dow came from both the Teutons and Moscow, so I had to make a decision. Bow out gracefully, or put up a fight.
I don't know if it was gamey or not from what you've said, and I apologize to Peter if it was. The coffers were thin, next to nil, so I knew loans would be the only way to stop the attack. So I took them, thinking it more honorable to put up a fight. Not 5, but I ended up auto-loaned once again into bankruptcy.
So now as it stands, with 50+ inflation, alone in the war (Lith's gov. fell), and against the Teutonic German Death Squad + Moscow... its enough to make a Polish man hide in a hole.
It seems very clear to me know that many, many people decided to take loans and left their country with real issues having cleared off. Some of you took 2 loans, some of you took 28 loans. From now on there will be no loans. Juan’s story is a good example of why there shouldn’t be loans. I have people like him who take on a country that really is in the crap, who don’t whine, whinge or threaten to walk out but have to deal with the poor play of others.
I dont see why loans ought to be taken, they are awful value ffor a start. You want cash? Then borrow it off another player... I think I have taken about 2 in the history of MP. From now on there will be no loans. All lag loans will be reported.
On a side note, can any one find out why Poland had four loans. Apparently earlier in the session, Poland was unbeatable, perhaps we can find the culprit.
I dont see why loans ought to be taken, they are awful value ffor a start. You want cash? Then borrow it off another player... I think I have taken about 2 in the history of MP. From now on there will be no loans. All lag loans will be reported.
On a side note, can any one find out why Poland had four loans. Apparently earlier in the session, Poland was unbeatable, perhaps we can find the culprit.
Good question, and I am not certain that I am the right person to answer, given that I am by necessity biased.
However, in game terms, your loaned money let you raise an army that destroyed nearly all my forces, reducing my 30,000 strong invasion force to 2,000 troops through a series of slightly lucky battles at the worst in 1467 (while my German allies where busy besieging and dying in Lithuania). And that time, it certainly looked as if you might reverse the tide of the war - though you had ruined your country doing so: 51.6% inflation at the end of the session is bad - very bad. Had you won through, Poland would most likely be dropped as a player nation anyhow unless it was edited massively, but you would have managed to drag me down with you.
As a result, your loaned armies actually forced me to take my first loan this year in EU2, as I needed the cash to raise a single company of mercenaries, which, together with my now 9K armies, just barely managed to stop you when you attacked Prussia. (Mowers last save is from after that battle was won, hurrah!).... And now I pay 1/6th of my monthly income in interest. Fortunately, so long as I do not take more loans, there should be no problems repaying it in 5 years time, but I cannot afford to take more loans if I want to maintain a viable economy)
Now, you were new to Poland and the dismal situation was none of your doing, and your choice, annihilation or bankruptcy, is a very bad choice. The problem is, that should somebody else play Poland next session, he will face the exact same situation, and can as justificably conclude that taking a few loans to build an army or hire mercenaries is his only choice of survival, which will likely break my attack completely unless I also ruin my country, and will by necessity send Poland's inflation to 75%+.
As such, though it is a hard choice, I would have to say that for the sake of the game, not taking the loans to fight would have been the right thing - and even more, that handing Poland off to the AI to be killed off would have been the right thing to do. (Except that, at the time you took over, nobody but the Polish player knew exactly how bad he was hurting)
Peter I think has mentioned this already, but I'll say it again. Some loans are unavoidable due to random events. For example about a year before we finished Burgundy got a corruption event whilst at near zero treasury so a loan was triggered. Of course this was the only loan Burgundy has had all game . So modify the rule to no deliberate loan taking and perhaps a warning to the host that such a loan has been triggered.
. So modify the rule to no deliberate loan taking and perhaps a warning to the host that such a loan has been triggered.
To survive against Juan's loaned army - and even taking that one loan sucks!
Poland (Michaelis), Lithuania(?), and Novgorod(Bjering), badly misjudged Muscowy's ability to defend itself (Muscowy received some Ottoman financing). Then, when the TO attacked POL+LIT+NVG four years into the war [after having taken Ingermanland from Sweden and received a total of 400d financing from the Ottoman Empire. Alas, this aid stopped once the OE had taken two POL/LIT provinces in a short war], rather than trying to end the war, they continued fighting. POL+LIT must have had an abysmal income by then, but carried on the fight, even when Novgorod was effectively dead because I sieged all their provinces.
Only with Novgorod fallen, Muscowy invading Lithuania, and my armies gearing up for the trip south into their heartlands, did POL+LIT give up the war, ceding a province to Muscowy. Not wanting to fight them alone - since I was running low on funds - I also made peace with them.
Basically, as far as I can see, NVG+POL+LIT had made a compact to eliminate MOS (probably with the TO as the next victim - that is certainly what I feared and a major factor in my decision to intervene), and completely and utterly failed to appreciate that they had failed when they had made no headway during the first two or three years. At that point, in 1457, they could easily have gotten a white peace (and possibly even some cash from Muscowy) and not been appreciately worse off than before the war.
Chronology:
- 1455: POL+LIT+NVG attacks MOS
- 1459, Mar: TO + German AI allies (aka "The German Death Squad") attack POL+LIT+NVG, NVG is out of the war from this moment in time: No armies and no provinces not besieged
- 1459, May: TUR attacks POL+LIT
- 1459, Sep: TUR makes peace with POL+LIT (Bujak and Jedisan to TUR)
- 1460, Jul: POL+LIT makes peace with MOS (Welikia to MOS)
- 1460, Sep: NVG makes peace with TO (Kexholm, Olonets, 50d)
- 1460, Oct: POL+LIT makes peace with TO (white)
- 1461, Nov: NVG annexed by MOS
- 1463, Aug: POL makes peace with the German Death Squad (Poznan to Pommerania)
Of course, I do have the benefit of hind-sight here, but I still do not understand why they continued pressing the attack past 1457. If they had been controlling two or three of Muscowy's provinces, yes, then the temptation to continue would have been great, but when no progress had really been made?
I know, I said as much about 15 posts back in this thread
Last edited:
I think it is quite likely Algiers took multiple loans out towards the end of the session after we attacked her. This was unfortunate since Algiers holding out for so long played no small part in the problems of the iberian alliance in the last couple of years.
I think its a good idea to ban loans... erratic and irresponsible players have been the single most important factor determining the way Europe looks at the moment, which can't be right!
I think its a good idea to ban loans... erratic and irresponsible players have been the single most important factor determining the way Europe looks at the moment, which can't be right!
Last edited:
Looks like I can't post any maps tonight - the upload access to my webspace is down at the moment Perhaps someone else could post some screenies of the political situation in europe at the end of the session (ie April 1468)?
Perhaps someone else could post some screenies of the political situation in europe at the end of the session (ie April 1468)?
Well, from my own view of the situation, under the control of the AI or a human player, Poland has little chance to stave off partitioning. Especially now, but even before the bankruptcies it had little chance of a future with a treaty-expiring with the Baltic Germans to the north.
Peter should possibly have his loan edited away, as even if Poland tried to fight in the current war, it would take another futile bankruptcy.
Without serious editing and peace on its borders there is no chance for Poland, which I'm not saying they should get the chance even. Just stating the fact.
So I guess it depends on what people think is worse... a bloated Moscowy and a strong German Death Squad, or a couple of peaceloving Polish who couldn't fight off three Russians and a bottle of vodka.
Peter should possibly have his loan edited away, as even if Poland tried to fight in the current war, it would take another futile bankruptcy.
Without serious editing and peace on its borders there is no chance for Poland, which I'm not saying they should get the chance even. Just stating the fact.
So I guess it depends on what people think is worse... a bloated Moscowy and a strong German Death Squad, or a couple of peaceloving Polish who couldn't fight off three Russians and a bottle of vodka.
Well hey hey, stop your inflation editing demands, because if you dont, i will have to demand my share!
I had two loans when i got back into the game, an inflation that had risen enormously (13.6% !!! From waaaay down under 2%, not sure anymore if it was 0.6%). If you edit ANY countries inflation, i would like to request that my own inflation be edited down partly, say to 10%.
I had two loans when i got back into the game, an inflation that had risen enormously (13.6% !!! From waaaay down under 2%, not sure anymore if it was 0.6%). If you edit ANY countries inflation, i would like to request that my own inflation be edited down partly, say to 10%.
How I screwed up Poland
NOTE: this post is meant to address Mowers' query as to how Poland's fatal situation came about.
When I took over Poland, it was in very good shape: over a 100 ducats in treasury, around 3% inflation, good economy (not a single merchant anywhere, but a tax collector in every province), and good army (around 40k). Within a couple of months, Poland and Lithuania successfully blackmailed Hungary into giving us 100 d, and a glorious future seemed to lie ahead. I resisted calls from a belligerent Lithuania to immediately begin hostilities against TO - partly out of caution (we had a truce, and I didn't want the stab hit), partly because if there's one thing I really dislike it's jumping on a player that has just joined the game and is in a tricky situation.
God must have frowned on Poland though for not putting a swift end to the arrogant Teutons, for I was swiftly hit by a series of events: 2 x support for dissidents abroad, and 1x unhappiness among the clergy. This was followed by the Nieszawa historical event, in which I chose to defy the magnates. A couple of months later Poland was hit by civil war, which restored stability to +3, but erased the entire Polish army ( a loss of approx. 500 d). I sat tight, saving money, while Lithuania agitated against Muscovy. In the end I bowed to the temptation and negotiated a long term strategic agreement with Novgorod: Poland and Lithuania would support Novgorod in its fight for the crown of Russia, and even cede Russia's core provinces after the Lublin Union, in return for future assistance against the TO and Poland's claims on selected German provinces.
Lithuania DoWed Muscovy, and as arranged Novgorod switched alliances. At this point Poland still didn't have any loans, and I supported my allies with a small cavalry corps raised entirely out of saved money. However, Muscovy fought back with tenacity and skill, and it quickly became apparent I'll have to support my allies with more than a few thousand cavalry. That was when I took the first loan: at stab +3, with a yearly income of over 80 d, it seemed like a reasonable risk to take. I recruited more troops and sent them against Muscovy as soon as the snows melted. At that point the Muscovy player dropped from the game, and his armies/provinces became untouchable. Net result: lost a few thousand troops to attrition without any gains.
The game was rehosted soon afterwards, but the new player who took over Muscovy proved to be very skillful. Seeing that the Russian army is far from strong, I invested all my remaining cash in more troops. We managed to lay siege to Moscow, and defeated the Russian army that tried to lift the siege. This is when I made a big mistake, persuading my allies to pursue the retreating Russian army into the neighbouring province (woods and snow). For some reason I was convinced the Russians have only 10k or so left; they had 20, and defeated the allied armies, which had suffered a painful attrition hit during the pursuit. Still, the Russian army was weak overall, and there was a chance of turning things around. However, the Ottomans declared war on Lithuania. Lithuania had to cede two provinces, but delayed that decision for a few months which resulted in reduced pressure on the Russians in the meantime, and extra military losses for no gain.
In the meantime, the situation in the northeast grew desperate. Novgorod decided to follow a very conservative fiscal policy, relying on its meagre income to raise new troops, and thus its army kept getting smaller and smaller; soon it was unable to prevent the Russian army from looting its capital. I consulted my allies who promised to put their best foot forward if I send more troops to support them.
I agree with Peter that the right thing to do at this point was to negotiate a white peace. However, Muscovy refused Lithuania's white peace offer (and rightly so - it had a big positive war score, in large part due to numerous defeats of tiny allied detachments). Unfortunately Muscovy wasn't occupying any of the allied provinces, and the allies had no money to offer; the result was a stalemate. At this point the Polish army alone was the size of the Russian army. Novgorod still had 4k; Lithuania had over a dozen regiments. It was decided to launch one final offensive to win peace. That's when I took the second loan, and I assure you it was done with great misgivings. I was sure that one final offensive will persuade the Russians to accept peace.
Then the TO declared war on Lithuania. This was when I made the worst mistake of them all: I clicked decline by an accident when Lithuania asked for help. I had to reverse that decision and saw my stab drop to - 3; I had set up RMs with TO allies in the hope that a) they might deter them from joining TO in the war (reasonable hope, since Poland's relations with all TO allies except Pommern were around +150) b) give TO allies stability hits if they do decide to join. I really wish the in-game panels were designed consistently, with the accept option always on the left and the decline option always on the right. When you have six panels popping up on top of each other and you're clicking through them, a bit of lag is all that's needed to screw up things.
Peter behaved in an honourable fashion, returning the earlier favour by abstaining from an invasion of Polish lands. However, his AI led allies had no concept of honour, and huge armies to boot (Mecklemburg alone had 60k troops at one point). Poland was invaded by Pommern, who laid siege to Poznan (Posen). I didn't manage to lift the siege in spite of having superior numbers and high quality troops; I was a fool to try, but I'd forgotten that we'd switched the game difficulty to Very Hard, which results in absurdly lucky combat rolls for the AI. A few months later, Posen fell. The Polish army laid siege, and was defeated by inferior enemy forces. Soon after that, the remnants of the Polish army(some 16k - more than half cavalry, full morale) were attacked and crushingly defeated on the plains of Wielkopolska by a corps from Bremen (5k infantry only).
Pommern, basking in its high war score, kept refusing offers of peace which included Poznan. This was when I took a third loan, in order to offer Pomern both Poznan and money. They declined that as well. I spent the cash refused by the Pommeranians on troops, and was almost immediately hit by yet ANOTHER pay-cash-now-no-other-option event (I don't remember what it was; I was close to hysterics by then). Result: fourth loan. By that time the WE and RR were so high stability was stuck at -3.
Soon enough, the game was suspended for an hour. I just had to get some sleep - I'd slept a total of 4 hours on Friday and Saturday nights (and if you'd been taking it in the chops like that, you would need to lie down, too). I slept longer than I should, but I took the precaution of asking Stingray (who was waiting to join the game) to inform others I might be a bit late. When I showed up on vnet later, the game had already been resumed, played, and wrapped up. It really wasn't my intention to abandon a screwed up Poland, and I apologise for not showing up on time.
This was my first participation in a Tsunami game, and I have the following observations;
1) The Tsunami isn't really a game a such, but a great experiment of proven value (it stimulates Johan to release new patches).
2) The 'you can have another country later' business encourages bad gameplay. I'm sure most players who usually laugh at bankruptcy would play differently if they knew they have to stick with their chosen country till the bitter end. I would have definitely stuck with the Papal states had I been defeated fairly.
3) Selecting Very Hard difficulty results in absurd gameplay, and makes this exploit possible: form an alliance with a bunch of AI countries, and let them bear the brunt of fighting. They'll win almost all battles they fight, often even when fighting against astronomical odds. In my opinion, Very Hard is best reserved for people who just have to conquer the world every time they play, and find it boring after a while in single play.
This is not to say the Tsunami isn't interesting - it's immensely interesting if just for the chance to see 20 plus human players in the same game, and I'd gladly play it again. But after such a dismal showing (my worst game as long as memory reaches) I don't think I'll ever dare to ask for a spot. Finally, I'd like to point out that I took loans out twice as the Papal states, and repaid them on time each time - until Hive pulled his 28 loan stunt.
PS. Nevertheless I'll show up at the next announced T2 session to continue playing Poland, if you let me. This is particularly humiliating since Poland is the one bigger country I know well. Yet I was completely taken by surprise when the Nieszawa event popped up - goes to show that playing the Tsunami is pretty exciting.
NOTE: this post is meant to address Mowers' query as to how Poland's fatal situation came about.
When I took over Poland, it was in very good shape: over a 100 ducats in treasury, around 3% inflation, good economy (not a single merchant anywhere, but a tax collector in every province), and good army (around 40k). Within a couple of months, Poland and Lithuania successfully blackmailed Hungary into giving us 100 d, and a glorious future seemed to lie ahead. I resisted calls from a belligerent Lithuania to immediately begin hostilities against TO - partly out of caution (we had a truce, and I didn't want the stab hit), partly because if there's one thing I really dislike it's jumping on a player that has just joined the game and is in a tricky situation.
God must have frowned on Poland though for not putting a swift end to the arrogant Teutons, for I was swiftly hit by a series of events: 2 x support for dissidents abroad, and 1x unhappiness among the clergy. This was followed by the Nieszawa historical event, in which I chose to defy the magnates. A couple of months later Poland was hit by civil war, which restored stability to +3, but erased the entire Polish army ( a loss of approx. 500 d). I sat tight, saving money, while Lithuania agitated against Muscovy. In the end I bowed to the temptation and negotiated a long term strategic agreement with Novgorod: Poland and Lithuania would support Novgorod in its fight for the crown of Russia, and even cede Russia's core provinces after the Lublin Union, in return for future assistance against the TO and Poland's claims on selected German provinces.
Lithuania DoWed Muscovy, and as arranged Novgorod switched alliances. At this point Poland still didn't have any loans, and I supported my allies with a small cavalry corps raised entirely out of saved money. However, Muscovy fought back with tenacity and skill, and it quickly became apparent I'll have to support my allies with more than a few thousand cavalry. That was when I took the first loan: at stab +3, with a yearly income of over 80 d, it seemed like a reasonable risk to take. I recruited more troops and sent them against Muscovy as soon as the snows melted. At that point the Muscovy player dropped from the game, and his armies/provinces became untouchable. Net result: lost a few thousand troops to attrition without any gains.
The game was rehosted soon afterwards, but the new player who took over Muscovy proved to be very skillful. Seeing that the Russian army is far from strong, I invested all my remaining cash in more troops. We managed to lay siege to Moscow, and defeated the Russian army that tried to lift the siege. This is when I made a big mistake, persuading my allies to pursue the retreating Russian army into the neighbouring province (woods and snow). For some reason I was convinced the Russians have only 10k or so left; they had 20, and defeated the allied armies, which had suffered a painful attrition hit during the pursuit. Still, the Russian army was weak overall, and there was a chance of turning things around. However, the Ottomans declared war on Lithuania. Lithuania had to cede two provinces, but delayed that decision for a few months which resulted in reduced pressure on the Russians in the meantime, and extra military losses for no gain.
In the meantime, the situation in the northeast grew desperate. Novgorod decided to follow a very conservative fiscal policy, relying on its meagre income to raise new troops, and thus its army kept getting smaller and smaller; soon it was unable to prevent the Russian army from looting its capital. I consulted my allies who promised to put their best foot forward if I send more troops to support them.
I agree with Peter that the right thing to do at this point was to negotiate a white peace. However, Muscovy refused Lithuania's white peace offer (and rightly so - it had a big positive war score, in large part due to numerous defeats of tiny allied detachments). Unfortunately Muscovy wasn't occupying any of the allied provinces, and the allies had no money to offer; the result was a stalemate. At this point the Polish army alone was the size of the Russian army. Novgorod still had 4k; Lithuania had over a dozen regiments. It was decided to launch one final offensive to win peace. That's when I took the second loan, and I assure you it was done with great misgivings. I was sure that one final offensive will persuade the Russians to accept peace.
Then the TO declared war on Lithuania. This was when I made the worst mistake of them all: I clicked decline by an accident when Lithuania asked for help. I had to reverse that decision and saw my stab drop to - 3; I had set up RMs with TO allies in the hope that a) they might deter them from joining TO in the war (reasonable hope, since Poland's relations with all TO allies except Pommern were around +150) b) give TO allies stability hits if they do decide to join. I really wish the in-game panels were designed consistently, with the accept option always on the left and the decline option always on the right. When you have six panels popping up on top of each other and you're clicking through them, a bit of lag is all that's needed to screw up things.
Peter behaved in an honourable fashion, returning the earlier favour by abstaining from an invasion of Polish lands. However, his AI led allies had no concept of honour, and huge armies to boot (Mecklemburg alone had 60k troops at one point). Poland was invaded by Pommern, who laid siege to Poznan (Posen). I didn't manage to lift the siege in spite of having superior numbers and high quality troops; I was a fool to try, but I'd forgotten that we'd switched the game difficulty to Very Hard, which results in absurdly lucky combat rolls for the AI. A few months later, Posen fell. The Polish army laid siege, and was defeated by inferior enemy forces. Soon after that, the remnants of the Polish army(some 16k - more than half cavalry, full morale) were attacked and crushingly defeated on the plains of Wielkopolska by a corps from Bremen (5k infantry only).
Pommern, basking in its high war score, kept refusing offers of peace which included Poznan. This was when I took a third loan, in order to offer Pomern both Poznan and money. They declined that as well. I spent the cash refused by the Pommeranians on troops, and was almost immediately hit by yet ANOTHER pay-cash-now-no-other-option event (I don't remember what it was; I was close to hysterics by then). Result: fourth loan. By that time the WE and RR were so high stability was stuck at -3.
Soon enough, the game was suspended for an hour. I just had to get some sleep - I'd slept a total of 4 hours on Friday and Saturday nights (and if you'd been taking it in the chops like that, you would need to lie down, too). I slept longer than I should, but I took the precaution of asking Stingray (who was waiting to join the game) to inform others I might be a bit late. When I showed up on vnet later, the game had already been resumed, played, and wrapped up. It really wasn't my intention to abandon a screwed up Poland, and I apologise for not showing up on time.
This was my first participation in a Tsunami game, and I have the following observations;
1) The Tsunami isn't really a game a such, but a great experiment of proven value (it stimulates Johan to release new patches).
2) The 'you can have another country later' business encourages bad gameplay. I'm sure most players who usually laugh at bankruptcy would play differently if they knew they have to stick with their chosen country till the bitter end. I would have definitely stuck with the Papal states had I been defeated fairly.
3) Selecting Very Hard difficulty results in absurd gameplay, and makes this exploit possible: form an alliance with a bunch of AI countries, and let them bear the brunt of fighting. They'll win almost all battles they fight, often even when fighting against astronomical odds. In my opinion, Very Hard is best reserved for people who just have to conquer the world every time they play, and find it boring after a while in single play.
This is not to say the Tsunami isn't interesting - it's immensely interesting if just for the chance to see 20 plus human players in the same game, and I'd gladly play it again. But after such a dismal showing (my worst game as long as memory reaches) I don't think I'll ever dare to ask for a spot. Finally, I'd like to point out that I took loans out twice as the Papal states, and repaid them on time each time - until Hive pulled his 28 loan stunt.
PS. Nevertheless I'll show up at the next announced T2 session to continue playing Poland, if you let me. This is particularly humiliating since Poland is the one bigger country I know well. Yet I was completely taken by surprise when the Nieszawa event popped up - goes to show that playing the Tsunami is pretty exciting.
Last edited:
Poland, Lithuania and loans
Personally I have a poor view of loans, much of which has come from my experience during this game, while I played Lithuania, I took loans sparingly, not to raise oodles of mercenaries, but simply to raise my own armies, and even _that_ was crippling. In my own opinion, it is not inflation that's the killer, but the absolutely lethal interest bank loans charge. The two loans Lithuania presently has is far beyond its ability to pay back, this will eventually drive it into bankrupcy, and then, because of the chaos caused by bankrupcy, the country will automatically take a loan, which will be more than it can pay back... Do you see where this is going? Suffice to say that I'll not be taking any loans in a hurry in my next game, and that for lithuania to be playable this side of 20 years, it'll have to be edited, never mind Poland which is in an even worse state.
I think the Poland issue though illustrates what is effectively `suicide loaning`, where a doomed country takes as many loans as it can, to hurt it's enemies (ambitious players taking lots of loans so that they can build a huge empire isn't the same, that's just stupid). While this isn't exactly a nice tactic, I can't say I think it unfair, as, if anything else, it'll make people think twice about destroying player countries, which is rather true to history.
As to the question of what to do with Poland and Lithuania, they are, most definitely at the mercy of Russia and the Tutonic order, and whatever they do, will decide the fate of the two countries. From the sound of Peter's posts, I doubt it'll be a nice future for Poland/Lithuania.
That said, if the players of the TO and Muscovy were to leave Pol/Lith standing, I'd be quite happy to play them.
'til next time,
fasquardon
Personally I have a poor view of loans, much of which has come from my experience during this game, while I played Lithuania, I took loans sparingly, not to raise oodles of mercenaries, but simply to raise my own armies, and even _that_ was crippling. In my own opinion, it is not inflation that's the killer, but the absolutely lethal interest bank loans charge. The two loans Lithuania presently has is far beyond its ability to pay back, this will eventually drive it into bankrupcy, and then, because of the chaos caused by bankrupcy, the country will automatically take a loan, which will be more than it can pay back... Do you see where this is going? Suffice to say that I'll not be taking any loans in a hurry in my next game, and that for lithuania to be playable this side of 20 years, it'll have to be edited, never mind Poland which is in an even worse state.
I think the Poland issue though illustrates what is effectively `suicide loaning`, where a doomed country takes as many loans as it can, to hurt it's enemies (ambitious players taking lots of loans so that they can build a huge empire isn't the same, that's just stupid). While this isn't exactly a nice tactic, I can't say I think it unfair, as, if anything else, it'll make people think twice about destroying player countries, which is rather true to history.
As to the question of what to do with Poland and Lithuania, they are, most definitely at the mercy of Russia and the Tutonic order, and whatever they do, will decide the fate of the two countries. From the sound of Peter's posts, I doubt it'll be a nice future for Poland/Lithuania.
That said, if the players of the TO and Muscovy were to leave Pol/Lith standing, I'd be quite happy to play them.
'til next time,
fasquardon