Cigarettes help you to stay up?R3lic said:
Oh, and being out on the beach/in the park drinking, is a very fun thing to do. Just not so common on a Wednesday.
-
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.
Oh, and being out on the beach/in the park drinking, is a very fun thing to do. Just not so common on a Wednesday.
First it was a Thursday morning. And second, no they don't. But they keep the room from spinning so fast and the go great with a cup of black coffee.
This session was awful. The GM breaching a rule is not something I am willing to accept. Furthermore, the game gets very annoying with all the lagloans. Every time I would recruit troops, leaving an amount 10-15 ducats in the treasury, it would lead to an auto-loan just after. It lead to bankruptcy eventually.
It's hard to edit out. All the money I got from the loans meant more troops, which meant that I could fend away enemies easier. So just reducing inflation won't do much. If we can't solve this somehow, I can't play the game.
To Wari Bana: Dude, you need to calm down. You can't occupy three provinces, get 25 warscore, and expect me to surrender. When I offered you Paris (18%) with you having 20%, it is a very good offer. Take it, and go for more in next war. Otherwise, we will just keep warring forever, with no side able to totally crush the other. Now the warscore is +3 to me, which means you are in no position to demand anything.
To R3lic: I suggest you play some Castile in SP, and make up a game strategy. Because just doing the dirty work of other nations won't help you get anywhere. Sure, if you really want to war with me, then do that, and I will do my best to defend myself. But do it with a purpose. Don't just land in England with 30K, be beaten back, and WP. Get some nice warscore and do some demands. A reasonable thing would be, perhaps, Ireland. But even better is, like martin suggested, Italy. It is completely open, no player interference, and very rich.
To martin: Get your act together and ally me. I need someone who can take that powerhungry Austria down to the earth. Germany isn't enough for them. Also, since we are only 5 players, and 3 are against me already, it's just fair that we start doing some real co-op.
It's hard to edit out. All the money I got from the loans meant more troops, which meant that I could fend away enemies easier. So just reducing inflation won't do much. If we can't solve this somehow, I can't play the game.
To Wari Bana: Dude, you need to calm down. You can't occupy three provinces, get 25 warscore, and expect me to surrender. When I offered you Paris (18%) with you having 20%, it is a very good offer. Take it, and go for more in next war. Otherwise, we will just keep warring forever, with no side able to totally crush the other. Now the warscore is +3 to me, which means you are in no position to demand anything.
To R3lic: I suggest you play some Castile in SP, and make up a game strategy. Because just doing the dirty work of other nations won't help you get anywhere. Sure, if you really want to war with me, then do that, and I will do my best to defend myself. But do it with a purpose. Don't just land in England with 30K, be beaten back, and WP. Get some nice warscore and do some demands. A reasonable thing would be, perhaps, Ireland. But even better is, like martin suggested, Italy. It is completely open, no player interference, and very rich.
To martin: Get your act together and ally me. I need someone who can take that powerhungry Austria down to the earth. Germany isn't enough for them. Also, since we are only 5 players, and 3 are against me already, it's just fair that we start doing some real co-op.
The rule breach situation from my position:
1. France, Castile and AI allies Dow me.
2. Austria Dows me.
3. Palatinate Dows me, dragging Cologne and other Austrian vassals into the war.
4. Castile and France peaces out.
5. Austria peaces out.
Everything fine so far.
6. I get no peace offer from Bavaria (leader of the alliance of Palatinate and other's), and I send none.
7. I invade Palatinate and Cologne.
8. Austria brakes the truce and Dows me, claiming I broke a rule.
Please, explain to me where I did something to provoke a rule breach?
And please, explain to me why the GM decides that "hey, he broke a rule, then I can too". That is not setting a good example. It would have been better to pause the game and tell me what I was doing wrong. That would have made me disagree, naturally, as I can't see what I ever did wrong, but it would not have made me able to accuse the GM of anything. It would all have been an easier situation.
So, I demand a clarification of what rule I did break, as well as an explanation why breaking another rule became justified.
1. France, Castile and AI allies Dow me.
2. Austria Dows me.
3. Palatinate Dows me, dragging Cologne and other Austrian vassals into the war.
4. Castile and France peaces out.
5. Austria peaces out.
Everything fine so far.
6. I get no peace offer from Bavaria (leader of the alliance of Palatinate and other's), and I send none.
7. I invade Palatinate and Cologne.
8. Austria brakes the truce and Dows me, claiming I broke a rule.
Please, explain to me where I did something to provoke a rule breach?
And please, explain to me why the GM decides that "hey, he broke a rule, then I can too". That is not setting a good example. It would have been better to pause the game and tell me what I was doing wrong. That would have made me disagree, naturally, as I can't see what I ever did wrong, but it would not have made me able to accuse the GM of anything. It would all have been an easier situation.
So, I demand a clarification of what rule I did break, as well as an explanation why breaking another rule became justified.
Mats_SX said:
well, that is a bit of a mis representation, the war went up and down, at my height, these demands seemed okay to me and other players, and the diplomatical situation permits me to push for more. In fact, this is my best effort against you yet!
ofcourse being raped by three is not fun, but au fond i don't consider England as my enemy per se... But maybe you went a little to fast last session?
also, i'm a noob and for Spain's support have paid a price. you are a pretty good player and haven't (i hope for you) gotten to entangled in a diplomatic web of promises and deaths, all is far from lost for you.
Lagloans was the name of my previous game, so this game in advance i decided not to spend any money when in danger. That was a lesson i learned last session. Just like using cavalry only armies.
I hope you can work out a satisfying arrangement for your lagloan problems. i kept offering you a peace because i would prefer not fighting this war over and over again and make a deal that we both could live with for several decades, in peace, focusing our energy elsewhere where more needed. But i hate ugly borders! It's true that according to the game engine Paris was worth 18% of my ws, and if you were AI, i'd take it.
But as it is, we're both humans and Paris alone is a bad thing for me rather than a good thing, since, from a human player, i can't defend it without a perimeter, it would just lead to every next war, you immediately occupying my capital, gaining irrealistic (in my view) ws-points.
there are many sessions to go, if we keep this game together, so much can happen still, let's not get stuck in the opening phase!
Taking the rules literaly you did not break any but their meaning is seriously distorted if a truce prevents a player from protecting his vassals.
The meaning of the "do not break a truce" rule is mainly to prevent chain wars where one side repeatedly dows to squeeze as much as it can get out of an already defeated player and to give some actual meaning to peace agreement. Furthermore it is to prevent someone from disrupting the game by making repeated dows.
This situation however was different from a usuall human-vs-human war in so far as I had little control over my allys beeing unable to sign an effective peace in their name nevertheless it is self evident that if I as Overlord make offer a WP that this includes at the very least the vassalls if no one mentions any additional conditions. If I would have been the alliance leader offering you a seperate WP it would have been my fault and you could have assumed as well that I would have had a good reason of offering a seperate peace instead of acting as alliance leader but as it happens I was not the technical alliance leader thus I was unable to offer a binding peace for all the participants. Nevertheless given the evidence and I provided throughout the game and the fact that two out of your three AI enemys were my vassalls wich only by chance were drawn into a seperate war against you you could and had to assume that my WP offer was not on the lines of a seperate WP just between England and Austria. A comparable situation existed in the East when the OE fought me for a few months where I had the technical oportunity to take out OE's vassalls one by one or just keep them in an eternal war after the WP I signed with Martmol but by all means it would have been a violation of our peace agreement even if we did not explicitely discuss the status of Hellas, Morea, Albania etc..
When it became evident that you were trying to continue the war against my AI allys I intervened to prevent an annexiation of Cologne wich is possible by just remaining at war with you because Cologne as my vassal was not going to make any seperate peace. If taken literaly I violated the rules nevertheless I argue that since you did not honor the conditions of the peace, wich I considered self evident without the need to discuss everything in detail, I had the right to intervene on behalf of Cologne.
On these grounds I could have argued as well that you violated the following rule:
Reason: You did not honor the WP I proposed in the name of my alliance.
But because the issue was minor I decided that it could be handled within the game by just re-starting the war taking the stabhit and using an in-game justification (you dishonoring the terms of the peace) because the exact peace terms were not discussed and thus both of us lacked evidence to prove wether wether you violated the peace agreement or not.
If the majority here however still thinks that I violated the terms of our peace agreement and that my behaviour under the circumstances I explained was "disruptive" I will take the punishment.
England just made the mistake of not following one route consequently. He could have supported my claims on Burgundy focussing on conquering France OR trying to get the Lowlands and giving up Northern France to you using the Troyes event. Instead he opted for a Middle ground without giving concessions. Nevertheless I find this situation interesting as it is something unique to find Spain France and Austria allied in the early game.
Austria would still offer it's services as mediator alongside Spain to get a create a more stable situation in Western Europe on the following basis:
-The Netherlands will be ceded To Austria
-France gets the Rhine frontier in the south
-Normandy and Calais will become and remain English provinces
-The remaining French provinces are ceeded to their rightfull souvereign King Charles of Bourg... errm France
Last edited:
Well I have played a few SP games as Spain. And as to the landing 30k and then WP you seemed to have sunk the navy I had carrying another 25k Cavalry . I will make my move in Italy but as it is I was bored and have not played Multi Player and I figured fighting a human now would mean I am a bit better off later on. That and an England that holds Northern France, Burgandy, and the British Isles is just not something I want to fight later on. Better to gang bang now then get destroyed in America later.
. I will make my move in Italy but as it is I was bored and have not played Multi Player and I figured fighting a human now would mean I am a bit better off later on. That and an England that holds Northern France, Burgandy, and the British Isles is just not something I want to fight later on. Better to gang bang now then get destroyed in America later.
You were in a good position, yes. An advice: use it to your advantage. When you demanded Gascogne and Normandie from me, it was a reasonable offer, as I was in heavy war with Austria and their allies as well. But when you attacked me the second time, and occupied three provinces, you can not ever expect me to cede 5 provinces?!Wari Bana said:
Now, the situation is all different. You occupy Calais, but I have +3 warscore. Additionally, Jean Beareau (or whatshisname) as well as Gilles des Rais are dead. You will have a harder time getting back on me. Had you used your earlier advantage and demand only Paris, you could have lost a lot of trouble, as well as keeping your kickass leaders. In MP, you just don't occupy some provinces and expect the player to give them up. If you had a warscore of 70%, I might cede three provinces. With a warscore of <30%, you're not getting far. And now you don't even have positive.
Heh, you even lost a lot on that war. I hope you deem the loss of your navy as worth it getting France strong again. It was close I got de Luna as wellR3lic said:Well I have played a few SP games as Spain. And as to the landing 30k and then WP you seemed to have sunk the navy I had carrying another 25k Cavalry
I did the mistake of underestimating my enemies. I played Austria in SP during this week, and by chance my AI event choices were very unlucky, and I only got Bohemia inherited in the 1500s, and never did get magyar culture. It seems you on the other hand have been very successful in AI event choices, and now have risen remarkably fast in power. I never expected you to be able to threaten me. Without that dow, I believe I could've minimized losses to France.SorelusImperion said:
In the war I did one battle mistake, when I engaged Gilles des Rais in a large cavalry battle, which killed both mine and France's armies. Had I instead went across the Channel and killed of Spain's invading armies, I might have been able to get on top of that war. Another mistake I seem to have made is to go Plutocratic too early. My cavalry costs have risen, and it will be another 100 years until infantry gets powerful. That was a mistake due to me being a new player, as the England I'm trying to become went Plutocratic early, but that was with start date in 1492 and without French lands. Oh well.
As for giving away the Netherlands to Austria; forget it. I won't. You can beat me back there, but as soon as you turn to Germany problems, expect the Royal Navy to use her power. It has already shown the Armada who is boss.
And I want stats.
The Armada will be back... And stronger then ever. England was big kid on the block this session and if the trend continues and every nation that gains an advantage gets smashed in a huge cluster **** then I will be a happy man. Lets just try and fix the lag issue. I took so many stupid loans out it made me want to cry, and England took even more then I did :wacko:
I will not be able to attend next session. I think I mentioned this earlier, but if I didn't, I do it now. The reason is I have my exam in maths that morning, and the evening is reserved for forgetting all I've learned through intense genocide of my braincells. I will ask around for a sub, but otherwise just ghost me.
i cant play thursday either, im having a examparty of a friend with free, i repeat free alcohol. so i will be wased friday i think but able to play
R3lic said:
It's Elidio
Well, I got invited to a party last thrusday and I only remembered about the whole game once I was drunk, so it was kind of late.