Questions... Questions...

[BurningEGO]

I was playing a MP game with some "friends" of mine, and no matter what i said, they always said i was wrong. Honestly, i do think i was the one correct, but i will ask opinions. Specially opinions from people who play Eu2 from looooong time ago. But in general, all opinions are accepted, so please, post.

1º question

In that game, there was the following rule: humans cannot trade in another human CoT that it is not his. Do you think this is correct? Sure, less merchants, more income, but is this a common thing? Would you agree to such a rule? What would happen to nations that got no CoT? Would they be forced to get 0 income from trade?

2º question

Spain, for example, didnt get embroiled in a single war vs humans. Until 1740. Do you guys think this is normal? Also, in the whole game, there were only about 8 wars against non-AI nations. Is this normal as well?

3º question

All wars (except one) that have hapened to far, have always been against Russia. By 1740, a major war struck. Every single player ganged against Russia. Russia had 400 MP, very low tech, except for LT, which was in check with everyone else. Russia had the 4th biggest income. Is this kind of wars a normal thing? I mean, every single player vs Russia? I do feel sorry for the Russian player.

Here is the Comparison Table:



Manpower is as the following:

Russia has 400 MP
France has 400 MP
Spain has 300 MP
Ottoman Empire has 270 MP
Prussia has 200 MP
Sweden has 100 MP
England has 90 MP

All these valours have been rounded up. Still thinking Russia required a major gang? Btw, we are using the latest patch and play with vanila.

4º question

That little war with Russia lasted for nearly 20 years and no one managed to gain the upper hand, or managed to force peace Russia (even though Russia got negative WS with some nations). When the player is about to get Suvorov, he is simply booted from the game. Do you guys think this isnt a bit of a coincidence? Also, most nations were hurting from WE a lot. Spain, for example has like, 10 RR in provinces. Prussia has 20 RR in colonies. Do you think that ganging a single nation in such a fashion and not managing to force peace them is, a normal thing of eu2 MP? Do you think that the players kicked the Russian player just because he was screwing everyone's game with that high RR and massive rebelions?

5º question

One player kept calling another cheater, because he assaulted large forts with 200k men, and always failed. He (the one who assaulted) did not have quality maxed (or at 9), had the same LT and his armies were leaderless. Still, he insists on calling the other player cheater. What do you have to say about this? Is the player truly a cheater, or the player who insists in insulting is not used to this kind of stuff?

6º question

Most players wanted to sign a ridiculous peace on Russia. Apart from Poland (who was about to be vasalized by Russia, or so does the player say), who was totaly partitioned (and had 9 provinces), Prussia demands Lithuania, Kurland, and the rest of the players require 4 provinces in the balkans to the OE. Do you guys think this is an acceptable peace, even if Russia is not utterly beaten?

7º question

Do you guys think that stab hiting another nation is an exploit? If so, then how can we force peace another country that has always positive stability? AFAIK, countries with positive stability and capital lost to the enemy, will not have a government colapsing.

8º question

Spain, as an example, was allowed to expand as nothing ever seen before without a single war against them. Spain does own all of Africa (i do mean, all provinces!), all of southern america plus mexico, cuba and a good piece of California. France is the same problem. France not only owns every Italian province, as it owns all of southern germany, austria, hungary and a good bite of the balkans. It also owns all of Indonesia and the spicey islands. I kept complaining about the lack of power balancing from the part of most players. Am i wrong? (like i said, we are currently playing vanilla)

Thanks in advance for all posible feedback.

P.S. The name of all players will remain anonymus (except mine of course). If these players see this, please remain anonymus as well, and do not post offensive stuff, as i dont want this thread to be closed due to an insane discussion.

 

[fraese]

I would not play in such a game for more than a session under those rules and with such players.

 

[unmerged(10915)]

A little too early for me right now, will reply to the post later. Just a few things i would like to comment on .

Do you guys think that stab hiting another nation is an exploit?

Absolutely not.

Spain, as an example, was allowed to expand as nothing ever seen before without a single war against them. Spain does own all of Africa (i do mean, all provinces!), all of southern america plus mexico, cuba and a good piece of California. France is the same problem. France not only owns every Italian province, as it owns all of southern germany, austria, hungary and a good bite of the balkans. It also owns all of Indonesia and the spicey islands. I kept complaining about the lack of power balancing from the part of most players. Am i wrong? (like i said, we are currently playing vanilla)

Balance of power is only a concept derived from the minds of the players. It doesnt really exist and it is only important if the players themselves decide it should be. Here, it seems that a combination of participators with a lack of foresight, longterm alliances, differing skill and unwillingness of certain nations to conduct diplomacy/do something about the situation, has made this extreme situation possible.

To be frank, i really dont think things like these could happen in an "ordinary" game organized on the MP forums. The general skill level is so much higher and the awareness among the players of what will happen if "i dont do this, or accept the actions of my neighbour", is supposedly so well advanced that it will be impossible for, for example Spain to colonize to the last century and France to conquer such large parts of Europe.

So in short, balance of power might not be appropriate, but could be an effect of a higher skill level among the players. I think a better term would be "reactiveness" or somesuch .

 

[admiral drake]

I would not play in such a game for more than a session under those rules and with such players.

same

 

[admiral drake]

1º question

that rule is never used on games at the mp forum asfar as i know, its crap and hugely biased towards those with early explorers
if you don't wan't players to trade in your cots just embargo them.

2º question

sounds like a crap game tbh, way to few wars

3º question

not exactly normal either so thats world vs 1player each time ?

4º question

When the player is about to get Suvorov, he is simply booted from the game

thats lame ego

5º question

just a bunch of idiots whining cause they tryd to assault a large fort with 200k inf and failed

7º question

and stabhitting is no exploit lol


ps: i agree with most of what daniel sayd, but ego asked asmany opinions as possible

 

[unmerged(6147)]

1º question

In that game, there was the following rule: humans cannot trade in another human CoT that it is not his. Do you think this is correct? Sure, less merchants, more income, but is this a common thing? Would you agree to such a rule? What would happen to nations that got no CoT? Would they be forced to get 0 income from trade?

First question: depends on what you mean. Of course they can trade, the game does allow it as long as you are not embargoed. But if you mean if it is "correct to construct such a rule for a game" the answer is of course: you can construct any rule you want.
2nd question: no it is not a common thing, it is unheard of until today.
3rd question: perhaps, it has some potential, the ownership of COTs becomes much more important as an embargo (which has the same effect) costs trade efficiency today for the one embargoing, while it would be an automatic and free of charge embargo with this rule.

2º question

Spain, for example, didnt get embroiled in a single war vs humans. Until 1740. Do you guys think this is normal? Also, in the whole game, there were only about 8 wars against non-AI nations. Is this normal as well?

1st question: No, it is unheard about until today (simply because I have not yet played SPA from start ). But apparently very skilfully played by SPA.
2nd question: No, it is unheard about until today

3º question

All wars (except one) that have hapened to far, have always been against Russia. By 1740, a major war struck. Every single player ganged against Russia. Russia had 400 MP, very low tech, except for LT, which was in check with everyone else. Russia had the 4th biggest income. Is this kind of wars a normal thing? I mean, every single player vs Russia? I do feel sorry for the Russian player.

All these valours have been rounded up. Still thinking Russia required a major gang? Btw, we are using the latest patch and play with vanila.

1st question: No, and I'd say almost unheard about, the closest I can remember is when Temu played sort of "Germany" in Elio's 1st campaign and when the GM ordered everyone to gang Temu, but Temu was much stronger than any other single nation in that game.
2nd question: no

4º question

That little war with Russia lasted for nearly 20 years and no one managed to gain the upper hand, or managed to force peace Russia (even though Russia got negative WS with some nations). When the player is about to get Suvorov, he is simply booted from the game. Do you guys think this isnt a bit of a coincidence? Also, most nations were hurting from WE a lot. Spain, for example has like, 10 RR in provinces. Prussia has 20 RR in colonies. Do you think that ganging a single nation in such a fashion and not managing to force peace them is, a normal thing of eu2 MP? Do you think that the players kicked the Russian player just because he was screwing everyone's game with that high RR and massive rebelions?

1st question: there is surely more to this than him getting Suvorov, is it not?
2n question: as I have never seen a war constellation like this I can not comment upon the normality of the outcome of the war (but it surely appears surprising)
3rd question: nah, that cannot be true, can it?

5º question

One player kept calling another cheater, because he assaulted large forts with 200k men, and always failed. He (the one who assaulted) did not have quality maxed (or at 9), had the same LT and his armies were leaderless. Still, he insists on calling the other player cheater. What do you have to say about this? Is the player truly a cheater, or the player who insists in insulting is not used to this kind of stuff?

1st question: I would immediately pause the game: then give him 5 seconds to explain if he was serious. If he was I would give him all the time he needed to present his case; then I would either agree with him and boot the cheater, or I would disagree and order him to apologise and if he did not I would probably immediately disqulify him
2nd question first part: It is impossible to say if he was a cheater or not, one can only say that as you present the case there is no proof, not even a hint of any evidence, that any cheating did occur
2nd question 2nd part: It may be as you suggest

Note: before discussing this kind of thing it is imperative that you define the concept of cheating. I know exactly what it means to me, in my experience few other do, they can merely give examples of it but has not made an effort and tried to formulate a clear defintion.

6º question

Most players wanted to sign a ridiculous peace on Russia. Apart from Poland (who was about to be vasalized by Russia, or so does the player say), who was totaly partitioned (and had 9 provinces), Prussia demands Lithuania, Kurland, and the rest of the players require 4 provinces in the balkans to the OE. Do you guys think this is an acceptable peace, even if Russia is not utterly beaten?

As I understand the alliance asks for 6 provinces from Russia. Whether this is "acceptable" or not is irrelevant for me. The only relevant question is if it is smart/wise for Russia to accept it. I cannot comment on that because of the lack of info. It seems Russia is doing just fine however but I may be mistaken. BTW you should have a forced peace rule (complementing the inbuilt rule).

7º question

Do you guys think that stab hiting another nation is an exploit? If so, then how can we force peace another country that has always positive stability? AFAIK, countries with positive stability and capital lost to the enemy, will not have a government colapsing.

Question 1: no it is smart play
Question 2: the inbuilt forced peace feature is not related to stability. Neither the inbuilt government collapse feature (which is something entirely different) is related to stab.

8º question

Spain, as an example, was allowed to expand as nothing ever seen before without a single war against them. Spain does own all of Africa (i do mean, all provinces!), all of southern america plus mexico, cuba and a good piece of California. France is the same problem. France not only owns every Italian province, as it owns all of southern germany, austria, hungary and a good bite of the balkans. It also owns all of Indonesia and the spicey islands. I kept complaining about the lack of power balancing from the part of most players. Am i wrong? (like i said, we are currently playing vanilla)

If you are dissatisfied with the balance, then do something about it. But of course, to complain can be as efficient if it can induce other do to something about it. But basically it gets down to the aim of the game. What is the aim of your game? If the aim is to try to end up as strong and powerful as possible, as it always is for me, then then the balance of power is extremely important. But few players have defined the aim like that. IMO it appears that many players, perhaps even most of them, in the community are just there to have a good time. If so to complain about balance of power is meaningless, they do not aim at having it. I guess a substantial group of players aim at be as powerful as possible through out the entire span of the game (i.e. similar to the inbuilt VP system), then again the balance of power become important. Ask them: what is the aim of the game?

 

[BurningEGO]

Note: before discussing this kind of thing it is imperative that you define the concept of cheating. I know exactly what it means to me, in my experience few other do, they can merely give examples of it but has not made an effort and tried to formulate a clear defintion.

The guy who kept insulting, kept saying the player who owned large forts (and which he couldnt sucessfully assault) was using a 3rd party program. This, is clearly an offense to the player who owns the large forts. At least to me. I dont know what you would do if you kept being insulted like this, but i would surely get pissed. If a player cant assault a large fortress with 200k infantry, it doesnt exactly mean the other player is cheating.

 

[unmerged(10915)]

The guy who kept insulting, kept saying the player who owned large forts (and which he couldnt sucessfully assault) was using a 3rd party program. This, is clearly an offense to the player who owns the large forts. At least to me. I dont know what you would do if you kept being insulted like this, but i would surely get pissed. If a player cant assault a large fortress with 200k infantry, it doesnt exactly mean the other player is cheating.

Having a force of 200k to assault a large fort does in no way assure capture of the province. The player needs to send "trains", have a good leader and all that, for the assault for be 100% certain...

 

[unmerged(10915)]

IMO it appears that many players, perhaps even most of them, in the community are just there to have a good time.

Do you truly believe this, or is it just a part of your propaganda to change the behaviour of the community? (a project i agree with, make no mistake about it)

Everyone in the community wants to win more than anything else, no matter what they are actually saying. The ones arguing otherwise just havent found out the best way to achieve their goals and thus hide their failure behind a curtain of "fun" and "fairness" .

 

[Spinalcurve]

That was a weird gang of EU2 players....

 

[unmerged(27108)]

Do you truly believe this, or is it just a part of your propaganda to change the behaviour of the community? (a project i agree with, make no mistake about it)

Everyone in the community wants to win more than anything else, no matter what they are actually saying. The ones arguing otherwise just havent found out the best way to achieve their goals and thus hide their failure behind a curtain of "fun" and "fairness" .

That's because you're meant to win mate Me, for example, a 2nd low-grade soldier, am born to be killed.

 

[BurningEGO]

Nice joke Bal

Thats true. The goal of everyone is to win (or at least i think so). However, i think there should be a sense of fair play. And in my opinion, all of these questions i asked are far from it. But my opinion doesnt matter, thats why i am asking yours.

 

[unmerged(10915)]

Nice joke Bal

Thats true. The goal of everyone is to win (or at least i think so). However, i think there should be a sense of fair play. And in my opinion, all of these questions i asked are far from it. But my opinion doesnt matter, thats why i am asking yours.

But what is a sense of fair play?
From what i have perceived of the wording, its more often used as a tool of furthering your own ends, than to reach a desired atmosphere. "Fair play" is a poisoned term...

 

[unmerged(36826)]

From what i have perceived of the wording, its more often used as a tool of furthering your own ends, than to reach a desired atmosphere. "Fair play" is a poisoned term...

Only for you

 

[Sid Meier]

Having been a part of that game for a session as a Sub I can add only the following that somethign happened in the session after that I was not there to witness, basically the world decided top gank Russia based on a couple of factors:

Ego was supposedly abbraisive/rude during the game and yet during the session I was a part of he was far more a victum of it then a disher out of it.

Also russia supposedly allied Poland and everyone dowed russia as a result of the alliance.

I shall say no more. I agree that "balance of power" is important for it allows in concept dozens of wars to take place in shrot periods of time keeping the game fun and competitive. As for no trading in CoT's I spammed mercs in almsot everyones CoT and ppl only complained when I bumped someones mono.

 

[unmerged(6147)]

Do you truly believe this, or is it just a part of your propaganda to change the behaviour of the community? (a project i agree with, make no mistake about it)

Everyone in the community wants to win more than anything else, no matter what they are actually saying. The ones arguing otherwise just havent found out the best way to achieve their goals and thus hide their failure behind a curtain of "fun" and "fairness" .

Well, I base that on what they have stated in these threads on the topic of "play to win" we have had, quite a few during the last 3-4 years. But of course, like you I never believed what they said... But I believe it would be impertinent of me to officially claim they did not speak the truth or were so confused they did not properly analyse the question ... oh, I just did that o

One part of the problem is of course that normally what "win" means have no precise definition within the game - that contributes to their confusion. As far as I know there have been only two exceptions
1. the Test of Skill game played now
2. Elio's first game - but it was never finished. In that game the winner would be the one owning - or perhaps controlling, don't remember - the province of Hellas at Dec 29 1819.

 

[unmerged(6147)]

But what is a sense of fair play?
From what i have perceived of the wording, its more often used as a tool of furthering your own ends, than to reach a desired atmosphere. "Fair play" is a poisoned term...

The concept of "fair play", if you want to apply it in your game, should as everything else be defined in the rules. Although it might be a little difficult to achieve a good definition.

In Test of Skill we have no such rule and thus you do not need to "play fairly". However, we have some other rules that perhaps matches Burning's definition of fair play. I do not know since it has not been defined in the discussion in this thread.

 

[unmerged(10915)]

The concept of "fair play", if you want to apply it in your game, should as everything else be defined in the rules. Although it might be a little difficult to achieve a good definition.

Even then, i think the risk of the term being badly used is too high.

I dont know, maybe im damaged because ive been a neighbour of Damocles too often or something .

 

[BurningEGO]

Fair Play is everything less then bashing one country in a 6v1 war. France or even Prussia could do it alone, with these ubber leaders. If you can notice, France was rather powerful. They had so much MP as Russia, far more income, and better leaders then Russia at that moment.

That trading rule isnt fair either: countries like Sweden/Prussia didnt have one single CoT. Making Spain/England/France get full income from colonial CoTs with their huge TE. The CoT in Zacatecas/Susquehana is just one example. Both had like a value of 1000. The only CoT where players without one could trade was, shangai. The only remaining AI CoT.

The worst was, kicking the player because he was destabilizing every human country, making them near colapsing with so high RR, while Russia, with their winter, didnt even lost a single province to rebels. What was even more funny, was that he was booted 4 years before getting Suvorov: The Russian player said that once he would get it, everyone would pay harshly. I dont know if almost everyone (even the GM) got scared with that statement, but i think it was a big coincidence, and i was (and am) totaly against it. If the Russian player thinks he can take everyone on his own, then, why not let him stay and show his skills?

 

[unmerged(6147)]

How can a rule be unfair if it existed from start and everyone knew of it at that point in time? Or was it implemented later on?