• 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.
Hmmm... If it stays like this, I think I will take Austria, as that will be mroe important then the OE I guess. However I would still prefer to have a OE player as well. (Or I will have to eat my way through the OE ;)) Also, you seem to suppose all of them will be playing, but I think there is still the time conflict?
 
I personally think we need a US before the OE or Austria...
 
I have a proposal with regards to the time .....

I was thinking of starting at 1800 EST on Fridays, so it would be 2200 for us In Uk and 2300 for Holland and Denmark

Please tell me what you think of that.

I will play even if i have to use an alarm clock :D
 
Nah, I cannot make 1800 EST, simply impossible.
 
i was going to wait to post, but here is my take on things:


country: i believe one or two people have talked to me about my choice, but since no one has really disagreed with it, i'll keep Japan for now.

time: start time for me at this point, would prefer it be not earlier than 7PM MST, which is 9PM EST (due to my job hunting, and uncertainty of what times i might work on fridays if i get a job). It cannot be later than 11:30PM MST (1:30AM EST)for me at least. if we start at midnight my time or later, that kills the game as a Friday game for me anyway, and i'd lose interest right away in that case. I think it would be nice if we had a start time thats a Friday for everyone, but i know thats impossible. so my times are mainly so that at least i can say its a Friday game, as per the title of this thread.

rules: over at the Saturday Night IV game, we have developed a fairly comprehensive list of rules, guidelines, and suggestions to deal with cheating, exploits, roleplaying, and good personal conduct in and out of game. my suggestion is that adopt those as a core, and add/take out what we think is needed/un-needed
 
I guess you mean this rules:

Saturday Night game Rules said:
Rule 1 - ANNOUNCMENT OF WARS
All player vs. player wars must be announced with reason given. Even if the reason is trivial or percieved but not true, it MUST be stated everytime, no exceptions. You are encouraged to state reasons for ALL wars, for roleplaying and diplomatic richness, but it is not required by rule, just frowned upon.

Rule 2 - UNCIV WAR BAN
No "unprovoked" agression toward uncivs before 1845. There are some exceptions. I dont count those in the Med as being included here, there should be a heavy European presence there early, and it doesnt throw off game balance. If you get an event putting you at war with an unciv, or if by some godforsaken reason they DOW you, you may proceed as usual.

Rule 3 - HUMAN NATIONS CONTROLLED BY AI
Do not attack a AI controlled player nation. If a war comes defend yourself, but dont rape them. THESE WARS CAN ONLY END IN WP.

Rule 4 - NATIVE TROOP LIMITS
limit native troops to no more than 1/2 the total number of regular troops (1/3 of total army). All cultures whose home nation is not civilized at the start of the game is considered native for the whole game. For instance, if Korea civilizes and you annex them, those troops are still native for these purposes eventhough they are actual regulars. This will prevent people from building all foreign armies with the huge MP uncivs.

This does not apply if you give a colony statehood, the regulars there would be OK. So the only real situation we are changing is if you conquer or aquire territory that is now civilized, but was not in 1836. If you conquer them as unciv, then somehow statehood them, it is OK.

Also, you must strictly watch your cultural support limits. For each culture, you cannot have more divs that can be supported by pops. IE, French 60/50 would be a no-no. When you build divs, make sure you have the pops to support. This will be checked regularly.

Rule 5 - SPORTSMANSHIP
Keep any snide or inflamatory comments to yourself. The air of sportsmanship must be maintained at all times.

Rule 6 - COUNTRY CHANGING
No switching countries. If for some reason something catastrophic happens like the UK overruns your entire country, then we can negotiate a switch, however, the country you switch to must be roughly the same standing in the world as your original country. You cant switch countries because you screwed up, or arnt happy with your power level.

Rule 7 - COLONIAL WARS
No colonial wars agaisnt human players, (unless unciv or both agree)

Rule 8 - TAKING CLAIMS
If claims are taken in a war that allow a claim to be formed, it cannot be claimed unitl post-war.

Rule 9 - TECH TRADING
Each nation is limited to 1 aquisition per 5 game years. This will be checked against the starting values for each nation periodically. IF YOU RECIEVE A TECH FROM EVENT, let me know immediately so I can mark it down. You can accumulate trades, ie if you don't use a trade in 5 yrs it isn't lost, you can use them afterwards. You cannot take "advance trades" though, where you use future accumulation to trade now.

Consequences:

There will be "punishments" for breaking rules to ensure we dont get someone that forgets after 20 game years. The rules are enforced by the GM. In addition, the GM can make determinations in-game for unethical conduct.



1st offense - your treasury and Research are edited to ZERO. In addition, if the offense is blatent or severe you will be assesed a debt of 25% GDP.

2nd offense - 1 session suspension (no sub)

3rd offense - removed from game

I personally dont really like the unciv-war ban, but if you agree with it, I dont really mind. However, about the no colonial wars, I dont get that at all. Why would you limit the game, while that is just one of the main options? Why wouldnt for example the OE and Russia fight a colonial war?

EDIT: And if you consider it more important to have a US player, I am willing to take the US as well...
 
Strategist said:
I guess you mean this rules:



I personally dont really like the unciv-war ban, but if you agree with it, I dont really mind. However, about the no colonial wars, I dont get that at all. Why would you limit the game, while that is just one of the main options? Why wouldnt for example the OE and Russia fight a colonial war?

EDIT: And if you consider it more important to have a US player, I am willing to take the US as well...

The Unciv war-ban is meant to level the playing field a bit, so nations that perhaps in 1836, couldn't have any chance of gaining any colonies, might have a chance (some countries don't start out with much of a navy for mounting colonial wars, like Prussia, Austria, 2-Sicilies (Italy),etc ). At least thats my understanding of it. No human colonial wars, is meant to prevent what i guess the saturday players consider to be some possible exploiting situations, such as claim-stealing via a colonial war, etc. i'm sure Dunkler Kaiser could explain these rules better though. lastly, unless we get a host that can handle more players, i don't think a US is in the cards for this game.
 
How can claim stealing via a colonial war be exploitish if its against a human opponent, while it wouldnt be exploitish if its against the AI? I would say claim stealing from the AI is a little bit exploitish, as the AI cant defend its claims. However, a human player should be capable of defending its own claims and therefore it shouldnt be a problem. The only thing that might be not so nice in it would be taking claims while your opponent doesnt notice and then only after the peace informing him about that, but thats another thing to make a rule about then.

And I offered to be the USA because Sterkarm said he would consider the USA more important then Austria or the OE. If you would agree with him I can take the US, but I myself think Austria is more important...

EDIT: Please GMI, can you write down times using 24 hours as that AM/PM thingy is kinda confusing to me...
 
i can understand Sterkarm's concern about US, in that UK will have no force counteracting NA expansion. But in the same vein, without an Austria, that leaves France free to expand wildly in Italy, and leaves a huge chunk of central/eastern europe open to a partition between Prussia and Russia, on a scale surpassing even the Polish Partitions.

i'm inclined to agree with you on this one, though i guess i can't object, if a consensus is reached stating that US is more important for gameplay. the way i see it, with only 6 players, it'll be tough to keep balance all over the world regardless, we might as well at least try to balance out europe.
 
I think the main reason we had only FULL wars was at the start, USA vs UK in early 1840s... UK could not attack anything of USAs, but USA could attack lots of UKs. It was deemed 'unfair'

As for claim stealing, the only thing that we had was that you couldn't claim the colony while still in the war, that way giving the other nation a chance to steal it back
 
Ah Lotus, I thik I get what you mean, though I think that would be making effective use of the game engine, and not exploiting. But well, I have never ever fought a colonial war in a MP game with another player so I am not too much against that rule. I just think its not really needed. Lotus, dont you have some spare time to join us as well? You could take France or Austria or the OE...
 
for colonial war ban...that grew out of a major conflict between US/UK as stated where US was beyond reach in a col war. It was deemed to be unfair just like Lotus said. Not an exploit per se, but definately an oddity brought about by game mechanics. IRL why would UK not be able to attack, just sitting back and having no opportunity to win the war?

For the claiming, if one was to DOW, take a necessary claim very quick before the opponent could react, then immediately claim, he would have the whole thing, and would have little chance of loosing it. Not being able to make the actual claim allows for some counter-attack before the buildings are turned into actual colonies, since it would be very difficult to regain the claimed land in a peace, as the player could just keep refusing (especially if it is a col war, and you cant occupy their homeland)

perhaps these arnt actual exploits, like making 99 divs and demobing the pops, but to me and the rest of the sat crew, they provide adequate injustices to address in the rules, to prevent possible in-game conflict over such issues, while taking little, if anything, from the game. Personally, i think col war is just stupid anyway, unless you were given the opportunity to escalate. It just doesnt make sense that a country cannot enter any state provinces to achieve his aims, if his opponent refuses to submit. Say I was prussia I had a few colonies in the indies. I col dow UK to take more. He can occupy my colonies but what is my reason to submit? Why do I care if they are occupied? They dont support my econ. I could just hold out forever unless he invaded my homeland and wrecked my economy.
 
I have some questions regarding the rule about WP in wars with AI controlled player nation.

Certainly it would be unfair to get land or WI or anything from someone when he is not playing, but should not we consider that the defending country has spent resources defending herself?

Why should one lose x divisions and y money to defend himself and not be able to be compensated for these losses ?
 
Strategist said:
Ah Lotus, I thik I get what you mean, though I think that would be making effective use of the game engine, and not exploiting. But well, I have never ever fought a colonial war in a MP game with another player so I am not too much against that rule. I just think its not really needed. Lotus, dont you have some spare time to join us as well? You could take France or Austria or the OE...
i signed up for an eu2 MP game for Fridays
 
Strategist said:
Ah Lotus, I thik I get what you mean, though I think that would be making effective use of the game engine, and not exploiting.

most of our rules are centered around precisely this.

using the game engine, and not foreign policy to achieve your aims, is discouraged. That is pretty much the main principle behind the bulk of our rules. A whimsical attempt to keep things more realistic, and not give anyone a advantage by using game tricks.
 
Will we start today/tomorrow?

Oh, and clamp, I dont know what the others think about this, but I think a France is more prefered witht the current players set then a UK, so maybe you could take France or Austria instead of the UK?
 
As you knew already I am fine with that time. I think I would prefer to play France over Austria, but if we have someone else who wants to take France, I will still take Austria. Also, if we will play this night, please tell soon, as then I'd better get some sleep before the session.
 
clamp seems interested in getting going today, dunno about anyone else. if nothing else, seeing if vnet is working yet for everyone, and testing that and ip connectivity could be good.

i'll be gone probably from about 17:30 EST until the start time range i posted today, but i'll check back with the forum/MSN/ICQ when i get back, to see what the interest is in getting together today