Defeat Before Dismemberment - rules discussion

[unmerged(18425)]

Defeat Before Dismemberment - Rules discussions thread.

Rules:

1. Obey the GM. He is your King and Absolute Ruler.
2. Vassals not allowed for nations 0-7 CENTRALIZATION. Nations with vassals ending a session at <8 CENT will lose their vassals. Exceptions will possibly be made for nations with small starting manpower up to the discretion of the GM. See rule 1.
3. The GM reserves the right to edit out the effect of a bug, when he thinks this is necessary. See rule 1.
4. Naval nations (nations with the land/naval slider below 5) aren't allowed to sign TA's with other human played naval nations. This to break the traditional trade blocks and promote trade wars.
5. Using certain exploits is forbidden. See below for more details:

General rule: if you think something is an exploit, then it is likely that it is one. When in doubt ask the GM.

The following is forbidden. The list is probably not complete.

• Attacking an enemy fleet with pirates, as well as comparatively very small fleets, only made to inhibit loading/landing.
• Releasing one or more vassals during wartime, to hinder an enemy.
• Force-burning of manufactories, i.e. repeated move and halt orders to an army in a province with a manufactory.
• Using lag to your advantage. This includes (but is not limited to): Sending lag colonists, building lag fortresses, sending lag missionaries, using lag diplomats. (The exception is using lag diplomats to send cash).
• Declaring a 'fake' war on a country, with the aim to:
  • Increase the stability of the nation you declare war on.
  • Change the religion of a protestant or Counter-Reformed-Catholic nation back to Catholicism before the Edict of Tolerance.
• Exploiting Simultanity: Using the game engine to break a deal, that would occur simultaneously in the real word. This includes (but is not limited to) the 'sale' of something in game.
• Converting from Catholiscism to either Counter-reformed-Catholicism or Protestantism and then switching back to Catholiscism before the Edict of Tolerance.
• Cancelling being the vassal of another player within 10 years, except when an event allows you to do so.
• Vassalizing countries when you are below centralization 8 (EXCEPTION: Brandenburg)
• Avoiding the Spanish bankruptcy events, by giving/selling/ceding in a fake war/revolting away the trigger provinces to another country.
• Trading maps with the AI.
• Sending loans to the AI.

The following is allowed:

• Breaking a truce, even when at negative stab.
• Not leaving a human alliance, despite the alliance leader asking you to do so.
• Landing armies in the port of a country you are in war with, because you still have Military Access.
• Sacking capitals for maps
• Stealing sieges

 

[Ampoliros]

Aye! I´m in.
My favored countries are :

1. France
2. England
3. Sweden

 

[Tonioz]

if it starts later February, i would be happy to join at any nation

 

[Tonioz]

by the way, FAL, you are cruel maniac

 

[Tonioz]

... because of the gamename and the schedule

 

[Casluerj]

FAL,

To early for me... However I could sub sometimes.

 

[unmerged(6147)]

A few points on the rules.


STAB HIT RULE

We miss a stab hit rule. I will simply not play versus certain players without a stab hit rule. And we cannot have one where you need to monitor your running warscore all the time.


LOANS TO THE AI

I have stated before that I dislike the ban on loans to the AI. As it is it merely means a super advantage for Spain. Besides it is a technique that not all master, some are not even aware of it. What you should forbid is loans to the AI for more than a certain number of months, e.g. one month. We do not want players to earn money by giving loans to the AI, of that I believe we all agree.


BANKRUPTCY EVENT

First you you seem to say you like it if someone takes the gold in America from Spain (although you mention a leader whose life span occurs when the bankruptcy events have expired). Then you say it is forbidden for Spain to "cede" it. Well that is a paradox.


USING BUGS

It is not good with rules whose contents is unknown for the player. We have one such rule:

[*]Using bugs listed in the bug thread to your advantage.

I have no idea what is listed as a bug and what is not (well, a few I know of). Not even Andrew knows that.

I could even make a silly example: assume that this de Ruyter business, that you posted and reported as a bug a week ago, was about his life span in the game being too long, not to short. Well, applying your rule would mean that it was forbidden to use him after his actual death date, a date that will be implemented in the game in the next patch. Does a bug report about any a leader already exist in the bug list? Well, how could I know, I have not learned these rulesby heart. But if you FAL insist on this rule then you have better know the answer. We cannot have a GM decision a day after the session and then decide that the use of this particular leader at this or that time was illegal and thus the following edits should be made. That would be stupid.

 

[unmerged(18425)]

A few points on the rules.

You are later with this than I expected But good points are raised.

STAB HIT RULE
We miss a stab hit rule. I will simply not play versus certain players without a stab hit rule. And we cannot have one where you need to monitor your running warscore all the time.

I need to think about this. My last version of a stab hit rule wasn't perfect. I dislike most of the other versions of it, mainly because I was victim of it myself
I do understand the issues that can arise when there's no stab hit rule.

LOANS TO THE AI

I have stated before that I dislike the ban on loans to the AI. As it is it merely means a super advantage for Spain. Besides it is a technique that not all master, some are not even aware of it. What you should forbid is loans to the AI for more than a certain number of months, e.g. one month. We do not want players to earn money by giving loans to the AI, of that I believe we all agree.

I don't want players getting cb's by loaning money to the AI. And I have done that with Spain a lot to get free cb's to take Italy. It stinks.

What are the advantages of being able to loanshark the AI?

BANKRUPTCY EVENT

First you you seem to say you like it if someone takes the gold in America from Spain (although you mention a leader whose life span occurs when the bankruptcy events have expired). Then you say it is forbidden for Spain to "cede" it. Well that is a paradox.

I meant of course ceding it in a fake war. I shall reword that.

But I invite you to come up with a solid bankruptcy rule for Spain. And I promise you that you don't need to play them

I have no idea what is listed as a bug and what is not (well, a few I know of). Not even Andrew knows that.

You know the important ones and I am sure others do to. This argument is a little pedantic, even for you Daniel

I assure you that I won't use the 'use of bugs' against you if it's about leader death dates or other silly things. I think I will just ask you to trust me as a GM here. I must as a GM be able to edit out the effect of a bug if necessary, hence the rule.

Or do you really want me to look up all bugs I consider to be an exploit and specifically list it here?

 

[Fredrik82]

1419 scenario? Oh god...

sign me up for now

 

[unmerged(18425)]

sign me up for now

Excellent. Now I only need to let you and Tonio fight the HYW out

 

[Tonioz]

by the way, FAL, you need early French leaders to compensate France vs Henry. That was discussed a long time ago, when AoI was created, and there were tests for that. Hive made some decision, which is not my top favor, but enough good.

And it is not interesting to beat Fredrik in HYW, i did that easily at those tests If i remember correctly, as both England and France.

 

[unmerged(18425)]

by the way, FAL, you need early French leaders to compensate France vs Henry. That was discussed a long time ago, when AoI was created, and there were tests for that. Hive made some decision, which is not my top favor, but enough good.

Tonio, you are probably the most experienced one with a 1419 scenario.

I would appreciate it that you send me all your input that I need to do before I start. This will be my first time with a GC.

And it is not interesting to beat Fredrik in HYW, i did that easily at those tests If i remember correctly, as both England and France.

Heh,

If you and Fredrik indeed will participate both in this game, I will make sure he is Russia and you are Portugal, or something like that, to make sure everyone keeps their sanity

 

[Tonioz]

yes, please

though ... in med february i gonna visit Tago from Moscow, so they are directly connected and neighbored :rofl:

 

[unmerged(6147)]

I dislike most of the other versions of it, mainly because I was victim of it myself

Better an imperfect version as none. I see no big problem with
- stab at -3
- WS at -99
- war between the two parties having gone on for X years

If you are presently staging a comeback, as you were with FRA in that game you are thinking about, well you should have thought about that earlier.

I don't want players getting cb's by loaning money to the AI. And I have done that with Spain a lot to get free cb's to take Italy. It stinks.

What are the advantages of being able to loanshark the AI?

I wrote that: there is skill involved in using this. Some even do not know about the trick. As it is SPA has CB on half the world, this merely equalises the situation somewhat.

And it is not a question of "loansharking" the AI. I specifically took up that matter in my previous post.

----------

I will not play Spain and if the one playing them is so stupid he lies himself flat on the floor and accepts the bankruptcy without struggle, well then that is his problem. Thus I will not spend time on creating such a rule. Whatever I came up with would certainly not be to your liking anyway.

You know the important ones and I am sure others do to. This argument is a little pedantic, even for you Daniel

No it is not. This kind of rule opens up a can of worms.

I will now read from top of the september bug list present in the bug forum

First one
"Can send another diplomat immediately after some diplomatic actions such as sharing maps"

Well, a hit directly. We cannot have rules that it is virtually impossible to monitor in most cases.

2nd one

"No rebels appear in low populated province despite rebellion message.."

Well, if there had been rebs you would have needed to send an army there to squash the rebs. Now you will not. If you do not send an army to this province you break the rule (also some of your soldiers must arguably be disbanded to account for those who would have died fighting the rebs).

3rd bug
"Winter conditions do not appear enough or at all in some areas."

Well, if there had been winter you might have let your army march another, longer route, but now perhaps you do not care (providing you are so knowledgeable that you know what provinces this is). Well, then you are breaking FAL's rule.

Ok, this was three hits out of three possible. And don't tell me this are "silly examples". No two persons have the same definition of that. And I have no time reading the whole bug list...

Or do you really want me to look up all buys I consider to be an exploit and specifically list it here?

Yes, please simply say what is not allowed. Even more easy: just delete the rule. Name a specific bug that makes you wanting it. If it is a good reason, then put it in the rules instead of hiding it in a general ruls He who implements such a rule should make sure he has considered the consequences.

I repeat: we cannot have decisions being made one day later when we finally can digest and analyse a certain bug and see if an edit should be done. We want to play the game as it is and not being embroiled in discussions about how to apply a rule. That normally creates bad vibrations. As Robertus last night when he got angered because I looted Spain. And perhaps Ozzeh as well got sour because I started sieging. Also in that case it was a case of clarity: I had not understood nor accepted your statement of not sieging his provinces. A misunderstanding.

As I have written many times before, clarity is the number one priority when making rules. For example "fairness" comes behind, far behind. Now repeat that 10 times in your head and you will never again making the same mistake of constructing a rule like this.

 

[Tonioz]

i will devote special post about HYW tomorrow, i suppose

 

[unmerged(38752)]

And perhaps Ozzeh as well got sour because I started sieging. Also in that case it was a case of clarity: I had not understood nor accepted your statement of not sieging his provinces. A misunderstanding.

Daniel, the problem there is just that you don't pay enough attention to the chat Which I have tried to solve but as of yet have been unsuccesful

 

[unmerged(18425)]

Better an imperfect version as none. I see no big problem with
- stab at -3
- WS at -99
- war between the two parties having gone on for X years

If you are presently staging a comeback, as you were with FRA in that game you are thinking about, well you should have thought about that earlier.

It's not that simple. In that game there was no x-years rule. Adding that already helps. But I think about this and make a decision later.

I more and more believe in that you are allowed to come back, if you still have standing armies. Why shouldn't you?

I wrote that: there is skill involved in using this. Some even do not know about the trick. As it is SPA has CB on half the world, this merely equalises the situation somewhat.

Okay indeed, it requires some skill. But there's a reason why Spain has CB's from start and other countries haven't. I want to keep it that way. So, I forbid loaning money to the AI both for the CB issue and for the loansharking issue (the latter isn't possible anymore with 1.09 I believe).

In my games Spain has an advantage in some ways (their CB's, early conquistadors and explorers and their opportunity to dominate the game till 1630) and a disadvantage (bankruptcies). It stays that way. If no one wants to play Spain under these circumstances, I will do it myself.

No it is not. This kind of rule opens up a can of worms.

Yet two MP campaigns went perfect with that can of worm rule, which incidentally you only have a problem with since now, despite you being involved in the exploit list since I created it. Nor has anyone else reported problems with it

You surprise me with this and I still find your arguments a bit pedantic. However, I cannot refute the issues you raise now. (I could make a claim on common sense, which I will not do). So I offer an alternative for that rule:

'The GM reserves the right to edit out the effect of a bug, when he thinks this is necessary'.

Is that good enough?

I repeat: we cannot have decisions being made one day later when we finally can digest and analyse a certain bug and see if an edit should be done. We want to play the game as it is and not being embroiled in discussions about how to apply a rule. That normally creates bad vibrations. As Robertus last night when he got angered because I looted Spain. And perhaps Ozzeh as well got sour because I started sieging. Also in that case it was a case of clarity: I had not understood nor accepted your statement of not sieging his provinces. A misunderstanding.

That misunderstanding was only there because you failed to read the in game chat properly. I can't help that.

 

[unmerged(6147)]

That misunderstanding was only there because you failed to read the in game chat properly. I can't help that.

Of course you can FAL, what you should have done was:

When I specified what I considered my obligation about FRA vs VEN you should have read it carefully and noted that it did not cover the same are that you had just told me not to do. Why did I not merely say "Yes", and what was it that I referred to in my statement" was questions you should have asked yourself. Then you would have asked me something like
"Daniel, you are not allowed to enter Venetian land, nor try to take back provinces presently under Venetian control. Say "I understand" if you do".

Then I would have understood (and incidentally immediately left the game but that is another story).

It is extremely important that the GM takes charge in situations like this and makes sure all parties have understood. That can always be done.

 

[unmerged(38752)]

Of course you can FAL, what you should have done was:

When I specified what I considered my obligation about FRA vs VEN you should have read it carefully and noted that it did not cover the same are that you had just told me not to do. Why did I not merely say "Yes", and what was it that I referred to in my statement" was questions you should have asked yourself. Then you would have asked me something like
"Daniel, you are not allowed to enter Venetian land, nor try to take back provinces presently under Venetian control. Say "I understand" if you do".

Then I would have understood (and incidentally immediately left the game but that is another story).

It is extremely important that the GM takes charge in situations like this and makes sure all parties have understood. That can always be done.

So you say FAL should have analysed your responses in the in-game chat to the letter, but you on the other hand are not required to read his instructions just as carefully?

 

[unmerged(6147)]

'The GM reserves the right to edit out the effect of a bug, when he thinks this is necessary'.

Is that good enough?

This is a much better rule. And one I believe is implicit in all games.

You see the big difference I assume. Here you do not put any duty on the player. As it should be. As few rules as possible for him to remember.

But I admit, it is not 100% clear. But since the game is filled with bugs (like the AI cannot handle attrition and thus has been given no attrition at sea at all and thus all ships are far away when the AI runs the show and thus you will often lose a lot of ships when you start up the session after having been AI and thus you deserve an edit to compensate for this loss) we have to live with it.