-
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.
Daniel A said:
I think there was something wrong with the French diplomatical position in game, since they were also unable to dow Austria. Option was greyed out for them. Who knows?
Weird session. But off to bed.
Daniel A said:"Interesting"Is this some kind of scientific experiment you are performing?
Honour and greed aren't as important as having mighty fun in an end game session world war. My normal in game considerations are null and void for the last game session(s).
FAL said:
Fun stems from having your gread satisfied and your honor upheld. To go down in flames and having your fleet vanquished from the earth is neither honorable nor does it increase your wealth & power and finally it is certainly not funny
Daniel A said:To go down in flames and having your fleet vanquished from the earth is neither honorable nor does it increase your wealth & power and finally it is certainly not funny
True, but I am alas not someone who can see in the future when making decisions, so I only can try to judge what would give the best odds at fun
Without that heinous Portuguese betrayal, it would all have gone according plan.
Nevertheless, despite this lost war I ended up as the richest country, even without China. As for power *shrug*. Given your own power rating, the sole reason that you ended some meager points higher than me is because you had 1,000 warships more. Of course, should I have known this, I would have build some extra warships before ending the session in order to tease you endless with it
FAL said:True, but I am alas not someone who can see in the future when making decisions, so I only can try to judge what would give the best odds at fun
Without that heinous Portuguese betrayal, it would all have gone according plan.
Nevertheless, despite this lost war I ended up as the richest country, even without China. As for power *shrug*. Given your own power rating, the sole reason that you ended some meager points higher than me is because you had 1,000 warships more. Of course, should I have known this, I would have build some extra warships before ending the session in order to tease you endless with it
The reason you were so close to me was that there is a bug in the current power formula whereby the program uses the current morale instead of the theoretical max morale. You were on 100% maintenance and therefore got 14 points for land morale while I was at 50% and only got 7. Tonio has promised to fix that.
Besides, had we played until 1819 I would have demanded that you disbanded your fleet or I would have sunk it.
There was nothing you could to about it. That is real power .
Last edited:
not really a betrayal, he was a trusted friend of the sultanFAL said:True, but I am alas not someone who can see in the future when making decisions, so I only can try to judge what would give the best odds at fun
Without that heinous Portuguese betrayal, it would all have gone according plan.
Nevertheless, despite this lost war I ended up as the richest country, even without China. As for power *shrug*. Given your own power rating, the sole reason that you ended some meager points higher than me is because you had 1,000 warships more. Of course, should I have known this, I would have build some extra warships before ending the session in order to tease you endless with it
jorian said:not really a betrayal, he was a trusted friend of the sultan
I didn't say he betrayed you, did I?
Daniel A said:Besides, had we played until 1819 I would have demanded that you disbanded your fleet or I would have sunk it.
Nah, if we would have played till 1819 your reign would have ended. So far you only could win one war, and that only with Spain, Prussia, Austria, OE and especially Portugal (IE *all* other nations, except Russia!) helping you.
Not to mention that the only reason that England was able to gather a fleet after 1750 is because Venice and Portugal saved her from another humilating defeat by France. Wouldn't we benevolently have choosed so, England would have been a vassal of France. The story of England is the story of a nation that could not do without the help of at least two other nations.
Now if you want to compare Venice with England, we only have fought one war against each others, without other nations dowing as well.
That only time England and Venice fought a one on one, (with the advantage even being at England's side because of Monck!), England ended up almost annexed. That's how the power between our two nations is divided
Daniel A said:
Well, let us examine this.
Currently Venice has 174.16 power points. England has 181.61.
We remove the 7 points I got from land morale, which gives Venice 167.16 power points. The difference between us is then 14 points in your advantage.
Now, let's assume I knew how this was calculated (heinous much points for fleet size) in advance and I rebuild my fleet after we signed peace. That would mean I would get some 30 points extra for having 1500 warships (?). Resulting in me receiving a whopping 197.16 power points and a tool to tease you till the end of days
------------
The power points one receives for fleet size is far too much compared to army size. Russia, or another land based country, can be extremely powerful in-game, but with this formula a naval nation will always 'win' it.
Feel free to meet me in vnet for a test round.
I could actually win a war vs you and FRA together anytime.
The reason we were so many was that AUS and SPA and POR needed protection. Not that I needed it. The war was mailny fought for Spanish freedom and for Austrian revenge lust - as for English lust for damaging France.
England did not need protection as long as POR stayed neutral. The combined fleets of Venice and France would have been annihilited.
As for "almost annexed" in the huge 1670s war that is a joke and you know it. Yes I lost a war vs you where I lost 6 English provinces to you (of a total 93 provinces). Yes 6 out of 893. Annexation, indeed :rofl: BTW, this victory of yours was accomplished through
1. French assistance of Venice despite them urging me to DOW and even wanting to join at at my side at first although I preferred to do it on my own; France aided with both money and men; without the money you would not have succeded as the enormous amount of stab hits throw your realm into disorder
2. A mistake by me putting a jackass as admiral for the fleet.
I could actually win a war vs you and FRA together anytime.
The reason we were so many was that AUS and SPA and POR needed protection. Not that I needed it. The war was mailny fought for Spanish freedom and for Austrian revenge lust - as for English lust for damaging France.
England did not need protection as long as POR stayed neutral. The combined fleets of Venice and France would have been annihilited.
As for "almost annexed" in the huge 1670s war that is a joke and you know it. Yes I lost a war vs you where I lost 6 English provinces to you (of a total 93 provinces). Yes 6 out of 893. Annexation, indeed :rofl: BTW, this victory of yours was accomplished through
1. French assistance of Venice despite them urging me to DOW and even wanting to join at at my side at first although I preferred to do it on my own; France aided with both money and men; without the money you would not have succeded as the enormous amount of stab hits throw your realm into disorder
2. A mistake by me putting a jackass as admiral for the fleet.
Daniel A said:
You think so? OK, challenge accepted. If Wonko is up for it we play next tuesday with the 1780 save, fight it out and see how it ends.
You are a funny man. I am sure you needed to rest of the world, except Russia, in your alliance to protect them The sole reason you won the war is because Portugal betrayed us. Would have Portugal honoured the NAP I signed with them, it would have ended different.
That's the question yes. Nelson is almost invincible, but can he defeat the fire 5 French admiral leading a fleet of 1800 (or were it 1900? I forgot) warships? The dice can be tricky.
But hey, I am sure you were convinced you could sink my fleet with Monck back then too! And we all know how that ended
I also note, to my amusement, that you ignore the fact that Venice and Portugal saved the ass of England when she was to be humilated by France for the second time. Again a fine example of England unable to win one on one wars, despite her superior leader file
FAL said:
I was talking about the end save, as was you when you wrote: "if we would have played till 1819 your reign would have ended". I said I demanded you disbanded your fleet else I would sink it. Thus you would never let you reach any substantial fleet size. They would be exterminated before growing too large.
You wrote
FAL said:
If I ever claimed I could beat you and FRA in 1780 it was a mistake. However in 1790 I might be able to do it. In 1807 (when we ended) or later I would surely do it and that was what I meant. I would crush your fleet and then reach stab hit levels by way of colonial warfare. I would only land when I finally had reached 99% WS and then only to capture your capital to make each one of you my vassal. And there would be nothing you could do about it.
I only related the truth. AUS did not want to join unless PRU joined. SPA+POR did not want to join unless AUS joined. So PRU was the key and then all joined. This is a fact that you just have to accept. BTW Especially POR was very anxious not to join unless we would win.FAL said:
FAL said:
Yes of course, I have already said so myself in an earlier post that without POR it could not have been done. If Porto had joined you, then you would definitely have won naval supremacy. Had they stayed neutral the outcome was more in doubt. You did get a good beating in the bay of Venice before the Portuguese fleet arrived at the scene (some weeks into the battle), their crew had unfortunately been given a leave and was sun bathing at Corsica when the English army assaulted the city of Venice and forced the combined 18-1900 French-Venetian fleet to set sail and do battle with Admiral Nelson with some 1150 ships IIRC. But in the long run I guess you would outbuild me.
FAL said:I also note, to my amusement, that you ignore the fact that Venice and Portugal saved the ass of England when she was to be humilated by France for the second time. Again a fine example of England unable to win one on one wars, despite her superior leader file
Again: I am talking about the end situation. No nation can beat another nation at a 1 vs 1 at every date and time in the game. We all have our ups and downs. But ENG has never stood stronger than it does now. And we are talking about relative strength here, not absolute, in absolute terms we are of course all stronger now than at any earlier date in the game. The fact is that in a 1 vs 1 ENG will beat any nation. And that is just how it should be. As I always claim: if you play ENG you must end up as the strongest nation (not least because her superior late phase leaders of course). Incidentally the same can be said of the OE and also possibly Russia although the naval aspect of Russia is normally a problem.
Daniel A said:
Well Daniel I believe I just had low stab, must be a very random CW then...
OTOH this is the second CW I have this week in MP (last one was last friday in TOD with Spain, also totally unexpected.)
The only reason I could know of is my low centralisation (5 I believe) caused by an event.
FAL said:Well, let us examine this.
Currently Venice has 174.16 power points. England has 181.61.
We remove the 7 points I got from land morale, which gives Venice 167.16 power points. The difference between us is then 14 points in your advantage.
Now, let's assume I knew how this was calculated (heinous much points for fleet size) in advance and I rebuild my fleet after we signed peace. That would mean I would get some 30 points extra for having 1500 warships (?). Resulting in me receiving a whopping 197.16 power points and a tool to tease you till the end of days
------------
The power points one receives for fleet size is far too much compared to army size. Russia, or another land based country, can be extremely powerful in-game, but with this formula a naval nation will always 'win' it.
As I just wrote in the other thread. I would not let you build this big fleet. I would smash you before you reached those heights.
Regarding the power formula this is a problem. To compare the power given you by naval strength and by army strength you need to do like this
For naval: morale + fleet size
For land: morale + army size + MP pool
The difference as you can see is that you are given points for the size of your MP pool but not for any "ship pool". I imagined that applying the formula the points given from naval and land would be just about equal. However, if someone with realtively low MP (as ENG) starts building ships way above the support limit (as I did) weird results may stem from that. Note that you cannot manipulate the total number of power points by building a huge army way beyond the support limit, because what you get from army size is much less than from fleet size. Ideally there would be a number in the save that ws similar to MP pool, a ship pool. Then we could use that number instead of current size.
But I agree about the problem from huge fleets. As a matter of fact I have spent quite some time at it since it may turn out to be decisive for ToS. I have found no good solution yet.
But what we can say is that it is not unrealistic. It is the size of the English navy that at the current date of the game ensures English domination of the game. That is a fact and it is aptly mirrored in the power formula. Whether we want it like that is another question.
labalag said:
As far as we know centralisation has nothing to do with the chance to get a CW (or am I forgetting something
). Apparently just an unlucky random CW. Extremely nasty to get one this late in the game and quite undeserved as you had no BB points and serfdom 10 and inoo4 so stab costs should not be that high - or did you own a lot of muslim shit provinces?BTW I love your sig! Especially the new line
"I played the Ottoman Empire in Conflicts and Converts: Winter Revenge and all I got were some dead Erzherzogs."
I had not seen that one before
Last edited:
Daniel A said:
It is not. It is the historical admirals England has. Or more precisely, England having Nelson in the past ensured the current position of England.
------
Your power formula for fleets doesn't mean anything if it doesn't take into account the historical leader leading the fleet. This might not be a problem for Test of Monitor, but it will be for any other game.
A 1000 warship fleet under Nelson is, afterall, more powerful than a 1600 warship fleet under a no-name Venetian admiral.
That is a good point, and if applied to navies must be applied to armies as well.
Equally a 100/0/200 under Nappy would beat a 150/0/300 under a default.
Equally a 100/0/200 under Nappy would beat a 150/0/300 under a default.
Hehe. Porto deciding an outcome of wars between major powers and perhaps even being a major power herself. Wheee! Even false accusations and propaganda doesn't disturb me now, for Porto's intentions were always honorable (except when punching Sweden, but we stopped when it became too unfair to war them).
FAL said:
Venice + France had over 1950 ships. England alone had about 1300 i guess
FAL said:
Dear FAL, Napoleon and Davout never fought Blucher, Karl or Wellington :rofl: