-
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.
Nabukodonosor said:
if you're going to argue semantics anyway..
I'd suggest removing the "want to" (and replace it with "plan to" or somesuch)
..otherwise someone IS eventually going to argue that he didn't in fact WANT to dow the vassal, but did so out of convenience
Oz,
In point of fact, I DOWed KOJ before I began moving my army into Catalonia. The point was to do a quick sea borne assault at full morale just as the war began. I wasn't specifically using MA to do this-it just allowed me to start the march before Aladar honored. I got so caught up in the ensuing argument that I forgot to stop it, which I would've done. Not only do I disapprove of that kind of gamey tactic, it was costing me 18 in attrition and drastically reduced Norfolk's expeditionary force (such that no invasion of Iberia was ever launched in earnest).
The reason I DOWed the vassal and not Aragon directly was to preserve the element of surprise, not to abuse MA. Although forcing the enemy to cancel and making use of it for as long as he overlooks it isn't bad play at all in my book (it's akin to planting loyalists and spies in enemy territory), when I got it from John I made clear I'd cancel it in the event of war. Which I would've done irrespective of the DOW situation. All I wanted was the surprise blitz.
I fight fair. Period. I may be brutal and ruthless, but I'm neither cheap nor gamey nor an asshole.
Next time, get the facts.
Nabu,
Aladar has been unabashedly hostile to me all game, at the expense of his objectivity and GMing.
I won't apologize for calling it as I see it.
In point of fact, I DOWed KOJ before I began moving my army into Catalonia. The point was to do a quick sea borne assault at full morale just as the war began. I wasn't specifically using MA to do this-it just allowed me to start the march before Aladar honored. I got so caught up in the ensuing argument that I forgot to stop it, which I would've done. Not only do I disapprove of that kind of gamey tactic, it was costing me 18 in attrition and drastically reduced Norfolk's expeditionary force (such that no invasion of Iberia was ever launched in earnest).
The reason I DOWed the vassal and not Aragon directly was to preserve the element of surprise, not to abuse MA. Although forcing the enemy to cancel and making use of it for as long as he overlooks it isn't bad play at all in my book (it's akin to planting loyalists and spies in enemy territory), when I got it from John I made clear I'd cancel it in the event of war. Which I would've done irrespective of the DOW situation. All I wanted was the surprise blitz.
I fight fair. Period. I may be brutal and ruthless, but I'm neither cheap nor gamey nor an asshole.
Next time, get the facts.
Nabu,
Aladar has been unabashedly hostile to me all game, at the expense of his objectivity and GMing.
I won't apologize for calling it as I see it.
I only used the word asshole because you used it HoG. Maybe after being called one yourself you may think twice before using the word again. And if you argue like this than Aladar was just brutal and ruthless also, not an asshole (nor gamey, nor cheap) like you said before.
And btw, it IS bad play in my book.
And btw, it IS bad play in my book.
Oz,
Bad play or not, it isn't what I did.
And yes, Aladar was brutal and ruthless. But unnecessarily so, and I made it very cear to him what the consequences would be. Refusing to honor an alliance call so the other guy has to take -2 stab is only a viable tactic if you're up to winning a war.
Regardless, what I did wasn't gamey and it wasn't cheap. Aladar made a conscious choice to dishonor and paid the price for it. All I was saying-all I've been saying all along-is that being pedantic and unsporting can get you into trouble.
I'd appreciate it, by the way, if you rescinded your last post. I don't fight that way and everybody who's played with me extensively knows it.
Bad play or not, it isn't what I did.
And yes, Aladar was brutal and ruthless. But unnecessarily so, and I made it very cear to him what the consequences would be. Refusing to honor an alliance call so the other guy has to take -2 stab is only a viable tactic if you're up to winning a war.
Regardless, what I did wasn't gamey and it wasn't cheap. Aladar made a conscious choice to dishonor and paid the price for it. All I was saying-all I've been saying all along-is that being pedantic and unsporting can get you into trouble.
I'd appreciate it, by the way, if you rescinded your last post. I don't fight that way and everybody who's played with me extensively knows it.
HolisticGod said:
I don't see why it would be necessary for you, considering your country is multiple times stronger than his.
HolisticGod said:
Then there shouldn't be a problem if those people know it. At the end of the post I said that I will stand by my point unless someone impartial corrects me. You are in no way impartial. Any view you had of the situation is going to be very coloured. Bob was the most impartial person I saw that responded. So I went with his information. If this information is incorrect and yours is correct, then "The thing Bob said, about you putting an army in catalonia hoping for Aladar to honour the call to annihilate his army there immediately... that makes you a huge asshole in my view." can be considered void in that post.
However, even if you are telling the truth it is still a cheap tactic in my view. Why? Well Aladar will always take some time to honour the call. He will have to read who DoWs who exactly wouldn't he? So during those precious seconds, your army is already marching towards Catalonia. When he then decides to honour, your army will be close to arriving (since it takes only 15/20 days IIRC, less if only cavalry is used). This makes him unable to respond by for example moving armies from a neighbouring prov to catalonia. So in that way, you DID abuse the MA, since you could never have done that if you didn't have MA. And that I find cheap.
EDIT - Btw, when were you exactly planning to cancel MA? Before or after you had avoided attrition?
Oz,
As soon as I had the diplomats to do so. Technically, I was probably able to cancel MA immediately after DOWing Jerusalem, but the argument broke out right away and I didn't do it until after my troops had withdrawn from Spain.
The timing of it is my fault. The fact remains, however, that even if Aladar had left MA intact and I hadn't canceled it-something I simply would never have done-he lost more by dishonoring and forcing me down to -2 stab than he would have honoring.
As for the rest, the fact that you weren't even there, and all I said to begin with was that Aladar fucked himself by being intentionally malicious and pedantic, makes this a pretty meaningless argument.
By the way, pop onto ICQ when you get a chance, would you? I gotta ask you a question.
As soon as I had the diplomats to do so. Technically, I was probably able to cancel MA immediately after DOWing Jerusalem, but the argument broke out right away and I didn't do it until after my troops had withdrawn from Spain.
The timing of it is my fault. The fact remains, however, that even if Aladar had left MA intact and I hadn't canceled it-something I simply would never have done-he lost more by dishonoring and forcing me down to -2 stab than he would have honoring.
As for the rest, the fact that you weren't even there, and all I said to begin with was that Aladar fucked himself by being intentionally malicious and pedantic, makes this a pretty meaningless argument.
By the way, pop onto ICQ when you get a chance, would you? I gotta ask you a question.
"If you want to dow a vassal nation always dow the overlord."
That was the rule.
First all of you are ALL responsible to have accepted such a bad wording.
For instance, if one claimed that he DOWs a vassal not because he "wants to" but because he threw a dice and it came up with a 6 and that meant he had to DOW them (just because he decided so before he threw), then he would not have broken this rule.
Then we have Nabu's complain about the "first". Nabu, have you ever thought about becoming what we in Sweden call a "gutter-lawyer" because that is the kind of logic they use - from a word by word analysis impeccable but so far from reason and reality - as was my own "dice" comparison BTW so I am well-fitted to be one myself
Anyway, it appears the rule that was intended was (and thus should be written as) :
It is forbidden to DOW an AI vassal of a human player if
a) the human player have an alliance with the vassal
b) and the human player would suffer a stab drop because of a break of truce when he joins the war on the side of his vassal
You may note that with this wording the stab hit also includes breaks of truce vs an ally of the DOWer, not only the DOWer himself. Thus the DOWer must be careful with inviting other nations in the war until the liege has entered it.
(The only glitch I can find just now with this suggestion is that it is possible for the DOWer to DOW just after the alliance of the vassal and his liege ends and before they can form a new alliance. You may need an addendum covering this case.)
If the intention was another one than this then write that instead. The ideal rule is always one that leaves as little room as possible for interpretation.
That was the rule.
First all of you are ALL responsible to have accepted such a bad wording.
For instance, if one claimed that he DOWs a vassal not because he "wants to" but because he threw a dice and it came up with a 6 and that meant he had to DOW them (just because he decided so before he threw), then he would not have broken this rule.
Then we have Nabu's complain about the "first". Nabu, have you ever thought about becoming what we in Sweden call a "gutter-lawyer" because that is the kind of logic they use - from a word by word analysis impeccable but so far from reason and reality - as was my own "dice" comparison BTW so I am well-fitted to be one myself
Anyway, it appears the rule that was intended was (and thus should be written as) :
It is forbidden to DOW an AI vassal of a human player if
a) the human player have an alliance with the vassal
b) and the human player would suffer a stab drop because of a break of truce when he joins the war on the side of his vassal
You may note that with this wording the stab hit also includes breaks of truce vs an ally of the DOWer, not only the DOWer himself. Thus the DOWer must be careful with inviting other nations in the war until the liege has entered it.
(The only glitch I can find just now with this suggestion is that it is possible for the DOWer to DOW just after the alliance of the vassal and his liege ends and before they can form a new alliance. You may need an addendum covering this case.)
If the intention was another one than this then write that instead. The ideal rule is always one that leaves as little room as possible for interpretation.
Seems a good one Daniel.
And HoG, I might not've been there but no one who was there actually took up the argument... so I felt a bit compelled to do so.
Anyway, I won't be on ICQ till tonight, but then I have Kingdom Stage so won't be available either. Probably tomorrow is the first time I'll be around longer.
And HoG, I might not've been there but no one who was there actually took up the argument... so I felt a bit compelled to do so.
Anyway, I won't be on ICQ till tonight, but then I have Kingdom Stage so won't be available either. Probably tomorrow is the first time I'll be around longer.
Daniel A said:rännstensadvokat....
Hehe, still never heard of it, but it makes more sense now, thanks.
sorry guys
i ve issues with my provider
i dont have internet conn at work,and now i m at home of some friends
they said me that would have contacted me enter 5 days,but nothing until now (i called them monday afternoon,when probs started)
i dont have either ICQ here
HG : i doubt i ll be able to play tonight,and find a sub too
sorry guys,i ll let u know
i ve issues with my provider
i dont have internet conn at work,and now i m at home of some friends
they said me that would have contacted me enter 5 days,but nothing until now (i called them monday afternoon,when probs started)
i dont have either ICQ here
HG : i doubt i ll be able to play tonight,and find a sub too
sorry guys,i ll let u know
Daniel,
I don't know what gutter-lawyer is. My father is a lawyer though, and I have met several others in my short life. All of them advised me the same; never sign any contract without a lawyer. One word that you have undertood in your own way can change the meaning of whole contract, and you can't say that judge is a gutter lawyer in the court (whatever it means).
I have asked HoG or anybody else whose native language is English to correct and specify rules. (to make them uber precise) They refused.
Let me tell you one true story though;
One manager of one big company ordered huge ammount of goods from foreign country. He went there without a lawyer and signed an order. There was one small paragraph which said; 'this contract is made under standard conditions'. Or something like that... Standard conditions of that company was a book of 2000 pages but our manager didn't know that - haven't even noticed that paragraph according to what he said. When goods came they were spoiled but something that was written in that book prevented our company to ask for refundation. Several millions of dollars were lost. Among many people that were asked for advice was my father and he was left speachless. He advised manager to never sign another contract without a lawyer. Later he told me that man is an idiot. Company lost money, manager lost his job and I have learned a lesson.
I don't know what gutter-lawyer is. My father is a lawyer though, and I have met several others in my short life. All of them advised me the same; never sign any contract without a lawyer. One word that you have undertood in your own way can change the meaning of whole contract, and you can't say that judge is a gutter lawyer in the court (whatever it means).
I have asked HoG or anybody else whose native language is English to correct and specify rules. (to make them uber precise) They refused.
Let me tell you one true story though;
One manager of one big company ordered huge ammount of goods from foreign country. He went there without a lawyer and signed an order. There was one small paragraph which said; 'this contract is made under standard conditions'. Or something like that... Standard conditions of that company was a book of 2000 pages but our manager didn't know that - haven't even noticed that paragraph according to what he said. When goods came they were spoiled but something that was written in that book prevented our company to ask for refundation. Several millions of dollars were lost. Among many people that were asked for advice was my father and he was left speachless. He advised manager to never sign another contract without a lawyer. Later he told me that man is an idiot. Company lost money, manager lost his job and I have learned a lesson.
Nabukodonosor said:
The important thing is we all learnt a valuable lesson and everybody is ok...
umm... wait..
First of all i'll now violate rule no. 1 - sorry about that but i have no other choice.
HG did you ever consider, that the reason i've been "hostile" towards you the entire game, is because of these arguments you keep comming up with. They are never objective and always favor you, eventhou you try to cloud them in historical claims and so on.
The DOW of KOJ was a clear violation of the rule, be it badly written or not, you can't earnestly claim not to understand it.
Furthermore, you gained MA from my sub, something that i would never have given you in the first place. I didn't notice this, mostly because i had no reason to think it was given to you. I do believe you knew i myself would never give it, so getting my sub to give it to you seems somewhat gamey in my view.
I didn't because attacking my vassel is against the rules. That doesn't make me a prick and a pedant.
You did break the vassel rule.
So you attack my vassel and expect that i make sure, you suffer as little stabhit for it as possible?
Once again, it's not my problem that you have to take stabhits to attack me.
Does making the argument over and over again justify breaking the rules? It appears that YOU think so.
Yes i'm the bad guy here....i see it clearly now that you have pointed it out so many times.
First you argue didn't cancel MA to keep the element of surprise, then that i would probably forget to cancel it, which would be great for you, and then that you promised John, that you would cancel it in event of war.
And in the same point claim to fight fair, neither cheap nor gamey nor an asshole
Once again, why should i make sure you don't loose stab? And yes "being pedantic and unsporting can get you into trouble". But it only seems to be you are are these things.
*********************************************************
I the light of all this, i therefore rule the following.
All provinses and vassels will be edited back to before the war, since they were taken in disrespect of the vasselrule, which is there to prevent these kinds of vasselraping.
Why this harsh ruling you might ask. Had England not gone around the rules, he would have had to dow every vassel on by one, since i would never have called them, loosing much more stab and gaining a lot of BB.
I realise that this will ofcourse upset HG severly, but as he posted himself, being pedantic and unsporting can get you into trouble. And yes, this did get you into trouble.
Furthermore, i'll rewrite the vasselrule to what Daniel posted so that i can't be misused later on, and add the rule that MA has to be cancelled if at war.
********************************************************
Sorry again for making it such a long post, i know they are a drag to get throu.
Aladar
GM
HG did you ever consider, that the reason i've been "hostile" towards you the entire game, is because of these arguments you keep comming up with. They are never objective and always favor you, eventhou you try to cloud them in historical claims and so on.
The DOW of KOJ was a clear violation of the rule, be it badly written or not, you can't earnestly claim not to understand it.
Furthermore, you gained MA from my sub, something that i would never have given you in the first place. I didn't notice this, mostly because i had no reason to think it was given to you. I do believe you knew i myself would never give it, so getting my sub to give it to you seems somewhat gamey in my view.
HolisticGod said:
I didn't because attacking my vassel is against the rules. That doesn't make me a prick and a pedant.
HolisticGod said:
You did break the vassel rule.
HolisticGod said:
So you attack my vassel and expect that i make sure, you suffer as little stabhit for it as possible?
HolisticGod said:
Once again, it's not my problem that you have to take stabhits to attack me.
HolisticGod said:
Does making the argument over and over again justify breaking the rules? It appears that YOU think so.
HolisticGod said:
Yes i'm the bad guy here....i see it clearly now that you have pointed it out so many times.
HolisticGod said:
First you argue didn't cancel MA to keep the element of surprise, then that i would probably forget to cancel it, which would be great for you, and then that you promised John, that you would cancel it in event of war.
And in the same point claim to fight fair, neither cheap nor gamey nor an asshole
HolisticGod said:
Once again, why should i make sure you don't loose stab? And yes "being pedantic and unsporting can get you into trouble". But it only seems to be you are are these things.
*********************************************************
I the light of all this, i therefore rule the following.
All provinses and vassels will be edited back to before the war, since they were taken in disrespect of the vasselrule, which is there to prevent these kinds of vasselraping.
Why this harsh ruling you might ask. Had England not gone around the rules, he would have had to dow every vassel on by one, since i would never have called them, loosing much more stab and gaining a lot of BB.
I realise that this will ofcourse upset HG severly, but as he posted himself, being pedantic and unsporting can get you into trouble. And yes, this did get you into trouble.
Furthermore, i'll rewrite the vasselrule to what Daniel posted so that i can't be misused later on, and add the rule that MA has to be cancelled if at war.
********************************************************
Sorry again for making it such a long post, i know they are a drag to get throu.
Aladar
GM
Aladar,
That's not happening. Period.
I didn't break the rule in any way, shape or form. Neither the spirit nor the letter. The rule doesn't prohibit DOWing vassals, it just requires one to also DOW the overlord, which I did. Before I ever touched one of the vassals.
And even if you make the absurd argument that the one extra month it took to cancel MA and then DOW counts as a violation, undoing the effects of an entire war (which you, the "GM," happened to lose) to compensate for that one month is quite silly. Especially long after it actually took place, when you had no complaint and simply enforced the rule, which I followed.
It ain't happening.
EDIT: As far as the arguments I made, reread them. And then read them again. And again after that.
What I said is that in normal circumstances, I don't think using MA you've been granted (which is a risk) and forcing the other guy to cancel it is gamey. Ruthless, yes. But not gamey. If you ask around, people don't generally cancel MA themselves if they can possibly avoid it. Now, if you create a rule to that effect that's fine with me. People should require it be canceled after the purpose for which it's used anyway.
However, in this case I would've canceled it myself right away because I told John I would in the event of war. Also, the -1 stab you took to dishonor is the same as the -1 stab it would've cost you to revoke. So it wouldn't have cost you any more than that.
And I got it from John to move a fleet to the Med. I had no idea you wouldn't have granted this, but in any case it made no difference as the fleet I wound up moving was 100+ and so didn't need ports.
That's not happening. Period.
I didn't break the rule in any way, shape or form. Neither the spirit nor the letter. The rule doesn't prohibit DOWing vassals, it just requires one to also DOW the overlord, which I did. Before I ever touched one of the vassals.
And even if you make the absurd argument that the one extra month it took to cancel MA and then DOW counts as a violation, undoing the effects of an entire war (which you, the "GM," happened to lose) to compensate for that one month is quite silly. Especially long after it actually took place, when you had no complaint and simply enforced the rule, which I followed.
It ain't happening.
EDIT: As far as the arguments I made, reread them. And then read them again. And again after that.
What I said is that in normal circumstances, I don't think using MA you've been granted (which is a risk) and forcing the other guy to cancel it is gamey. Ruthless, yes. But not gamey. If you ask around, people don't generally cancel MA themselves if they can possibly avoid it. Now, if you create a rule to that effect that's fine with me. People should require it be canceled after the purpose for which it's used anyway.
However, in this case I would've canceled it myself right away because I told John I would in the event of war. Also, the -1 stab you took to dishonor is the same as the -1 stab it would've cost you to revoke. So it wouldn't have cost you any more than that.
And I got it from John to move a fleet to the Med. I had no idea you wouldn't have granted this, but in any case it made no difference as the fleet I wound up moving was 100+ and so didn't need ports.
Last edited:
HolisticGod said:
Wars can't be undone in such way Aladar. You are overreacting. Contact eachother via ICQ. Don't dissapoint us.
And HoG didn't break any rule!!!!!
Last edited:
Aladar,
Incidentally, Siena wasn't even a vassal and it was the only one I did anything with, apart from MA from Ancona that I didn't need.
It was nothing more than an ally, making your reasoning all the more suspect. Moreover, even if I'd DOWed you first (something not required by the rule nor by practice-DOW of the overlord has always come second in this game) and then Jerusalem, it still would've called all the other members of the alliance. Hence no extra stabhits, no extra BB, nothing.
Incidentally, Siena wasn't even a vassal and it was the only one I did anything with, apart from MA from Ancona that I didn't need.
It was nothing more than an ally, making your reasoning all the more suspect. Moreover, even if I'd DOWed you first (something not required by the rule nor by practice-DOW of the overlord has always come second in this game) and then Jerusalem, it still would've called all the other members of the alliance. Hence no extra stabhits, no extra BB, nothing.