Questions... Questions...

[unmerged(27108)]

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?

A rule could create an unfair position. Think of the possibilities.

But my little finger tells me we have a different view of fairness

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.

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?

So, a 6vs1 war is unfair even if the 1 kingdom that is attacked (Russia) can hold them easily? imo, the 6 vs 1 was fair, in view of your description.

 

[unmerged(6147)]

A rule could create an unfair position. Think of the possibilities.

I have thought and come up with nothing. My statement stands.

A rule can create an unbalanced position. A rule can create a catastrophy for a player. But as long as all knew about the rule from start in a game with voluntary participants it can never create an unfair position.

 

[unmerged(27108)]

I have thought and come up with nothing. My statement stands.

A rule can create an unbalanced position. A rule can create a catastrophy for a player. But as long as all knew about the rule from start in a game with voluntary participants it can never create an unfair position.

Rule : No alliance permitted.

Imo, this rule is unfair to small kingdom like BB, Porto, Venice, etc...i.e. easily crushed by France, Spain or England which can survive without alliance.

Your stand is that as long as all accept it, it's fair. I disagree.

I could agree on a rule like above even if I think it's an unfair rule.

But as you seem to put it, you put rules above everything else. Fairness seems only a by-product of acceptance.

 

[the_genius]

Wow.. what a set of EU2 players :wacko: , as someone posted before, I wouldn't play with that bunch either

 

[BurningEGO]

That trading thing wasnt even a rule. It was an agreement. Like these players called, a "gentlemen's agreement". Every player accepted, except me and Russia (even if it hurted Sweden and Prussia hardly). The GM, who created that silly agreement, said that it was to prevent insane competition. I, who was only aware of the agreement after session 3 or 4, kept spamming every CoT. Whenever i got a single merchant on one CoT (even without competing anyone out), i received heavy complains like "WTF ARE YOU DOING IN MY COT?!? GET THE HELL OUT NOW". Honestly... I asked what was the effing point of the agreement, the GM told me it was to prevent competition, and thus not waste merchants when they can be sent somewhere else. I told him we could always agree to a temp TA. He then says the owner of the CoT will have to share income with everyone and that is not his intentions.

Now about that 6v1. You see, AFAIK, Russia was almost leaderless save for one or 2 leaders at the moment of the DoW, 1740 (and the leaders arent that good). France, who had a lot more income (and even lots of leaders), so much MP as Russia, could take them in a 1v1. Prussia was a bit weaker, but from what i saw, Russia couldnt do much against Friedrich. I dont know why did Russia got attacked by everyone... Would like to know anyway. And although the war raged for so much time, Russia didnt manage to make an offensive. They kept defending the whole time, thanks to the winter.


EDITED: Well you see, no matter what i said, i was always wrong. I always tried to tell them what could/and should be made, only to be insulted. I dont know if you guys ever feeled this, but being in a place, saying one thing you know that is totaly correct, only to hear everyone saying it isnt... What a pain.

 

[Sid Meier]

Russia was in no way easily winning while Moscow wasnt close to falling porbably 8 provs i think fell to occupation and coastal forts were under siege another say 700,000 men probly wouldve finished the job Russia was holding odd 3500k manpower vs his what 400k? Russia lasted 20 years and fought valiantly and I think given time and a little luck they could turn the war around.

 

[unmerged(6147)]

Your stand is that as long as all accept it, it's fair. I disagree.

Yes, your are right in a way Balinus. However, I would never complain about a rule that was there from start and which I had fully understood. Although I might with some persistance advocate a change of it.

But to expand a little. We must not confuse inequaliy with fairness. This game is full of inequalities from start. It makes the concept of "fairness" almost meaningless to consider every inequality as unfair towards those who lose from it. Thus the simple thing is to consider all rules that exist from start as neutral from a fairness point of view, they are neither fair nor unfair, they are "afair" if such a word would exist. Which brings us back to my original point of view.

Indeed, a small nation as POR suffers from a lot of inequalties/"unfairnesses" compared to e.g. FRA. And that is the reason FRA (almost) always ends up stronger than POR. But that is how this game is - with the brilliant exception of Test of Skill of course, a campaign that has eliminated almost all inequalities and thus almost all "unfair" things.

 

[unmerged(6147)]

That trading thing wasnt even a rule. It was an agreement. Like these players called, a "gentlemen's agreement".

Either there was a rule or there was not. If it was you had broken it and should be punished. If it was not then comments like

"WTF ARE YOU DOING IN MY COT?!? GET THE HELL OUT NOW"

should be punished as a break of the no doubt existing rule that players must behave nicely.

--------

We have in this forum had "one million" of examples of quarrels between players because of unclear rules. This is just another example.

However, some of us have hope we will slowly be able to educate the lot, improve them to a better understanding of human behaviour and thus get less and less quarrels.

 

[BurningEGO]

Daniel, i dont know if you understood what i said, but that thing about not "allowing humans to trade in another human CoT that it is not his", wasnt a rule. It was an agreement. Everyone was given the oportunity to accept or to refuse. I refused. It is exactly like asking a NAP. I simply refused it. I and the Russian player, that is.

 

[unmerged(6147)]

Yes I saw you said that but I could hardly believe the guy who shouted "WTF" meant it was one.

 

[unmerged(27108)]

Yes, your are right in a way Balinus. However, I would never complain about a rule that was there from start and which I had fully understood. Although I might with some persistance advocate a change of it.

But to expand a little. We must not confuse inequaliy with fairness. This game is full of inequalities from start. It makes the concept of "fairness" almost meaningless to consider every inequality as unfair towards those who lose from it. Thus the simple thing is to consider all rules that exist from start as neutral from a fairness point of view, they are neither fair nor unfair, they are "afair" if such a word would exist. Which brings us back to my original point of view.

Indeed, a small nation as POR suffers from a lot of inequalties/"unfairnesses" compared to e.g. FRA. And that is the reason FRA (almost) always ends up stronger than POR. But that is how this game is - with the brilliant exception of Test of Skill of course, a campaign that has eliminated almost all inequalities and thus almost all "unfair" things.


I could agree on a rule like above even if I think it's an unfair rule.

Well, I don't consider inequalities as being unfair. But unfairness is function of inequalities. As Ottomans, I once attacked Austria with the help of poland and France. I do consider this unfair, which in return is based on inequalities between Ottomans and Austria (it was around 1515).

anyway, for me it's like a sport game : I want a good game, not a dull one. And this is not function of who's winning.

Sure, I wan't to win, but I won't attack a weaker nation just to upgrade my position.

But enough of that, we're stealing this thread.

 

[BurningEGO]

No, keep posting.

You arent going Off Topic and you are giving opinions, which is all i want.

 

[the_genius]

Daniel, i dont know if you understood what i said, but that thing about not "allowing humans to trade in another human CoT that it is not his", wasnt a rule. It was an agreement. Everyone was given the oportunity to accept or to refuse. I refused. It is exactly like asking a NAP. I simply refused it. I and the Russian player, that is.

In such scenario, I would have done what you did , but after being insulted the way you had, I'd have paused and pointed out strongly your view of the situation

 

[BurningEGO]

I still remember how i pissed these guys. After the many wars i had with them, and since i was always the winner, their embargo expired. I kept spamming their CoTs to death, and they couldnt do a thing about it. You know, you cant embargo during a truce.

That, really, really pissed them. So much that they kept sending barrages of curses and insults.

 

[Zeitgeist]

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?

Stupid IMO. There's a game mechanic for this, the handy dandy trade embargo. It's up to a COT owner to decide what's fair, and if a particular nation or group of nations is annoying him, he should invoke it.

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?

Highly abnormal. Other nations should be jealous of Spain's wealth and wary of its power.

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.

The manpower numbers are quite misleading. You have to consider the intangible; logistics. Transporting enough troops to combat a defensive Russia in the winter is a ridiculously difficult task. Personally, I don't see the point of such an unholy alliance, but there have been situations (e.g. Dago as Russia in War III) where such an alliance was basically needed to check Russian hegemony.

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?

Poor sportsmanship, IMO, UNLESS Russia was being completely unreasonable and refusing to sign white peaces, which I see as highly unlikely. What could Russia hope to gain from Spain in that situation? Suvorov or no, it would be in Russia's interests to regroup and initiate a new war 5 years later than fight a war with an exhausted country starting at negative war score.

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?

Poor sportsmanship and poor understanding of game mechanics.

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?

If they can't force Russia to accept it, it's not at all an acceptable peace.

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.

Depends on game rules, really. Some GMs have tried to impose limits on when you can stab hit, since it's often easy to grab a COT or colonial holdings and stabhit for something more important. If it's not in the game rules, then it's absolutely a legitimate tactic.

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)

It seems like everyone just wanted to play single player here, which is fine but does lead to incredible power imbalances. A little greed would have gone a long way. F.E. if Spain set her sights on Italy and South France, the Ottomans on Hungary and North Africa, the Prussians on German domination, England on Calais and the Netherlands, and so on...

 

[Sid Meier]

russia wanted WP but the alliance refused.

 

[the_genius]

russia wanted WP but the alliance refused.

And then he was booted.... talk about friendly game huh?...

 

[BurningEGO]

The Alliance kept saying: We have wasted too much cash for a WP. Sure, booted the player so now it is easier to force peace Russia, since they will surely ghost it and give as many provinces to the agressors... Man, that pisses me off, and they still think they are correct...

 

[unmerged(53580)]

Why do you play with theese guys anyway?

 

[BurningEGO]

Well, i played because i started, and i hate leaving a game in the middle. But i got so fed up that i gave up. Russia was booted and i left. Bah. A tip: never play with stubborn newbies.