One defeat and that's it?
RP clearly got more valour, he survived several gangbangs..
RP clearly got more valour, he survived several gangbangs..
-
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.
I do think you are giving up a bit easily, but OK. That's your privilege. The question is, who shall take over France? Personally I think Paris would look good in Norwegian blue.
King of Men said:
And I think all of Brandenburg and Novgorod would look good in Polish green.
Of course you do. That's why Norway has an army. 
But seriously, I think we need to lay out some basic understandings. Sterkarm has touched on it before : Player-player wars are a fundamental feature of the game, and there is not, and cannot be, a rule saying that such a war has to be limited. If you win a war, you are permitted to impose any treaty you like, up to and including complete annexation. The only limits are what you think the other players will let you get away with. If Sterk had, say, limited his demands to Brandenburg alone, I think it unlikely that I could have gotten enough sympathy - and concern about a too-powerful Poland - to continue the struggle.
Conversely, it is not the duty of the individual player to limit himself out of concern for the balance of power. For example, when Sterk annexed Russia, there were some who said this was bad for game balance and therefore Sterk should not have done it. Nonsense! It is up to the rest of us to limit a player who becomes too powerful. If a player is skilled enough to divide the people that should unite against him, and win before 1920, then good for him! He should get kudos for being an excellent player, not grumbles about the game balance. After all, no historical Power would have worried about such an issue!
In other words, if you lose a war and your enemy imposes a harsh treaty, it is not to be expected that he will give you any sympathy when you say "You take eight provinces in one war!?" It is up to you to gain allies and prevent such a thing from happening. Of course, such a treaty might well make it rather easy for you to get some allies in the next war. It is quite legitimate to point out that power X is becoming rather big, and isn't it time to take them down a notch or two? But it's not power X's job to take himself down a notch or two!
It is the goal of each and every one of us to cover the map in his own colours. That is the object of the game. To oppose this with force, guile, diplomacy, and assassination is a fine thing. But to oppose it on grounds of "Your victory makes the game no fun" is, frankly, rather silly. If you want to win every time, play against the AI.
But seriously, I think we need to lay out some basic understandings. Sterkarm has touched on it before : Player-player wars are a fundamental feature of the game, and there is not, and cannot be, a rule saying that such a war has to be limited. If you win a war, you are permitted to impose any treaty you like, up to and including complete annexation. The only limits are what you think the other players will let you get away with. If Sterk had, say, limited his demands to Brandenburg alone, I think it unlikely that I could have gotten enough sympathy - and concern about a too-powerful Poland - to continue the struggle.
Conversely, it is not the duty of the individual player to limit himself out of concern for the balance of power. For example, when Sterk annexed Russia, there were some who said this was bad for game balance and therefore Sterk should not have done it. Nonsense! It is up to the rest of us to limit a player who becomes too powerful. If a player is skilled enough to divide the people that should unite against him, and win before 1920, then good for him! He should get kudos for being an excellent player, not grumbles about the game balance. After all, no historical Power would have worried about such an issue!
In other words, if you lose a war and your enemy imposes a harsh treaty, it is not to be expected that he will give you any sympathy when you say "You take eight provinces in one war!?" It is up to you to gain allies and prevent such a thing from happening. Of course, such a treaty might well make it rather easy for you to get some allies in the next war. It is quite legitimate to point out that power X is becoming rather big, and isn't it time to take them down a notch or two? But it's not power X's job to take himself down a notch or two!
It is the goal of each and every one of us to cover the map in his own colours. That is the object of the game. To oppose this with force, guile, diplomacy, and assassination is a fine thing. But to oppose it on grounds of "Your victory makes the game no fun" is, frankly, rather silly. If you want to win every time, play against the AI.
King of Men said:Of course you do. That's why Norway has an army.
But seriously, I think we need to lay out some basic understandings. Sterkarm has touched on it before : Player-player wars are a fundamental feature of the game, and there is not, and cannot be, a rule saying that such a war has to be limited. If you win a war, you are permitted to impose any treaty you like, up to and including complete annexation. The only limits are what you think the other players will let you get away with. If Sterk had, say, limited his demands to Brandenburg alone, I think it unlikely that I could have gotten enough sympathy - and concern about a too-powerful Poland - to continue the struggle.
Conversely, it is not the duty of the individual player to limit himself out of concern for the balance of power. For example, when Sterk annexed Russia, there were some who said this was bad for game balance and therefore Sterk should not have done it. Nonsense! It is up to the rest of us to limit a player who becomes too powerful. If a player is skilled enough to divide the people that should unite against him, and win before 1920, then good for him! He should get kudos for being an excellent player, not grumbles about the game balance. After all, no historical Power would have worried about such an issue!
In other words, if you lose a war and your enemy imposes a harsh treaty, it is not to be expected that he will give you any sympathy when you say "You take eight provinces in one war!?" It is up to you to gain allies and prevent such a thing from happening. Of course, such a treaty might well make it rather easy for you to get some allies in the next war. It is quite legitimate to point out that power X is becoming rather big, and isn't it time to take them down a notch or two? But it's not power X's job to take himself down a notch or two!
It is the goal of each and every one of us to cover the map in his own colours. That is the object of the game. To oppose this with force, guile, diplomacy, and assassination is a fine thing. But to oppose it on grounds of "Your victory makes the game no fun" is, frankly, rather silly. If you want to win every time, play against the AI.
Quite true KoM. But I think also on those grounds we will have a constant stream of people leaving this game with only a small core because most people don't like games to be harsh... Frankly I know I mention it a lot, but I frigging lost my first country and am still here, so next time you talk about having it tough, try that one there PLEASE.
cheech said:
The annexation of Duchy of Burgundy was more like an accident cheech - your vassals where disloyal and I offered them vassalisation once. Burgundy accepted immediately. Not the nicest thing to do, but its done now and if you are willing I am sure we can work something out.
RP, it's no need to be nice at least for the simple reason cheech has never been nice to you.
And I don't think we should miss cheech at all.
Everyone saw how 'brave' (rather stubborn) he was while on a winning side, if he cannot retain the same bravery throughout the game, he's not man enough to play MP.
What's the use of such player anyway - he'd quit next time he loses a war anyway.
The people flowing away from this seem mostly the ones with little or no MP expierence.
SP is a heaven for player where he can do whatever he wants, in MP even the smallest move is looked upon with suspicion and answered with threats and actions.
They are simply diametrically opposite types of game.
An MP game can be described as some kind of stress test - the weak wander away, only the strong remain.
Let there be more strong and less weak.
By the way, I talked to Cyrus. He left not because he was losing the besieged provs of Anatolia, nor because he couldn't get to Persia (he always wants to play Persia above all), but because his work schedule is not a regular one - he must request a day off to play in saturday and he can't do that each week.
Posts like this show a lot about you. You play couple of sessions and suddenly your expert on everything that happened on this game as well as my character. You attitude clearly stems from when i fought you (1v1) when you subed which shows you have problems distinguishing difference real life from game.
I have been one of the most consistantly on time players in this game. After this i am rewarded with being left standind when i had problems joining. How much trouble would it have been to check ICQ when i didnt join the host? It would take 2 mins. This hapened TWICE in a row and when i actually do join i am the one accused of not turning up on time or quiting from bad attitude?
Frankly this shows the character of some members of this group, not me. I joined the game with this wreck of a france and played quite happy all this time so i dont see how you can assume this for a reason i leave. Last straw is you wrecking my country even more when i am AI by taking burgundy. THis when i have PC problems??
Yes the gang bang was harsh but it certainly wasnt reason i left. It put me in worse mood but it wasnt until the above mentioned treatment that i decided to leave.
I would like to mention that none of these comments are aimed at lurken. I spoke to him on ICQ and he showed perfect understanding of how ive been treated and is a very nice person.
I've read this whole thread as well as dipomacy thread and KoMs AAR, so I know quite a lot. I also know you never honoured some agreements with RP where he granted some land to you in return for your peacefullness.
We're talking about the game here, aren't we? So what's the problem with IRL?
And in the game you didn't show yourself very well indeed. It was quite enough interaction with you to get to know whom you are.
Don't even know what you're talking about. If you didn't notice, I was not on for the last session.
France was wreck, but there was a lot of help for you to develop and you played quite happily only while you gained something.
Now that you lost you leave us.
You mean the treatment when you couldn't join the game?
If not, then why don't you come back and prove you're not running from disaster?!
Well im not actually aiming my post at you bin. You seem to be positioning yourself into some kind of imagined position of authority. Who are you to come into this game and judge me? Your last comment of having to prove to you that im not lying is particually insulting. My friend lurken will vouch that i icqd trying to get back into game during rehost but i need to prove nothing to you. I dont blame lurk for missing these messages. It should be GM and players in general who try to contact me if im missing at a rehost. Its blatant common sense for check where someone is during a rehost. I have been playing EU mp for 4 years now. If someones missing you simply tab out, check if on ICQ, trab in.
IT TAKES 2 SECONDS but that was clearly too much effort for some. Also if you notice i did come last session but noone seemed apologetic at all. Quiet the opposite im accused of quiting and not taking a gang. Strange ive been ganged and beaten up in EU hundreds of times and never quit. The final straw was taking provs from me when AI. If its not against the rules then it should be as is in any sensible EU, CK or victoria game.
Could someone please rehost? I've been here for close to 45 minutes now, was late again, sorry.
Im doing what?
Maybe you read KoMs post again. I only supported what he was saying and pointed to RP there's no need to be sorry for things that are pretty natural for every game.
Or is expressing your opinion and supporting other player prohibited here?
The claim I ever expressed word 'lie' or similar is particulary insulting.
Sure you have nothing to prove, but you risk leaving a mark in player's opinion about you..
So you think this game is not 'sensible'?
Here, simmer down, gentlemen. Seeing as cheech is in any case leaving, there is perhaps little point in arguing with him.
this kind of thing reminds me of some leagues I used to be a aprt of. GUess it's common in all MP games regardless of sport?
binTravkin said:
He does have a point in this case. I know, being a regular/host/GM in vicky MP, that every game prohibits taking provinces from the AI. I'm fairly certain such a thing is frowned upon in EU2 as well...
Frowned upon, but not a reason to leave game.
One can sort it out with GM and the guilty player if he does not outright declare some players having bad character and leaves the game.
One can sort it out with GM and the guilty player if he does not outright declare some players having bad character and leaves the game.
binTravkin said:
I would call it based on the circumstances and the rules of the game, were i GM.
If it were proved intentional, then i would take action to restore the provinces taken. if the GM didn't look into it, i could see the player walking out of a game so badly GMed.
If it was not intentional, than i can see that happening only once or maybe twice in a whole game as most certainly an invalid reason to quit, as you point out. If it were happening repeatedly, then i'd again say the player has the right to walk out without criticism, provided he states that as a reason, and leaves it at that.
If there are no rules preventing it, then all i can say is... Good Luck and show up for your sessions! :rofl:
As I said before Cheech had some loyalty problems with his vassals and while we where talking about that ingame, I offered 2 of his vasals to become mine once. Me being Burgundy, probably had the Duchy of Burgundy accept at right away, while it normally takes lots and lots of spamming to take over once vasals through diplomacy.
I said I was sorry and I offered to give them back.
Maybe instead of flaming each other we could concentrate on our upcoming transfer to EU2. Weren't we going to vote on transfering now or playing out CK first? And what will we do with cultures and our monarchs on transfer?
I said I was sorry and I offered to give them back.
Maybe instead of flaming each other we could concentrate on our upcoming transfer to EU2. Weren't we going to vote on transfering now or playing out CK first? And what will we do with cultures and our monarchs on transfer?
All right. My vote is for playing CK until we reach Jan 1, 1419. I also think that my converter does an excellent job of deciding what cultures to give, and that one culture should be enough for anyone. After all, if we were starting a 1419 GC, everybody would have one culture, pretty much.
Some information that may be of relevance : If we are going to convert in the near future, it is not possible to use MyMap. Personally I have no preference on this matter, but I believe others do.
Some information that may be of relevance : If we are going to convert in the near future, it is not possible to use MyMap. Personally I have no preference on this matter, but I believe others do.
Could I humbly object?
Your converter does a good job, but it screws cultures sometimes.
There are 3 main culture factors which should be taken into account:
1.Culture of ruler
2.Culture of primary title
3.Culture of capital OR most of the land owned
Culture of ruler is of obvious influence to me. You wouldn't be giving Ilkhanate persian culture as the primary, even less as the only one, just because the largest part of it's provinces are persian.
Culture of primary title is often the same as that of ruler in all but some cases. If Byzantium is ruled by a Turkish Orthodox it does not mean at all it itself changes culture to Turkish. The turkish might become primay culture upon certain circumstances, one of them being continuity (the heir it Turkish too), but never the only one.
And don't say byzantium is the only such case. I don't see why Hungarian king, himself being polish would be in major disagreement (-30%) with the countries' culture. After all in history Hungary had a couple of Polish kings and they are simulated in both vanilla and AGCEEP by giving polish culture as a tertiary one (after magyar and slovak).
The third point culture of capital of most land owned is the most controversial point.
I would point out that capital was often the decisive factor in long-term policies of a nation (see Burgundy HYW) not even talking about cultural influence on the dynasty (most dynasties soon became of capitals' culture as it's well simulated in CK, some forcefully changed the culture but that's more of an exception than a rule).
However, your converter seems to have the majority of nations' culture in high regard - last time I converted this game Hungary turned out persian (and only) which I found rather bad.
Also the point about most nations starting with single culture is somewhat invalid.
Castile has castillan and catalan (or added later), England has anglosaxon and french, Burgundy has french and german, dutch added later, Austria has german initally with czhech and magyar added later, Poland has polish and ruthenian, even Sweden whom you plan to play has scandinavian and ugric; Ottoman Empire has sound 4 and possibility to acquire 5th, same about Russia.
So it's more like per average major nation has 2 cultures during EU2 era.
We could balance that so that if the cultures are really small, like portuguese or armenian/georgian, they wouldn't be seen as disruption of balance.
I would like to present an example of how to decide upon cultures, based upon culture:
Hungary:
Ruler(2 culture points) - polish
Primary Title(1 culture points) - hungarian
Capital(1 culture point) - hungarian
Most Part of nation(1 culture point) - persian
1.Whomever is biggest gets primary culture title.
2.If two of the biggest are equal, the one which is ruler's wins.
3.If two of the smallest (secondary culture candidate) are equal, then primary tile wins over capital and capital wins over most part of nation (as it's more likely to influnce the court and dynasty).
So, Hungary gets polish as first (as ruler's culture, 2 points) and hungarian, because it fits in 2 points (capital and primary).
One can argue Earendil could switch his capital to Persia and change the primary title to that too. Why not? Then he would be getting persian, polish, because persian would then be 3 points, which would put it ahead of polish which only had 2 points.
This could be tweaked, but seems pretty realistic as if only a ruler culture is different, but everything else is of some other culture, there's high chance that other culture would prevail over dynastical one.
EDIT: In the point scheme above I forgot to mention that a culture would need to get at least 2 points to be admitted.
Minor cultures (we should define a list of them) should be admitted starting from having 1 point, but not more than one minor culture for said nation.
Why not?
Because your converter does not convert to it?
I said I will help to solve that (and some others would lend a hand too).
It would certainly be a much better playing expierence if we get to play on that map.
Last edited: