Questions... Questions...

[unmerged(6147)]

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).

So, the trade thing was not a rule.

In post 25 BE describes what happened like this:

"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". "

1. What is your comment to that?

2. Do you consider a gentleman's agreement like this one
a) binding for the whole game on those who agreed to it?
b) binding on those who did not agree?

 

[DesertFoxx]

Nope, it was *never* a rule

"In post 25 BE describes what happened like this:

"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". "

1. What is your comment to that?

2. Do you consider a gentleman's agreement like this one
a) binding for the whole game on those who agreed to it?
b) binding on those who did not agree?"

1. That was BE exaggerating at times, not all comments were of that nature - I am fairly sure that my initial comments were more to the tone of 'BurningEgo, I'd thank you not to trade in my CoT in _____'
The reason that people were annoyed is that he had given some the impression that he would respect the 'gentlemen's agreement' and stay out of CoTs as it had not always been an issue, that is to say that he did not make clearly known to all his displeasure with the agreement, and his intent to not be a party to it - so there was some surprise.

Just to further emphasize that this was not a rule - this is what we have in the rules regarding the concept:
1. The players of this game have a concept which we refer to as the 'gentlemen's agreement,' it pertains to trading in CoTs. The agreement is as follows:
You do not trade (unless given permission/you are asked) in CoTs in a territory of another nation that is a party to this agreement and they will not trade in CoTs that belong to yo. By colluding you maximize profits all around and can keep CoTs from disappearing. You are in NO WAY obligated to abide by this agreement, in fact if you have no CoTs there's no reason to be a party to it, feel free to trade in other people's CoTs but understand that your uninvited/unwelcome presence there might start a war over trade rights.

And IIRC there's some provision in the rules that also says that you're permitted to wage war for things that are not quite within the bounds of the game engine - trade rights was certainly one that I had in mind.


As to your second question;
a) It is binding on those who agreed to it for so long as they continue to agree to it - the idea behind the GA is that it is mutually beneficial, France does not waste money & merchants every year competing aggressively with England trying to secure a monopoly in Anglia - you know what I mean, a situation in which players are focusing the bulk of their merchants, sending them to a single CoT, and she grants England this courtesy in exchange for her not having to spend those same merchants and money trying to stave off English competition in Ile de France - this frees both parties to expand their trade in other CoTs, this collusion results in more profitable circumstances for both nations, that is to say that the purpose of entering into it is that it is mutually beneficial. If there comes a point where it is no longer mutually beneficial, then a player is not obligated to continue to be a party to the agreement. As I said above, if you have no CoTs left, you have no reason to sign on to this. This gentlemen's agreement is a treaty designed to benefit both parties, when it ceases to accomplish that goal, it is perfectly reasonable to abrogate it... though as I believe I also say, it is also not likely to please your former partners that you're now cutting into their profits and forcing them to place merchants defensively to stave off your gains in their CoTs.

b) I think the other miscommunication here was simply that in the past, I myself have abrogated the agreement and when I've done so, I've always taken pause to announce to the world that I was withdrawing from the agreement & that I no longer felt bound to it... BurningEgo was not being so gentlemanly and simply thought it would be amusing to try and gain monopolies in other people's CoTs when:
1) they were at war and thus could not pay as close attention
2) they were AI-ed and so were less able to defend their CoTs

I found the second tactic to be somewhat dishonorable, but not so much so that I would forbid the use of it in the rules, its just not something that I would do - take advantage of a player's absence and the AI control and dramatically weaken their income. I'd expand on that further by simply saying that I want to defeat my opponent himself, and legitimately... I don't want to set myself up for the blow by weakening him while his back is turned (metaphorically... that is to say, while he is away).

Now that statement is exactly the sort of thing that would cause trouble with BurningEgo - if this were to follow our pattern, he would:
1) Object vociferously, saying that it was perfectly reasonable
2) I must be some combination of a newbie/idiot to not see it his way
3) Distort what I've just said and cry foul here on the boards saying that he's playing with a bunch of stubborn newbies who have a RULE that says that 'one is not allowed to send merchants to a CoT of a player that has been AI-ed'

Do I exaggerate? Not really as much as you might think
The point is, that I *think* that our disagreements were merely started by miscommunications, he misunderstood some things that were said which lead to his responding incorrectly (he felt more threatened), and couple this with his "deafness" (as Hypothermia said), that is to say his unwillingness/inability to listen to cooler heads/the GM... let me give an example of this

He felt it necessary to give tips to all of these "stubborn newbies" - and frequently in a tone which seemed to be condescending. When I tried to explain to him that I for one neither required nor desired his assistance and that I was not in fact a newbie and that I had been playing Eu2 & HoI since the day they each had come out - I'd more or less gotten the hang of things and nicely asked him to refrain from giving his two cents on what I should be doing. I was not alone in this - when he so moronically said in seriousness to the Spanish player after his civil war (I can't remember which one of the four Spain got in a 75 year stretch) that he should try to get his stability higher to avoid civil war, the Spanish player reacted with strong (and arguably inappropriately so) words. He was quite aware of the fact that civil wars don't fire at positive stability and was certainly trying to keep his stability positive, but bad luck was making that difficult & BurningEgo's not respecting Spain's earlier request to try to restain BE's desire to "educate" all of us (I believe it was suggested to him more than once that no one liked having the obvious pointed out to them in a smug/condescending way), I can't blame Spain for his strong words.

I really wish (as I have for a week now) that this whole thing would just blow over and go away. It is pointless to argue over - the fact of the matter is that BE is no longer a member of our group as a result of his incessantly slanderous & abrasive behavior & his unwillingness to listen to the GM.
That being said, except for at the initial moment when I read his latest post revising events to be more favorable to him, I don't hold any grudges & would play with him again.

 

[Spinalcurve]

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.

The only way I have seen cheating is people editting the savefile for their own gains.

I have no idea if there is exes that can corrupt the game and I really hope there are no such things.

 

[unmerged(58813)]

The only way I have seen cheating is people editting the savefile for their own gains.

I have no idea if there is exes that can corrupt the game and I really hope there are no such things.

Well, based on other games I bet there probably is a way for a 1337 h4x0r to cheat in game, but I seriously doubt anyone with such mad skillz (heavy ironic emphasis here) would go through the bother of creating such a "mod".

"Yay, we have two HALs now!"

Indeed we do, the more the merrier! I have been at times mistaken for the other Hal (whose name, I understand, really is Hal) and would like to hereby apologize if any confusion resulted from this. My screen name comes from my Computer being named HAL (from the movie, 2001 a Space Oddessy of course) and my being too lazy to change it the first couple of times I played HoI or EU2 over the lan. Then I started playing a few V-net games with friends, then with strangers. . . well, I seem stuck with it now. Henceforth I'll add the 2001 suffix in order to try and avoid confusion.

 

[unmerged(10915)]

Henceforth I'll add the 2001 suffix in order to try and avoid confusion.

It would be great if you people migrated to this board too, or at least subbed or something here . Apart from what ego is saying, the opinion of certain player's style and skill being a highly subjective matter, i think you all seem to be enjoyable people to play with.

So yeah, id at least welcome you .

 

[unmerged(6147)]

HAL2001,

Thanks for your response. It appears it is mostly, on both sides, a question of behaving nicely. Too bad we all do not agree upon how to define that concept.

 

[BurningEGO]

The reason that people were annoyed is that he had given some the impression that he would respect the 'gentlemen's agreement' and stay out of CoTs as it had not always been an issue, that is to say that he did not make clearly known to all his displeasure with the agreement, and his intent to not be a party to it - so there was some surprise.

The first time i joined this game, which i met acidently in vnet, i was not aware of any rule. I remember asking if there was any special rule but everyone said there was none. Only the third or so session, did the GM be gentle enough to give me the link to the thread in another forum. When i finally got trade 3 as Russia, and started spamming every single CoT, i started being aware of this the hard way. I DID state my extremely hatred for this agreement. I always allowed you to get as many merchants you wanted in my CoTs (except monos). But when i get 2 or 1 merchant in alexandria, which was under spanish control, i just hear LOUD complains. Sure, you, as England, werent that rude, until i started really spamming your CoT, but that i will speak about a little later. Getting back to what i was saying... When i sent merchants to alexandria, i was embargoed right the next day they arrived. Started asking why, and got greatly annoyed. Well, i though, if you dont like me competing your monopolies, then, grant me a TA. Everyone always refused one. When i did this to England, the same thing hapened. Kindly asked me to stop spamming anglia, and since i was being competed out anyway, i did (he kept sending merchants to anglia always competing the hell out of everyone, in fact, his CoT had only his merchant). I started getting greatly annoyed. While everyone had lots of CoTs, and i had just 2 sick CoTs, i was receiving a very small of income. And trade DOES contribute to someone's income, even as Russia. When i finally got acess to maps, i saw some extra rich CoTs: even more rich then the indian ones. One example is Susquehana. That goddamn CoT had 1000 trade value. I spammed the CoT, got 5 merchants there, didnt compete anyone out. After one or 2 years, England, who owned it noticed me. Embargoed me, spammed his CoT, and all my merchants disapeared. I did the same to Zacatecas, which was obviously under Spanish control. He does the same, however, was not so kindly as just say "stop trading in my cots". After competing all my merchants there, Spain keeps spamming all my cots, competing me out, and even going as far as getting monopolies. I do get greatly pissed, simply because it was too early to have trade 4, so i couldnt embargo them. You guys dont want me to get some merchants in your CoTs but you can get monopolies in somebody's CoT? I did get indeed very pissed at this. He, or rather you, just accept the agreement when it benefits you.

Now, what i did indeed laugh, was when i had a fake war with BBurg. They WPed me, and England who had embargoed me previously, stoped doing so, because of the truce. I did use this, and spammed Susquehana with every goddamn merchant i had. To my great amusement, England did REALLY get pissed. First, he simply kindly told me to stop, but i didnt. So much so that:

name = "Foxx (England) :BE? You're in NA again."
name = "Foxx (England) :what're you doing?"
name = "Foxx (England) :Russia, please don't trade in my CoTs"
name = "Foxx (England) :I don't trade in yours..."
name = "Foxx (England) :what is your problem with that agreement?"
name = "BurningEGO (Russia) :No?"
name = "BurningEGO (Russia) :i had to embargo you because of that"
name = "Foxx (England) :I sent merchnants there as a retaliation for your sending them"
name = "Foxx (England) :I don't want to trade in your CoTs"
name = "James (Spain) :it shouldn't take a mental giant to get the cause and effect here..."
name = "Foxx (England) :No it shouldn't."
name = "Foxx (England) :why fight with people? We can ALL make more money this way."
name = "James (Spain) :and I'm okay with us both embargoing eachother"
name = "BurningEGO (Russia) :everyone signs TAs so they dont compete other people out"
name = "Foxx (England) :that hurts TE"
name = "baue8673 (Sweden) :BE, obviously some people here don't, why don't you just abide by what they say?"
name = "Foxx (England) :This system is *mutually* advantageous"
name = "BurningEGO (Russia) :mutually?"
name = "BurningEGO (Russia) :If i was some nation without a CoT, i would laugh"
name = "Foxx (England) :and with your shitty trade tech, you should be pleased."
name = "BurningEGO (Russia) :i compete you out"
name = "BurningEGO (Russia) :and it is shity?"
name = "Foxx (England) :yeah, what's your tech level?"
name = "Foxx (England) :is it 7?"
name = "Foxx (England) :Cause' mine is about to be 8"
name = "BurningEGO (Russia) :Take the shity then"
name = "November 25, 1639 : We lost a merchant in Susquehanna to competition from Russia and currently have 5 "
name = "merchants left there."
name = "Foxx (England) :in about a year"
name = "Foxx (England) :so comparatively, I'd say yours is shitty"
name = "BurningEGO (Russia) :well, my shity tech is enough to compete you out"
name = "Foxx (England) :*sigh*"
name = "Foxx (England) :I'm done arguing this point with you BE"
name = "Foxx (England) :this system is mutually advantageous, but you don't see that because you choose not to"
name = "Foxx (England) :so I'll just effing embargo you"
name = "BurningEGO (Russia) :Sure"
name = "BurningEGO (Russia) :you cant"
name = "BurningEGO (Russia) :Truce"
name = "Foxx (England) :Well played Russia, you must be quite proud."
name = "BurningEGO (Russia) :Shity tech still competes mighty england out of their own cots"
name = "April 1, 1640 : Russia acquired a monopoly in Susquehanna."
name = "Foxx (England) :Russia, you really are fucking pissing me off"
name = "baue8673 (Sweden) :Out of curiousity, do you want to play another game with us BE?"
name = "BurningEGO (Russia) :I wanted, but if you keep playing like this"
name = "Foxx (England) : playing like what?"
name = "Foxx (England) :like WHAT?"
name = "BurningEGO (Russia) :Cryin because someone trades in your cot"
name = "Foxx (England) :No, I haev agreements with people, I have every right to be upset if you're depriving me income"
name = "Foxx (England) :I exten an invitation to trade to my friends, not people who piss me off for no reason"
name = "BurningEGO (Russia) :depriving your income?"
name = "Foxx (England) :Yeah, MY income in MY CoT"
name = "Foxx (England) :You're not fucking staying. So I suggest we drop it."
name = "BurningEGO (Russia) :i hope you are having fun"
name = "BurningEGO (Russia) :because i am having loads of it"
name = "Foxx (England) :You're pissing me off."
name = "Foxx (England) :Russia, do you *try* to piss people off? Or does it just come naturally?"
name = "BurningEGO (Russia) :Foxx"
name = "BurningEGO (Russia) :this is a game"
name = "BurningEGO (Russia) :i got pissed many many times"
name = "BurningEGO (Russia) :specially when people gang bang other in a 5v1"
name = "BurningEGO (Russia) :war"
name = "Foxx (England) :Yes, well I will remember your words when its my turn to gloat later."
name = "BurningEGO (Russia) :i didnt cry because of that"
name = "BurningEGO (Russia) :did i?"
name = "baue8673 (Sweden) : (to all but BE) no offence guys, but BE is so idiotic, he's about to make me quit

Now, now, i know i will hear loud complains. Sure, i am out of the game, so i dont bother checking the log. Violating your privacy? Think twice before speaking to the host, insulting another player. If you dont fear anything from the logs, then you shouldnt be complaining. Getting back to the topic, well, I had just finished a fake war with BBurg like i said. England was part of that alliance, and the embargo was lifted. I, who couldnt expand trade, was stuck every year with 6 merchants (indeed, this hapened specially after England took over all Asian CoTs. It reduced my trade income by 50% or so, and my income was relatively BIG, and it droped considerably after that). So, i sent my merchants to the richest CoT, Susquehana. As you can see above, we hear very kind complains for the part of the English player. Not that i care about being insulted. I did indeed, laugh in that day. It amazed me to see such a player pissed because of merchants in a CoT! But since nothing can be perfect, we see the Swedish player (once again), threatning to leave just because of me. The reason? I dont know. Can somebody please tell me if i was so idiotic because of this? Was it a reason to make a player that didnt even own that CoT in which i was trading to leave?

Ok, i guess getting a monopoly in someone's CoT isnt a nice thing to do, but if you havent noticed, England/Spain did exactly the same just because i had 2 or 1 merchant in their CoTs. I'd say, what goes around, comes around... The diference between me and you guys, was that i never complained (nor insulted) about it, even if it pissed me to see British/Spanish monopolies in Moscow.

Well, now at least i do understand why i faced another 5v1 or 6v1. I guess this was some kind of revenge for the "CoT Warz".

P.S. HAL, Swedish and Turkish help in that war was useless? I cant understand how. Sweden invaded my borders with nothing less then 40k men. One can say that it is a very low number of soldiers. But by 1500, and with the low supply limit of the Swedes, i guess it is a very high amount. The Turks invaded me with a similiar number, but under Bayezid. Their worst mistake was invading the steppes, in Astrakhan with only infantry. 20k cavalry plus one of my best shock leaders utterly destroyed their whole army.

 

[BurningEGO]

name = "October 1, 1551 : Civil War in Spain"
name = "James (Spain) :..........."
name = "James (Spain) : okay"
name = "HAL (Brandenburg) :jesus."
name = "James (Spain) :fuck"
name = "HAL (Brandenburg) :what have you done in your past lives to deserve this?"
name = "BurningEGO (Russia) :get your stab up please"
name = "James (Spain) :Fuck you Russia"
name = "James (Spain) :seriously dude"
name = "HAL (Brandenburg) :i am willing to be he is trying."
name = "BurningEGO (Russia) :uh"
name = "BurningEGO (Russia) :well sorry forgot that spanish stab costs must be higher then 3000"
name = "James (Spain) :also, Fuck you Russia"

After the second or third civil war, i though the Spanish player didnt know what prevented a civil war. Once again, trying to be nice, i told him that being at positive stab didnt cause civil wars. What do i get? A barrage of insults. These were only the first ones. About the stab costs, well, Spain had stab costs rounding 3000-4000 (reasons: whole moorish north africa under their control, BB under the limit). Their income was about 100-200. It took like 3 years even with all income funeled to Stability to raise it by one point.

EDITED:

Rules:

1. A general 'no exploits' rule*
2. No map trading with the AI
3. If a player is absent it would be considered most ungentlemanly to take advantage of their not being present and seizing large chunks of territory from them, such things should be avoided.** In general, sportsmanlike conduct in these matters is expected - that does not mean that you are restricted in your diplomacy in any way, if you want to be a treacherous backstabbing bastard, you're free to do so, all is fair in love, war & diplomacy, however the line being drawn is when it becomes tantamount to exploitation...
4. If you are at war with a player nation and are at -99 warscore, have lost your capital and this situation persists for 36 months*** you must sign peace.
5. If your nation is vassalized by a fellow player nation as a result of rule #4, you must remain a vassal for a period of 10 years, and may break that vassalage thereafter with a declaration of war, or if your suzereign assents to let you go.
6. It is NOT ok to load up the save file as any country other than your own. Relatedly, it is NOT permitted to read the history log in the save file, this is considered cheating as it allows you to view all dialogue that the host could see - even the things that were spoken privately to him.
7. The scoring of points through the use of missions is not allowed, you shouldn't be able to score free points for 'keeping' certain provinces, its just too easy. Or points for marrying someone... The other missions are a bit tougher, but up til' now the general rule has simply been to ban all missions, and so it shall remain unless we can all agree on something else.


*this is obviously open to interpretation, but if it becomes an issue, it will be decided by a simple majority vote of the players present - the GM's vote will break a tie.
**this is also subject to revision, I want some sort of rule establishing that its just pretty bastardly to take advantage of a player's absence by beating up on the AI - however, if a player is absent and does not inform the group of his absence... (this rule needs firm parameters, perhaps a fixed limit on what may be taken from an AI'ed player nation, and an increased limit if the player is absent without notice?)
***this is also subject to modification after discussion with the group - specifically the amount of time... If this war is the result of a human controlled vassal trying to break away, the amount of time required before the vassal is forced to resubmit to their suzereign's will should probably be less than this...

These were the rules. I am indeed "distorting" all facts. Excuse me. Perhaps i am suffering from some sickness that isnt allowing me to read things properly, but where is the rule that "doesnt allow us to trade in AIed CoTs"? Also, Spain did trade when both BBurg/OE were AIed. So much so, that he got embargoed. But since i am distorting all facts, this must be a lie. Sure, i am a "dishonorable scum", but seems like i wasnt the only one... I do remember when i was AIed that when i came back i was embargoing Spain... I wonder why. I didnt embargo them the session before i played, so it was definetely the AI. They only do that if you trade insanely in my CoTs.

 

[unmerged(53580)]

To be honest ego, I don't really think you should continue with this thread. I agree that this "gentlemen's agreement" is lame, for those that doesn't own lucrative cots that is. I would rather spam and be banned than agree if I didn't have any valuable cots myself. Some of theese lines you show us seems "heated" and out of place in a session of eu2 where it should be a pleasant atmosphere. It leaves the question of why? Your fellow players may have given the answer. If your attitude is as they have described such behaviour is understandable, perhaps not tolerable, but understandable.

England and Spain (possibly France as well) is IMO in their full rigths to make such an agreement, and they will probably profit greatly from it as well. It makes sense for them to ban any human that disagrees. But I would spam them anyways just so they get 3% less TE for not allowing me to trade in their cots.

The gangbang does seem to be a result of failed diplomacy on your part if you take what the other players said into consideration. Perhaps failed diplomacy from others as well, but you were the one who were ganged. Also even if you made that remark about stability and civil wars out of friendlyness, it could very well be viewed as insults if you have made offending statements earlier. After reading what the others said I support their decision of booting you, the offender should leave, nobody should ever leave because other players made him uncomfortable.

I do agree with you on your in-game actions, it seems you could play the diplomatic game a bit better, but we never stop learning do we? But I get the feeling that you sometimes do get a bit too carried away at times. Myself and many others playing eu2 won't really be bothered with such words, I would kindly request that you moderate yourself and leave it at that, but some players are more easily offended than others, therefore it's a good rule to try not to say things that MAY offend someone.

I think you're able to become a very good player EGO, but don't go and ruin your reputation with your words, let your abilities speak for themselves. A bit more patience and tolerance of others would serve you well.

 

[unmerged(6147)]

I DID state my extremely hatred for this agreement.

This seems a bit exaggerated. It sounds you did not behave nicely, but I may be wrong.

I started getting greatly annoyed.

Again exaggerated. They did not break any rule.

I do get greatly pissed, simply because it was too early to have trade 4, so i couldnt embargo them. ... I did get indeed very pissed at this.

You give the impression of being far too emotional. This gentleman's agreement they had was a rare bird which you had to fight in some way. It was an intellectual challenge, not something to get annoyed or pissed about.

To my great amusement, England did REALLY get pissed.

I can understand your feeling Sometimes one must allow ones feelings to pop up to the surface! This was certainly one way to get around their agreement. Although they probably had vast numbers of merchants free for use since they probably did not need to send many around to other COTs.

name = "baue8673 (Sweden) :BE, obviously some people here don't, why don't you just abide by what they say?"

This player obviously have not understood that the agreement was not a rule, that it was not mandatory to adhere to it. Apparently the GM had failed in his obligation to make sure that all players had understood the rules - or perhaps the player in question just refused to read the relevant instructions?

name = "Foxx (England) :This system is *mutually* advantageous"
name = "BurningEGO (Russia) :mutually?"
name = "BurningEGO (Russia) :If i was some nation without a CoT, i would laugh"

A good point you make. Indeed a very good point. Perhaps all the COTs in
this game were evenly distributed between the players?

name = "Foxx (England) :I'm done arguing this point with you BE"
name = "Foxx (England) :this system is mutually advantageous, but you don't see that because you choose not to"

This is very interesting, Foxx insists. I must say I have some difficulty understanding that it is mutually beneficial for everyone. Even if we assume the COTs are evenly distributed it would not be advantageous early on, then the most important advantage of a COT is the trade tariffs, not the income from the the trade run in the COT and the size of the trade tariffs depends on the number of merchants present. But this is perhaps a moot point, the agreement was perhaps not used early on or perhaps this was some non-normal scenario.

name = "Foxx (England) :Russia, you really are fucking pissing me off"

This is obviously not a nice comment. If I had been GM and seen it I would have intervened.

name = "baue8673 (Sweden) :Out of curiousity, do you want to play another game with us BE?"
name = "BurningEGO (Russia) :I wanted, but if you keep playing like this"
name = "Foxx (England) : playing like what?"
name = "Foxx (England) :like WHAT?"
name = "BurningEGO (Russia) :Cryin because someone trades in your cot"

I do not think this was an appropriate comment, although I can understand you had problems controlling yourself.

name = "Foxx (England) :No, I haev agreements with people, I have every right to be upset if you're depriving me income"
name = "Foxx (England) :I exten an invitation to trade to my friends, not people who piss me off for no reason"

Now he commits the same sin you did early. He got pissed although no one broke any rule. And he also states in publically. Very bad, very bad indeed. But I have seen vets in our community getting pissed and telling it loudly when an opponent did something that was legal. Again the GM should have intervened and reprimanded Foxx.

name = "BurningEGO (Russia) :depriving your income?"
name = "Foxx (England) :Yeah, MY income in MY CoT"

This is simply hilarious. Foxx believes it is his income. :rofl:

name = "baue8673 (Sweden) : (to all but BE) no offence guys, but BE is so idiotic, he's about to make me quit

"No offence" :wacko: This player obviously needs to be taught a lesson, that you cannot just like that undo a later insult by first saying "No offence". Apart from that he is apparently still under the impression that the gentleman's agreement is a rule. Someone really needs to educate him. Did the GM not intervene and tell him he was wrong?

 

[BurningEGO]

The problem Daniel, is that Foxx is the GM. Baue is his friend so... I guess you got the point... I dont blame him. Perhaps i would have done exactly the same.

Yes Bodvar, sometimes i am not the nicest of persons, but i tried to be patient till the last sessions, where i kept hearing insults after insults. What Hypo quoted is true, but i am not posting what they said before. Like i stated before, i dont want this thread to be closed down due to flaming posts. But despite what most people said in here (and play eu2 for years), they still think they are totaly correct.

But if i EVER posted their comments on me, which i am on the blink of doing so, you would give full suport to me, and see who was wrong... The GM wasnt even present the session where i was totaly insulted in all ways: cheater, exploiter and a load of things. Even had a player that wanted to boot me so he could take over Russia. This was the last straw, so i insulted back. In the end, the GM tells me to apologize everyone. While no one has to apologize me for calling me cheater and all the other nice things they called me.

 

[DesertFoxx]

Thank you for proving me right BurningEgo, you are absolutely ridiculous :rofl:

"These were the rules. I am indeed "distorting" all facts. Excuse me. Perhaps i am suffering from some sickness that isnt allowing me to read things properly, but where is the rule that "doesnt allow us to trade in AIed CoTs"?"


You were an idiot in the exact way that I anticipated, allow me to repeat what I said earlier, either that or you truly are suffering from that sickness - you should get that looked at.

I found the second tactic to be somewhat dishonorable, but not so much so that I would forbid the use of it in the rules, its just not something that I would do - take advantage of a player's absence and the AI control and dramatically weaken their income. I'd expand on that further by simply saying that I want to defeat my opponent himself, and legitimately... I don't want to set myself up for the blow by weakening him while his back is turned (metaphorically... that is to say, while he is away).

Now that statement is exactly the sort of thing that would cause trouble with BurningEgo - if this were to follow our pattern, he would:
1) Object vociferously, saying that it was perfectly reasonable
2) I must be some combination of a newbie/idiot to not see it his way
3) Distort what I've just said and cry foul here on the boards saying that he's playing with a bunch of stubborn newbies who have a RULE that says that 'one is not allowed to send merchants to a CoT of a player that has been AI-ed'

So if you were not so 'deaf' - as in if you actually took the time to read what I said, instead of only snippets (and selectively remembering/quoting what I say), you would see that you walked into my hypothetical and demanded to know where this rule was, even though I SPECIFICALLY addressed this in an earlier post. That is why I am so frustrated with you, frankly I don't give a damn what Daniel thinks, don't get me wrong - I like Daniel, I had a positive experience with him the one time I played with him, but my frustration with you was built up over a number of weeks with your attitude and your seeming unwillingness to read what other people say.


And to quote from Daniel:
"This is very interesting, Foxx insists. I must say I have some difficulty understanding that it is mutually beneficial for everyone."

I explained the logic behind it - I fail to see why this idea is so threatening, this is COMPLETELY OPTIONAL, the idea is that you work with the other people who are willing to work with you to prevent yourself from having to send merchants 'defensively' in your own CoTs. You get your monopoly, invite your friends to trade in your Cot and rest secure. You're not constantly having to waste money in trade wars with people where you furiously send every merchant to a particular CoT which is what BE and I did. Instead of spending all that money, perhaps he could've tried to negotiate like a civilized person and he would've been granted some trade rights within my CoT & yes it IS MY CoT, I do have the power to embargo, and only through - I admit cunning (though bastardly & I would daresay cheap) use of a white peace in a phoney war...

Sweden & I were at war with France, Russia joined the alliance against us and immediately offered me peace. It was at this point that I noticed that he had massively expanded trade in all of my CoTs, he realized that the treaty would prevent me from embargoing him.
What bothers me about BurningEgo is that he NEVER admits to having been wrong, I myself made two mistakes in this episode:

1) When the first Russian merchant appeared in any of my CoTs I should've embargoed the sneaky bastard.
2) I'm still arguing with people about it - though in all honesty, its more because I care about my goodname insofar as people like Daniel & the other board regulars are concerned I would like to play with some of them at some point in the future. As for BE... I could tell BurningEgo that rain was wet and he might very well try to argue the point with me.

 

[BurningEGO]

It was at this point that I noticed that he had massively expanded trade in all of my CoTs, he realized that the treaty would prevent me from embargoing him.

"In all of my CoTs". Tell me, how many CoTs did you have? From what you say, you had only one. I just spammed Susquehana, nothing more. So stop inventing stuff. And saying that i am the one who is doing so.

What bothers me about BurningEgo is that he NEVER admits to having been wrong, I myself made two mistakes in this episode

I admit to have acted wrong, when i am actually wrong. Which isnt the case. But having a GM that simply looks only at one side of the coin... Look at all posts in this thread, and look at the objective of the whole thread. It was destined to "give opinions". Do all players agree to all questions i said? Who is wrong, or rather, who is more correct about this issue?

P.S. About that rule stuff, well, in the first post i said it was a rule, but then as i was mistaken i said it was an agreement. You said that "i was crying out loud because the GA was a rule". I posted all rules, and said i couldnt be doing so because it isnt even a rule, like i stated way before you ever posted in this thread. But between us, this is the most pathetic agreement i ever heard of, and i bet most players in this awesome comunity Paradox is, would never abide to such an "agreement". One that has anything less then gentlemen behind it. Like i said, whoever grabs all CoTs would be pre-eminent with such a rule. And people who dont have one, would be forced to get 0 income from trade. Unless there is an AI CoT around... Or someone gentle enough to allow their traders into his CoTs. Like me.

 

[unmerged(40674)]

Why are we still talking about this game.?..it's obviously a total failure..a bunch of crazy people...quit the game already Ego

 

[unmerged(18425)]

We aren't talking about this game anymore, this nasty thread was already dead for 3 weeks till you necromanced it.

CLOSED.