BurningEGO said:
Ahh good so your point is not worth repeating. Glad we can end this
-
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.
Ahh good so your point is not worth repeating. Glad we can end this
It may not be as heated but it surely is every bit as pathetic. Even worse, it lacks style. Insults and damnations were better in the old days.Mulliman said:
*Nods and potters off, half-blinded by nostalgia, and exits stage left*
well what took me more time to search for was the log from MTT - i only had such on my "nearly broken" HD of my old pc.
Mulliman said:HAH! Admit that youre a nerd.
Uh? I just keep my old pieces of my PC. They usually come in handy.
I fail to understand, why this makes me a nerd. Can you, explain yourself better please?
Mulliman said:
Well, i keep all the junk from my old pcs. When i buy a new PC, i dont throw my old one to the garbage bin - i open it up, and spare whatever i want to.
Dr Bob said:
the gang was totaly unfair i only won cause you guys played it extremly bad after you got control of finland and the border/baltic, didn't push to moscow wich would have forced me to surrender, alowed me to rebuild my army without reinforcing baltic/finland sweden even witdrewn some of the troops
then very very slow reaction to my new offensive to turn the tide my army only faced some frence and some danish, was close to stockholm before any serious english army showed up iirc
btw:
pm only matter in the game while that game lasts, if he desides to show them after the game ended to proof his case he has the right to do that and even before the game ends in some cases tbh ,
only reason it gets deleted or frowned upon if you chek it during game is cause the host secret communication ingame show up in that list so can really hurt the host
Last edited:
Weird history log. Strange people, very emotional at the game, in wrong sense, unfortunately. And totally confusing game.
If you call these gangbans, you aint' seen one
(oh, and there is a difference between partition (a gangbang) and human badboy war)
Only two times more strenght? It isn't even a gangbang. It's normal war. Same for the second example.BurningEGO said:
If you call these gangbans, you aint' seen one
(oh, and there is a difference between partition (a gangbang) and human badboy war)
DarthMaur said:Weird history log. Strange people, very emotional at the game, in wrong sense, unfortunately. And totally confusing game.
Only two times more strenght? It isn't even a gangbang. It's normal war. Same for the second example.
If you call these gangbans, you aint' seen one
(oh, and there is a difference between partition (a gangbang) and human badboy war)
Wierd history log? It was a wierd game.
That game started with 11 players - only 3 reached the end.
Human badboy war? I dont know what you mean, but my Poland Lithuania did not own all cores on Lithuania once it was ganged. I guess that was what made me a badboy.
Dunno how i was a badboy there but ok. About the "gang bang" part, i dont know if you could handle both BBurg attacking you with his whole army (160k men), Denmark messing in Livonia with about 50k men, France attacking you with rougly 200k men, and England/Holland conducting small sieges on your colonies. Defending yourself with only 250k man. Depleted the entire MP pool, the mercenary button got greyed, and there was no way i could win it. Before "ganging" drake, Poland (me) was the first one getting ganged all by itself. If you still think the gang was fair, download the save game from the link i provided, and check it by yourself. I am fairly sure you will see if that gang was needed or not.
About the second example, poof, can you beat a fleet 2 times your number (rougly about 1000-2000 extra warships) without leaders, and exactly the same NT as your enemies? Yes, i though so.
Maur faced quite a few gangbangs in his time. He did not whine and took it like a manBurningEGO said:
. The attitude to gangbangs has become weaker and more whiny of late anyway.
Mulliman said:Maur faced quite a few gangbangs in his time. He did not whine and took it like a man
I am fairly sure the players he played with didnt attack his nation simply because they had lost 4 CoTs in another game.
Why not?BurningEGO said:I am fairly sure the players he played with didnt attack his nation simply because they had lost 4 CoTs in another game.
Human badboy is exactly roughly the human equivalent to normal badboy war. When you amass suffiecent badboy points (virtual, and the rules of getting them are not as clear as when it comes to "real" badboy points), you would (often, at least if the players have enough longterm planning skill) see human coalitions growing to stop you.BurningEGO said:Wierd history log? It was a wierd game.
That game started with 11 players - only 3 reached the end.
Human badboy war? I dont know what you mean, but my Poland Lithuania did not own all cores on Lithuania once it was ganged. I guess that was what made me a badboy.
That's what i call a human badboy war. A gangbang is when a fairly average, or even stronger but still stoppable country is attacked by overhelming (and i do not mean measly 2:1 odds, more like >4:1) force with a goal of not stopping it but with goal of large gains for everyone involved. Which is more than often a bad planning at least of some players of the attacking side.
I don't know if i could handle it if i don't know how good the players were. That makes a whole lot of difference, but 2:1 is hardly unmanageable. You only need to be superior in one skill, either diplomatically, or militairly. 4:1 and worse is when you need to be superior at both. Barring beign some sort of God of War, when you can win even at such odds. At least in early game.BurningEGO said:
Oh, and i don't know about naval combat that much. I heard it's quite different from land combat. Methinks because of lack of attrition, and no need to split forces. Which is what heavily influences land warfare.