Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Animal Farm in EU

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Show only dev responses
unmerged(6147)

unmerged(6147)

Banned
Oct 22, 2001
8.242
0
Visit site
Recently I made two observations that made me think.

NOIV (Thursdays)
-------------------

In NOIV a newcomer to the game was given SWE to play some 100 years into the game or so. It did not take many sessions before he was eaten up by his neighbours. During the attacks several people posted messages like "is no one going to help him..." but no one did. It was prolly not that easy for him to get a good diplomatic network established, both since he was new in the game and because he was new in our community.

He ended up annexed although I believe he quit the game when he was down to a province or two so he did not need to suffer to be literally annexed.


DbD (Wednesdays)
---------------------

In DbD one of our veterans played Brandenburg. Always a difficult nation to play. He played according to his style which can be characterised as alliance-jumping. Allying (formally or informally) first A vs B. Then allying B vs C and then C vs A and so on (a little simplified description). If nothing else his playing style, while creating many enemies, brings fire into the game. Anyway, at some time several of his neighbours will get tired of this and want revenge. In this game it happened that they got this chance around 1770 or so when the BrB player got chrushed by a gangbang (including a backstab by BrB's ally Denmark who switched sides in the middle of the war - applaud applaud :D ). While the BrB player probably could not be annexed he could be so severly crippled that he would have been eliminated from the competition (and quite possibly annexed within a few years).

What instead happened was that all nations (besides myself that is, who reluctantly accepted to get only 2 provinces) was quite lenient. In the peace there was even one player who was heard saying something like "we cannot take that much from BrB, it is not kind" or something similar. Incidentally that player was one of them devouring SWE in the NOIV case. :p

It can be added that in this game the veteran was the GM of that game.

-----------------

One can now expect arguments like:

1. You cannot eliminate (or close to it) the GM.

Then I answer: why not? The rest of the players can play on with the game if the GM decides he does not want to play on. No problem at all.

2. Nation so and so is so important for the game while nation so and so is not.

Then I answer: this is like the notion recently presented in the NOIV thread, that some nations are a "must". When it is a fact they are not. Already today we have had campaigns with none of the big nations. And there are to the best of my knowledge nothing that is even evidence for the notion that a EU game consisting of e.g. only FRA+ENG+SPA+AUS cannot be a swell game.

----

No, my conclusion is that although in the EU community all players are theoretically equal, still some are more equal than others.
 
Daniel A said:
No, my conclusion is that although in the EU community all players are theoretically equal, still some are more equal than others.
Click to expand...

Ah! The everlasting discussion about the fights of classes :D. To be a game where one game last several months don't help with the natural tentation to rape the newcomer. It happens with the countries of the newcomer. It happens with some unknown players for some substitutions. I thappens in ....

Being a unknown (and bad) player as I am, I live this situation that you describe and another similar situations but I think that it's somewhat a matter of learning. Everybody wants to win and everybody loves to have a great power and everybody hates to be raped or gangbanged (specially at moments when the country that you get or substitutes to some undelicate permanent player ;) don't seem to deserve this malevolous attention), but unfourtanelly without this bad treatment I feel that the learning process for a EU2 player isn't finished. But sometimes, in some groups, the shock treatment is too brutal...

(We can do the same discussion about the treatment for some ocasional players for some other MP games (vnetters in EU2).... Of course there are many unprepared, bad manners and inadequate new players that can ruin one multiplayer game but there are some other new players that don't deserve the ocasional rude answer (Luckyly I didn't see this rude answer in the EU2 comunity)

PS: BTW The cases that you present are not the general cases and for example I see the raping of 1 country at hands of all the neighbours when the player is not new in the game too (and the people saving my poor country when I was a vnet sub too.. ). It's all about the crew of the game.
 
Last edited:
Daniel A said:
No, my conclusion is that although in the EU community all players are theoretically equal, still some are more equal than others.
Click to expand...

Keep this up, and you'll be the horse sent to the glue factory. :p

I disagree with what you say, and can't see how you find it appropriate to generalise using just one example.

Of course the GM can be annexed like everyone else.
 
Whether nations are a must or not I think is decided much on how much space the GM wants to leave other nations. For example, in your ENG+FRA+SPA+AUS combination, Austria will get a lot more powerful than usual because it will essentially have a free run towards Germany, the Balkans and Poland. SPA and ENG will probably go on as usual, with the risk of SPA declining a lot less because it will still be able to trade properly in end game. FRA can be considered to be a loser in this set-up with its usual neighbours/enemies stronger than they commonly are. However, France will also enjoy some benefits of enhanced trade and colonization possibilities, so I don't really know if any nation is at a disadvantage here.

Let's say though that if any nation in this game is likely to be annexed, it is prolly France. Will it happen? No, people will probably consider it essential like you say, despite the fact French territory is rich and Catholic.

In fact, annexations are fun :D, too bad they don't happen that often. They should be the part of a strategy for some nations; though they seldom are because it's quite an emotional issue as you say. The economic validity is not always there either. Brandenburg provides a much more compact and rich target than Russia. Even if Sweden gets insanely powerful in one game compared to Russia and annex it there's no sense in doing so, unlike the opposite case; Sweden has so many more valuable provinces, and considering Russia has a culture of Finland.

A possible solution always is for an annexed player to jump to a previous AI nation (as long as there aren't insanely many players in the game). After some edits this AI nation ought to be viable, if still not as powerful as had it been played by the same player from the beginning. Good candidates for reintroduction are the Asian nations such as China, Persia or the Mughals; nations in Europe just gets eaten all too quickly.

To make my views clear; everyone should have the right to be annexed! :p However, once it becomes obvious they will become annexed or abhorrently small the player in question should also have the right to quit the game. And like usual, it may not be the smartest thing for his neighbours to allow his annexation considering no one can see into the future and countries gaining on the annexation may become enemies.

I generally try to ease for newbies in whatever sense I can though, the risk is they quit EU2 MP altogether. I don't see any other way to learn by getting raped though. It happens in other online games such as Counter-Strike too; it is just that in EU2 it hurts a lot more because you spend more time with it.
 
Last edited:
Hive said:
Keep this up, and you'll be the horse sent to the glue factory. :p

I disagree with what you say, and can't see how you find it appropriate to generalise using just one example.

Of course the GM can be annexed like everyone else.
Click to expand...

My dear Hive. What exactly is it you do not agree with? That some are more equal than others?

Why wasn't BRB brutally partioned when SWE was? BRB was in the same situation as SWE. Chanceless and with relatively a similar amount of provinces (higher number of provinces but more opponents, 4 compared to 2).

Well, in fact there was a big difference between SWE and BrB. The former had no special enemies IIRC while BrB had and was also much more feared by their neighbours. Thus for selfprotection and revenge the partition of BrB was a much more clear cut case. But still, it was SWE that got raped.

So, what is you answer to the different behaviour of the opponents in these two specific cases Hive?

And have you been in any similar situations that you migth add to the bank of experience on this matter? So that we can make a more secure generalisation ;)
 
Like I said one time already: you *cannot* use one single example for generalisation on the entire board. It just doesn't make sense.

Also, the situations were different. In the NOIV case, the player didn't quit because Sweden was being partitioned - Sweden was partitioned because the player quit. In the other game, noone quit as far as I can tell.
 
In general I think that new players need to realise that what they do has consequences. If they play dirty, others remember that and aren't going to take it easy on them just because they are new. If they act civil, then people will more than likely respect that. It is really necessary that they get placed in easier positions, if they were placed in say, Austria, they would most likely not cope with the amount of neighbours and potenetial enemies they have.

I don't really believe that new players are picked out and not shown as much mercy as more experienced players. Perhaps the more experienced ones are treated slightly differently as they are perceived as more of a threat, but I don't think it is what you make it out to be. I think that as a new player, your lack of experience in EU2 diplomacy limits your ability to 'play the crowd' so to speak and there's where the difference is. The difference is that an experienced players will pick up on the 'poor Sweden' sort of comments and turn them into alliances etc whereas a new player would most likely ignore them and nothing would happen.

I think it has to do with experience and skill more than different player mentality.
 
You were asked to specify what you did not agree with. You respond:
Hive said:
Like I said one time already: you *cannot* use one single example for generalisation on the entire board. It just doesn't make sense.
Click to expand...

First:
-----
Of course you can. I just did it. However the quality of the generalisation is not as good as if I had several cases.


Secondly
---------
What you said in your previous post was
Hive said:
I disagree with what you say, and can't see how you find it appropriate to generalise using just one example.
Click to expand...

The intelligent reader will note the use of the conjunction "and". I.e., besides protesting against my generalisation you also do not agree with what I say. So once again: what is it you disagree with? Or did you write the "and" in error, you meant e.g. "i.e. I". In that case just say so and we can leave this.



Hive said:
Also, the situations were different. In the NOIV case, the player didn't quit because Sweden was being partitioned - Sweden was partitioned because the player quit. In the other game, noone quit as far as I can tell.
Click to expand...

That is not my recollection. SWE was in war with one nation (RUS?) and then another joined (DEN?) and then SWE wanted to quit. However, I may be wrong. But that is mostly academic since you in your previous post acknowledged that the GM surely can be annexed. So, why was not BrB partioned. I wanted it but the rest of the guys apparently did not want it.

Are we all safe from annexations or some more safe than others?
 
Daniel A said:
That is not my recollection. SWE was in war with one nation (RUS?) and then another joined (DEN?) and then SWE wanted to quit. However, I may be wrong.
Click to expand...

Sweden and Brandenburg attacked me alone (Denmark). This was the second time Sweden had attacked me with another nation, after first breaking an NAP so I was within my right to be annoyed at him. After a number of years Russia joined. At the stage where the session ended Brandenburg was still demanding Vastergotland for Sweden. I of course refused and after occupying him, he left and then Russia and I partitioned Sweden.
 
Daniel A said:
You were asked to specify what you did not agree with.
Click to expand...

And I answered you: I don't agree with your assumption that EU2 is a class-based society where some hold more priveleges than others.

That is not my recollection. SWE was in war with one nation (RUS?) and then another joined (DEN?) and then SWE wanted to quit. However, I may be wrong. But that is mostly academic since you in your previous post acknowledged that the GM surely can be annexed. So, why was not BrB partioned. I wanted it but the rest of the guys apparently did not want it.
Click to expand...

Sweden tried an all-out war as a last attempt to gain land from Denmark. He was working together with at least Brandenburg, IIRC. He failed to secure victory, and faced losing 1-2 provinces. But he was NOT reduced to 1-2 provinces at any time. He just decided that his situation was hopeless, and that there was no point in continuing to play. And as a result of that, Denmark and Russia decided to annex Sweden now that they were AI.

Why Brandenburg wasn't annexed in your other game, I do not know. I didn't play in it, and I do not read minds (I haven't done that since the galactic court sanctioned me to stop doing it, or face being thrown into the vulcanic prison pits of Mars). But let me ask you this instead: why *should* Brandenburg have been outright annexed?

Are we all safe from annexations or some more safe than others?
Click to expand...

We are all equal. Different situations require different tactics.
 
Yes, new players to get picked on a little. Also vet players tend to whine more until they get their own way.

Its the same in every computer game community though, not just EU. EU community is easily the most mature ive ever come accross. Mostly because you have to be to get a game
 
I tried to say something along these lines a while back, it didnt go down well. :p

To say the least :D
 
Bumble Bee said:
I tried to say something along these lines a while back, it didnt go down well. :p

To say the least :D
Click to expand...

You attacked a select few people by calling them "elitist scum". It was a slightly different debate, that one.
 
In NOIV the case was that Sweden attacked Denmark together with Brandenburg, but got defeated by Denmark and Russia (he lost Karl). Then he quit. Then he got annexed.

In reality, players usually don't get annexed.
 
Oh, and for the record: I, as a GM, nearly got annexed in NOII. I was reduced to 1 province, and would likely have been completely wasted if not my aggressor got overwhelmed by BB wars afterwards.

But I played on and ended up colonising half of the Inca realm. I was playing Austria. :D
 
sweden and bb where in a completly different situation

1 sirjakop in sweden joined a gang on denmark not knowing me in russia was a ally of denmark :)

2 austria i was subbing
 
Hive said:
Like I said one time already: you *cannot* use one single example for generalisation on the entire board. It just doesn't make sense.

Also, the situations were different. In the NOIV case, the player didn't quit because Sweden was being partitioned - Sweden was partitioned because the player quit. In the other game, noone quit as far as I can tell.
Click to expand...

hive is right before the player quit demand was 1-2provs on sweden
 
FAL said:
In NOIV the case was that Sweden attacked Denmark together with Brandenburg, but got defeated by Denmark and Russia (he lost Karl). Then he quit. Then he got annexed.

In reality, players usually don't get annexed.
Click to expand...

I agree, is quite strange that players are annexed. And the example given is -if the other information is right- not that good for Daniel thesis: Sweden was not under threat of annexation when it was being played (it lost a war against 2 enemies, nothing that unusual).

Actually, according to my experience, newbies are treated rather well in games (if they can join, that is the most difficult thing to them. I still remember that I started playing EU2 MP in a way that is near impossible now: as a random Vnet newbie)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back