MP Balance

[unmerged(10915)]

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.

Well the point i tried to make, which my tired mind obviously could not on first try, was that the alliance was extremely bad for Denmark as a country. You not accepting my offers of deal and alliance is not something im pissed off about. Hell, i cant really remember the exact details of the game anymore :wacko: .
Still, that you stayed allied in a partnership where you gained nothing at all while your ally was getting stronger by the second was painful to watch. This was one of the reasons for why i didnt feel obligated to hold any deal with you; you obviously were acting not out of your own nation's interest, but because of other beilefs.

Still youve stated your reasons for the alliance and however much i dont believe them to be a part of eu2MP, i will respect them .

 

[BurningEGO]

You were played and leashed by Ego. That is not being honourable, it is something else entirely.

You fail to understand our unity.

Do you want to tell me that i also turned your offer down because i was annexed by your Austria (i was venice) in Battlefield or Battlelords or whatever that game was called?

No, although i spoke about revenge my intention was never that. You had turned Protestant and you were too big. You had a lot of provinces i was interested in. Denmark had scandinavian provinces which i could be interested in as well, but i had made my mind of a scandinavian alliance for the entire game, since the very start (and Lyko's admirable actions to save my arse sealed my fate with him). It was some sort of Iberian alliance (Porto-Spain) on a small scale. Some people say that Porto is always dominated by Spain, and you insist to say that Denmark was dominated by Sweden, but it was not so.

Denmark saved me against you and Russia during the 1500's, but i aided them as well against the Dutch-England and later attacked you just to give him his german provinces back.

He helped me, i helped him. The only thing where i turned out to be a little to greedy, i must admit, was when i didnt return Skane back to Denmark. That could have been our achilles' heel, but Lyko was too honorable to disolve such a good alliance only because of a single province.

What can i say? We, were one.

Speak about Scandinavian unity.

 

[BurningEGO]

Still youve stated your reasons for the alliance and however much i dont believe them to be a part of eu2MP, i will respect them.

Mulliman. Although Denmark or Sweden were not really powerful on their own because one of them existed, you cant expect everyone to act on their own narrow interests everytime. Not everyone (like you) backstabs Sweden/Denmark when playing either of them.

And lastly, what made me grow so powerful, wasnt Denmark, but you my dear. You gave me all the baltic because you though i would annex Denmark.

P.S. by the way, mulliman, next time we fight, remember to cancel military acess.

 

[unmerged(10915)]

You fail to understand our unity.

From my discussions with Lyko and you during the time we played the game and afterwards, both of you have issued comments that completely contradict this. Lyko was not aware of the deals we made, he was afraid you would backstab him and that he had made the wrong choice to ally you.

Your own ability to edit facts also makes your claim of unity somewhat suspicious, since it is possible that you just made this up afterwards as it fits in with your argumentation .

 

[unmerged(10915)]

Not everyone (like you) backstabs Sweden/Denmark when playing either of them.

Heh. I challenge you to give me an actual event throughout the history of my own gaming, where i have backstabbed .

You gave me all the baltic because you though i would annex Denmark.

However, this deal and your breaking of it, was quite the backstab. I handed over the Baltics on the terms of an alliance and cooperation. So, you are honourable and keep your deals when it suits you, but not otherwise?

How silly of me to think otherwise of you.

 

[unmerged(49182)]

Of course i did. Another game where everyone apart from China attacks me.

If you dont want people ganging or attacking you Id suggest that you try making some friends and stop making people angry, which you are quite good at.

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.

I cant say anything about that since I wasnt at the session, so if youd want me to stay quiet about it as you previously said Id suggest that you bring something else up. I somehow doubt youd be able to do that, but hey, who am I to judge you? But it doesnt really matter, you left anyway as the game didnt swing your way anymore.

In the end, Spain looses more then 30 provinces. That was to thank me all the times i saved your puny nation.

You saved my ass one time, that was in the war with Italy and Norway. I saved your ass when you had those CWs in the beginning. We were even Id say. Also, I only took 3-4 provinces in Mexico from you.

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.

Yes you would. You would have a stronger ally and thus Scandinavia would be stronger. With a stronger Scandinavia you would play a more dominant part in the world and so on and so forth.

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.

To be honest EGO, I never ganged OE. Poland and Russia got ganged and Austria and Spain were to stop any OE intervention. You seem to forget what you go on and on about. Are you perhaps drunk?

Everyone had to play a backstabber, a liar, the fool or the innocent (at least once) in eu2. Even "honorable Lyko" had.

Well yes, but bragging about it isnt the way to go.

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:

Never heard of it.

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.

Obviously that was a pretty big backstab but I still think you sunk lower.

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?

So you were steamrolled by Brandenburgs "at best pathetic" army? How in the world are you going to do what Tonio did if you, a country with 300 MP is getting owned by a pathetic army?

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.

Would you mind making up your mind. First, the gang is completely out of proportions, then it isnt, then it is. Make up your mind for once EGO!

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.

Well then, none of these criterias matches the reasons you left ie MTT, where you got ganged, BF4, where you lost against Austria, CfQ (I think) where you were France and wasnt allowed to exploit a bug the way you wanted. These criterias fall flat to the ground when you compare them to any game youve played and left.

 

[-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.

after this incident i changed my policy when dealing with Naps that if they attack an ally i'll break it. so i learned something from this my sweet Ego but as yet again. sure i could have broken it but then i would consider my self a Nap breaker but i did break it by defending finland for u the NAp was that i shouldn't attack his lands when it was war. i would defend urs. the we reerangeed when u started to fight eachothers but now i but some rules in the NAP

 

[-Lyko-]

From my discussions with Lyko and you during the time we played the game and afterwards, both of you have issued comments that completely contradict this. Lyko was not aware of the deals we made, he was afraid you would backstab him and that he had made the wrong choice to ally you.

Your own ability to edit facts also makes your claim of unity somewhat suspicious, since it is possible that you just made this up afterwards as it fits in with your argumentation .

haha my dear mulliman.. this is what we call acting, i pretended not to know about it even after we ended but if i still had history from those days on icq i could show them to u

 

[BurningEGO]

To be honest EGO, I never ganged OE. Poland and Russia got ganged and Austria and Spain were to stop any OE intervention. You seem to forget what you go on and on about. Are you perhaps drunk?

You admited you had gone into the alliance with everyone else including Austria in case the OE interfered. If the OE interfered, you would surely have ganged them.

And as i said, if John beated them handsomely before, why did you need Austria to do so?

Well yes, but bragging about it isnt the way to go.

I fail to see how i am bragging. People understand each other by speaking, right? I am trying to make you understand my points by doing so.

Never heard of it.

I think the one who backstabbed El Greco in Denmark, was Mulliman (Sweden). Mulliman can tell you more things - in detail i am sure, if he was the player in Sweden.

EDITED: player in sweden in gotter was Ampoliros actually.

So you were steamrolled by Brandenburgs "at best pathetic" army? How in the world are you going to do what Tonio did if you, a country with 300 MP is getting owned by a pathetic army?

Dear Absolut, you are mixing CC3 with OF a lot. :rofl:

My poland had 100 MP in OF. My Poland was not so big as Mulliman's Poland, and i didnt abuse the vassal bug due to massive decentralization. By vassalizing Russia, Mulliman in CC3 had 300 MP or the such.

If i faced Bradenburg on a 1v1, it would be a stalemate. I had so much MP as he, i had so much wealth as he. His army was pathetic but so was mine! :rofl:

We couldnt field really big armies! I had about 260k suply limit and so did he. He could not aid Denmark vs Russia and at the same crush me. We couldnt have more then 1 front open wide. While i and Russia were focusing on NT and eco techs (after defeating Denmark), Denmark started racing for LT. Not sure if they managed to get a CRT ahead.

Would you mind making up your mind. First, the gang is completely out of proportions, then it isnt, then it is. Make up your mind for once EGO!

Dear Absolut, i think you are having a hard time to understand what i say. I never said that the gang in CC3 (i repeat, CC3, was out of proportions). The one in OF was.

Once i have patience, i will make a list of the wealth/MP of the diferent power blocks in OF, and in CC3, so that you can finally conclude something about it.

What i said about CC3, is that the game didnt went as i wanted it to go. And you said i leave all games once they dont go as i want them to go. It was an example.

Well then, none of these criterias matches the reasons you left ie MTT, where you got ganged, BF4, where you lost against Austria, CfQ (I think) where you were France and wasnt allowed to exploit a bug the way you wanted. These criterias fall flat to the ground when you compare them to any game youve played and left.

You must be blind, for sure Absolut.

MTT - i was ganged by everyone save for China. Lost more then 30 provinces acordingly to the stats. Do you know what a "Gang" is absolut? I start to think you do not have that word on your dictionary, despite you like to do it so many time.
BF4 - Do i need to re-formulate who attacked me? After 4 years of gameplay (i took the nation in 1700 since no one was playing it) i was attacked by Prinz Eugen and Karl of Sweden. My venice had only 150MI when i took over, was full defensive, full naval, and half quality. I attacked Austria's armies when these had no leader commanding it, and i always lost despite the massive number of men. I remember loosing 200k men vs 20k austrians. When i took them over i had what, 20 warships and 50 transports or such - Austria blockaded Veneto and i couldnt do a crap. Karl had taken over all islands on Indonesia and the Swedish fleet of 300-500 warships there was unstopable.

I didnt have a land conection to Italy, and my country was piss-poor, and despite my best efforts i couldnt do an outright crap. I was attacked at the 4th year of game play for christ sake. Tried to get allies, Russia (cheech) agreed to help me but then refused and decided to attack the OE instead. You, absolut, in France, accepted to aid me, but you peaced out for a puny province, leaving me alone vs Austria-Sweden. After i left, Venice was attacked by You, my so called Ally, Spain, England, NL. And was utterly annexed. There was no place for me in that game. I was a new perm and utterly crushed at the 4th year of game play at my first and only session.

My venice held only Veneto, southern Italy-Genoa, Australia and some islands near indonesia. I was attacked by an Austria that had a bigger fleet/army, wealth and an ubber leader. To compensate Sweden joined in. Doesnt fill the criteria? It fills up the "ganged one" IMO.

CQF? QFC2 you mean. You werent in that game where you? Austria inherited Burgundy despite the latter being at war, and the event states that Burgundy would not be inherited if it was at war. Clearly someone cheated me out of this (Burgundy was inherited in game, via event! The conditions didnt met for christ sake! AN EVENT DOES NOT FIRE IF THE CONDITIONS DO NOT MEET!). There were many reasons to why i left that game (specially people insulting me and the GM not doing an outright crap). Doesnt fill the criteria as well? Bodvar was the "Absolut ruler and God" of that game and did whatever came through his mind. Bad GMing on my dictionary. Martin was away the sessions where the bad things hapened and Bodvar didnt bother to fix any of these, in, or after the games (he even refused to add my AAr-ontime cookies for more then one session, making me miss about 3000 in gold, by 1500).

If you bother to show up in ICQ i can give you the 5 or 6 reasons that made me leave QFC for good. Either that, or check my last post on the game thread. But again Absolut, you better check things before you open your mouth to insult people like this. In MTT you werent even there and you also decided to blame me (in a couple of posts) for the departure of Formula (Italy) without knowing the facts.

 

[BurningEGO]

Btw, i just check who was Sweden in Gotter - it was Ampoliros, not Mulliman. Sorry for the misunderstanding there.

 

[-Lyko-]

Omg now u guys ahve started again.. QUIT IT! i remember that this thread was opened because someone asked about balance of the game not who did that and this in other games and plz don't say that this is part of thread :rofl:

 

[unmerged(58575)]

I wanna hear more gossip

Keep it coming! (make a new thread)

 

[BurningEGO]

Although i went a bit Off topic, saying why i left games, we are still speaking about balance, and are still inside the topic. Gangs out of proportion are what ruins balance. A gang or 2 are always needed in any game, since certain nations on their own are not able to defeat others on their own (like Portugal or the NL vs, some biggie like the OE (suposing all players share the same skills)).

Oh and Absolut, obviously i do not match Tonio's skills. But you can ask Bob about my tactical genious once my whole fleet got defeated - i managed to stab hit him about 3 times or such. Even Rokka said he was surprised at the way i fought in that war - i sent small fleets in order to take cots and every colony i could without problems.

I did the same on a small scale to John on CQS. The results? Catastrophic wars that lasted for more then one session, giving John about 20 WE.

Sadly that only helped him due to MT leaders.

 

[unmerged(10915)]

haha my dear mulliman.. this is what we call acting, i pretended not to know about it even after we ended but if i still had history from those days on icq i could show them to u

You havent exactly been the grey eminence of eu2MP during the games ive played with you, so i somehow doubt that comment. But its not possible to reach a conclusion to such bickering, so ill just take that statement for what it is; a statement.

 

[unmerged(10915)]

I wanna hear more gossip

Keep it coming! (make a new thread)

Well, its about time someone creates a thread like "Best memories of Eu2MP" or somesuch, in honour of the community.
Time's almost up.

Ego, why dont you? You seem to have lots of time writing posts right now, write one that really matters .

 

[BurningEGO]

Well, its about time someone creates a thread like "Best memories of Eu2MP" or somesuch, in honour of the community.
Time's almost up.

I agree.

Anyway Mulliman, your biggest problem is that you understimate people. You though that just because you had utterly beaten me in BF4 you could do so in CC3. Now you are saying that Lyko is lying because you dont believe we were such diplomatic genious.

You though you could beat me in our second war, where Denmark and Russia were neutral (denmark only entered the war to kill the british fleet). In the end you loose up Danzig.

Never, ever, understimate people. Even the most pathetic newbie can surprise you.

 

[-Lyko-]

You havent exactly been the grey eminence of eu2MP during the games ive played with you, so i somehow doubt that comment. But its not possible to reach a conclusion to such bickering, so ill just take that statement for what it is; a statement.

true i'm no grey eminence but an excellent master of deceptions.. jsut ask ABS of what i did to his sorry NL fleet in a nappy game we played..

 

[unmerged(10915)]

I agree.

Well then, start the thread .

Anyway Mulliman, your biggest problem is that you understimate people. You though that just because you had utterly beaten me in BF4 you could do so in CC3.

Well, not really. But i must admit that i had played with you too little to know how you played. The one big mistake i made that game, was trusting Russia's military ability. There, i overestimated . I also overestimated Danish ambitions - or just did not understand their viewpoint, from your perspective.

The only estimation i had gotten out of BF4 was that you tended to make a hen out of a feather, to be frank .

Now you are saying that Lyko is lying because you dont believe we were such diplomatic genious.

Not really. I doubt his words because it is quite common for people to dress up the past so it fits in with the present. I do that too, sometimes.

 

[BurningEGO]

No, seriously Mulliman, you should believe on his words. I did exactly the same. Deception and lies, when your country is weak, may earn some gains. You know, if i am saying this, it is because it must be right - i always think that diplomacy is for wussies - i always prefer to trust on the "ethical" behaviour of people.

And in the end i always get screwed. I never learn, do i?

 

[-Lyko-]

whatever mulli i wont sit hear arguing about this my whole life because u simply can't see pass ur own judgement on people. It's ur own right to not bealive us but to judge peoplelike that and to be totally narrowed minded when ur verdicts appears different is just plain simple and narrowed minded.