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.
Miozozny said:
Very well put.
In fact, if you don't follow this principle, it seems the whole adding of anything limiting the demands of an alliance becomes useless. People can just dow separately and then only accept peace if all others do, avoiding any extra limits an alliance may have in the rules.

So to me the logical step would be to either remove any extra rules concerning alliances (either limit the amount of provs one country can take form one other country in one war or don't limit it at all) or follow Duque's way of thinking.
All these options seem workable rules to me, but they differ a lot in the impact on your future wars.
Click to expand...

Indeed, this is what I thought from the beginning and I was trying to explain (badly), the rule wasn't clear enough about the concept and I tried to help to make another one before starting our first session. Now I only get insults from my GM :p
 
nobodyreal said:
Yes, it is a right, of course, I'm not disputing that. All I'm saying is that it was the determining factor in me declaring war on Poland. Nothing more to it. Honestly, if I was successful against the OE, I wouldn't have declared war right away, but in the future I would have, just for retributions sake. But 2nd, I do blame Poland for my failure to stop your country. I publicly stated that Poland had my back where you to invade Europe, and yet Fnuco did not mention anything to me about the agreement being off until that hour of need. Yes, I do blame Poland, since Poland had signed a pact to help defend against Ottoman aggression. From my understanding of NAP and so on, it is usually good etiquette to keep them.

But here is the error in your rule, it will be shown most clearly. Ottoman Empire invades Austria in 1575. By this time, Astrakhan is under your control and Russia is your neighbor(theoretical). So now you declare war on me, and Russia sees the danger of you expanding even further and disabling me, and decides they will join the war to get Astrakhan out of you. At this point, Spain also joins to help Austria defend against this menace with 6 CoT and incredible economic capabilities. Now, we fight a grueling war. Hundreds of thousands of soldiers die, and for each country thousands of ducats are lost. Now, are you saying that all 3 countries, even though not in a formal alliance, can only collectively demand 3 provinces? This would be tragic for a nation like Russia who lost many troops and suffered incredible economic loss, and now is only able to demand one province if lucky. And if agreed upon by Spain and Austria, it could take a Astrakhan, but where does this leave Austria.. able to take one province after that long bloody war? After being incredibly weakened, taking one province would just be ridiculous, especially with France right on the border. No, I think this rule is harmful and would prevent just game play. This would lead to careless wars, since only three provinces is not such a crucial loss.
Click to expand...

Imagine France was there and that I coordinated an attack with her. seriously, you weren't prepared. Poland's help would have represented a total of 30k armies, nothing compared to my 140k ready forces and 50k more comming. and Poland wouldn't have won much in the war, little motivation to help Austria in fact.

heeey, stop speculating Oe is arriving India, Astrakhan or "Mexico" in the next years... can you read minds? :p
 
grabah said:
relax man :wacko:

about rules, yes uls spain austria england and sweden can be considered allied vs poland.
but problem is should we allowed only 3 provs taken away from the country per alliance or per country in alliance. it acctually all depends on a size of given country.
3 provs in hungary wouldnt mean anything to oe, 3 provinces in scotland would mean much more to england.
so again it all comes down to our good judgment of what is fair...
we should allow more to be taken from a country (or less) depending on the size, situation in the game, province quality and so on,
3prov rule is more or less just a good guide, so is cot worth 2provs rule and so on..
Click to expand...

I agree: RELAX, PLEASE!!!

We should avoid personal disscussions and try to set peace rules. That's what I think: we should allow 3 provs per alliance. Why? I agree on free alliances even if it means a 4 against 1 war. I think it helps to balance the game. But if it is used to stole 12 provinces from Poland, what balance are we trying to get? I think 3 provs per country will bring us a lot of gangs. With a 3 provs per alliance rule, gangs will be used only when a country becomes a great threaten (because there won't be great profit for a gang, apart from stop threaten-country).

I also think, we shoul get a FRANCE player before next session (ASAP, so he can involve in that diplomatic discussion).

BUT, PLEASE STOP FIGHTING (at least out of the game) and post your opinion about peace rules in order to clarify all this matters (WITHOUT personal discussions neither insults).

thx


PD: Diplomacy is hard when you don't speak english very well.
 
Have you said enough Uls? You better stop all this complaining. I always take critisim. Rule about provinces, alliance can be worked out in cetain game situation. Your English is even better than mine in a mocking way. now calling me immature. This is not about you, sto with ur complaining. I am working on fixing the problem with the current peace situation. Yet, you keep complaning about rules, that the rest dont know how it's done b/c we are newbies. you are worsing the situation.

You dont have to threaten to leave the game. In fact, I encourage you to do it. Go play your own game where you think same of ur level sicne u think we are newbie.
 
Mhhh, the smell of a flame war... How cute...

Anyway Uls is totaly correct. The current peace rule seems only to favour gangs. I have been in that position more then once. A lot of people DOW individually at the same time and are able to demand a couple of provinces, cripling the other country severly. In that case, these individuals, who DOWed at the same time (and obviously, combined the entire plot together), should be seen as an alliance, and not as, individuals.

However, that rule is doomed. No one uses this kind of "province peace rule" these days. Nobody gives a perfect example. There are cases where a country gets ganged, by oportunistic people, taking advantage of the fact that same country is at war with someone else. Now imagine, in that example Nobody gave. Imagine that Russia peaces OE before everyone else, and gets 3 provinces. Will Austria-Spain who have fought a lot be forced to WP OE and get nothing?

And although i am not in the game, i must - again - agree with Uls. Troy, you are not acting as a GM should. A GM should never insult someone like you are at this moment. Even if Uls is being annoying.
 
_King_of_Pain_ said:
You dont have to threaten to leave the game. In fact, I encourage you to do it. Go play your own game where you think same of ur level sicne u think we are newbie.
Click to expand...

what? I always spoke about rules and related stuff. where I said something related to newbies? I just said I had experience in human behavior because I'm an economist in real life. I'm a newcommer in the forums as well, but I had some MP experience out of it beforethat.

Anyway... I'm more interested in the following.

You said I'd not be in future games you'll be organizing, it was a partial incovenient comment comming from a GM and It does affect this one. I have no option that to ask your resignation as GM and to adopt a democratic system, we all know what happens when a GM start saying "my game" "my campaign" instead of saying "our".

Consequencies if you don't resign: your insults and improper comments are forbidden in the forums and I can easily call a moderator to close this thread and ban you. 2nd, I don't want to participate in a game where our GM is partial and can't tolerate critisism. Change your mind or expect consequencies. hopefully I'm not reaching to that extreme situation, you're now risking a lot and ,logically, you might prefer to stay playing MP in the future.

At least Nobodyreal kept this civilized. We had an interesting exchange of ideas. Your interference was just rude and impolite. You didn't even give an idea, just threatened and insulted me.

Of course, I had to defend myself publicly.
 
Last edited:
BurningEGO said:
Even if Uls is being annoying.
Click to expand...

I think I'm polite. :p meh don't worry I'll never take the first position, someone with a higher EGO keeps it successfully. :D
 
Guys, can we PLEASE limit this discussion to the issue of a fair peace? Tempers are flaring here and I'd hate to see one or more people leave the game after three weeks of playing. For the moment everyone should just swallow their pride and treat everyone else as equals.

Now my opinion on this whole thing leans more closely towards that of Duque and Uls. It seems more reasonable and logical. Now, that isn't to say that in the future there may be some extraordinary circumstance where a "gang" is required to defeat a certain country and more than 3 provinces may be taken as a result. But given the present size of Poland (which bothers me, as you all know from my complaints of Polish expansion :p ) I think taking 4-6 provinces as a COLLECTIVE agreement between Eng / Spa / Swe / Aus would be excessive. If such an agreement were arrived at collectively regarding a nation the size and power of OE I would find it more acceptable.

To me this sounds like good judgement and common sense. To others it may seem subjective and leaving the door open to more disagreements like this in the future. But thats where I stand.

The four countries aligned against Poland are fighting her for different reasons. But my perception is that we are all, to varying degrees, coordinating our war efforts to defeat Poland. This smacks of alliance whether we are technically allied or not.

A peace should be arrived at now, limited to 3 provinces. If, for example, one country abstained and wanted to continue the fight they do it at their own risk of gaining or losing provinces. I think that is fair, reasonable, and logical.
 
BurningEGO said:
Mhhh, the smell of a flame war... How cute...

Anyway Uls is totaly correct. The current peace rule seems only to favour gangs. I have been in that position more then once. A lot of people DOW individually at the same time and are able to demand a couple of provinces, cripling the other country severly. In that case, these individuals, who DOWed at the same time (and obviously, combined the entire plot together), should be seen as an alliance, and not as, individuals.

However, that rule is doomed. No one uses this kind of "province peace rule" these days. Nobody gives a perfect example. There are cases where a country gets ganged, by oportunistic people, taking advantage of the fact that same country is at war with someone else. Now imagine, in that example Nobody gave. Imagine that Russia peaces OE before everyone else, and gets 3 provinces. Will Austria-Spain who have fought a lot be forced to WP OE and get nothing?

And although i am not in the game, i must - again - agree with Uls. Troy, you are not acting as a GM should. A GM should never insult someone like you are at this moment. Even if Uls is being annoying.
Click to expand...
X
i sign this

and sence nobody is reading diplo thread (or uses it :rolleyes: )
i would like to propose peace (not rule but peace :) )
2 provinces to austria and one prov (non cot) to sweden.
-if both parties agree, great.
-if nobodyreal refuses, then sweden exits any formal and informal alliance we might have and will negotiate a peace deal with poland alone.
-if fnuco refuses he will meet his maker :D
 
NightSream said:
her is my ICQ 471 21May I ask which nation is open?
thx
Click to expand...

Let's move on. We need a france. NS, what kind of ICQ is this? Post the right one and add mine. You will also need Hamachi to play. Look first post for download link.
 
you better watch out king might edit save games and have very efficient traders
:p
 
Ulschmidt said:
I think I'm polite. :p meh don't worry I'll never take the first position, someone with a higher EGO keeps it successfully. :D
Click to expand...

As i said "Even if". I do not know what happens inside the game or what not. But seeing from some people's replies in this thread, i fear that that someone with a higher EGO is in danger of falling behind.
 
martmol said:
you better watch out king might edit save games and have very efficient traders
:p
Click to expand...

who? what?
 
grabah said:
and sence nobody is reading diplo thread (or uses it :rolleyes: )
i would like to propose peace (not rule but peace :) )
2 provinces to austria and one prov (non cot) to sweden.
-if both parties agree, great.
-if nobodyreal refuses, then sweden exits any formal and informal alliance we might have and will negotiate a peace deal with poland alone.
-if fnuco refuses he will meet his maker :D
Click to expand...

This sounds sensible. A reasonable peace agreement ought to be made by next session. Hopefully the major parties involved will hammer out a resolution in the next few days and make that agreement available for public record, that we may use it as precedent in case a similar situation surfaces in the future of this campaign.

If a fair peace is held hostage by any party I'll use my best judgement and look to my own interests.

Edit: Yes, let us please use the AAR thread for these matters.
Edit #2: No screenshot for the stats thread? :(
 
National_Cause said:
This sounds sensible. A reasonable peace agreement ought to be made by next session. Hopefully the major parties involved will hammer out a resolution in the next few days and make that agreement available for public record, that we may use it as precedent in case a similar situation surfaces in the future of this campaign.

If a fair peace is held hostage by any party I'll use my best judgement and look to my own interests.

Edit: Yes, let us please use the AAR thread for these matters.
Edit #2: No screenshot for the stats thread? :(
Click to expand...

Yeah, for this case the 3 province rule is good, I think we can agree. But as Grabah said, if your engaging in a war vs a large country, more provinces should be able to be demanded. There should be a ratio between the size of a country and the ability to sign peace. As grabah said, OE could loose 3 provinces and it wouldn't phase her. I would agree to this rule if it wasn't exploited and set down as an absolute. I think some sort of ratio should be developed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back