Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Reconstruction Game: Kingdom of Heaven

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Team, here is the newest roster. And please stick with it.

Updated Roster:

France: Duqued
Spain: _KoP_
England: National_Cause
Portugal: Nobody
Austria: Alek
Ottoman: Jose
BB: Fnuco
Sweden: Grabah
Russia: Uls

The main change is that Fnuco now is in BB. I am positive he can manage it well. K guys stick with it. game is in 25 mins, where is everyone?
 
nobodyreal said:
Uls, you are too smart k? :)

and your a socialist!! :eek:
Click to expand...

heh, :p

I think neoclassics agree with my point, and many of them are in the right wing party. Anyhow I confess I care about justice, fair trade, development instead of easy growing, blah blah.
 
_King_of_Pain_ said:
Team, here is the newest roster. And please stick with it.

Updated Roster:

France: Duqued
Spain: _KoP_
England: National_Cause
Portugal: Nobody
Austria: Alek
Ottoman: Jose
BB: Fnuco
Sweden: Grabah
Russia: Uls

The main change is that Fnuco now is in BB. I am positive he can manage it well. K guys stick with it. game is in 25 mins, where is everyone?
Click to expand...

oh, c'mon, what did I do to deserve Russia? I agree about placing Fnuco in BB, but...

Our agreement with nobodyreal and National_cause was reasonable and balaced, after all I have Alek as my competitor (if I'm Oe).
Nobodyreal wants Russia, NC wanted England and I want OE, changing that will imply less compromise, less motivation and worse than that, less will to attend sessions.
 
BB?

It's pretty last minute notice...

I had a strategy and everything for Poland...


For BB i have no diplomacy whatsoever, no prior game test with the country, nothing.

Weird.

I'll take it.
 
Last edited:
Ulschmidt said:
heh, :p

I think neoclassics agree with my point, and many of them are in the right wing party. Anyhow I confess I care about justice, fair trade, development instead of easy growing, blah blah.
Click to expand...

I do agree with you, and i must state that i dislike everything that looks like a comunist, notably socialists. ;)

And its true - you need a complex set of rules. If you dont, people might make use of certain exploits and you cant do anything about it because it wasnt in the rules.
 
Stop complaining about your country! Look what I have: Austria! For me! Alek teh warmonger, the one that pwns Casluerj, King John and BurningEGO (at the same time) without random or historical leaders and with CRT disadvantage!

What was I doing here? Oh yeah...

STATS - January 1509

EDIT: And MAKE SOME RULES! I didn't like France killing Englishmen on Britany with attrintion, or Fnuco's short SL raid.
 
Last edited:
Aleksidze said:
Stop complaining about your country! Look what I have: Austria! For me! Alek teh warmonger, the one that pwns Casluerj, King John and BurningEGO (at the same time) without random or historical leaders and with CRT disadvantage!

What was I doing here? Oh yeah...

STATS - January 1509

EDIT: And MAKE SOME RULES! I didn't like France killing Englishmen on Britany with attrintion, or Fnuco's short SL raid.
Click to expand...

I second that. With no bias of course.
 
Aleksidze said:
Stop complaining about your country! Look what I have: Austria! For me! Alek teh warmonger, the one that pwns Casluerj, King John and BurningEGO (at the same time) without random or historical leaders and with CRT disadvantage!

What was I doing here? Oh yeah...

STATS - January 1509

EDIT: And MAKE SOME RULES! I didn't like France killing Englishmen on Britany with attrintion, or Fnuco's short SL raid.
Click to expand...

well more or less we all know what exploit is.
so one simple rule should do it: NO EXPLOITS!
privateers to prevent loading/unloading troops, sl, attritioninig without war blah blah blah..
as far as diplomacy alliances and war, im for everything goes rule.
players are here to balance it out. perhaps only 3 provinces max, per war rule.
 
grabah said:
well more or less we all know what exploit is.
so one simple rule should do it: NO EXPLOITS!
privateers to prevent loading/unloading troops, sl, attritioninig without war blah blah blah..
as far as diplomacy alliances and war, im for everything goes rule.
players are here to balance it out. perhaps only 3 provinces max, per war rule.
Click to expand...

I agree with what Uls said. Rules should be adhered to, too insure a balanced game.

The thing that gets me, and really confuses me, is the peace rules. How does this work? I see that it is required to gain 99% before it is mandatory that peace is signed. Say I am Portugal and England declares war. England comes and besieges all three of cities in the Iberian Peninsula. After taking those, he has 60%. Will I give him any provinces? Of course not. I am far away and safe, and have colonies spread far and wide. So England gets cheated I suppose. I don't sue for peace, and eventually revolt risk in England's territory gets raised, and soon my Iberian peninsula provinces start revolting.

You see? The peace between HU players seems very hard to negotiate. Let's say France Declares war on Austria. France conquers all of Austria's provinces that border her. But the small German entities won't allow France military access. So Austria sits back comfortable knowing that France cannot come attack the remaining provinces, thus getting to a point where peace is mandatory.

So you see, human players can exploit war! They can sit there and watch as the enemy looses troops via attrition and eventually the revolt risk will rise up.
This has really confused me. If someone could clarify the peace rules that would be great.

EDIT : What about playing two sessions a week? I don't know if I can wait a whole week to play. :)
 
grabah said:
well more or less we all know what exploit is.
so one simple rule should do it: NO EXPLOITS!
privateers to prevent loading/unloading troops, sl, attritioninig without war blah blah blah..
as far as diplomacy alliances and war, im for everything goes rule.
players are here to balance it out. perhaps only 3 provinces max, per war rule.
Click to expand...

The more I think about that, it really annoys me. I basically had Britanny all sewn up and ready to destroy. The fact that I belonged to an alliance France didn't want to attack wasn't my problem and certainly didn't merit that cheap shot. Oh well, in the big scheme of things its just a blip on the radar.
 
Aleksidze said:
EDIT: And MAKE SOME RULES! I didn't like France killing Englishmen on Britany with attrintion, or Fnuco's short SL raid.
Click to expand...

SL raid?
 
I certainl do not know much about all the exploits in MP. If you know them, dont do it. 3 provinces max rule is always on.

I guess it all comes down to: Play right, play nice and dont be a Jerk!
 
nobodyreal said:
I agree with what Uls said. Rules should be adhered to, too insure a balanced game.

The thing that gets me, and really confuses me, is the peace rules. How does this work? I see that it is required to gain 99% before it is mandatory that peace is signed. Say I am Portugal and England declares war. England comes and besieges all three of cities in the Iberian Peninsula. After taking those, he has 60%. Will I give him any provinces? Of course not. I am far away and safe, and have colonies spread far and wide. So England gets cheated I suppose. I don't sue for peace, and eventually revolt risk in England's territory gets raised, and soon my Iberian peninsula provinces start revolting.

You see? The peace between HU players seems very hard to negotiate. Let's say France Declares war on Austria. France conquers all of Austria's provinces that border her. But the small German entities won't allow France military access. So Austria sits back comfortable knowing that France cannot come attack the remaining provinces, thus getting to a point where peace is mandatory.

So you see, human players can exploit war! They can sit there and watch as the enemy looses troops via attrition and eventually the revolt risk will rise up.
This has really confused me. If someone could clarify the peace rules that would be great.

EDIT : What about playing two sessions a week? I don't know if I can wait a whole week to play. :)
Click to expand...

never going to happen.

If England gets your 3 provs and has 60%, then he can stabhit you for anything up to 49%. And that is a LOT. He can take Porto for example. Of course you can refuse, but can you afford to lose 1 point of stability everytime you decline his peace offer? YOU will be full of rebels and War Exhaustion and will have to sue for peace.

Same with France and Austria. If France gets all his Western Provinces (NL and Franche Comte, i think) rest assured that he can stabhit for some of them.

EDIT: and i would love to play 2 sessions a week.
 
Last edited:
Miozozny said:
SL raid?
Click to expand...

synchronized looting.

But Alek is wrong. For while i WAS looting, i won't deny it, i was in absolutely no way SYNC looting. I had loot from Pommern a month before loot from Bremen three months before loot from Brandenburg and so on... Know what i mean?

Synchronized looting is indeed an exploit, but looting is part of the game mechanics. I did not sync it to try and gains in the form of money for minimum inflation, so it was not an exploit.
 
Fnuco said:
never going to happen.

If England gets your 3 provs and has 60%, then he can stabhit you for anything up to 49%. And that is a LOT. He can take Porto for example. Of course you can refuse, but can you afford to lose 1 point of stability everytime you decline his peace offer? YOU will be full of rebels and War Exhaustion and will have to sue for peace.

Same with France and Austria. If France gets all his Western Provinces (NL and Franche Comte, i think) rest assured that he can stabhit for some of them.

EDIT: and i would love to play 2 sessions a week.
Click to expand...

ahh k :)

Sorry for newb questions
 
Fnuco said:
synchronized looting.

But Alek is wrong. For while i WAS looting, i won't deny it, i was in absolutely no way SYNC looting. I had loot from Pommern a month before loot from Bremen three months before loot from Brandenburg and so on... Know what i mean?

Synchronized looting is indeed an exploit, but looting is part of the game mechanics. I did not sync it to try and gains in the form of money for minimum inflation, so it was not an exploit.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if SL must be considered as exploit. Indeed, historically, Turkish and other countries used looting as a way to fund his expansion.

To consider SL as exploit also bring us that matters:
1. What can be considerated SL and what tactics?
2. Cannot we attack two or three provinces at the same time?
3. Cannot send two or three looting units into enemy provinces at the same time?

I think looting is a war tactic to destry enemy's economy, and the difference between looting and SL is too thin to decide if exploit or tactics.
 
Last edited:
Duque Alesandro said:
I'm not sure if SL must be considered as exploit. Indeed, historically, Turkish and other countries used looting as a way to fund his expansion.

To consider SL as exploit also bring us that matters:
1. What can be considerated SL and what tactics?
2. Cannot we attack two or three provinces at the same time?
3. Cannot send two or three looting units into enemy provinces?

I think looting is a war tactic to destry enemy's economy, and the difference between looting and SL is too thin to decide if exploit or tactics.
Click to expand...

Great points, Duque.

So is looting sending troops through provinces but not besieging the provinces? And does doing this somehow increase the wealth of the looter?
 
nobodyreal said:
Great points, Duque.

So is looting sending troops through provinces but not besieging the provinces? And does doing this somehow increase the wealth of the looter?
Click to expand...

As well, it will be impossible to avoid SL when you can't see what someone is doing (example, Spanish in America or Russia is East). Really, we can't avoid hidden SL.

So, I think its better to allow SL in order to avoid further discussions about what's and what isn't SL. This is also the way in which everybody has same chances.
 
Last edited:
I'm not against looting, au contraire, it requires skills to loot a country while at war with them. But sync looting is indeed an exploit, specially when the target country is defeated (all his provs under the attacker/looter control) and the attacking country keeps it's army to continue looting ad eternum.

When you loot you get the yearly census tax of that province in a month, when you loot an entire country you get his entire census tax and MI to you in a month. With that huge income of cash you can easly hypertech or mint without concerns about inflation.

There was a SL guide somewhere in the forums, don't know where it is b'cause the author was banned.
 
Duque Alesandro said:
As well, it will be impossible to avoid SL when you can't see what someone is doing (example, Spanish in America or Russia is East). Really, we can't avoid hidden SL.
Click to expand...
Yes we can't avoid hidden SL, but that doesn't mean that we have to allow SL at plain sight. Besides, SL is better when your are looting rich provinces, and rich provinces are in Europe mainly.

Btw, I'm having a difficult time to join the game thurdsays, I had a change of schedule today, so if we can switch the day to monday/tuesday/wednesday i'd be grateful.

EDIT: To counter possible SL we can make a simple rule: Peace the country as soon as you occupy it. You still can loot during the war, but not after the occupation is complete.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back