Havent we already established the fact that balance and eu2 MP dont agree with each other?BurningEGO said:
Its all in the eye of the beer-holder...
-
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.
Its all in the eye of the beer-holder...
BurningEGO said:It was 7v2 last time i checked. Spain, Austria, NL, Bradeburg, Denmark, France, England vs Poland and Russia...
And please, dont come and say "Spain and Austria didnt move a finger". That is utter BS. Should Poland kick everyone (which would never happen), Spain and Austria would intervene. And should anyone else decide to help, they would intervene as well.
And if 7v2 wasnt enough, they still like to break truce after truce. Aha. How balanced EU2 can be. Specially with these alliances of Bobish-Absolutish origin.
Thats BS. It was a 5v2 but you just want it to be a 7v2 so that people will pity you. Spain and Austria was there in case of an Ottoman attack.
And if 7v2 wasnt enough, they still like to break truce after truce. Aha. How balanced EU2 can be. Specially with these alliances of Bobish-Absolutish origin.
You are so full of shit. Do you often see me in alliances with 7 countries? Also, why do you think people gang you? You are the only one Ive ever seen getting ganged by 5 countries, that means something I think.
You have to wonder how you can complain about it as unfair if Drake actually won the gang. The whole balance thing, Russia was vastly more powerful than any 2 or 3 of the allied nations so several of them were needed to fight him.
In order to have beaten him we obviously needed more people
In order to have beaten him we obviously needed more people
The first game i ever played (i subbed), called TFG (Thirst for Glory), you were ganging poor Halny (France) with nearly everyone else. Apart from Russia and OE (i think). Instead of ganging the goddamn Daniel-ish China, which ocupied all of Asia, had the biggest ship supply limit, grotesque MP (yep, REALLY big), and awesome wealth.
And as i said before - i rarely saw you attacking someone alone. Even if you are stronger then them. I didnt say i always see you in an alliance with 7 countries, what i said is that you always like big alliances that will never be beaten. Be it with the 3 unquestionable super powers of the game, or with 7 nations, weaklings or great powers mixed in the group.
Look, you admit that you were there in case of an "OE attack". The OE would never attack you, i am fairly sure of that. They would come to my aid. But due to your happy intervention they didnt, and thus the gang got even more out of proportions. I dont want people to "pitty me". I just want the "gangers" to get some sense of balance, since it seems they lack it. And to forget personal friendship with certain persons too. I mean, you and Bob will always ally no matter what. Even in the most pathetic situations - OE aiding NL vs Sweden, while Sweden was barely managing to beat both English-Dutch (with ubber Maurice btw). Making the OE send about 200k men to Sweden, by circum-navigating europe is kinda hilarious (when their NT was something around level 20). If i did what you keep doing, i would ally with John and Drake and some other people as well, making ubber power blocks (should i have done that in CQS, Austria-Russia-Prussia would have gotten all trounced for good).
Uhmpf... You are correct. It means i am too good.
Lastly, to my most dear Bob:
Denmark couldnt match Russia as proven before (Russia steamrolled Denmark in less then 2 years, forcing them a peace for 5 provinces). Poland was in front of Russia, so anyone wanting to invade Russia via land had to pass through Poland first. Now why Russia won? Quite simple. France had a laughable NT, even lower then the Polish one. Transporting troops to Denmark would take a fair amount of time. England had the best NT in the game IIRC, but they lacked MP, and i doubt the player there would waste a lot of cash to fight a war without any gains for him. Bradenburg was too busy to break truce after truce with Poland, and their army was pathetic at best. NL simply was too busy inhibiting my loadings (with only one warship) after my armies were retreating in India, making me loose the entire indian army to lameness. I bet, that all England did was keeping the baltic safe, and no one apart from France actually aided Denmark.
Resuming: winter, mass atrition, big forts, resistance from the part of the russians, lack of a steady flow of reinforcements, was all that made you loose the war. I remember in another game as Russia, where i had nearly maximum forts everywhere, that when people ganged me in a 7v1 war, they couldnt win me. I wasnt stronger then them, but the forts, mass atrition and their WE rising a lot really helped. And to make things better, due to winter Russia doesnt even need to kill rebels.
Oh and Absolut, the game ended for some reason. Perhaps your conscience can tell you why.
And as Mulliman said:
P.S. What still pisses me is that my cores in lithuania were being held over by Denmark, and you guys still help them. :rofl:
And as i said before - i rarely saw you attacking someone alone. Even if you are stronger then them. I didnt say i always see you in an alliance with 7 countries, what i said is that you always like big alliances that will never be beaten. Be it with the 3 unquestionable super powers of the game, or with 7 nations, weaklings or great powers mixed in the group.
Look, you admit that you were there in case of an "OE attack". The OE would never attack you, i am fairly sure of that. They would come to my aid. But due to your happy intervention they didnt, and thus the gang got even more out of proportions. I dont want people to "pitty me". I just want the "gangers" to get some sense of balance, since it seems they lack it. And to forget personal friendship with certain persons too. I mean, you and Bob will always ally no matter what. Even in the most pathetic situations - OE aiding NL vs Sweden, while Sweden was barely managing to beat both English-Dutch (with ubber Maurice btw). Making the OE send about 200k men to Sweden, by circum-navigating europe is kinda hilarious (when their NT was something around level 20). If i did what you keep doing, i would ally with John and Drake and some other people as well, making ubber power blocks (should i have done that in CQS, Austria-Russia-Prussia would have gotten all trounced for good).
Uhmpf... You are correct. It means i am too good.
Lastly, to my most dear Bob:
Denmark couldnt match Russia as proven before (Russia steamrolled Denmark in less then 2 years, forcing them a peace for 5 provinces). Poland was in front of Russia, so anyone wanting to invade Russia via land had to pass through Poland first. Now why Russia won? Quite simple. France had a laughable NT, even lower then the Polish one. Transporting troops to Denmark would take a fair amount of time. England had the best NT in the game IIRC, but they lacked MP, and i doubt the player there would waste a lot of cash to fight a war without any gains for him. Bradenburg was too busy to break truce after truce with Poland, and their army was pathetic at best. NL simply was too busy inhibiting my loadings (with only one warship) after my armies were retreating in India, making me loose the entire indian army to lameness. I bet, that all England did was keeping the baltic safe, and no one apart from France actually aided Denmark.
Resuming: winter, mass atrition, big forts, resistance from the part of the russians, lack of a steady flow of reinforcements, was all that made you loose the war. I remember in another game as Russia, where i had nearly maximum forts everywhere, that when people ganged me in a 7v1 war, they couldnt win me. I wasnt stronger then them, but the forts, mass atrition and their WE rising a lot really helped. And to make things better, due to winter Russia doesnt even need to kill rebels.
Oh and Absolut, the game ended for some reason. Perhaps your conscience can tell you why.
And as Mulliman said:
P.S. What still pisses me is that my cores in lithuania were being held over by Denmark, and you guys still help them. :rofl:
BurningEGO said:
It is scarier with a neighbour thats uber than a country on the other side of the world, which by the way was friendly towards me. Nearly everyone else? England helped France and the Ottomans helped France. That leaves us with Spain, which was very weak compared to France. Austria, which was the only one that could fight France on rather equal terms. Russia, which mostly fought the Ottomans and lastly we have China, which had to take care of the French fleet, something that I dont think they really pulled off. So, we have England-France-OE against Spain-Russia-China. How is that unfair?
You should take a look at the different games Ive played. An example, History Channel. I attacked OE without being certain of a victory. Ive also attacked other countries in that game without being certain of a victory, Prussia for example. In OF I attacked Denmark, I was not sure of a victory there either. Lets see now, you want more examples?
Yes, that is what Ive been saying everything we have talked about this. It was not a matter of wether or not OE would attack me or not. It was a matter of wether or not the OE would interfere on your side in the war. Should they have done that, I dont remember wether or not they did, Austria and Spain would be ready to take them on and thus preventing them from aiding you. As Bob pointed out Russia actually won that gang so it isnt that much out of proportions. It looks like its out of proportions when you just see "5v2" but then you have to take their strength in to consideration.
There you go being wrong again. Bob and I are not always allies. Want an example? Before the gang in OF I fought him but I had to make peace due to not having any leaders and any attempt on invading France would have been crushed. Furthermore, I think it is fully understandable that people ally with people they trust more than they ally with other people. That is why I would never ally you if we were in a game.
Bob didnt send 200k. He sent max 100k. I dont think it is that hilarious because when thinking about it people attack countries even further away from each other than Sweden and OE because they think they can gain something. What makes you think Bob didnt think hed gain anything from beating you? Perhaps a CoT or something like that? Or perhaps a friend in NL?
You are aware that you are just proving Bobs point now?
It ended because people quit. I would have left the big alliance after the war was over but I dont doubt for a second that you wont believe me.
We could go on like this forever, absolut.
Anyway, the game (TFG) i subbed Freiksnet (i think that was his name), i subbed USA. You attacked France as Spain together with China, Austria and England IIRC. You also asked me to attack them but since Freik asked me only to focus on other things, i didnt. I dont remember OE or anyone else getting involved. OE was getting its ass kicked by Russia. I even remember that session: i asked John how did he manage to beat the OE since he was way smaller then them. He said it was due to leader advantage.
Perhaps he reminds that, dont know. It was 4v1, and China alone could beat nearly everyone on that game (everyone vs him) to be honest. Daniel had something like 3000 warships just in gilbraltar to help you out. You like to say "bleh bleh Russia in OF was too strong, bleh bleh they deserved to be ganged bleh bleh". Well i say, China in TFG was too freaking powerful and you didnt gang them. Make up your mind for once absolut! Do you gang the weak or the powerful after all?
I cant remember seeing you attacking Denmark... When was that? And hell, most of the wars i have seen you fight where more unfair then fair. Just look at the caothic MTT. Bob beated a novice sub in Italy. After he is beated you decide to join in for easy rapings. Italy is ghosted for 3 sessions afterwards till Formula returns - then Nab subs them and he is attacked by you. If it wasnt me sending awesome loans and asking for poland to attack you, you would have nearly annexed all of italy, or at least have utterly killed that player nation. (btw, i sent about 40000 gold to each).
Now Absolut, you must be drunk or something like that. Bradenburg alone had a bit more MP then Poland. And i am fairly sure English+French+Dannish MP combined were more then the Russian one. And that England was tremendously rich, since someone allowed them to grab all of the azteks. Your alliance had way more wealth and more MP. You just suffered a massive lack of coordination. I mean, you allow Denmark to face the Russians head to head and choose to utterly crush Poland? The army i was facing was something like 3x times bigger then mine. And instead of keeping that WS you decide to separate peace, just to re-dow. Russia was alliance leader so if you didnt peace Poland, Russia would never be able to stab hit anyone. But, alas, even great men fall prey to a very bad thing called Greed.
If we all though like you, certain people would always be allied-less. Like Ear, the master of all backstabs.
I, for one, am very trustworthy. I have to confess, however, that it depends on the situation. For example, in MTT, if you didnt start doing everything on your own without consulting your allies, i wouldnt ever attack England. You just went on a powergaming frenzy, and i, would never allow such, unless my ally is a very trustworthy ally. Thing that you werent, since you started doing things without saying a word.
Another example is CC3. Despite all the bloody deals everyone offered me, deals of annexing Denmark and kicking Lyko out of the game, which would make me a lot stronger then i was, i stacked to the alliance. Reasons? Many. Wealth and Power isnt everything in eu2. Sometimes Ethics speak higher. Lyko gave proof that he isnt a backstabbing bastard, and since i hate to annex nations (unless it is a question of survival), i prefered not to. I said i would annex Lyko (to mulliman), or separate peace with Holland (you), tossing Lyko to you and Maurice. In the end i didnt do any of these. Holland was smart enough to believe on me, and England signed a WP with me. :rofl:
Leaving poor Holland to the might of Gustav. While your "Great Allies" in Iberia gave me gold to annex your puny nation.
Mulliman in Poland also though i would attack Denmark later. Obviously i wouldnt. When he is attacking Russia i go into a blitz in Poland reaching 90 WS in less then a year, making him beg for the aid for Austria-OE. Some years later i am the one being stab hited but after i got a *65 leader i started taking my provinces back and i dont doubt Poland would be forced to give some german provinces back.
Of course, if i were so gamey as you, or Bob, i would have dishonored the alliance with Denmark, when they were attacked by OE-NL-England-Poland, and attack them as well. I would be the one who would benefit the most from it. But you cant always be a greedy bastard, and i prefered to stay with Lyko to the very end.
I hope you will understand some day that making an alliance of 7 nations just to get what you want (or growing stronger) isnt the way to play a game.
I am obviously not proving "Bobs point" now. You suffered a major lack of coordination, or outright lack of skills. France for example sent armies of 80k each to Poland, instead of sending them to Denmark. I was already getting messed by Denmark in the north and Bradenburg in the west but Bob, as usual, prefers to kill me no matter what. What can i say?
Of course i dont believe you. Your posts comprove that. You started licking Nab's boot (the new player in england) despite them owning all of mexico, which is usually Spanish...
Anyway, the game (TFG) i subbed Freiksnet (i think that was his name), i subbed USA. You attacked France as Spain together with China, Austria and England IIRC. You also asked me to attack them but since Freik asked me only to focus on other things, i didnt. I dont remember OE or anyone else getting involved. OE was getting its ass kicked by Russia. I even remember that session: i asked John how did he manage to beat the OE since he was way smaller then them. He said it was due to leader advantage.
Perhaps he reminds that, dont know. It was 4v1, and China alone could beat nearly everyone on that game (everyone vs him) to be honest. Daniel had something like 3000 warships just in gilbraltar to help you out. You like to say "bleh bleh Russia in OF was too strong, bleh bleh they deserved to be ganged bleh bleh". Well i say, China in TFG was too freaking powerful and you didnt gang them. Make up your mind for once absolut! Do you gang the weak or the powerful after all?
I cant remember seeing you attacking Denmark... When was that? And hell, most of the wars i have seen you fight where more unfair then fair. Just look at the caothic MTT. Bob beated a novice sub in Italy. After he is beated you decide to join in for easy rapings. Italy is ghosted for 3 sessions afterwards till Formula returns - then Nab subs them and he is attacked by you. If it wasnt me sending awesome loans and asking for poland to attack you, you would have nearly annexed all of italy, or at least have utterly killed that player nation. (btw, i sent about 40000 gold to each).
Now Absolut, you must be drunk or something like that. Bradenburg alone had a bit more MP then Poland. And i am fairly sure English+French+Dannish MP combined were more then the Russian one. And that England was tremendously rich, since someone allowed them to grab all of the azteks. Your alliance had way more wealth and more MP. You just suffered a massive lack of coordination. I mean, you allow Denmark to face the Russians head to head and choose to utterly crush Poland? The army i was facing was something like 3x times bigger then mine. And instead of keeping that WS you decide to separate peace, just to re-dow. Russia was alliance leader so if you didnt peace Poland, Russia would never be able to stab hit anyone. But, alas, even great men fall prey to a very bad thing called Greed.
If we all though like you, certain people would always be allied-less. Like Ear, the master of all backstabs.
I, for one, am very trustworthy. I have to confess, however, that it depends on the situation. For example, in MTT, if you didnt start doing everything on your own without consulting your allies, i wouldnt ever attack England. You just went on a powergaming frenzy, and i, would never allow such, unless my ally is a very trustworthy ally. Thing that you werent, since you started doing things without saying a word.
Another example is CC3. Despite all the bloody deals everyone offered me, deals of annexing Denmark and kicking Lyko out of the game, which would make me a lot stronger then i was, i stacked to the alliance. Reasons? Many. Wealth and Power isnt everything in eu2. Sometimes Ethics speak higher. Lyko gave proof that he isnt a backstabbing bastard, and since i hate to annex nations (unless it is a question of survival), i prefered not to. I said i would annex Lyko (to mulliman), or separate peace with Holland (you), tossing Lyko to you and Maurice. In the end i didnt do any of these. Holland was smart enough to believe on me, and England signed a WP with me. :rofl:
Leaving poor Holland to the might of Gustav. While your "Great Allies" in Iberia gave me gold to annex your puny nation.
Mulliman in Poland also though i would attack Denmark later. Obviously i wouldnt. When he is attacking Russia i go into a blitz in Poland reaching 90 WS in less then a year, making him beg for the aid for Austria-OE. Some years later i am the one being stab hited but after i got a *65 leader i started taking my provinces back and i dont doubt Poland would be forced to give some german provinces back.
Of course, if i were so gamey as you, or Bob, i would have dishonored the alliance with Denmark, when they were attacked by OE-NL-England-Poland, and attack them as well. I would be the one who would benefit the most from it. But you cant always be a greedy bastard, and i prefered to stay with Lyko to the very end.
I hope you will understand some day that making an alliance of 7 nations just to get what you want (or growing stronger) isnt the way to play a game.
I am obviously not proving "Bobs point" now. You suffered a major lack of coordination, or outright lack of skills. France for example sent armies of 80k each to Poland, instead of sending them to Denmark. I was already getting messed by Denmark in the north and Bradenburg in the west but Bob, as usual, prefers to kill me no matter what. What can i say?
Of course i dont believe you. Your posts comprove that. You started licking Nab's boot (the new player in england) despite them owning all of mexico, which is usually Spanish...
Well, you arent really as shiny as you make it out to beBurningEGO said:
. Your actions in that game were the determining factor in the total wreckage that Denmark became. If the game had continued, it is not certain whether or not you would have swallowed them up, despite your post-game claims.Also, direct statements during our discussions that you "backstab when I need to", has led me to mistrust you in diplomatic dealings. Of course, this could be a plan in the ruse you supposedly played against me in that particular game, but removing the "backstabber" mark just to get the "liar" mark would not advance your rating
.And its thought, not though. Sorry for the nitpick, but it confuses the reading of your otherwise interesting posts
.Although i suspect the Ottoman aid was because Bob was bored and just wanted one last fun session before the game ended, Austrian help was due to carefully conducted diplomacy. This is one of the reasons that i believe the Swedish advance would eventually be stopped, had the game continued to play. As already has been stated, you dont make lots of allies and friends when you play Ego, so organizing gangbangs would not have been difficult
.And there we once again strike to the heart of the discussion. The line between people who accept gangs as a part of eu2 MP and the other where they dont, is cut so deep that its probably impossible to reach a good conclusion of the discussion.
Or, it could just be that the gang-haters only hate it when they are on the receiving end
.
Me and my english. I feel embaraced. Oups.
o Thanks i supose.
I dont hate gangs, i just hate when people make gangs out of proportions. I admit that when some nations grow too goddamn powerful they need to be "nerfed" by some sort of coalition. However, even if this nation is superbly powerful, i dont think that 7v1 justifies the gang. Only, if all nations' wealth and MP combined, do not completely match, or barely match the ganged one. Which never hapen. If the nation, is really depedent on its navy for survival, then 7v1 will ensure that the same nation will be defeated no matter what. Ship supply limit is very hard to increase after a certain point. A good navy is very crucial to eu2, specially for countries like Spain-England-OE. If, for example, the OE grows too powerful, and everyone gangs the same nation 7v1, the gangers will have a tremendously bigger fleet then the OE, by a large margin. And there is nothing the ganged nation can do, then watch.
About CC3, i was going to re-pay denmark for its favours after the sucessful defeat of Poland.
Lets face it Mulliman, the 1492 starting scenario was too cruel for your poland, due to crappy DP sliders. That meant that you had a lot of shity events, giving you -5 land, a lot of -quality and -offensive, together with mass aristocracy, mass decentralization, and mass narrowminded sliders. You also decided to choose Orthodox tech tree just to annex Lithuania. Your tech would be fossilized for the rest of the game should we have chosed to play on. You were already a CRT-behind in comparison with me. Your army morale was laughable if i recall. Your random leaders were never really good, while i really got lucky with them. I controlled the baltic thanks to denmark, you didnt. I managed to get a steady flow of income due to the gold from california, which i took from the dutch.
Also from trading in Tonio's lovely COTs and in FAL's as well. And the funds that Tonio provided to me really prooved vital for that - i was totaly free trade iirc, and sending mercs costed a lot.
You did a pretty good job converting all of Poland to increase income and completely abused the vassal bug by vassalizing Russia a lot of times, tripling your MP pool. Your WE wouldnt get really higher due to that, but you kept loosing battles after battles, and my leaders and armies cut through your forts as if it was butter.
You were totaly outclassed. Austria-OE were at each other's throats the whole game and Ear promised me (well Ear's words cant be really taken in consideration but i will supose he is a man of honour), that he would attack the OE the next session. Meaning you would be alone. You and my good leader.
I promised to Lyko that he would get all provinces he wanted, and i wouldnt care if i received none (actually i think i only asked for a province in Pommern and Kustrin to cut you off from Germany). Even if you managed to get a WP, Karl would come back to haunt you. Your tech speed was so low that you would always be a CRT behind compared to me. You didnt even bother trading in that game. You even got beaten in a 1v1 with me while you had Stefan Batory, so i dont doubt you would be so again when i had leader advantage and a CRT ahead.
May sound like i am being a bit arrogant, but i am fairly sure i could have done it, should Austria-OE not decide to intervene again.
Last edited:
BurningEGO said:We could go on like this forever, absolut.
Be my guest.
Anyway, the game (TFG) i subbed Freiksnet (i think that was his name), i subbed USA. You attacked France as Spain together with China, Austria and England IIRC. You also asked me to attack them but since Freik asked me only to focus on other things, i didnt. I dont remember OE or anyone else getting involved. OE was getting its ass kicked by Russia. I even remember that session: i asked John how did he manage to beat the OE since he was way smaller then them. He said it was due to leader advantage.
That may be correct, England was part of the Spanish alliance against France for a while but later switched sides and fought with France, thus giving increasing the French alliance's fleet with around 1500 ships.
About the gangings of France. France was a monster and it was Spains neighbour. China was a monster, although it was friendly and on the other side of the world. Who would you be most frightened of? Naturally, my attention was aimed to the north.
I have never said they deserved to be ganged, although it is fully understandably that they were. Gangs are naturally aimed at the powerful countries although sometimes happens to the weak countries as well, also, you need to take in to consideration how weak the countries are compared to the countries that are attacking so a weak country might not be as weak as it may seem.
How do you think Sweden and NL got in to a war?
I was planning on attacking Italy even if it would have been an uber sub, it wouldnt have mattered and I wouldnt have annexed Italy. I wanted German culture and seeing as Italy had Tirol and one or two other provinces that was what I wanted. Would you rather see me join when Italy is still at war with Italy then? Ah hell, you should check up your facts before you make accusations. I also recall someone repeatedly attacking Italy, mostly for greed I reckon. It even went so far that the perm left. You should take a look at your own deeds before you judge others.
You should check up the rules for OF really. There was a gold-income rule that said if you had more than 500d yearly income from gold youd get a bankcrupty event. That is why England got the Azteks. Now I dont say it turned out good for Spain with the bankcrupty as I made a little mistake concering the Incas. I have said this a few times but I reckon Ill need to say it quite a few more times before you actually get it.
So the lack of coordination then weighs up the wealth and MP that the French alliance had and thus the gang was more fair than you put it out to be.
Sometimes you amaze me EGO, you said this about Brandenburg earlier.
Here you say that Brandenburg was weak and the next thing you say is that they were stronger than Poland. Make up your mind for once EGO!
If we all though like you, certain people would always be allied-less. Like Ear, the master of all backstabs.
I pity them then. Some diplomacy would suffice then I think as I am for the most part open for it.
I claim the opposite, but it is not up to me to tell you how to think of yourself. Everyone was powergaming in MTT, including you, how else would you become the monster Spain that you were? As far as Im concerned, you werent my ally during the last 100 years so no wonder you were not consulted. So you would not allow someone you dont trust to powergame? Does that mean you trust(ed) me?
Ethics is not a subject you should speak of as far as Im concerned, I dont claim Im much better than you either but you hit rockbottom in OF. I didnt even think you would do that. Lyko is a very nice player and he is honourable and I trust him, at last something we agree on. The reason I dont trust you anymore is that you in fact signed a peace with me on ICQ between the sessions and then WPed England only to say you changed your mind when it came to peacing me. I have never seen someone do something like that and that is the reason ethics and EGO does not go together, at least in my book.
One thing surprises me though, the fact that you are proud of portraying yourself as untrustworthy is rather astonishing and it is the first time Ive seen someone do it on the forum.
Leaving poor Holland to the might of Gustav. While your "Great Allies" in Iberia gave me gold to annex your puny nation.
They werent my allies until I offered myself as vassal to Spain and not even then I think we could be called real allies. England was my ally and you peaced him out and fooled me.
Wow, youre really cool for doing that. I envy you.
In what way is it gamey to dishonour an alliance call or to sep peace an enemy? If that is what you think gamey is you are the one being gamey after peacing out England. Also, if it is not greed, what drove you to almost completely annex NL? Revenge? That isnt a good thing either, although I wont go as far as calling you a bastard back.
Obviously quitting a game when it doesnt turn out the way youd want it is the way to play a game either, but I guess that is up to each one to decide.
I am obviously not proving "Bobs point" now. You suffered a major lack of coordination, or outright lack of skills. France for example sent armies of 80k each to Poland, instead of sending them to Denmark. I was already getting messed by Denmark in the north and Bradenburg in the west but Bob, as usual, prefers to kill me no matter what. What can i say?
The tactics of the war and so on youll have to take with someone else as I wasnt an active part in the fight against you and Russia. Can you blame him for trying to annex you? I think I feel pretty much the same about you as Bob.
Usually, yes but the gold rule prevented me from annexing it. Read above.
And no, I wasnt drunk. If I were drunk I wouldnt engange in discussions like these. If I make posts while Im drunk youd notice.
Good post Mulli.
First, i think you are making some mistake here. In OF there was no swedish player, and NL never got into war vs Swedish AI, because when NL got a player sweden had been already annexed. I think you are refering to CC3.
Absolut, you better check things before saying things like this. Norway was ganging Burgundy (Rokka) together with Italy. Burgundy was on the verge of defeat till i decided to attack norway. Norway wps Burgundy, and so does Italy some time after. I wp Norway after they peace Burgundy, and Italy decides to attack me afterwards. Norway breaks the truce and joins in as well, vs me. I ask 3 times, to WP me. KoM and Formula refuse. I sent my whole fleet, 3000 warships, to veneto. I take all his islands, and his capital. I blockade Sicily so he cant retake it. I crush their fleet. I also blockade veneto. I do not even attack him on the mainland. I start stab hiting him for sicily without having fough any real battle. He decides to leave the game. He was the one that attacked me as i said above. In the next session i am merciful enough and WP norway after crushing his entire fleet. But against Italy, i take all Sicily, Sardinia and some Indonesian islands. He attacked me, and i asked for a WP 3 times consecutively. He refuses, so he had to pay for it. Anyway, i think i was stupid to save Burgundy from utter collapse, since you didnt know how to honour our agreements. Be it the one that stated you would return languedoc no matter what hapened, or the one where you gave me your word you would never attack me if i was at war vs England.
This was what hapened, you prefer to believe on anyone else, then go check the logs. You werent in that session so you cant even open your mouth to question my motives, and blame me for someone leaving the game.
And if you blame me for something i didnt even do, i could blame you for OF ending like that. And that, isnt a wrong statement. However, i wouldnt do such.
A country can be weak but stronger then another. I cant really understand what is the fuss all about. For example, my Sweden in CC3 was weak, but stronger then Poland.
You didnt powergame.
If you did, you would have claimed German culture, a thing that i didnt allow. I sent huge amounts of cash to your enemies. My mistake was that once you were collapsing i decided to intervene. I didnt want you to crush your enemies but i didnt want your enemies to grow too powerful. Formula wanted to take a lot of provinces and so wanted KoM. Formula had already stated i needed to be ganged and i wasnt too happy to hear such. And since i always had the power to do or break in that game, i jumped in against Norway to even the odds. My greatest mistake. Should have tossed you to the wolfs instead.
My Dear Absolut, how wrong are you? Tell me, did you have any ethic when you attacked Denmark with England, OE, Poland and your NL? I know, i know, you didnt coordinate the attacks with Poland despite the latter attacking Denmark one day after your DoW. :rofl:
Nations that show no ethics do not deserve to receive any. I mean, come on. You had an ubber naval leader, and England had Drake. Your combined fleet was bigger then Lyko's one, and to compensate you also had Maurice. If that wasnt enough you had Poland and the OE sending their "little" armies as well. Lyko had been already annexed, and i wouldnt allow him to be once again.
Thus the reason i had to play like a "backroom backstabber". I lured you, England offered WP, i accepted. You offered WP, i refused.
I hated your nation since the very start. The previous subs in NL took California from me (i was colonizing it but i kept failing), and i had already told lyko to attack em and annex em with me, but he refused (he can confirm this i am sure of).
I am trustworthy as long as you dont bite me. Biting Denmark was the same as biting me. A loose for Denmark would be a loose for Sweden, and vice versa. Lyko saved me from utter defeat early on against Mulliman and Russia, and for that i was forever thankful.
It wouldnt be gamey, but Dishonorable. I said i would always stand at the side of Lyko, and he also said the same thing to me. I couldnt break an oath. Lyko mistakenly separate WP England (he asked me if i allowed such, but i though he was speaking of WPing England (to both of us) but keeping at war against you - in another words, an alliance peace from our side, but a separate peace from his). Actually, it was more my mistake then his, since i misunderstood him. When i WPed England, England was only at war vs me, so i was freed to do so (i was only at war vs England because they attacked Denmark). As i said before, i always wanted to crush NL. In every game i played, never did i benefit from Holland. While HoG says that Portugal must be stamped out asap when playing Spain, i say that Holland, is a pestilence that must be utterly crushed as soon as possible. Else they will contaminate you.
If we think a bit, i was correct: first, they keep competing me out of my local CoTs. I couldnt embargo anyone due to max free trade, and my TE was already low. In foreign CoTs you kept competing me always, and also disrespected continuously my national monopoly in Danzig and Moscow (although Moscow wasnt mine, i kept a monopoly there for ages). In California your sub utterly pissed me, because i colonised, and he burned my colonies/tps by inciting natives. In the end he is the one sitting in there. And once i got the upper hand, well, i saw that i could actually profit from your defeat. Tonio offered cash for the continuation of the war, and your colonies were yummy yummy for me. I took his cash, i took your colonies, i took 3 of your cores, hampering your MP growth. I stab hited you to death. I sent you back to the stone age. Afterwards never did one of my merchants get competed out by dutchies. My economy exploded after our little war, nearly tripled, bypassing my great friend in Denmark, and England. My army supply also grew enormously. At the time of our war, i had little more then 70k men at the maximum. After it, i could have 160-240k men IIRC. I traded a lot in CoTs with Grain.
Although the pestilence wasnt dealt with, i got "antibiotics" to counter it, and, emerged stronger after having being contaminated.
I had been insulted in that game since the start. Aladar decided to onlimit Poland after my first CTD, when i was at war vs him. Do you think i liked that actitude? When i came back, i had to agree to give a lot of cores in Lithuania to him, and the whole TO as well. Then, people gang us in a 7v2 war (while Denmark still owns my cores!). People who do such once can do such again. Should this had hapened not to me, but to someone else, you can be pretty sure i would have left the game as well.
Did you ever play a Spain with both historical bankrupcies Absolut? They give only 15% inflation. They burn your manufactories but i doubt you had any. I have seen people having historical bankrupcies and emerging very strong, if not stronger after they have dealt with it. Take Drake as an example.
Would you put personal ambition and outright greed ahead of the alliance? Would you sacrifice your allies to just to satiate your lust? Obviously you would. That is why your alliance ultimately failed to achieve its goal vs Russia.
A little comparison now. In cc3 after our little war, and shortly after Gustav's death i had 2 options.
First, i could make full use of Torst to wipe you out from the face of the map, getting yet more provinces. You were allied with Spain and Portugal but i could force peace you before they ever arrived to help you. But as FAL said, his spain would still be at war vs me, and i was no match to him or to his fleet, nor was denmark. Just because of Denmark, my ally, i prefered to spare you, so my ally wouldnt get hurt.
The second option, wouldnt benefit me much, i would get one or 2 provinces at best. It was to boom as much as i could and attack Poland while Torst & co was alive. I failed to do such because Poland was too strong and i didnt get a CRT of advantage. I didnt have a good treasury either so i would be forced to mint to crush him. I boomed for a session and in the next one IIRC, the excelent oportunity showed up. Mulliman opened the gap i was waiting for. He had all his armies deep in Russia, and only a couple of man in mainland Poland.
The moral of the story, is that i choosed my ally's welfare to my personal ambition. That was the leading strength of our alliance. Despite all the threats and challenges we managed to get past them, not in the best shape but still nicely. Denmark lost its grip on Germany but would regain them as i promised (and as it would be shown should we have kept playing). I must say, it was one of the best alliances i ever had. Whatever i did, i always informed Lyko. Lyko also knew that i agreed to annex Denmark with Poland.
He also knew, that was a lie from my part. Else i wouldnt tell him that.
BurningEGO said:
Ah yes, I mixed them up.
That may be true, but the reasons Formula stated were that you dowed him over and over again and I think Ill just believe him. Actually, I never attacked you when you were in a war against England. A sub attacked you, Rokka I think, along with England and Norway. The next session you peaced and gave up Mexico. Oh, I forgot, you left after that war.
The reason OF ended were because of the strenght of Iberia, I fail to see how I could possibly have anything to do with that. I didnt blame you for the ending of any game though, you mustve misunderstood.
I agree.
You didnt powergame.
If you did, you would have claimed German culture, a thing that i didnt allow. I sent huge amounts of cash to your enemies. My mistake was that once you were collapsing i decided to intervene. I didnt want you to crush your enemies but i didnt want your enemies to grow too powerful. Formula wanted to take a lot of provinces and so wanted KoM. Formula had already stated i needed to be ganged and i wasnt too happy to hear such. And since i always had the power to do or break in that game, i jumped in against Norway to even the odds. My greatest mistake. Should have tossed you to the wolfs instead.
I claimed German culture after defeating Norway and Italy, but I dont know wether that was after you left or not, I think it was around 1800 or so.
I never said I was any better than you.
I had little MP and England showed little enthusiasm on land. Denmark had 400-500 ships or so against my 100 or so. I think they defeated the English fleet as well. Poland made the descision to attack on their own, it didnt have anything at all to do with the NL-Sweden war. And G2A is better than Maurice. I wouldnt have annexed Lyko though, I would have taken a few islands from him.
Thus the reason i had to play like a "backroom backstabber". I lured you, England offered WP, i accepted. You offered WP, i refused.
I hated your nation since the very start. The previous subs in NL took California from me (i was colonizing it but i kept failing), and i had already told lyko to attack em and annex em with me, but he refused (he can confirm this i am sure of).
I still fail to see how admitting youre a backstabber helps you in any way, I wouldnt brag with it. I know that, I talked to him as well.
I guess that lies in the eyes of the beholder.
It wouldnt be gamey, but Dishonorable. I said i would always stand at the side of Lyko, and he also said the same thing to me. I couldnt break an oath. Lyko mistakenly separate WP England (he asked me if i allowed such, but i though he was speaking of WPing England (to both of us) but keeping at war against you - in another words, an alliance peace from our side, but a separate peace from his). Actually, it was more my mistake then his, since i misunderstood him. When i WPed England, England was only at war vs me, so i was freed to do so (i was only at war vs England because they attacked Denmark). As i said before, i always wanted to crush NL. In every game i played, never did i benefit from Holland. While HoG says that Portugal must be stamped out asap when playing Spain, i say that Holland, is a pestilence that must be utterly crushed as soon as possible. Else they will contaminate you.
Too bad you feel that way, I find Holland a very nice nation to play.
It wasnt all bad things with the war. After the defeat I got closer to Iberia and I was thus safe. I got very fast tech speed thanks to not having a lot of provinces.
It seems to be tradition for you to leave games. I can understand you being angry over a 5v2 gang as well, although I wouldnt leave the game when it doesnt turn out the way I want it. I can also understand you being angry over Lithuania.
Never played Spain with real bankcrupty but I know that they can be really strong, the countries that is.
Actually, we didnt put personal greed ahead of the alliance. Denmark wanted to take some 10 provinces from Russia, including Kola and so on. None of the bigger countries in the alliance agreed to that and thus left Denmark to get them on her own. And wether or not my alliance achieved their goal doesnt really concern me as my main objective was the OE.
You wouldnt have to invite him, that would spare him from the war as well. I also wonder if you would be able to force peace me. I had two provinces left in Europe, Zeeland and Holland if Im correct. That would give you some 50 WS all in all. While you sail around taking my colonies Spain would have mobilized and attacked you.
The moral of the story, is that i choosed my ally's welfare to my personal ambition. That was the leading strength of our alliance. Despite all the threats and challenges we managed to get past them, not in the best shape but still nicely. Denmark lost its grip on Germany but would regain them as i promised (and as it would be shown should we have kept playing). I must say, it was one of the best alliances i ever had. Whatever i did, i always informed Lyko. Lyko also knew that i agreed to annex Denmark with Poland.
Good for you.
hmm well being denmark in C&C3 was well how can i say it... intresting atleast
being the country everyone thought they could grab a couple of provinces from to expand alittle is never fun. being a country that "accidently" got attacked by many nations at the same week is no fun also
Yes i told Ego not to annex ur NL abs as i thought u were atleast a friend of denmark at the time(proved wrong later ),I knew of the deal between Ego and Mulli(swe-pol) long before it took place. Denmark was VERY weak on land as my mission was to secure the baltic sea from invaders like England,Nl, even the TOO rich iberians if that ever happend.. Only if not u guys "accidently" (again) attakced me in the same week, things would have turned out differently.
Me being a man of honour, made me lose alot in C&C3, first i could have annexed Nl taking some rich provinces and lose one enemy on the sea. I could also have broken my "NAP" with poland and backstabbed him like he did to me(well maybe he didn't but it sure felt like it ) and taken all the german provinces they had. but i choosed to be a man of honour and lost my country because of it. but that's how i tend to play and i'll probably lose many more games becuase of this in the future.
I've only broken one NAP and that was against KJ in ToS and i think everyone in someway in that game agrees with me that i had to do it. as he tend to offer NAp with both me and Brabant in the sessions we had our MT 5 i was just to dumb to realise it in time
just to point out. the wars in the North in C&C3 never felt like it was war against different nations it mostly felt like wars against EGO. but that's my point of view as everyone see things on differently
I fore one think u both should drop this subject as u are arguing ur own opinions and not the subject overal. start to think out of the box instead and this will enlighten u alot. Think pass ur own feelings of being backstabbed and think of how ur enemy thinks of you instead, and you'll undestand him alot more. in this case being Ego and Abs.
I know i've alrdy said this to Ego many times.(Me being annoyed of his arguing all the time) but still i think of him as a good eu2 friend as i think of u too abs even when u always turn out to be on the Lyko annexing team
being the country everyone thought they could grab a couple of provinces from to expand alittle is never fun. being a country that "accidently" got attacked by many nations at the same week is no fun also
Yes i told Ego not to annex ur NL abs as i thought u were atleast a friend of denmark at the time(proved wrong later
),I knew of the deal between Ego and Mulli(swe-pol) long before it took place. Denmark was VERY weak on land as my mission was to secure the baltic sea from invaders like England,Nl, even the TOO rich iberians if that ever happend.. Only if not u guys "accidently" (again) attakced me in the same week, things would have turned out differently.Me being a man of honour, made me lose alot in C&C3, first i could have annexed Nl taking some rich provinces and lose one enemy on the sea. I could also have broken my "NAP" with poland and backstabbed him like he did to me(well maybe he didn't but it sure felt like it
) and taken all the german provinces they had. but i choosed to be a man of honour and lost my country because of it. but that's how i tend to play and i'll probably lose many more games becuase of this in the future.I've only broken one NAP and that was against KJ in ToS and i think everyone in someway in that game agrees with me that i had to do it. as he tend to offer NAp with both me and Brabant in the sessions we had our MT 5
i was just to dumb to realise it in timejust to point out. the wars in the North in C&C3 never felt like it was war against different nations it mostly felt like wars against EGO. but that's my point of view as everyone see things on differently
I fore one think u both should drop this subject as u are arguing ur own opinions and not the subject overal. start to think out of the box instead and this will enlighten u alot. Think pass ur own feelings of being backstabbed and think of how ur enemy thinks of you instead, and you'll undestand him alot more. in this case being Ego and Abs.
I know i've alrdy said this to Ego many times.(Me being annoyed of his arguing all the time) but still i think of him as a good eu2 friend as i think of u too abs even when u always turn out to be on the Lyko annexing team
Last edited:
-Lyko- said:as i think of u too abs even when u always turn out to be on the Lyko annexing team
That is the best team
well that depends on hwo u see it Bob abs might like it a bunch but me? well u can figure that out ur self
abs might like it a bunch but me? well u can figure that out ur self
-Lyko- said:
If I wanted to war EGO I would have dowed him though, I just wanted a few islands.
I know i've alrdy said this to Ego many times.(Me being annoyed of his arguing all the time) but still i think of him as a good eu2 friend as i think of u too abs even when u always turn out to be on the Lyko annexing team
What Bob said.
But seriously, you tend to pick the nations which I have an interest in, thus me attacking you is understandable.
Lies!! all lies!! i never pick a country a country is given to me i could be nippon and u hannover and u would still join the league of "annexing Lyko FTW"
i could be nippon and u hannover and u would still join the league of "annexing Lyko FTW"
Good point you got there, although when you took over China I left you alone, I even gave you back your CoT.
Its amusing that you decide to reply on the comment that was actually not directed at you, but oh wellBurningEGO said:
.I would be the first person to admit that the Poland of C&C was not played to its best potential. Trusting to a dumbass Russia, annexing BB too early, not preparing enough for important wars, not reading rules properly, believing Denmark actually wanted to win the game etc. etc.. The situation i was in was because of my own actions.
But when it came to the future, we had divided opinions, but it seems like its often like that
. I take allies and personal relations in the equation when i try to see what will happen; you seem to play more solo. Both ways work.But in this game, i once again state that you would have come crashing down on the weight of your own behaviour.
We have discussed this before on ICQ, but the entire Eastern European scene was completely dependent on your actions. You had the chance of getting first spot in Scandinavia. You said no thanks.
You gained another chance when England and Poland attacked Sweden, you could have turned the tide and gained something for yourself, but once again said no.
Many more chances, all of them you turned down. Was the fact that i played Poland and you had played BB before a reason for you not wanting to chance your diplomacy, too?
You were played and leashed by Ego. That is not being honourable, it is something else entirely
.
No mulli. i simply didn't backstab Sweden as others would have done. nothing against u annexing as at the time of C&C3 i had alrdy been annexed a few times in ToS and was used to it if u can't accept that i turned down all ur offers to take over scandinavia for my self because i hated u then that's ur choose but truly it didn't matter as i played another country. I even Naped ur sorry ass. I helped my allied and that's what's allied are for.
if u can't accept that i turned down all ur offers to take over scandinavia for my self because i hated u then that's ur choose but truly it didn't matter as i played another country. I even Naped ur sorry ass. I helped my allied and that's what's allied are for.
First, i would need Denmark for whatever war i fought. They focused on the fleet while i focused on land. My fleet on the baltic was only transports to have some good speed to unload and move troops in my provinces. Lyko had the grotesque galley fleet that defeat you.
Second, Absolut, you fail to understand that if you loose all your cores, your enemies can force peace you. I could have taken the 2 provinces you held, quickly taken any colony i wanted (malaca), and force peace you imediately.
Of course i did. Another game where everyone apart from China attacks me.
I mean, wtf. I had 2000 ship suply limit and you guys attacked me with 4000 warships or the such. Dont make me laugh Absolut. Everyone knows that naval war is too crucial for eu2, specially for the Spain i had. I failed to see your fleet coming due to lag, else i would have done what Tonio did to OE-Spain-England in Arma.
In the end, Spain looses more then 30 provinces. That was to thank me all the times i saved your puny nation.
That was the problem in your alliance, you even admit it.
As i said in CC3, i was fighting Poland to get Germany back to Denmark, and maybe Kustrin and another province to cut Poland from Germany. I wouldnt really profit from this. Denmark would get the gross number of provinces.
You should have done the same in OF. And to be honest Absolut, i dont know why you wanted to gang Cheech (OE) in OF. John the session before you joined beated him badly. Cheech barely won one battle. Spain alone crushed the OE. I fail to see why you needed such a gang to prevail over them.
Everyone had to play a backstabber, a liar, the fool or the innocent (at least once) in eu2. Even "honorable Lyko" had.
Of course, everything has a limit. Some people just hit the limit and go ahead no matter what. I remember seeing someone fooling Denmark as Sweden in another game, and in the end annexed Denmark. I think that was in Gotter. That made Denmark go totaly naval and focus on ships. Of course when the dow came Denmark couldnt do a crap. Not to forget the cash that Denmark sent to Sweden early on. :rofl:
If you think i hited rock bottom in CC3 by not peacing you as i said i would, i dont know what you think of that Swedish player in Gotter.
The gang was absurdely out of proportions as i said. Did you see how i got steamrolled in Poland? I didnt even last 1 year! I had hired every mercenary alive, wasted something like 5000d on troops, and depleted my entire MP pool, in something like 1 year! Can you understand how grave this was?~
If i would do as you say, i would have left many more games. In CC3 Austria-OE-Poland (the undisputable 3 land powers, perhaps Poland was not that really undisputable, but he had something like 300 MP), were all against my sweden (80 MP) and Denmark (30-50 MP, not sure). Just Poland had 2x times our combined MP. The OE's wealth was bigger then both my Sweden's and Denmark's wealth. But the war wasnt exactly out of proportions. I had good leaders, supremacy on the baltic and Ear had promised me already to put his knife on Bob's back.
As i said before but will repeat, you only see me leaving games that:
1º have poor GMs (this ranges from GMs that edit whatever they want, or end the session a lot sooner then usual just because their allies are missing, or even others that love to act like the "Your Absolut Ruler and Your God", abusing their powers in the meanwhile)
2º have immoral attacks like a 7v1 gangs on a nation that barely has 100 MP and 150 MI (be it on me, or anyone else)
3º have a LOT of sessions where people play little more then 6 years or games where people just ghost/AI your nation when it is at war, and you are in the lobby waiting for a rehost for more then 2 hours.
If you check all games i left (they arent that much btw), you will see that the reason i did so, is included on these points.
Not really Lyko. The only war that was written on its head that it was destined to me, was when the OE decided to intervene, be it in the first Dutch-Scandinavian war or in the Polish-Swedish one (it seems Bob will never forget the session where i took 3 cots from his nation and distributed it amongst others). Perhaps when Ear attacked you as well (since i had crushed his nation in MTT one week ago), but i doubt that, since after he got your german provinces he peaced me as well.
And this one is destined to you my dear Lyko.
If someone whom you got a nap with, decides to attack one of your current allies, then you have the right to break the same nap. I always thoughT like this and will always do so.
Let us think... What is worse?... Dishonour the alliance or Dishonour a "nap"?
Speaking of CC3 (and this), it made me remember how Engel got pissed at me after i decided to honour the alliance with Denmark. I had a nap with England (he gave me pommern for the nap, and i gave him some cash too). When he (england) attacks Denmark he thinks i would just stand and watch him running amock in my allies' land.
If i had thoughT like you Lyko, i would honour the nap and get you even more screwed.