About the necessity of Ruthlessness in EUII

[Ampoliros]

I have decided to start a thread about backstabbing and gangbanging as I believe it is vital our community reaches some sort of consensus on this difficult subject.
Now, who of you hasn´t felt the bitterness of a backstab? It makes you mad. It makes you angry, you get seriously pissed and very likely you will do something emotional. At least this was my initial reaction when I was gangstered. But exactly when this happens you have to take a deep breath, count to 10 and understand that these things are absolutely neccesary. EU II MP is a game made for ruthlessness, a historic emulation of powerdynamics between countries, employing the same politics that go on in the real world even at this very minute. Morality is simply not a priority. If there is one word that defines the essence of EU II MP, it is Realpolitik. I´m not saying that you have to play this game in a sinister and ruthless way all the time. What I mean, however, is that you have to accept, even embrace these moraly unsound methods to achieve your aims. There is no fair war. In any conflict all participants try to maximize their advantages and minimize their vulnerabilities. A gangbang is not unfair or unbalancing or whatever. It is simply the consequence of good diplomacy on the one side and a faulted and / or lazy foreignpolicy on the other.

Also, what we should seriously try is not to take hostile behaviour ingame personal. We have to distinguish between what happens between nations and what goes one between players.
I might decide as France to ravage and pillage through your Spain. This does not mean that I hate you, whoever player you may be, but that I deem it in the best interests of France to do so. It is a thin red line we walk upon, it is a difficult quest for sure.
There are many inflated egos here, mine included. Sometimes they clash, sometimes friendships form but whatever the case it should not influence your decisions and policies ingame.

EU II MP is way too grand a game, imho, to be devalued by petty quarrel over trifle differences. I for one simply lust for the pure and merciless mental challenge of a campaign without any whining and played by the very best.

 

[unmerged(11287)]

Amen

we need to relax a little.

 

[unmerged(10894)]

If ganging is a necessity, then so be it. There are plenty of examples where it is (although since that nation often needs such strength to overcome it it's hardly a gang).

What I have a problem with is when a nation will use three times the strength needed to ensure a complete victory with as much damage done as possible unwarranted. These nations are usually the ones whose only purpose is to make your game as frustrating as possible, this is the type of gameplay I hate. The ones who aren't playing to win, they're playing to make sure you don't.

 

[Hive]

What I have a problem with is when a nation will use three times the strength needed to ensure a complete victory with as much damage done as possible unwarranted. These nations are usually the ones whose only purpose is to make your game as frustrating as possible, this is the type of gameplay I hate. The ones who aren't playing to win, they're playing to make sure you don't.

Amen to that.

 

[unmerged(10915)]

What I have a problem with is when a nation will use three times the strength needed to ensure a complete victory with as much damage done as possible unwarranted. These nations are usually the ones whose only purpose is to make your game as frustrating as possible, this is the type of gameplay I hate. The ones who aren't playing to win, they're playing to make sure you don't.

There is often a tendency of those nation getting a serious backstab later in the game. Or at least alot of their allies desert them.

 

[unmerged(10894)]

There is often a tendency of those nation getting a serious backstab later in the game. Or at least alot of their allies desert them.

I have not found that in a lot of the games I've played in. Perhaps everyone just likes to see me busy. o

 

[unmerged(27214)]

Realpolitik is built on a sturdy foundation of utter hypocrisy. Therefore if one is to be valued, so too must the other.

Which is to say, sure we can all relax and just accept gangbangs, but it's so much more fun to complain and play the victim until the tables can be turned. Dig?

 

[unmerged(10915)]

Realpolitik is built on a sturdy foundation of utter hypocrisy. Therefore if one is to be valued, so too must the other.

Which is to say, sure we can all relax and just accept gangbangs, but it's so much more fun to complain and play the victim until the tables can be turned. Dig?

Of course, that is one of the best weapons against gangbangs . Although most of us dont want to accept it, we all share at least a minor thread of empathy for the fellow human.

 

[unmerged(27214)]

Indeed. So proposing that we tone down virulent reactions to gangbangs is just silly and limiting to diplomacy. Put the right spin on a gangbang and the possibilities for vengance are infinite, it's what makes the game work. We all do it, we'll all continue to do it because it's so viable and so soul-fufillingly destructive when done correctly.

 

[unmerged(7276)]

What I have a problem with is when a nation will use three times the strength needed to ensure a complete victory with as much damage done as possible unwarranted. These nations are usually the ones whose only purpose is to make your game as frustrating as possible, this is the type of gameplay I hate

Coudlnt agree with you more here. Problem is though that if victorys are toally decisive some people just never surrender.

I really hate people that just tech and bash AI til 1700, then get so bored they just dow random people or get involved in wars like some kind of UN peacekeep (of course taking a few provs for themselves). Peacful i can handle but most so called peacful players arnt really peacful. They just dont want to be the first to dow. They wait for the cover of other wars before doing anything themselves.

Oh and people who never fight unless backed up by an alliance. Alliances are fine but should be flexible and not last 200 years.

As for the original post i think its too simplistic a view. I think game should be more ruthless in some ways but you cant just say people should put up with anything. eg alliance of france-spain-OE who are more powerful than rest of world put together bash all other players 1 by 1 for 200 years. Would that be a fun game?

 

[unmerged(53580)]

eg alliance of france-spain-OE who are more powerful than rest of world put together bash all other players 1 by 1 for 200 years. Would that be a fun game?

For France and Spain

But It wouldn't be as fun for everybody else.
But if France and Spain only has advantages by that alliance, they should keep it.

 

[unmerged(11287)]

come back to the topic, guys. are gangs illegal, annoying or good for our campaigns?. I thought a provice Rule would fix that...

Personally, gangs are necessary to call someone's attention for: his lack of diplomacy, his imperialism, his lack of rationalism, abuses, etc.

However if a gang is set up just to destroy a country, i think that's not productive, I'd not play with guys that team up themselves forever and ruin my fun without a reason. HOW TO AVOID THAT? a GM's intervention.

 

[Ampoliros]

As for the original post i think its too simplistic a view. I think game should be more ruthless in some ways but you cant just say people should put up with anything. eg alliance of france-spain-OE who are more powerful than rest of world put together bash all other players 1 by 1 for 200 years. Would that be a fun game?

That, obviously, would be a silly game for all involved players. This is a rather extreme example of campaign-lameness, however, and while it may happen once in a while I personaly have never experienced such a kind of constellation.
But still : Why should France-Spain-OE stay allied for 200 years? In a campaign played with decent backstabbers these countries would turn on each other after a while. Or other countries would persuade them to leave the alliance.
Spain would grow concerned about the OE growing too strong and would quite possibly start aiding Austria once again.Tensions would grow and finaly Spain would dishonour and mayhap backstab the Turk...

The point is that if everybody embraces Realpolitik in the campaign there should be a constant fluid motion of changing allegiances and relations,
depending on the rise and fall of powers and changing circumstances.
The nearest to an example for this could be Diplomacy Universalis 1.5.
Essentially, all these things would be possible if we depersonalize the actions ingame. It is not possible, if the ganged victim starts to throw a fit.
Let me explain this aspect as well : To complain in a creative, roleplaying way in search of allies, who can come to your aid, should be allowed, though I would still prefer negotations. But what really get´s me down is when somebody plays badly, then get´s ganged, starts bitching and finaly leaves the game. This destroys the fun for all participants, imho.
Of course the other extreme is just as bad : Gangbanging a nation just to destroy it. This is were a firm and capable GM such as FAL can work wonders, however. It can be dealt with either by rule or by GM intervention ingame.

 

[arcorelli]

I personally do not have anything about gangings. They are a failure of diplomacy.

And sometimes gangs are *needed*. If there is a country so powerful that it can only be challenged by a large coalition, then a gang is neccesary in that game. Not allowing gangs (4v1) because they are unfair make that game as good as done. Allowing gangs allows for the outcome not be decided yet. But, that being said, I think 'good' gangs are gangs against number 1

BTW, I specifically dislike when anything other than 1v1 is called a gang (and I had heard people call a 2v1 a gang sometimes).

But, that being said, I think 'good' gangs are gangs against number 1, not that number 1 and number 2 team to kill everyone else. Well, for that they can play SP. Not use to play a long-term game for that (I could understand that in a Nappy-kind of game, a game of 3 hours focused on war).

 

[Van Engel]

IAlso, what we should seriously try is not to take hostile behaviour ingame personal. We have to distinguish between what happens between nations and what goes one between players.

Tell this to Daniel A who will take somthing personal and will take time during the rest of the game to pick your country apart with his diplomacy and armies.

 

[Ampoliros]

Tell this to Daniel A who will take somthing personal and will take time during the rest of the game to pick your country apart with his diplomacy and armies.

Well, really, if he responds with hostile actions ingame I find that perfectly reasonable. The matter then is decided by a battle of wits - as it should be.

 

[Van Engel]

Well, really, if he responds with hostile actions ingame I find that perfectly reasonable. The matter then is decided by a battle of wits - as it should be.

It's just annoying when you and your ally are the only guys he DoWs though.

 

[unmerged(6147)]

Well, Van Engel's portrait of myself leaves something to desire I think.

Wonko, I tell you what happened.

I was Russia and playing my usual peaceful game with good relations to all my neighbours until around 1660 or so BB (Ozzeh) and Austria (v Engel) with about 1 - 1,5 higher morale and IIRC a combined 1.5 times as many men and MP as I had, attacked me because "I was too strong". They took 6 provices from me, I was chanceless. In a number of wars vs FRA, SWE and OE both of them took more provinces from these nations, before and after this war I just told you about. In fact they never lost one of these wars. Either WP or win.

Then in 1708 AUS DOWed OE to take some more candy from the children (OE was some 5-10 LT levels behind AUS at that time IIRC). Well, I had made a secret defensive pact with OE and therefore DOWed AUS (and then got DOWed by BB). OE was forced out of the war losing one province but I succeeded in holding them to a WP after a very costsome long war - it was a war with some emotions, yes.

I can add the the general attitude of AUS and BB up to this point had been really cocky, if I may say so.

Then some 10 years later I asked around if anyone wanted to make war to AUS and BB together with me, and do you know, France, SWE and OE all stood up and jumped of joy. They had been humiliated so many time and now they felt they would get their revenge. And so they did.

Now I have taken back what I owned from start and am quite satisfied. Now merely interested in assisting my friends getting back what they once owned as I can understand that not until they get that will they be emotionally satisfied, as I became when I got mine back. I care for my friends' emotional status. I care little for my enemies'.

-----

Yes, I am not the most flexible one. But to me the most important thing (I am now referring to the title of this thread) is not that we are flexible, treacherous, Ruthless or the contrary. The important thing is that we know eachother, i.e. that we know what kind of play we prefer. That is why it is so important with these kind of discussions. We can learn how each one of us plays the game. Then we know with whom we belong. When you play games with people who share your general attitude to the game the chance increases you will have a good game.

For me, for example, I like to play with you Wonko, although I did not know he was this ruthless. But that is not so important for me, I can play with both kinds. But what I do prefer is not to play in games/players who do not share my view on the necessity of precise rules. It is often a lot of quarells in the games that lacks such roles. Quarrels are bad. Knowledge about personalities and what is allowed to do or not to do in the game increases the chance you are able to adapt intelligently to these conditions. If you do not know the conditions it can more easily end up in a big BANG.

 

[Ampoliros]

An interesting analysis as always, Daniel.
It seems as if you had a lot of work to do with Russia. Well, if BB and Austria really did fight and humiliate all their neigbours and were the dominant block, then a response was of course neccesary. I do not really know all the facts and backroundinformation, however, though it interests me. I shall take a glimpse at your stats and threads.

It is very true that we all would benefit immensely if we were to learn our different perspectives and approaches towards this game. Maybe we should
endeavour to sort the different players of this community by their preferences and start campaigns in which all of the same liking participate together.

As for me and morality you are correct in defining me as ruthless in this game.
I seldomly break treaties, however, and have a honourcode of my own, which dictates my actions to some extent at least. I never declare war on anyone just for the fun of it, nor would I backstab for any unprofessional reasons.
I have never plotted, planned nor executed the complete destruction of countries. I believe in the concept of the casual war, a limited conflict for limited goals.

I also play this game out of an perspective of aesthetics. If you look at "Defeat Before Dismemberment", for example, you will see that there are quite a few comparatively united realms already (1488). I have united France and helped Venice to do the same. Now I shall endeavour to strengthen and unite Brandenburg, the bottomline being, that I seek to calibrate the relations and boundaries of the respective countries to perfection. When every country in europe has the "perfect" border, effectively neutralising each other while France has the decisive power and thus hegemony, then my mission shall be accomplished.

 

[unmerged(6147)]

Maybe we should
endeavour to sort the different players of this community by their preferences and start campaigns in which all of the same liking participate together.

That is what I personally have done for some time now. Although a "perfect" setup, according to ones taste is perhaps a dream only. But in Chill4 I believe we are close to having achieved that. Perhaps I should add that it looks so, this far into the game