-
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.
- Status
touche! Although I would be hesitant to consider Ego a newbie based only on hius join date to the forum I was playing Hoi2 for a year before joining.
Did well in leaving that gameBurningEGO said:
... although, I believe you should have pointed out strongly that that's not the way of playing, and btw, that russian player should be here competing with KJ and K'shar 
FAL said:
Amazingly, you are not the first one who says me that. But i will give you the same explanation that i gave to the first guy who looked at my joining date and right at my 4th post said that my ass should be crawling with assassins (in CK). I have been coming to these forums for far too long, but i didnt pay attention to what people said, and i just came to "download stuff". Mods for SP. One example of these were the Mongol Empire scenario, which i really got adicted to. I still remember, the first time i entered Vnet. There were 0 players in all channels. Since all the MP games i had played were never like this, i always though eu2 was dead long time ago. And so i though eu2 was another "Imperialism" or "Anno 1602", which afaik, are totaly dead. Until one of my drunk friends from Norway, spoke with me about the new patches and about the big comunity eu2 had. The first time i joined the forum i saw LOTS of users. Never, in a single forum, did i see so many users at once. Afterwards, he told me about the MES (which he was involved in doing a few events), and so, i got even more hooked to eu2 then i already was. I never cared about joining a MP game, because i was simply too busy with Empire Earth, Rise of Nations, Age of Mythology and Wacraft 3. When the same guy who says that my ass should be crawling with assassins invite me to an eu2 game, i simply forget all the other games, and start playing this one, once again.
The reason i got eu2 was because it was offered to me. I had been playing a "patchless" eu2 for over an year before patching it. And i have been playing eu2 since 2003/2004. I can still remember these smelly provinces with 1% RR... Hopefully rebels didnt share your tech, iirc.
But if you consider me a newbie, could you tell me, if i am stubbord as well? If so, why?
It does indeed have a thread of its own (but not in this forum). But i am not posting that, until next Monday. And i hope that if the current players of that game see this, will not post the link as well.
Last edited:
BurningEGO said:But if you consider me a newbie, could you tell me, if i am stubbord as well? If so, why?
Nah, just wanted to tease a bit
Remember that attacks on other users are not allowed here. If they aren't registered here, there is no problem AFAIK.
So far you kept it relative anonymous and it's probably better if you keep it this way.
You can PM or ICQ those who want to know who it are you played with.
It's OKBurningEGO said:As i said, in the first post, they will remain anonymus.
... just hope that those guys can see this and note how wrong they are 
Bias? & a FINAL, and I mean FINAL comment from me on this matter
Had it ever occured to anyone here, that before jumping on BurningEgo's bandwagon with his tale of how horribly he was wronged by 'stubborn newbies' that one might want to pause and ask whether his questions were in any way biased? Did anyone have alarm bells go off when they read statements of BurningEgo's where he backpedaled from the ironclad 'this is a rule' much the way that "no exploits" is a rule to the it was more of a "gentlemen's agreement?"
You show your true colors burningego, and just how immature you are with this thread. You whine and bitch and moan in the game thread about the great injustice done to you, and in spite of repeated requests from the GM to drop the various issues you continue to slander your fellow players (long before anyone called you a cheater - a matter which, by the way, was dealt with by the GM privately). Its unsettling to me to see that you've taken your complaints here, I would've hoped that we could part way without enmity, as I said before and will say now - I am trying my damndest not to despise you, but your immaturity and insulting behavior are really trying my patience to the utmost - I think its worth mentioning also that guy that called you a 'cheater' (largely out of frustration, as it was his first game, so congrats on beating him so decisively - truly an impressive feat to defeat a newbie with a smaller nation) is undoubtedly one of the calmest people I've ever played games with online - which is not to say that the rest of the players are raging hotheads, just that you merely knew precisely how to push his buttons and did so repeatedly for no reason that I could discern.
All this collectively is why you were booted, it had nothing to do with Suvorov, it had nothing to do with the war that was going on - please remember that the GM was absent the session of the great meltdown, and that in your posts afterwards was when you had managed to irk him to the same degree that you had irked everyone else with your refusal to let matters rest. I don't know how much clearer the GM could have been when he booted you, that it had everything to do with your attitude and your behavior and nothing to do with your in game play or situation. That you were given warnings, told to lighten up (just as a couple of other people were, the only difference was that you didn't heed those warnings, which is why they are still playing and you would not be welcome to even if you wanted to).
I will not address the concerns you raised because you've done so in an inaccurate and revisionist way and nothing pisses me off more - you've painted the issues in a way such that people will obviously agree with you, regardless of the distortions of truth that you had to do to get things that way. I've tried and tried in the past to argue with you when you do this, and to no avail. I would thank you not to name names or point fingers, as (and I've said this MANY times before) it would be utterly pointless and do nothing but cause ill will & be contrary to the spirit of friendly competition that is a requirement (I think) for games such as this (which again comes back to why you were ousted, your behavior was not in line with this principle, and while creating a 'hostile atmosphere' and causing players to quit/not want to play because of your attitude was not in the rules per se, it should have been self-evident that it was a no-no).
I, and I'm not alone in this only wish you knew when to drop something and move on, and at least acknowledge the possibility that your viewpoint is not the only legitimate one that one might hold. For instance, England respected and understoodd your feelings on not wanting to partake in that 'gentlemen's agreement' regarding trading in CoTs, which is why they stopped trying to persuade you long ago & simply embargoed Russia's sorry ass - and so clearly the GM did not fear you, as you were impotent to lift such an embargo & the only reason it wasn't in place sooner was because you joined a different war against France and WP'ed and the truce bought you five years of harassment in English CoTs. And dammit I'm pissed at myself now for even getting into this again - it is pointless! Why are we still arguing these things? I admit that I do have some small desire to have the 'last word' as it were, but really, this bickering is of no consequence, and neither I nor anyone else in the game will say anything further on this matter as nothing, I repeat, NOTHING good could come of it - we've gone our separate ways, its unfortunate that you didn't want that to be without bitterness (as you appear to be trying to argue your case repeatedly even after the verdict has been rendered and we've gone our separate ways, which causes only more ill-feelings, you're not in the game anymore - what does it matter now?!)
But since it seems to still be important to you, whine, bitch and moan to your heart's content, just please keep it out of the current game thread & especially out of the *next* game thread where it is even more out of line.
Again, this is the *final* word from the rest of the group, if you *do* continue to argue this point where it shouldn't be argued (in the thread after the issue has been settled), simply expect first for this post to be repeated as many times as it takes to sink in (admittedly this won't be many as you'll rather quickly force the second option upon the group) OR
the thread will be closed off to you, which is most unfortunate as I know for a fact that the GM was still perfectly willing to listen to you speak, so long as it wasn't belligerent and that it was on topics that were germane to the discussion (i.e. not a rehashing of old arguments just to stir up trouble).
*sigh* I am already sorry I've wasted another 15 minutes of my life arguing this nonsense with you BE. This experience has left me with such a bad taste in my mouth that in spite of being a hardcore Eu2/HoI player since the original EU (so I'm not exactly a 'stubborn newbie') I have often though of quitting to be rid of the incessant and pointless bickering that seems to accompany so many games, probably as a result of so many conflicting egos... I suppose I should've known when I first saw your screenname that there was some truth in advertising left ... (though I'm not quite sure what is meant by it being 'burning')
Had it ever occured to anyone here, that before jumping on BurningEgo's bandwagon with his tale of how horribly he was wronged by 'stubborn newbies' that one might want to pause and ask whether his questions were in any way biased? Did anyone have alarm bells go off when they read statements of BurningEgo's where he backpedaled from the ironclad 'this is a rule' much the way that "no exploits" is a rule to the it was more of a "gentlemen's agreement?"
You show your true colors burningego, and just how immature you are with this thread. You whine and bitch and moan in the game thread about the great injustice done to you, and in spite of repeated requests from the GM to drop the various issues you continue to slander your fellow players (long before anyone called you a cheater - a matter which, by the way, was dealt with by the GM privately). Its unsettling to me to see that you've taken your complaints here, I would've hoped that we could part way without enmity, as I said before and will say now - I am trying my damndest not to despise you, but your immaturity and insulting behavior are really trying my patience to the utmost - I think its worth mentioning also that guy that called you a 'cheater' (largely out of frustration, as it was his first game, so congrats on beating him so decisively - truly an impressive feat to defeat a newbie with a smaller nation) is undoubtedly one of the calmest people I've ever played games with online - which is not to say that the rest of the players are raging hotheads, just that you merely knew precisely how to push his buttons and did so repeatedly for no reason that I could discern.
All this collectively is why you were booted, it had nothing to do with Suvorov, it had nothing to do with the war that was going on - please remember that the GM was absent the session of the great meltdown, and that in your posts afterwards was when you had managed to irk him to the same degree that you had irked everyone else with your refusal to let matters rest. I don't know how much clearer the GM could have been when he booted you, that it had everything to do with your attitude and your behavior and nothing to do with your in game play or situation. That you were given warnings, told to lighten up (just as a couple of other people were, the only difference was that you didn't heed those warnings, which is why they are still playing and you would not be welcome to even if you wanted to).
I will not address the concerns you raised because you've done so in an inaccurate and revisionist way and nothing pisses me off more - you've painted the issues in a way such that people will obviously agree with you, regardless of the distortions of truth that you had to do to get things that way. I've tried and tried in the past to argue with you when you do this, and to no avail. I would thank you not to name names or point fingers, as (and I've said this MANY times before) it would be utterly pointless and do nothing but cause ill will & be contrary to the spirit of friendly competition that is a requirement (I think) for games such as this (which again comes back to why you were ousted, your behavior was not in line with this principle, and while creating a 'hostile atmosphere' and causing players to quit/not want to play because of your attitude was not in the rules per se, it should have been self-evident that it was a no-no).
I, and I'm not alone in this only wish you knew when to drop something and move on, and at least acknowledge the possibility that your viewpoint is not the only legitimate one that one might hold. For instance, England respected and understoodd your feelings on not wanting to partake in that 'gentlemen's agreement' regarding trading in CoTs, which is why they stopped trying to persuade you long ago & simply embargoed Russia's sorry ass - and so clearly the GM did not fear you, as you were impotent to lift such an embargo & the only reason it wasn't in place sooner was because you joined a different war against France and WP'ed and the truce bought you five years of harassment in English CoTs. And dammit I'm pissed at myself now for even getting into this again - it is pointless! Why are we still arguing these things? I admit that I do have some small desire to have the 'last word' as it were, but really, this bickering is of no consequence, and neither I nor anyone else in the game will say anything further on this matter as nothing, I repeat, NOTHING good could come of it - we've gone our separate ways, its unfortunate that you didn't want that to be without bitterness (as you appear to be trying to argue your case repeatedly even after the verdict has been rendered and we've gone our separate ways, which causes only more ill-feelings, you're not in the game anymore - what does it matter now?!)
But since it seems to still be important to you, whine, bitch and moan to your heart's content, just please keep it out of the current game thread & especially out of the *next* game thread where it is even more out of line.
Again, this is the *final* word from the rest of the group, if you *do* continue to argue this point where it shouldn't be argued (in the thread after the issue has been settled), simply expect first for this post to be repeated as many times as it takes to sink in (admittedly this won't be many as you'll rather quickly force the second option upon the group) OR
the thread will be closed off to you, which is most unfortunate as I know for a fact that the GM was still perfectly willing to listen to you speak, so long as it wasn't belligerent and that it was on topics that were germane to the discussion (i.e. not a rehashing of old arguments just to stir up trouble).
*sigh* I am already sorry I've wasted another 15 minutes of my life arguing this nonsense with you BE. This experience has left me with such a bad taste in my mouth that in spite of being a hardcore Eu2/HoI player since the original EU (so I'm not exactly a 'stubborn newbie') I have often though of quitting to be rid of the incessant and pointless bickering that seems to accompany so many games, probably as a result of so many conflicting egos... I suppose I should've known when I first saw your screenname that there was some truth in advertising left ... (though I'm not quite sure what is meant by it being 'burning')
Look, i dont want this thread to be closed due to insults and counter insults, or to outright flaming. I just wanted opinions to see how wrong you were. No matter what i said, i was always the one wrong in that godforsaken game. The GM, who was away, didnt see how insulted the Russian player was (and how many pauses were in that game... about 20 in less then 22 years). Then in the thread of that great game, the GM forces the Russian player to apologize all other players. I truly never understood this. He is called a cheater, exploiter, and even got players wanting to boot him and take his country (which seems to really have pissed him). Of course, pacience has a limit, so after being insulted, he insulted them as well.
What i did find great fun, was why did the Russian player got forced to ask apologies to the rest of the crew, and the others werent forced to apologize him as well. I dont know, but it sounds to me that someone convinced the GM (who i repeat didnt play that session where all that crap hapened), that the Russian player was the bad guy.
Also, i am responsible for having a great player in Austria, which after being totaly defeated keeps being at war versus France, and recuses every peace demand. His stab goes -3, his capital is ocupied... and guess what. His government fell. I wasnt the French player, i didnt ocupy his capital, but i am responsible for his government falling. Austria is reduced to one province, and then the player doesnt show up the following sessions. Of course, i am responsible for this. Obviously. And i never remember ever insulting the Austrian player. I said and will say again, if i ever did this, post what i said in the game by checking the log.
But i do not feel sorry for the Austrian player, not even a bit. He forced Poland to liberate Bohemia, which the Polish player openly refused, and begged for Russian help. Russia helps, and the biggest gang i ever saw happens (this was all before 1500). 5v2. One could say Poland was in the war, but the Polish army was less then 20k men, and never was bigger. Despite the Odds, the russian player snatches daghestan, kurland, livland, estland, poznan and hinterpommern. Then all players blame me for getting a sub in Poland right when Austria and BBurg were about to partition it... And also blame me for backing Poland to the last men.
I would. I certainly would. But when i read the thread to see how things are going, and if one of my friends is going to play or not, i just notice that i am insulted once again (and i am not even part of the game!). Does the GM of that game force the player to apologize the other? If the player who insulted me doesnt do so, would he be booted, like me and like the Russian player? Of course not... Why i dont know, but would truly like to.
Calmest. The first time he had a civil war (this was the first time, but he had 3 more civil wars), i just opened my mouth to say "Civil war in Spain!". Right after i had a barrage of insults. He got even more provinces then whole of Russia (indeed Spain owns the WHOLE african continent, south america and another good bite of provinces), and is indeed the smallest nation in the game. He, like the GM, and like some guys, said they were playing eu2 since it came out. And now you say it was his first game? Make up your mind, for once. Once i get pacience, i am going to post how "small" Spain was.
What i did find great fun, was why did the Russian player got forced to ask apologies to the rest of the crew, and the others werent forced to apologize him as well. I dont know, but it sounds to me that someone convinced the GM (who i repeat didnt play that session where all that crap hapened), that the Russian player was the bad guy.
Also, i am responsible for having a great player in Austria, which after being totaly defeated keeps being at war versus France, and recuses every peace demand. His stab goes -3, his capital is ocupied... and guess what. His government fell. I wasnt the French player, i didnt ocupy his capital, but i am responsible for his government falling. Austria is reduced to one province, and then the player doesnt show up the following sessions. Of course, i am responsible for this. Obviously. And i never remember ever insulting the Austrian player. I said and will say again, if i ever did this, post what i said in the game by checking the log.
But i do not feel sorry for the Austrian player, not even a bit. He forced Poland to liberate Bohemia, which the Polish player openly refused, and begged for Russian help. Russia helps, and the biggest gang i ever saw happens (this was all before 1500). 5v2. One could say Poland was in the war, but the Polish army was less then 20k men, and never was bigger. Despite the Odds, the russian player snatches daghestan, kurland, livland, estland, poznan and hinterpommern. Then all players blame me for getting a sub in Poland right when Austria and BBurg were about to partition it... And also blame me for backing Poland to the last men.
I would. I certainly would. But when i read the thread to see how things are going, and if one of my friends is going to play or not, i just notice that i am insulted once again (and i am not even part of the game!). Does the GM of that game force the player to apologize the other? If the player who insulted me doesnt do so, would he be booted, like me and like the Russian player? Of course not... Why i dont know, but would truly like to.
Calmest. The first time he had a civil war (this was the first time, but he had 3 more civil wars), i just opened my mouth to say "Civil war in Spain!". Right after i had a barrage of insults. He got even more provinces then whole of Russia (indeed Spain owns the WHOLE african continent, south america and another good bite of provinces), and is indeed the smallest nation in the game. He, like the GM, and like some guys, said they were playing eu2 since it came out. And now you say it was his first game? Make up your mind, for once. Once i get pacience, i am going to post how "small" Spain was.
BE... the annoyance that just keeps on giving.
Well Foxx seems to think it might matter what some people think here, so I'll do my part. First off, I'd like to point out that I didn't wade through the huge sea of text that preceeded me, not that I don't care, I’m just lazy. In that it involved BE though I think I can predict what he said.
First off, why he got banned, here are some of the most concise gems (I can assure you, there were others):
"I really hate to get this low, but apart from Hal (and Foxx and perhaps hypo), everyone seems to be a darned, lame, oportunist, newbie. This is what i get from not taking a single province from you? From being so generous to not DOW you at your point of greatest weakness? Baue, you are the most disgusting character i ever saw (if you REALLY wanted to make me leave just to take my country). This, just makes me, fight to the end. I will drag you all deep to the shit you created."
"And if it wasnt for prussia and hal's skills, you newbies would be dead meat by now."
"Although, i do feel proud of having being gang banged. For the whole session, no one managed to gain the upper hand. Even 6v1... Ahah..." (At the time we stopped, about 8-9 years into the war, N. Alliance had +90%, S. Alliance +64%, so this is indicative of BE's incapability of doing anything wrong in eu2. Including losing.)
"I do feel like Kopernik (the guy who said the sun was the center of the solar system). Trying to tell everyone that he was right about his theory, in the end, he is almost killed." Comparing oneself to COPERNICUS, well that takes some conviction. Regardless of how one feels about the agreements or rules, if they are popularly adopted one cannot expect to simply declare them wrong and expect everyone to follow in step to your will. That would however be exactly what BE did.
None of these concise examples really gives the reader a full taste of just how irritating BE was, but suffice to say he had many tendencies that grated on the nerves of others. The GM eventually asked him to apologize for his actions and be nicer towards to the group or else he would no longer be welcome in our game. He refused, so the GM asked him to leave. **The GM made no demands of him other then for him to change his personal conduct.**
About the '6v1.' This was in fact a 5v1 (FRA, SWE, OE, PRU, SPA v. RUS) and it all initially started because of Poland, the prize in the middle of me (FRA), PRU, & RUS. I wanted Polands yummy catholic territories, but I was concerned that if I moved on it alone the other two (PRU & RUS) would attack me. So what should I do? Band together with another one of the triad and screw the one left out. I actually contemplated trying it with RUS instead of PRU but RUS unwisely allied Poland and so my decision was made. The agreement concluded, our *separate* alliances went to war in an act of temporary cooperation, Poland was carved up, but there was one problem. The OE wanted three provinces in the Balkans. Now, some might say when this sort of pain comes at you, you should be conciliatory. But not BE, oh no. He wouldn't budge about those three provs. Did he ever offer those in peace terms to the OE? No. He simply decided we wanted to kill him and never even considered that peace might be possible. And that has been the underpinning assumption in his poor, abused Russia fantasy. All of this has been an entirely greater problem then it had to be, both BE’s getting banned and the huge war in Russia were wholly avoidable.
At any rate, to address the Pdox group as a whole. Even if there are disagreements about the way we play it misses one simply point. *We* enjoy the way we play, we operate for the most part by informal agreements and popular sovereignty. If someone participating in our games wants the status quo changed, they have to convince others to go along with the change until it comes into effect due to popular will. I in fact would like to get some things changed and some new things adopted. However I try and make this come about by crafting an argument and convincing others, if that fails, I accept it. If someone wants to act in a manner different to how we’re acting, unless ‘acting different’ means using an exploit, there are no rules stopping them. And off the top of my head I in fact can’t think of any in game exploits a non GM player could do actually. Our method of playing isn’t really that crazy either, two of the players have a Bachelors in Political Science, a third is well on his way. We know an awful lot about the Poly Sci field International Relations, which deals with how states act to forward their interests in an international setting. I guess there are some things we could do to make the game more volatile, but we don’t have any agreements to that effect, so lacking that we just act rationally. Which means building a really, really badass country and screwing over the person on top if need be. Granted the whole screwing over the big guy thing didn’t really happen this game, but that was partly because of my careful efforts to head that off as FRA in the early game, and later game because I needed SPAs help far more than I needed him dead (I still lead in VPs at least.) A situation BE should relate to actually, he was in the exact same position when I was the top country early game.
Well Foxx seems to think it might matter what some people think here, so I'll do my part. First off, I'd like to point out that I didn't wade through the huge sea of text that preceeded me, not that I don't care, I’m just lazy. In that it involved BE though I think I can predict what he said.
First off, why he got banned, here are some of the most concise gems (I can assure you, there were others):
"I really hate to get this low, but apart from Hal (and Foxx and perhaps hypo), everyone seems to be a darned, lame, oportunist, newbie. This is what i get from not taking a single province from you? From being so generous to not DOW you at your point of greatest weakness? Baue, you are the most disgusting character i ever saw (if you REALLY wanted to make me leave just to take my country). This, just makes me, fight to the end. I will drag you all deep to the shit you created."
"And if it wasnt for prussia and hal's skills, you newbies would be dead meat by now."
"Although, i do feel proud of having being gang banged. For the whole session, no one managed to gain the upper hand. Even 6v1... Ahah..." (At the time we stopped, about 8-9 years into the war, N. Alliance had +90%, S. Alliance +64%, so this is indicative of BE's incapability of doing anything wrong in eu2. Including losing.)
"I do feel like Kopernik (the guy who said the sun was the center of the solar system). Trying to tell everyone that he was right about his theory, in the end, he is almost killed." Comparing oneself to COPERNICUS, well that takes some conviction. Regardless of how one feels about the agreements or rules, if they are popularly adopted one cannot expect to simply declare them wrong and expect everyone to follow in step to your will. That would however be exactly what BE did.
None of these concise examples really gives the reader a full taste of just how irritating BE was, but suffice to say he had many tendencies that grated on the nerves of others. The GM eventually asked him to apologize for his actions and be nicer towards to the group or else he would no longer be welcome in our game. He refused, so the GM asked him to leave. **The GM made no demands of him other then for him to change his personal conduct.**
About the '6v1.' This was in fact a 5v1 (FRA, SWE, OE, PRU, SPA v. RUS) and it all initially started because of Poland, the prize in the middle of me (FRA), PRU, & RUS. I wanted Polands yummy catholic territories, but I was concerned that if I moved on it alone the other two (PRU & RUS) would attack me. So what should I do? Band together with another one of the triad and screw the one left out. I actually contemplated trying it with RUS instead of PRU but RUS unwisely allied Poland and so my decision was made. The agreement concluded, our *separate* alliances went to war in an act of temporary cooperation, Poland was carved up, but there was one problem. The OE wanted three provinces in the Balkans. Now, some might say when this sort of pain comes at you, you should be conciliatory. But not BE, oh no. He wouldn't budge about those three provs. Did he ever offer those in peace terms to the OE? No. He simply decided we wanted to kill him and never even considered that peace might be possible. And that has been the underpinning assumption in his poor, abused Russia fantasy. All of this has been an entirely greater problem then it had to be, both BE’s getting banned and the huge war in Russia were wholly avoidable.
At any rate, to address the Pdox group as a whole. Even if there are disagreements about the way we play it misses one simply point. *We* enjoy the way we play, we operate for the most part by informal agreements and popular sovereignty. If someone participating in our games wants the status quo changed, they have to convince others to go along with the change until it comes into effect due to popular will. I in fact would like to get some things changed and some new things adopted. However I try and make this come about by crafting an argument and convincing others, if that fails, I accept it. If someone wants to act in a manner different to how we’re acting, unless ‘acting different’ means using an exploit, there are no rules stopping them. And off the top of my head I in fact can’t think of any in game exploits a non GM player could do actually. Our method of playing isn’t really that crazy either, two of the players have a Bachelors in Political Science, a third is well on his way. We know an awful lot about the Poly Sci field International Relations, which deals with how states act to forward their interests in an international setting. I guess there are some things we could do to make the game more volatile, but we don’t have any agreements to that effect, so lacking that we just act rationally. Which means building a really, really badass country and screwing over the person on top if need be. Granted the whole screwing over the big guy thing didn’t really happen this game, but that was partly because of my careful efforts to head that off as FRA in the early game, and later game because I needed SPAs help far more than I needed him dead (I still lead in VPs at least.) A situation BE should relate to actually, he was in the exact same position when I was the top country early game.
I do ask you to post your and everyone's previous statements. Pacience has a limit like i said.
Also about the rules. Well, i never broke one. That agreement wasnt a rule. There was no forced peace rule. The only one who had +90 WS was Prussia/Sweden. The OE/Spain despite all the provinces they got from me had something like +7 WS. And France had something about +50 WS. Now, now, who was hurting the most from the war? Well, seems like although i didnt want this thread to be closed, it will end so.
Also about the rules. Well, i never broke one. That agreement wasnt a rule. There was no forced peace rule. The only one who had +90 WS was Prussia/Sweden. The OE/Spain despite all the provinces they got from me had something like +7 WS. And France had something about +50 WS. Now, now, who was hurting the most from the war? Well, seems like although i didnt want this thread to be closed, it will end so.
I've reconsidered...
Your point Hypothermia is well taken - Spain played the diplomacy game very well, giving both France and England enough to keep us both from ever waging war on her. And thus she built this vast colonial empire, dwarfing that of England or France - though I remain confident that *either* country could fight Spain and hold their own, if not win. England at sea, and France could simply flood troops across the mountains on your southern border.
As for France's ridiculous gains in europe...England was too weak initially to oppose your expansion - especially alone, and any willing partners had bigger fish to fry, she certainly would have liked to stop your backstab of the Austrians, but could not do so without Spanish help - but Spain was too busy building an empire overseas and converting heathens to be of any assistance.
Sweden & Brandenburg were busy with impotent Austria fighting off the Russian menace & their Polish lapdogs, and the Ottomans brief entry into the war against Russia showed just how valuable they could be. So what *was* England to do at that point? Fight France (who had all of the low countries and Italy and parts of Germany) alone with her 30 manpower. I suppose England could have, but what would've been the point - no landing could be made on the continent, and the royal navy was not in its current, dominating form.
So yes, England was somewhat more timid and isolationistic than historically - though I do want to know how it was that its BB got so high if it was so peaceful as BE says. I'll tell you how, it was from beating up AI heathens (mostly in India) - I think that BE is mad about the lack of wars, and indeed he shares a sentiment I once espoused, but really though France, Spain & England carved things up in a series of deals that left everyone happy enough to not risk what they had in a war against one of the others (for fear that it might turn into a war against both of the others or worse).
As I assessed the problem before, its simply that it was realized by some players a long time ago that more could be gained by negotiation than by brute force, though really the best players use a combination of both
And so vast stretches of the earth are carved into spheres of influence without shots being fired, in a way I still agree with BurningEgo, that our games could use a few more wars - but I think also as a result of our talks people are also more stubborn & so wars are never cheap - its funny that he called that war between the French empire & the Protestant coalition as a 'little war' in spite of the stats I posted regarding the losses each side incurred, it was quite a scuffle - and frankly I am a bit surprised it ended so soon. I expected it to turn into a WWI esque stalemate.
Oh and since I'm not sure if he caught this or not, but its a shame that I missed that last session with that 'gang-up' on russia thing, because you guys know me... I hate to see that sort of thing happen, I hate bandwagoning. BurningEgo, were I there I can't tell you how easy it would've been for you to convince me to leave my protestant friends and help you out... I in all likelihood would've been looking for excuses to come to your aid... I despise bandwagoning that much, so its truly a shame that I wasn't around for that session, I would've enjoyed that war as you'd be the worst possible ally for me - no way for me to help you directly (other than with money) & no way for you to help me directly (other than by tying down huge enemy armies and killing them with your best general, General Winter... who, by the way, Russia *really* ought to promote to a field marshal, if any general has earned that promotion, its General winter).
And one final point - actually BE, there WAS/IS a 'forced peace' rule, though I will have to take your word for it not being applicable in your situation, as I don't know what the relative warscores were.
Your point Hypothermia is well taken - Spain played the diplomacy game very well, giving both France and England enough to keep us both from ever waging war on her. And thus she built this vast colonial empire, dwarfing that of England or France - though I remain confident that *either* country could fight Spain and hold their own, if not win. England at sea, and France could simply flood troops across the mountains on your southern border.
As for France's ridiculous gains in europe...England was too weak initially to oppose your expansion - especially alone, and any willing partners had bigger fish to fry, she certainly would have liked to stop your backstab of the Austrians, but could not do so without Spanish help - but Spain was too busy building an empire overseas and converting heathens to be of any assistance.
Sweden & Brandenburg were busy with impotent Austria fighting off the Russian menace & their Polish lapdogs, and the Ottomans brief entry into the war against Russia showed just how valuable they could be. So what *was* England to do at that point? Fight France (who had all of the low countries and Italy and parts of Germany) alone with her 30 manpower. I suppose England could have, but what would've been the point - no landing could be made on the continent, and the royal navy was not in its current, dominating form.
So yes, England was somewhat more timid and isolationistic than historically - though I do want to know how it was that its BB got so high if it was so peaceful as BE says. I'll tell you how, it was from beating up AI heathens (mostly in India) - I think that BE is mad about the lack of wars, and indeed he shares a sentiment I once espoused, but really though France, Spain & England carved things up in a series of deals that left everyone happy enough to not risk what they had in a war against one of the others (for fear that it might turn into a war against both of the others or worse).
As I assessed the problem before, its simply that it was realized by some players a long time ago that more could be gained by negotiation than by brute force, though really the best players use a combination of both
And so vast stretches of the earth are carved into spheres of influence without shots being fired, in a way I still agree with BurningEgo, that our games could use a few more wars - but I think also as a result of our talks people are also more stubborn & so wars are never cheap - its funny that he called that war between the French empire & the Protestant coalition as a 'little war' in spite of the stats I posted regarding the losses each side incurred, it was quite a scuffle - and frankly I am a bit surprised it ended so soon. I expected it to turn into a WWI esque stalemate.
Oh and since I'm not sure if he caught this or not, but its a shame that I missed that last session with that 'gang-up' on russia thing, because you guys know me... I hate to see that sort of thing happen, I hate bandwagoning. BurningEgo, were I there I can't tell you how easy it would've been for you to convince me to leave my protestant friends and help you out... I in all likelihood would've been looking for excuses to come to your aid... I despise bandwagoning that much, so its truly a shame that I wasn't around for that session, I would've enjoyed that war as you'd be the worst possible ally for me - no way for me to help you directly (other than with money) & no way for you to help me directly (other than by tying down huge enemy armies and killing them with your best general, General Winter... who, by the way, Russia *really* ought to promote to a field marshal, if any general has earned that promotion, its General winter).
And one final point - actually BE, there WAS/IS a 'forced peace' rule, though I will have to take your word for it not being applicable in your situation, as I don't know what the relative warscores were.
To prove how small Spain is, i am posting some pictures... This is a few months before the war erupted...
Western Europe:
Eastern Europe:
Western and Parts of North Africa:
South Africa:
Eastern Africa and Arabia:
South America, Part 1:
South America, Part 2:
Seems like our concepts "clash" again. And once again, there is a HUGE gap between them. I dont truly know what is your concept of "Small", but i guess common folk doesnt think that way. Truly, the most Smallest country i ever saw.
EDITED: About VPs... Well, Russia really does heavy colonization in the new world, Russia does got a big NT to explore every sea province, Russia did bash all AIs in Asia. My fault for falling behind in victory points. All i can do, is stare looking at your VP skills. But what about all battles that took place in my soil? You truly won them all. And when things look grim, you can always toss a barrage of insults to me, calling me cheater.
Now, honestly, can someone out there tell me if there is actually any cheat/program for eu2 that works in multiplayer? I dont think eu2 is such a popular game to have cheats. Well, comparing to games like Age of Empires, that is.
Western Europe:
Eastern Europe:
Western and Parts of North Africa:
South Africa:
Eastern Africa and Arabia:
South America, Part 1:
South America, Part 2:
Seems like our concepts "clash" again. And once again, there is a HUGE gap between them. I dont truly know what is your concept of "Small", but i guess common folk doesnt think that way. Truly, the most Smallest country i ever saw.
EDITED: About VPs... Well, Russia really does heavy colonization in the new world, Russia does got a big NT to explore every sea province, Russia did bash all AIs in Asia. My fault for falling behind in victory points. All i can do, is stare looking at your VP skills. But what about all battles that took place in my soil? You truly won them all. And when things look grim, you can always toss a barrage of insults to me, calling me cheater.
Now, honestly, can someone out there tell me if there is actually any cheat/program for eu2 that works in multiplayer? I dont think eu2 is such a popular game to have cheats. Well, comparing to games like Age of Empires, that is.
Last edited:
The ability of France to grow that huge, is a severe failure on the part of her opponents .
.
I agree Mulliman, but as I tried to say earlier it wasn't that everyone sat around and did nothing while she grew large... well, no, thats what I did as England because I couldn't fight France alone at any point after I realized that she needed to be better contained. Brandenburg/Sweden were too worried about Russia and too far away when France could've been stopped, Spain was collaborating with France to assure him being able to set up the colonial empire you see in BE's pictures & Austria was being inept by refusing to sign peace with AI coalitions that defeated him
So I guess in retrospect I am ashamed of my cowardice, not being willing to fight France alone in the 16th century... though I had legitimate reasons to fear that France & Spain had some secret treaty that were I to declare war on France, Spain would declare war on me. So perhaps my sitting back and stockpiling money wasn't so irrational.
Its also amusing to me BurningEgo that you only throw back the words of my colleagues at me - the only things I insult you for are your personal behavior on the forums (arguing long after things are decided, immaturity & the like)... I never once called you (or suspected you of being) a cheater. I think you're a pretty decent Eu2 player and it took a LOT for me to get to the point where I'd want you gone - frankly only 3 of the players in the game had any experience with it, the others were all newbies or only played once or twice previously. It was France's 2nd mp game, Sweden & Turkey it was their first game. England, Spain & Brandenburg were solid eu2 veterans with countless hours of experience. But I digress, at no point do I recall ever saying you were a cheater, and you are not held to a different standard than anyone else, a "clarification" of conduct has been added to the ruleset because of this whole incident - and overall I think the problem was that one or two players lost their cool when you said something that they found offensive at a bad time (giving spain obvious advice about how to avoid civil wars is somewhat condescending, "hey spain, maybe you'd get fewer civil wars if you had positive stability" :>p No shit sherlock. Thanks for the tip.
Anyways these things set the tone, so when you and I had our disagreement about the trade thing, it was already hostile, though frankly the issue was settled in my mind - you were permanently embargoed. Had you negotiated with me, you might've been able to get some of my sweet, sweet CoT goodness, but nope you had to be an ass and show up uninvited, and we totally all the way free trade slider English don't like that sort of thing, its quite rude I daresay. And you seemed to take my arguing the point (prior to being able to embargo you because of our WHITE peace/treaty) about collusion/competition and which was more profitable personally. Again, my insults at you have all been based off of out of game context things, frankly I think you boasted too much, you were condescending towards other players and you contributed to a hostile game environment, and when your contribution to that problem led to the blow up that it did, you had to go.
And go you ... went? ... well no, we seem to still be arguing this, and it is as fruitless as ever.
So lets get to something that might bear fruit. I was playing England, I described the situation above, HOW would you suggest I contain Spain & France - I agreed to partition the world colonially in the manner that you see there, because Spain agreed to give me ALL of North America (I opted freely to let Sweden take his chunk of it, because again it was his first game and I wasn't going to be a cutthroat bastard towards a relative newbie, I gave him a chunk out of my sphere) & a free hand in India, Oceania & SE Asia. I also believed that if I acceded to Spain's colonial demands that he would assist me to contain France.
I don't know if you remember, but there was some coolness between Spain & I that was actually far more serious than the disputes that you and I have had - I believe I went so far as to call him a coward. France was expanding and there was little I felt I could do about it alone, and I wanted Spain's help... I do not fear a difficult war, but there's a difference between a lost cause for the right reasons and deliberately bringing about a war that you have no chance of winning - Spain rebuked my efforts diplomatically to arrange an alliance to contain France in those critical years when that was possible still, and I came to the conclusion that it was in my best interest to avoid wars until about 1700 if possible (not just because Marlborough is so great) because I would get strong enough to fight anyone alone at that point without having to depend on the cowardly Spaniards to field armies for me. I think avoiding expensive entanglements after securing a favorable colonial partition is in England's best interest, just in general... now that was my attitude coming into the game, based on previous MP games as England in which Spain/Austria/France balanced each other well on the continent - clearly my plan as England needs to be changed, I need to do a better job in future games securing allies against French expansion - but now that I think about it, it wasn't like I was totally idle... do you know how much money I threw down the blackhole that was Austria? I think in the 15th century at one point I had loans exceeding 2500 ducats out to Austria alone, not to mention the gifts... I ended up just telling Austria not to pay those loans back because I wanted a strong austria on her feet to oppose France in Italy and certainly in Germany.
So one of your questions should've been to ask what Austrian player in a normal game would NOT like to have nearly limitless financial backing (in that century 3-4k ducats goes a long ways) from England in exchange for friendship and a pact to help one another out against an expanding France? I would wager that most Austrian players like free money from England.
So again, you seem to take the things other people say and apply them to me. I agree with you - france is ridiculously too large - Spain is incredibly wealthy - though I think that she would not necessarily win a war against myself or France... I would likely win a naval war with her (huzzah for English naval leaders) & France has a ton of manpower to smother her continental possessions with. But yes, containment policies failed all around this game... in a way, I'm still sorry you left - we could definitely use another player in the next game when it starts anew, and I do sympathize with your desire to play with Suvorov... hell, what good Eu2 player *doesn't* plan his military campaigns around his leaders start/end dates?
So what I'm trying to say here is that I've desperately tried to avoid a flame-like war with you BurningEgo because by and large I don't harbor any ill will towards you - though you continue to push my buttons, I am very forgiving and understanding. I'm mad that you dragged this quarrel from the place it started not only too long in the original thread but onto the upcoming game's thread and now over to the paradox forum, but I am forgiving by nature... if only we could stop fighting so I could have some time to forget about all of this and get back to enjoying playing Eu2 :>p
So I guess in retrospect I am ashamed of my cowardice, not being willing to fight France alone in the 16th century... though I had legitimate reasons to fear that France & Spain had some secret treaty that were I to declare war on France, Spain would declare war on me. So perhaps my sitting back and stockpiling money wasn't so irrational.
Its also amusing to me BurningEgo that you only throw back the words of my colleagues at me - the only things I insult you for are your personal behavior on the forums (arguing long after things are decided, immaturity & the like)... I never once called you (or suspected you of being) a cheater. I think you're a pretty decent Eu2 player and it took a LOT for me to get to the point where I'd want you gone - frankly only 3 of the players in the game had any experience with it, the others were all newbies or only played once or twice previously. It was France's 2nd mp game, Sweden & Turkey it was their first game. England, Spain & Brandenburg were solid eu2 veterans with countless hours of experience. But I digress, at no point do I recall ever saying you were a cheater, and you are not held to a different standard than anyone else, a "clarification" of conduct has been added to the ruleset because of this whole incident - and overall I think the problem was that one or two players lost their cool when you said something that they found offensive at a bad time (giving spain obvious advice about how to avoid civil wars is somewhat condescending, "hey spain, maybe you'd get fewer civil wars if you had positive stability" :>p No shit sherlock. Thanks for the tip.
Anyways these things set the tone, so when you and I had our disagreement about the trade thing, it was already hostile, though frankly the issue was settled in my mind - you were permanently embargoed. Had you negotiated with me, you might've been able to get some of my sweet, sweet CoT goodness, but nope you had to be an ass and show up uninvited, and we totally all the way free trade slider English don't like that sort of thing, its quite rude I daresay. And you seemed to take my arguing the point (prior to being able to embargo you because of our WHITE peace/treaty) about collusion/competition and which was more profitable personally. Again, my insults at you have all been based off of out of game context things, frankly I think you boasted too much, you were condescending towards other players and you contributed to a hostile game environment, and when your contribution to that problem led to the blow up that it did, you had to go.
And go you ... went? ... well no, we seem to still be arguing this, and it is as fruitless as ever.
So lets get to something that might bear fruit. I was playing England, I described the situation above, HOW would you suggest I contain Spain & France - I agreed to partition the world colonially in the manner that you see there, because Spain agreed to give me ALL of North America (I opted freely to let Sweden take his chunk of it, because again it was his first game and I wasn't going to be a cutthroat bastard towards a relative newbie, I gave him a chunk out of my sphere) & a free hand in India, Oceania & SE Asia. I also believed that if I acceded to Spain's colonial demands that he would assist me to contain France.
I don't know if you remember, but there was some coolness between Spain & I that was actually far more serious than the disputes that you and I have had - I believe I went so far as to call him a coward. France was expanding and there was little I felt I could do about it alone, and I wanted Spain's help... I do not fear a difficult war, but there's a difference between a lost cause for the right reasons and deliberately bringing about a war that you have no chance of winning - Spain rebuked my efforts diplomatically to arrange an alliance to contain France in those critical years when that was possible still, and I came to the conclusion that it was in my best interest to avoid wars until about 1700 if possible (not just because Marlborough is so great) because I would get strong enough to fight anyone alone at that point without having to depend on the cowardly Spaniards to field armies for me. I think avoiding expensive entanglements after securing a favorable colonial partition is in England's best interest, just in general... now that was my attitude coming into the game, based on previous MP games as England in which Spain/Austria/France balanced each other well on the continent - clearly my plan as England needs to be changed, I need to do a better job in future games securing allies against French expansion - but now that I think about it, it wasn't like I was totally idle... do you know how much money I threw down the blackhole that was Austria? I think in the 15th century at one point I had loans exceeding 2500 ducats out to Austria alone, not to mention the gifts... I ended up just telling Austria not to pay those loans back because I wanted a strong austria on her feet to oppose France in Italy and certainly in Germany.
So one of your questions should've been to ask what Austrian player in a normal game would NOT like to have nearly limitless financial backing (in that century 3-4k ducats goes a long ways) from England in exchange for friendship and a pact to help one another out against an expanding France? I would wager that most Austrian players like free money from England.
So again, you seem to take the things other people say and apply them to me. I agree with you - france is ridiculously too large - Spain is incredibly wealthy - though I think that she would not necessarily win a war against myself or France... I would likely win a naval war with her (huzzah for English naval leaders) & France has a ton of manpower to smother her continental possessions with. But yes, containment policies failed all around this game... in a way, I'm still sorry you left - we could definitely use another player in the next game when it starts anew, and I do sympathize with your desire to play with Suvorov... hell, what good Eu2 player *doesn't* plan his military campaigns around his leaders start/end dates?
So what I'm trying to say here is that I've desperately tried to avoid a flame-like war with you BurningEgo because by and large I don't harbor any ill will towards you - though you continue to push my buttons, I am very forgiving and understanding. I'm mad that you dragged this quarrel from the place it started not only too long in the original thread but onto the upcoming game's thread and now over to the paradox forum, but I am forgiving by nature... if only we could stop fighting so I could have some time to forget about all of this and get back to enjoying playing Eu2 :>p
Last edited:
True words Mulli! But couldnt be helped. I didnt want to say this, but as everyone may have already noticed, i was Russia. No matter what i did, i always heard hollow threats from the 4 corners of the world. Right when i bashed Lithuania, i heard some puny country (with 3 provinces) threatning me if i took too many provinces. I should have done exactly like you Mulli (in C&C3). Annex the buggers before they can do anything. But alas, i am such a nice guy to do that.
The first human war that hapened in this game was, because of poland. Poland didnt crave to these insane demands, of releasing bohemia. Asked Russia for help, and i gladly helped them. Austria and BBurg dowed Poland, and i dowed em back. When i was tossing everything at them, Sweden and OE declare war on me too. England goes to war iirc, but doesnt send a single man, but surely did send some cash to their allies. Sweden and OE were totaly beaten, losing estland, livland, kurland and daghestan. When the war is near in the end, France dows Austria. Austria refuses every single peace demand, and their government fell (which i am totaly blamed for, still wondering why). Bradenburg is also beaten up, having to give hinterpommern and poznan to Poland.
The second human war was right after the truce ended. I had LT 5, and to my surprise, no human had it. AI countries had LT 9, but all human countries had LT 3 save for me. A major blitz occured in Finland, with England and BBurg joining in. Saying it was the Swedish first online game, i agree to sign a NAP and WP them. Once again, this would backfire me. I am just too dumb to take all provinces i can when i can. For this, i do blame my inteligence.
The third war hapened when i got "greek" culture via event. Declared war on OE, took lots of slavonic provinces. France takes the oportunity to go for the holy land for some wierd reason, and takes Jerusalem.
The fourth war was again me vs OE. Despite Spain threatning me with war, i dowed the OE. Forced them to cancel vassalization with Georgia, and didnt take one single province from them, even if i had like 2 CRTs in advantage, and morale was way bigger.
The fifth war, which i was AIed, was France vs BBurg, England and Sweden. France lost from what it seems, despite being huge and owning half of Europe.
The sixth war, when i came back, was all due to Poland. The newly Prussia (who only existed because we forced fired the event right in 1700, while the event could fire later on, i still wonder why we forced fired it...), sends once again hollow threats, i refuse, they dow me alongside with Sweden. OE dows me right after, and to my surprise France and Spain come. I had to totaly retreat from the balkans, losing them to my enemies (thus why all the negative WS). Spain kept making their sieges with 200k inf against large forts, and even tried to take my capital which had a maximum fort with 300k inf, and failed to my amusement. Results: call me cheater, saying he had taken these provinces sucessfully in SP. Prussia kept doing their great blitz on Russian soil, only to suffer from major atrition due to winter. In the end, everyone is colapsing with their humoungous WE. Spain stoped attacking me with their constant 200k inf raids, due insane RR in colonies. Despite all the rebelions i had, i never lost one province to them (to the rebels). And i never had to attack the rebels, either.
A very funny game, with everyone bashing the AI, save for me. From 1419, to 1740, there were only 6 human wars. Man, didnt we have more then 6 wars in our current game Mulli? And we are only in 1530 iirc...
EDITED: Please Foxx, dont act like the victim now. Right at the first session, you gave all possessions to France in a golden plate. I dont know how much gold he paid you, but this was a real bad move. (we started in 1419, so england could fairly win the war).
The first human war that hapened in this game was, because of poland. Poland didnt crave to these insane demands, of releasing bohemia. Asked Russia for help, and i gladly helped them. Austria and BBurg dowed Poland, and i dowed em back. When i was tossing everything at them, Sweden and OE declare war on me too. England goes to war iirc, but doesnt send a single man, but surely did send some cash to their allies. Sweden and OE were totaly beaten, losing estland, livland, kurland and daghestan. When the war is near in the end, France dows Austria. Austria refuses every single peace demand, and their government fell (which i am totaly blamed for, still wondering why). Bradenburg is also beaten up, having to give hinterpommern and poznan to Poland.
The second human war was right after the truce ended. I had LT 5, and to my surprise, no human had it. AI countries had LT 9, but all human countries had LT 3 save for me. A major blitz occured in Finland, with England and BBurg joining in. Saying it was the Swedish first online game, i agree to sign a NAP and WP them. Once again, this would backfire me. I am just too dumb to take all provinces i can when i can. For this, i do blame my inteligence.
The third war hapened when i got "greek" culture via event. Declared war on OE, took lots of slavonic provinces. France takes the oportunity to go for the holy land for some wierd reason, and takes Jerusalem.
The fourth war was again me vs OE. Despite Spain threatning me with war, i dowed the OE. Forced them to cancel vassalization with Georgia, and didnt take one single province from them, even if i had like 2 CRTs in advantage, and morale was way bigger.
The fifth war, which i was AIed, was France vs BBurg, England and Sweden. France lost from what it seems, despite being huge and owning half of Europe.
The sixth war, when i came back, was all due to Poland. The newly Prussia (who only existed because we forced fired the event right in 1700, while the event could fire later on, i still wonder why we forced fired it...), sends once again hollow threats, i refuse, they dow me alongside with Sweden. OE dows me right after, and to my surprise France and Spain come. I had to totaly retreat from the balkans, losing them to my enemies (thus why all the negative WS). Spain kept making their sieges with 200k inf against large forts, and even tried to take my capital which had a maximum fort with 300k inf, and failed to my amusement. Results: call me cheater, saying he had taken these provinces sucessfully in SP. Prussia kept doing their great blitz on Russian soil, only to suffer from major atrition due to winter. In the end, everyone is colapsing with their humoungous WE. Spain stoped attacking me with their constant 200k inf raids, due insane RR in colonies. Despite all the rebelions i had, i never lost one province to them (to the rebels). And i never had to attack the rebels, either.
A very funny game, with everyone bashing the AI, save for me. From 1419, to 1740, there were only 6 human wars. Man, didnt we have more then 6 wars in our current game Mulli? And we are only in 1530 iirc...
EDITED: Please Foxx, dont act like the victim now. Right at the first session, you gave all possessions to France in a golden plate. I dont know how much gold he paid you, but this was a real bad move. (we started in 1419, so england could fairly win the war).
Last edited:
BurningEgo, you rewrite history to your own benefit... promise me that you will NEVER become a professional historian or journalist. Your slanted reporting offends me so very much. :>p
Its funny, while I'm in agreement with you on the point that there were too few wars, I can still be so disturbed by what you say - even though I'm technically on your side.
You neglected to mention at least one war that I can think of - Sweden & France fought a war for a little while there, it was a small contained war (partially due to English pseudo-intervention/blockading the French fleet in port)... I think there was at least one other war but I don't recall when/where. But yes, there were too few wars (though I'm much more of the 'wait and see who is winning and join the other side to balance' type than provoking wars type...
But still the way you described events, well lets just say that you may be entitled to your viewpoints on why things happend, but you don't get your own version of the facts.
Yes, you're right I gave him the French provinces back for 2500 ducats and to keep them all and get them contiguous with England until the 'end of the 100 years war' event fired... because a few games back I watched England and France batter at each other to the point that Portugal & Venice became the dominant players in the game, that England eventually won their war and annexed France, but had inflation problems and had spent too much on fighting a war than on tech and was well behind my sweet Portugal and the surprisingly resiliant Venicians. Also in a mp game I played on the forums I had a bad experience once where France offered me a pittance for Calais - 100 ducats IIRC, and I of course refused... we fought a stupid war where he (of course) took Calias, but could do nothing further and I, of course could do nothing to him... so I wanted to avoid that nonsense by striking a deal with France. But it was not isolated, I also sought deals with Spain, Brandenburg & Austria to contain him & he didn't get the provinces outright... if you'll recall *I* actually got a province (or two?) in that first war, and kept them all til the 1450s or so. - end edit.
Its funny, while I'm in agreement with you on the point that there were too few wars, I can still be so disturbed by what you say - even though I'm technically on your side.
You neglected to mention at least one war that I can think of - Sweden & France fought a war for a little while there, it was a small contained war (partially due to English pseudo-intervention/blockading the French fleet in port)... I think there was at least one other war but I don't recall when/where. But yes, there were too few wars (though I'm much more of the 'wait and see who is winning and join the other side to balance' type than provoking wars type...
But still the way you described events, well lets just say that you may be entitled to your viewpoints on why things happend, but you don't get your own version of the facts.
Yes, you're right I gave him the French provinces back for 2500 ducats and to keep them all and get them contiguous with England until the 'end of the 100 years war' event fired... because a few games back I watched England and France batter at each other to the point that Portugal & Venice became the dominant players in the game, that England eventually won their war and annexed France, but had inflation problems and had spent too much on fighting a war than on tech and was well behind my sweet Portugal and the surprisingly resiliant Venicians. Also in a mp game I played on the forums I had a bad experience once where France offered me a pittance for Calais - 100 ducats IIRC, and I of course refused... we fought a stupid war where he (of course) took Calias, but could do nothing further and I, of course could do nothing to him... so I wanted to avoid that nonsense by striking a deal with France. But it was not isolated, I also sought deals with Spain, Brandenburg & Austria to contain him & he didn't get the provinces outright... if you'll recall *I* actually got a province (or two?) in that first war, and kept them all til the 1450s or so. - end edit.
Last edited:
Meh
Well, BurningEgo, you have done something that I never though possible. . . You got me join another internet forum! :rofl: I had forsworn these lothesome time sinks of inequity and despair. . . But mud has been slung, and I have never been one to refuse to sink to any depth for rebuttal when honor was at stake!
I was the acting GM while Foxx was away, so I suppose I bear some responsibility for the breakdown in civility. There were circumstances which I feel ought to mentioned in order for all and sundry to make a fair judgement. First though, this topic began with a list of questions, I would like to answer these myself if I can. . .
1st As has been pointed out, this is not a rule. It is an agreement, referred to in mocking reference to one of the less tasteful moments in the state of California's history, the Gentleman's Agreement. It is merely an understanding that in circumstances when two player nations WOULD embargoe each other that they instead act as if such an embargoe was already in place so neither suffers malus to trade efficiency. I believe the strong language was in response to your seeming aquiesence to this agreement and then (after a few years time) your re-entry into the trade sphere. I know I had to ban you at least once from my pitiful CoTs (until they dissapeared, the cost of low or no competition).
2nd Well, I for one do not think it is normal. But I for one was playing a country far more afraid of a swiftly growing godless east (you) then my fellow good Catholic (and more importantly, far away) Spain. France, I am sure, acted as France thought best for herself (and how right she was, look at her size! So, they both won through this agreement) and England has already stated how she felt.
3rd I, for one, remember at least one earlier war between Austria and France. Which Austria lost (it was for N. Italy and or eastern Helvetia I believe). This was the direct stimulus for my getting together with Austria to force Bohemian independence (not the actual taking of territory, just the release of them as a vassal) in time for the annexation into Austria. I desperately wanted a strong southern German neighbor to partner with. As you have pointed out, I (Brandenburg at the time) was very very small. This sparked our war which for quite a while you were apt to refer to as the 5 vs 1 war. Now, if you don't count Poland on your side allow me not to count Sweden and the Ottomans (all three were worse then useless) Now, that leaves 3 vs 1 which still confuses me as I remember only myself and Austria, and Austria got royally reamed by France a few years in, leaving only me. Oddly, we had accomplished our goal, and thanks to w.e. rebels had released Bohemia. I was totally jonesing for a white peace after this but Russia would have none of it (and nor should she have, she was winning) and demanded I give two or three provs to Poland (this was almost 1/4 of my entire country) I refused, and the war dragged on to great cost for both of us. I lost, and gave two provs away. Austria had the bad luck to have her government collapse while France occupied every province but two (one being her capital) and so my great plan to create a southern bulwark backfired rather badly. I also mention, as it will become relevant, that I was constantly being stab hit by Russia before I gave in.
4th Well, yes. I do think it was a coincidence. If Foxx wants to he can link to the old thread or quote from it to show the exact instance where you were repeatadly asked to cool down or apologize. Others were also asked to cool down, but we all tend to be an unruly lot (witness myself and Hypo posting here when Foxx had implied that he would rather we not) and the "conversation" continued for a while and tempers got worse. Eventually things just seem to grow to a head. I say this as someone who as from time to time defended BurningEgo. I enjoy bombast and idle boasting as much if not far more then the next man and thus really felt no sting from BurningEgo repeatedly calling us newbs. Though I must admit his advising spain to raise his stab in order to lower civil wars made me laugh out loud. It had a somewhat different and more profane reaction from the Spanish player.
5th Well, this player was Spain. And throughout the session he has been prone to excess hyperbole. There were other factors increasing his frustration that I shall relate to later on as this particular incident happened under my watch.
6th This is as good a spot to tackle the war mythos as any. I had been attempting to quietly vassalize Poland while she was in my alliance but had failed to do so. France coveted the southern Hungarian provinces. Russia nabbed the Poles while I was busy offering alliance to the human nations. Damn, looks like I was too late. Such is life. I shrug it off and prepare for the worst (France has maybe a million men on our border). Then a glimmering light from heaven decends, France offers an alliance of convenience to partition Poland. Spain wants Turkey to get in on this and nab some provs. I instantly agree since it is terribly bad form to dow a nation you are currently a co-belligerent with. Here is how the odds stacked, I (alone of the northern alliance) march out with my man, Frederick. France and Spain in horrible dissaray march on the south with Turkey (more on this later). This part of the war is essentially 3 on 1 (the Turks don't count). Frederick does his thing, and the French do theirs, and Poland is swiftly divided and conquered (they become my vassals, France gets her provs) but Spain has run into trouble. Try as Spanish player might, he cannot win battles. He lurches a horribly expensive way to victory in a few provinces bordering the Danube, and so we offer our peace. Spain gets those four provs to give to Turkey and I and France get to keep Poland. BurningEgo refuses (as is his right). So, next campaign season I step up the pressure and have Frederick attack some Russian armies to show him how much worse this war can get. Spain gathers a Grand Armee, and marches it off to glorious attrition and ignoble (and improbably) defeat after defeat. This is when Spain begins his griping (on a private channel mostly). Next season, with Russia still refusing the original terms, I step it up a notch and ask the queit Swedes to step in (they had been called during the initial DoW in case I needed them. Otherwise they and the Russians just stated at each other across the border) and I send Frederick out to go to town. I conquer all the way up to Moscow (but do not take it. Winter is harsh, and safety is far away) and France does an interesting dance/assault in the Ukraine/southern Lithuania. Spain tries a coup de main with 200k men landing in St. Petersburg and assaulting. It did not work, as Large forts are (pardon the expression) a stone bitch. This results in much swearing by the Spanish player who also lets fly some accusations born in the frustration of failure. Again, said in private. So, as far as I can see it the war is 4 on 1, you are losing (though Frederick's death and Surov's arrival might change things) and are new demands are not extravagent. One prov each for Sweden and I (albeit, provs with Large fortresses that took a lot of men to take) and I was indifferent to what happened with the Turks at that point. I wanted peace (though I was far from needing it badly. Even Prusso Indo China was under control despite the W.E.). So, despite having made this answer absolutely HUGE. . . yes. I think it is an acceptable peace (but it is possible I am biased). Also, I have 90 war score and only about six months ago started the stab hits (which I personally find distasteful, but needs must).
7th This one depends, and I guess I can leave myself open to being a hypocrite with my answer. Essentially, I think the war score is irrelevant to the peace. You might have enough war score, but if I just destroyed your Army and some big hitter has joined my side I thnk that stab hitting said nation is low and petty. Essentially I think it is context sensitive. Should you truly be losing the war rather then facing a minor setback then I have no problem with it. But if the momentum has shifted, and you are taking back provinces left and right. . . well I think that stab hitting such a country is rather dishonorable. Again, just my private opinion, and I hold no one else to it. Though I will be prone to assaulting with the power of bad puns and petty insults regarding animal heritage anyone who stab hits me when I (IMHO, of course) do not deserve it .
8th Hmm. . . This question is really impossible to answer without context. You would not have been wrong to try and organize a Coaliton of the We Hate Spain and might even have gotten France to join in. But what you did was state that we were all playing the game wrong. This, of course, confused us. As we, being ignorant perhaps, had no idea that there was a RIGHT way to play. I think the main problem we had BurningEgo was that you attempted to get through statement (Spain is big. You are all stupid for not attacking him) what we have organized to get though diplomacy (Oh most wise and pugnificient Brandenburg. Spain needs its head unswelled. It was talking about your mother far too familiarily. Should you desire venegance for this Russia will swear every drop of life blood her peasants hold, every bronze farthing her serfs hoard, every. . . you get the idea) and thus had negative results. This is why Foxx and others have pointed out to you that you lost the diplomacy game. Indeed, you never (okay, there was one attempt through PMs) even tried it.
Okay, that answers that. This, by the way, is why I stopped joing chat rooms or forums. The above (way, way above) mentioned dens of time destroying entropy. The fault inherit in this vice is mine. But the next part shall be swift, promise.
As I said, I was the host and johnny on the spot GM. Not that I used my GM power in any way (there was, I thought, no need) but I can provide the context that provided most of the angst Ego feels against us or rather feels we hold against him. One of our players, the Ottomans, had a fun problem of not being able to read anyones messages but mine in game (and on rare reloads, Spain's. Go figure) this reulted in a horrible botched dow against Russia (the Turks had the CB) where the Ottomans failed to invite France and Spain, who then had to waste precious precious stab to dow Russia themselves. This unleashed the Spanish players already Irish thin temper. Some of the terms Spain used towards the Turks I would not use on my own dear departed mother. Thus, Spain's temper was not the best. Add to this some awful die rolls in combat where he had huge advantages (he didn't build any cav, so bad shock rolls were REALLY bad) and you do not have an even tempered live and let live kind of player going. BurningEgo was himself acting increasingly irrational and irritable as the war turned against him (we've all been there. A persecution complex is quite easy to develope when the whole world that matters is literally out to get you) and made various statements that were not meant to sooth ruffled feathers. Nothing worse then Spain in any way, mind you, but most of what Spain said was said privately between the warring powers. How, then, did BurningEgo learn of Spain's hasty, ill thought, in the heat of the moment accusation? Why he looked into the save file and read all the messages posted to the host. Now, honestly, this is the only thing Ego has ever done that upset me. I (of course) come out looking like roses. Being the wise and prudent person that I am. But others made comments meant in jest that have only worstened the situation. This is how BurningEgo found out about Sweden's joking request to repeatedly pause the game and force Ego to leave. Oh, yeah. BurningEgo was most heated and impassioned whenever the game was paused for any reason (including the multiple times a player got dropped) stating at first the remarkable claim that pausing a game changes a battles outcome. Then refining the statement to say that die rolls are recast after a pause. Even if true (which I honestly do not know) it is still random and to my mind acceptable so long as not used as an exploit. Anyway's, Sweden continued, making the bald faced and implausible statement that he would be willing to abandon the country he had played all game and take over Russia instead. Now Sweden has found Russia annoying all game, but has done as well as can be expected to keep civil. However, in private, the Swedish player said many things expressing his annoyance and giving his sympathetic condolences to Spain. These are the circumstances (as I see them, of course) which are required to make an honest judgement of how things happened the way they did. And Ego, if we ever play in a game together outside have no worry's. Even if you think I might hold a secret grudge (I don't think I do, but I might be just that sneaky!) I do not hold events from past games in mind for current ones. Otherwise I would never cease in my efforts to obliterate a certain Fox. . . Grr. . . the Adana incident. . . the soon thereafter Thrace incident. . .
Okay, so this wasn't as swift as I promised. So shoot me. Anywho, now that the genie is out of the bottle I shall probably do more then lurk here. I suppose this can be considered to be a mini AAR of sorts even. Peace for now!
*edit* noticed that it was four provs south of the Danube
Well, BurningEgo, you have done something that I never though possible. . . You got me join another internet forum! :rofl: I had forsworn these lothesome time sinks of inequity and despair. . . But mud has been slung, and I have never been one to refuse to sink to any depth for rebuttal when honor was at stake!
I was the acting GM while Foxx was away, so I suppose I bear some responsibility for the breakdown in civility. There were circumstances which I feel ought to mentioned in order for all and sundry to make a fair judgement. First though, this topic began with a list of questions, I would like to answer these myself if I can. . .
1st As has been pointed out, this is not a rule. It is an agreement, referred to in mocking reference to one of the less tasteful moments in the state of California's history, the Gentleman's Agreement. It is merely an understanding that in circumstances when two player nations WOULD embargoe each other that they instead act as if such an embargoe was already in place so neither suffers malus to trade efficiency. I believe the strong language was in response to your seeming aquiesence to this agreement and then (after a few years time) your re-entry into the trade sphere. I know I had to ban you at least once from my pitiful CoTs (until they dissapeared, the cost of low or no competition).
2nd Well, I for one do not think it is normal. But I for one was playing a country far more afraid of a swiftly growing godless east (you) then my fellow good Catholic (and more importantly, far away) Spain. France, I am sure, acted as France thought best for herself (and how right she was, look at her size! So, they both won through this agreement) and England has already stated how she felt.
3rd I, for one, remember at least one earlier war between Austria and France. Which Austria lost (it was for N. Italy and or eastern Helvetia I believe). This was the direct stimulus for my getting together with Austria to force Bohemian independence (not the actual taking of territory, just the release of them as a vassal) in time for the annexation into Austria. I desperately wanted a strong southern German neighbor to partner with. As you have pointed out, I (Brandenburg at the time) was very very small. This sparked our war which for quite a while you were apt to refer to as the 5 vs 1 war. Now, if you don't count Poland on your side allow me not to count Sweden and the Ottomans (all three were worse then useless) Now, that leaves 3 vs 1 which still confuses me as I remember only myself and Austria, and Austria got royally reamed by France a few years in, leaving only me. Oddly, we had accomplished our goal, and thanks to w.e. rebels had released Bohemia. I was totally jonesing for a white peace after this but Russia would have none of it (and nor should she have, she was winning) and demanded I give two or three provs to Poland (this was almost 1/4 of my entire country) I refused, and the war dragged on to great cost for both of us. I lost, and gave two provs away. Austria had the bad luck to have her government collapse while France occupied every province but two (one being her capital) and so my great plan to create a southern bulwark backfired rather badly. I also mention, as it will become relevant, that I was constantly being stab hit by Russia before I gave in.
4th Well, yes. I do think it was a coincidence. If Foxx wants to he can link to the old thread or quote from it to show the exact instance where you were repeatadly asked to cool down or apologize. Others were also asked to cool down, but we all tend to be an unruly lot (witness myself and Hypo posting here when Foxx had implied that he would rather we not) and the "conversation" continued for a while and tempers got worse. Eventually things just seem to grow to a head. I say this as someone who as from time to time defended BurningEgo. I enjoy bombast and idle boasting as much if not far more then the next man and thus really felt no sting from BurningEgo repeatedly calling us newbs. Though I must admit his advising spain to raise his stab in order to lower civil wars made me laugh out loud. It had a somewhat different and more profane reaction from the Spanish player.
5th Well, this player was Spain. And throughout the session he has been prone to excess hyperbole. There were other factors increasing his frustration that I shall relate to later on as this particular incident happened under my watch.
6th This is as good a spot to tackle the war mythos as any. I had been attempting to quietly vassalize Poland while she was in my alliance but had failed to do so. France coveted the southern Hungarian provinces. Russia nabbed the Poles while I was busy offering alliance to the human nations. Damn, looks like I was too late. Such is life. I shrug it off and prepare for the worst (France has maybe a million men on our border). Then a glimmering light from heaven decends, France offers an alliance of convenience to partition Poland. Spain wants Turkey to get in on this and nab some provs. I instantly agree since it is terribly bad form to dow a nation you are currently a co-belligerent with. Here is how the odds stacked, I (alone of the northern alliance) march out with my man, Frederick. France and Spain in horrible dissaray march on the south with Turkey (more on this later). This part of the war is essentially 3 on 1 (the Turks don't count). Frederick does his thing, and the French do theirs, and Poland is swiftly divided and conquered (they become my vassals, France gets her provs) but Spain has run into trouble. Try as Spanish player might, he cannot win battles. He lurches a horribly expensive way to victory in a few provinces bordering the Danube, and so we offer our peace. Spain gets those four provs to give to Turkey and I and France get to keep Poland. BurningEgo refuses (as is his right). So, next campaign season I step up the pressure and have Frederick attack some Russian armies to show him how much worse this war can get. Spain gathers a Grand Armee, and marches it off to glorious attrition and ignoble (and improbably) defeat after defeat. This is when Spain begins his griping (on a private channel mostly). Next season, with Russia still refusing the original terms, I step it up a notch and ask the queit Swedes to step in (they had been called during the initial DoW in case I needed them. Otherwise they and the Russians just stated at each other across the border) and I send Frederick out to go to town. I conquer all the way up to Moscow (but do not take it. Winter is harsh, and safety is far away) and France does an interesting dance/assault in the Ukraine/southern Lithuania. Spain tries a coup de main with 200k men landing in St. Petersburg and assaulting. It did not work, as Large forts are (pardon the expression) a stone bitch. This results in much swearing by the Spanish player who also lets fly some accusations born in the frustration of failure. Again, said in private. So, as far as I can see it the war is 4 on 1, you are losing (though Frederick's death and Surov's arrival might change things) and are new demands are not extravagent. One prov each for Sweden and I (albeit, provs with Large fortresses that took a lot of men to take) and I was indifferent to what happened with the Turks at that point. I wanted peace (though I was far from needing it badly. Even Prusso Indo China was under control despite the W.E.). So, despite having made this answer absolutely HUGE. . . yes. I think it is an acceptable peace (but it is possible I am biased). Also, I have 90 war score and only about six months ago started the stab hits (which I personally find distasteful, but needs must).
7th This one depends, and I guess I can leave myself open to being a hypocrite with my answer. Essentially, I think the war score is irrelevant to the peace. You might have enough war score, but if I just destroyed your Army and some big hitter has joined my side I thnk that stab hitting said nation is low and petty. Essentially I think it is context sensitive. Should you truly be losing the war rather then facing a minor setback then I have no problem with it. But if the momentum has shifted, and you are taking back provinces left and right. . . well I think that stab hitting such a country is rather dishonorable. Again, just my private opinion, and I hold no one else to it. Though I will be prone to assaulting with the power of bad puns and petty insults regarding animal heritage anyone who stab hits me when I (IMHO, of course) do not deserve it .
8th Hmm. . . This question is really impossible to answer without context. You would not have been wrong to try and organize a Coaliton of the We Hate Spain and might even have gotten France to join in. But what you did was state that we were all playing the game wrong. This, of course, confused us. As we, being ignorant perhaps, had no idea that there was a RIGHT way to play. I think the main problem we had BurningEgo was that you attempted to get through statement (Spain is big. You are all stupid for not attacking him) what we have organized to get though diplomacy (Oh most wise and pugnificient Brandenburg. Spain needs its head unswelled. It was talking about your mother far too familiarily. Should you desire venegance for this Russia will swear every drop of life blood her peasants hold, every bronze farthing her serfs hoard, every. . . you get the idea) and thus had negative results. This is why Foxx and others have pointed out to you that you lost the diplomacy game. Indeed, you never (okay, there was one attempt through PMs) even tried it.
Okay, that answers that. This, by the way, is why I stopped joing chat rooms or forums. The above (way, way above) mentioned dens of time destroying entropy. The fault inherit in this vice is mine. But the next part shall be swift, promise.
As I said, I was the host and johnny on the spot GM. Not that I used my GM power in any way (there was, I thought, no need) but I can provide the context that provided most of the angst Ego feels against us or rather feels we hold against him. One of our players, the Ottomans, had a fun problem of not being able to read anyones messages but mine in game (and on rare reloads, Spain's. Go figure) this reulted in a horrible botched dow against Russia (the Turks had the CB) where the Ottomans failed to invite France and Spain, who then had to waste precious precious stab to dow Russia themselves. This unleashed the Spanish players already Irish thin temper. Some of the terms Spain used towards the Turks I would not use on my own dear departed mother. Thus, Spain's temper was not the best. Add to this some awful die rolls in combat where he had huge advantages (he didn't build any cav, so bad shock rolls were REALLY bad) and you do not have an even tempered live and let live kind of player going. BurningEgo was himself acting increasingly irrational and irritable as the war turned against him (we've all been there. A persecution complex is quite easy to develope when the whole world that matters is literally out to get you) and made various statements that were not meant to sooth ruffled feathers. Nothing worse then Spain in any way, mind you, but most of what Spain said was said privately between the warring powers. How, then, did BurningEgo learn of Spain's hasty, ill thought, in the heat of the moment accusation? Why he looked into the save file and read all the messages posted to the host. Now, honestly, this is the only thing Ego has ever done that upset me. I (of course) come out looking like roses. Being the wise and prudent person that I am. But others made comments meant in jest that have only worstened the situation. This is how BurningEgo found out about Sweden's joking request to repeatedly pause the game and force Ego to leave. Oh, yeah. BurningEgo was most heated and impassioned whenever the game was paused for any reason (including the multiple times a player got dropped) stating at first the remarkable claim that pausing a game changes a battles outcome. Then refining the statement to say that die rolls are recast after a pause. Even if true (which I honestly do not know) it is still random and to my mind acceptable so long as not used as an exploit. Anyway's, Sweden continued, making the bald faced and implausible statement that he would be willing to abandon the country he had played all game and take over Russia instead. Now Sweden has found Russia annoying all game, but has done as well as can be expected to keep civil. However, in private, the Swedish player said many things expressing his annoyance and giving his sympathetic condolences to Spain. These are the circumstances (as I see them, of course) which are required to make an honest judgement of how things happened the way they did. And Ego, if we ever play in a game together outside have no worry's. Even if you think I might hold a secret grudge (I don't think I do, but I might be just that sneaky!) I do not hold events from past games in mind for current ones. Otherwise I would never cease in my efforts to obliterate a certain Fox. . . Grr. . . the Adana incident. . . the soon thereafter Thrace incident. . .
Okay, so this wasn't as swift as I promised. So shoot me. Anywho, now that the genie is out of the bottle I shall probably do more then lurk here. I suppose this can be considered to be a mini AAR of sorts even. Peace for now!
*edit* noticed that it was four provs south of the Danube
Last edited:
- Status