Sweden existed in 1485, muscowy had lt 9, money and an economy comparable to spain and england.Wari Bana said:
-
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.
ottomans and poland hammered russia from start(or kept on containing her POSSIBLE expansion at all times); jps simplly did not have a "break" to take care of finland, which had at that time at least, much lower priority then the east...Monkii-sama said:
Last edited:
can't we plan for an extra session along the week?
20years a sesssion feels so few
20years a sesssion feels so few
i would like that, but unfortunately i "don't" have "time" for a second session.
I support firing the event nonetheless. It is standard, and it gives some flavour, but also some cool leaders. Also it is appropriate for a mod that goes 100 years extra.martmol said:
Wrong. PJL played them all the way until beregic resigned.Wari Bana said:
You try to find a day where EVERYONE here can devote 4 hoursColonel_General said:can't we plan for an extra session along the week?
Last edited:
Anyone, agreed, but EVERYone? I doubt it.Wari Bana said:
I must say sir, that you are the only one that have openly broken against this "state of the game", by dowing your brother-in-arms Italy. And this with the motive to "warn" them to not ally France. They might have wanted to ally France before the war, but after the war, it was clear France were not about to ally Italy after what he considered to be a severe backstab. So, first you manage to "win" Italy's support against France, and then you go ahead and ruin it over something so silly as Xhosa? You know, there are peaceful ways to solve things.Wari Bana said:
May I remind you that I beat the OE in a fair 1v1 war last session? Thanks to CRT over of course, but still it proves that they are NOT "all that". Which I of course was convinced of before-handed (and so was beregic when he played). The thing is that the OE has a hard time projecting their power over the Balkans, and they just lost an important base in Dalmatia. The weakness at the moment is France's amazing naval superiority. Without that, there would not be any warfare advantages to any side.
I take this as a (diplomatical) very rude insult. I have fought France with England, with Spain and with Italy. And more times than anyone. I have won and I have lost. They have been the stronger power every time.
Well, if you manage to dow them before everyone has even pressed "Start" (btw, you should never do anything before everyone has done this anyway), you will just have to suit yourself. Wait 1 year? Oh no, gotta dow before he has even put himself comfortably in his computer chair...Wari Bana said:
Ahh, I love this gameWari Bana said:well, we had fun didn't we
Very much wrong. Perhaps you do not get the money you spent back, but it will be an increase in power (or decrease, if you lose). So, it is like trade, you convert hard cash into something else. In trade you convert it into tech research, in war into power.Colonel_General said:
Last edited:
well mats, yes sure i won peace vs them... but for how long? how long till u guys decide to join up in a 4vs1 or 3vs1 again.
You won a little bit of territory tooColonel_General said:
But what makes you think Austria would want to dow you? Have I made any such moves?
Mats_SX said:
SIR
1- the player is relevant and not as much the nation he plays...ottos were way overpowered at start(reffering to cores everywhere of course) but that just made them weaker in long run, unfortunatelly done so by breaking the "balance" with regards to having a non-competitive russia in this particular case. that brings me back to the point where a major nation should not be handed to a new mp player that has no "realistic" expectations in LONG term play...
2- i personally never tought they were "all that"(ottomans), with regards to OUR alliance( he never actually dared dow any of us did he?i mean for the 4 session i was italy, and not counting the islands asolute great "give in to demands" deal...
)3- not to bring back past "issues", but he "left" just as i thought he would(the player), while i am still "observing" the progress
.
Last edited:
Mats_SX said:You won a little bit of territory too
But what makes you think Austria would want to dow you? Have I made any such moves?
u helped italians in the war vs me by giving them military access. A clear violation of a NAP in my opinion.
not to mention that province taken from me, when u stated that the wra objective was to liberate england
Whereas Poland will be leaderless. So basically, Poland has for all these years been containing BB for nothing.Mats said:
This claim is misguided.Wari Bana said:
During last session's wars:
France and OE fought Spain and Italy.
OE fought Austria individually.
Poland fought Russia and BB individually.
In no instances did the "dishonourable alliance" outnumber its enemies.
historicalleader = {
id = { type = 6 id = 09493 }
category = general
name = "J. Poniatowski"
startdate = {
year = 1789
}
deathdate = {
year = 1813
}
rank = 2
movement = 4
fire = 3
shock = 4
siege = 0
remark = "Josef"
last leader i found for poles, maybe edit some in to compensate?
id = { type = 6 id = 09493 }
category = general
name = "J. Poniatowski"
startdate = {
year = 1789
}
deathdate = {
year = 1813
}
rank = 2
movement = 4
fire = 3
shock = 4
siege = 0
remark = "Josef"
last leader i found for poles, maybe edit some in to compensate?