About the necessity of Ruthlessness in EUII

[unmerged(36826)]

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

Just kick out absolut and Chill 4 would be perfect

 

[Tonioz]

i`m starting to find this saying of Terence White more and more exciting:

http://www.europa-universalis.com/forum/showpost.php?p=4749310&postcount=781

 

[unmerged(27214)]

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.

In that case, there's pretty much no point to this thread, because the somebody you're talking about is obviously a little too immature to listen or understand.

 

[Hive]

When talking about "gangbangs", one should be careful not to make it too black/white. It's not a question about ruling out all gangbangs or accepting a gangbang - it's a question of when gangbangs should be used and when they should not, imo.

And that's a matter of opinion.

 

[PJL]

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.

Thanks for letting us know your stradegy for DBD then... I shall remember it. :rofl:

 

[unmerged(10894)]

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

I don't agree with this. Nations will often gang a nation despite the amount of diplomacy he engages in, how much care he cares to make sure he isn't considered a major threat etc.

Taking one of my experiences.... In NO4 I was Denmark, not particularly expansionist (I had a couple of german provinces and baltic provinces). I did diplomacy every week with every nation except Austria and OE (in a game of 12+ players, no minor feat ), I was constantly ganged by an England with great leaders, Brandenburg, an oppurtunistic Holland (and at times Sweden, Portugal, France, and Spain). Every session I could expect at lest 1 or 2 of these wars, with the only reason being that I had a trade empire and scattered colonies and had tried to be a colonial power.

Despite my best efforts, I was always the punching bag of europe, even though I was never close to being the strongest nation or having half decent leaders. I continued to be the punching bag since the nations doing it were never at war with each other or had any fears for their security, so they were free to make my experience as frustrating as possible. After a couple of years of this I simply had to stop playing because it had gotten ridiculous (I had to be subbed so England, Portugal (who was my ally!), Holland etc all ganged my sub).

It's gameplay like this that makes a game not fun, and makes people lose interest in MP altogether as I did. I have nothing against a reasonable gang if a nation gets too strong, as long as it's not oppurtunistic and repetitive. In Realpolitik diplomacy gangs aren't too much of a worry, because diplomacy is fluid. But let's face it, the problem is that often that nations are left to bully certain nations, safe in the knowledge that no one else is going to touch them.

It's not a failure of the gangee's diplomacy or gameplay, it is failure of bystanders A. to allow the gangee to get to the size where he needs to be ganged or B. to allow the ganger to grow more powerful at expense of the gangee.

 

[fraese]

It's not a failure of the gangee's diplomacy or gameplay, it is failure of bystanders A. to allow the gangee to get to the size where he needs to be ganged or B. to allow the ganger to grow more powerful at expense of the gangee.

Good points, Bocaj. Games sometimes get stuck in a rut where most majors are too cozy with each other and someone ends up being the whipping boy because they can't defend themselves. I think the group has to want to avoid that sort of game style; it's incumbent upon the GM to get a good mix of players in positions that will result in interesting local conflicts around the world.

That said, sometimes it is a failure of diplomacy. It's disingenuous for people to *always* put the blame on the victim, though.

 

[unmerged(11287)]

gangs are dirty, Bocaj. But it's not against rules for now. I'd say Gms should take closer views when gangs are formed (impartial position, of course)

 

[unmerged(10915)]

gangs are dirty, Bocaj. But it's not against rules for now. I'd say Gms should take closer views when gangs are formed (impartial position, of course)

Could you give a more detailed explanation for why gangbangs should be controlled through a GM or a rule list?

 

[admiral drake]

just depends who you play with i think, i rarely get ganged if at all and i'm not the most active diplomat in eu2 these days
edit :and i'm always 1of the more powerful countrys in a game

 

[unmerged(11287)]

Could you give a more detailed explanation for why gangbangs should be controlled through a GM or a rule list?

a province Rule for example, it gives more chances to ganged countries to prepare for a 2nd shot. But it seems it couldn't terminate with the pest. Why not giving experienced GMs more power to get rid of it?

However I prefer more rules because i don't trust in GMs. For example, setting up rules like Forbiding alliances between different religions (at least formal ones) so it can avoid alliances with Russia and OE, they use to be huge, or England that uses to be protestant or reformed allying huge catholic powers.

More rules that improve balance are welcome. But unfortunately gangs are fashion today, they are permanent in our games, not necessarely a problem, but statistically it's a cause of quittings.

One thing is sure, ethernal alliances are bad, having short but devastating wars hurt, quittings kill. ideas?

 

[unmerged(11287)]

just depends who you play with i think, i rarely get ganged if at all and i'm not the most active diplomat in eu2 these days
edit :and i'm always 1of the more powerful countrys in a game

how should we name that strange factor?