Style Of Playing

[King John]

If that's the case, Tonio probably shouldn't have had to peace anyway. But I think you exagerate his abilities in that game. Could he have retaken any prov he wanted if the Pru-Rus alliance made a deliberate effort to prevent him from taking 1-2 certain provs? I don't think so. Tonio's mobility allowed him to attack remote areas because Pru and Rus couldn't defend all their conquered territory. It doesn't mean they couldn't hold onto successfully a certain area. If they had tried, that would've been easy.

I think the real problem with this idea is that it can be abused by the attacker. What if you as France overrun half of Austria and prevent Austria from taking back any of its provs in that half of its country for the specified number of years? It automatically must cede all that land? Or what if Spain holds the Netherlands, and France overruns all of the Netherlands. That's a big chunk of land. Should Spain have to cede ALL OF IT in one war if it can't successfully defend it? Assuming that it also can't capture territory elsewhere of course.

There woud need to be limitations to this rule. Perhaps a prov limit would be best. Maybe up to three European provs? Colonial provs are different, they should be exchanged more freely, so perhaps no rule for colonial provs(except you can only take what you can stabhit for?).

The other difficulty would be explaining this rule to every sub you have, but there are worse rules out there I suppose .

 

[King John]

so number of controlled (captured) provinces = number of gained provinces ?

Tonio, you really should read all of a post before you reply to it.

 

[Stonewall]

so number of controlled (captured) provinces = number of gained provinces ?

I think what he is saying is something like what happened in our Friday Night game last campaign.

I, as Spain, captured Venice from the Ottoman Empire. The presence of my fleet in the sea zone outside of Venice prevented the OE form retaking that province. Once the naval situation had been decided, the land war was a foregone conclusion. Hence, when I took Venice from OE, and he had no chance to recover it, he ceded it because he recognized that I had the province and there was nothing he could do about it.

Conversely, I had agreed that if he took the province back and my navy was defeated to the point that I couldn't reasonably hope to take it back in a couple years, I would give the province back.

I don't think that having a couple border provinces overrun is sufficient to establish de facto control.

For example, a Spain versus France war where Spain loses the lowlands and has no real ability to retake them. However, it sits there behind its unassailable mountains waiting for France to make peace because monetarily, Spain can continue indefinitely on the defensive. That is de facto control to me.

 

[smn_]

smn,

Your present formulation (in your first post) unfortunately does not cover for instance the situation we had yesterday. Here Tonio could probably momentarily liberate just about any province, and he certainly could get control of one of his enemy. This because of is naval mobility. Thus if we want a rule along "de facto"-control I believe the current suggestion by you is not enough.

Well, any non-coastal province would have required 'actual effort' from Sweden (Mazovia? Savolaks?). But then again, England, Netherlands and Portugal were all in a position to destroy the Swedish naval mobility. That's what should have happened. While I can see that Tonio being stubborn greatly annoyed people, the point is that if he could capture any province he wanted to, he was certainly in a perfectly viable position to fight and thus should not be forced to accept any peace rules.

What should have happened is that a naval nation got pissed off and sailed over to sink some swedish fleet. Then Sweden would lose some 10 provinces, and suddenly, stubborness doesn't pay off. And we wouldn't be here discussing these issues.

 

[Fredrik82]

Question is SMN,
if that defend the fact that you decline about 30 stabhits under a 8 years period when you never, in this period, got below +70WS. 25 of those stabhits were about two shit provinces, Kola and Karelia and Danzig to Brandenburg.

In the end, i lost interest, i went passive so Tonio could slowly take back provinces as i didnt bother anymore.
Whats the point?

And if this was a one time incident, i wouldnt bother much.
But this is the way Tonioz play, in 95% of all situations.
It doesnt matter if he playes Austria, Sweden or Portugal.

 

[unmerged(6147)]

If that's the case, Tonio probably shouldn't have had to peace anyway. But I think you exagerate his abilities in that game. Could he have retaken any prov he wanted if the Pru-Rus alliance made a deliberate effort to prevent him from taking 1-2 certain provs?

Yes I believe so. Actually I took up the last autosave (it was from some months before the end of the war) and played a few years before I went to bed last night.

Tonio had complete naval control of the Baltic and a very nice 200k army on board. He had ample of MP in his pool (over 100) and over 2000d in cash and was actually investing some 80% in infra and only minted some 20%.

IIRC all his continental provinces bar one was coastal. That odd province was Mazovia (Lithuania as well?). In Finland three more provinces are not coastal IIRC, but to these the Russians rarely reached AFAIK.

Because of Tonio's limited MP he could not be everywhere all the time, but I believe he could always take back any province in Germany or the Baltics that he liked (unless the enemy wasted loads of MP on attrition by positioning some 200k in some looted province continuously resupporting it with new men).

 

[smn_]

I think the real problem with this idea is that it can be abused by the attacker. What if you as France overrun half of Austria and prevent Austria from taking back any of its provs in that half of its country for the specified number of years? It automatically must cede all that land? Or what if Spain holds the Netherlands, and France overruns all of the Netherlands. That's a big chunk of land. Should Spain have to cede ALL OF IT in one war if it can't successfully defend it? Assuming that it also can't capture territory elsewhere of course.

You have a valid point here. The time period can't be too short, for we would want such an extreme rule to be used only in the most extreme of cases, it serving more as a better alternative to turboannexation.

Maybe dependent on house rules, 5-10 years? If that's not enough for Spain to land 100k in the Lowlands for some assaulting or to find an ally to do it for them, do they deserve to keep it? Same goes for the Austria example. If France is really able to keep all that territory in continuous control for so long, don't they deserve it?

 

[Fredrik82]

Yes I believe so. Actually I took up the last autosave (it was from some months before the end of the war) and played a few years before I went to bed last night.

Tonio had complete naval control of the Baltic and a very nice 200k army on board. He had ample of MP in his pool (over 100) and over 2000d in cash and was actually investing some 80% in infra and only minted some 20%.

IIRC all his continental provinces bar one was coastal. That odd province was Mazovia (Lithuania as well?). In Finland three more provinces are not coastal IIRC, but to these the Russians rarely reached AFAIK.

Because of Tonio's limited MP he could not be everywhere all the time, but I believe he could always take back any province in Germany or the Baltics that he liked (unless the enemy wasted loads of MP on attrition by positioning some 200k in some looted province continuously resupporting it with new men).

No, he couldn't.
The last two years of the war however, i stopped to bother.
I stopped recruiting troops and moving my armies.
It was with little or none joy i played.

Russia controled the baltics, Brandenburg all swedish german land and Danzig.
The only thing Sweden did during this war, was to retake a province every now and then. But which was taken back quickly by Russia/Prussia. We had 99% warscore 90% of this time. We won 95% of all battles.
The only thing Sweden could do, was to take back a province and loose it again some month after that. Tonio fought for WP from day one, it was never in his head to accept any kind of losses.

If i hadnt given up in the end, cause of Tonioz stubborness. Sweden would never ever gone below 99% warscore. Stab hits still sent every month etc.
but what the point, if someone cant accept a defeat anyway?

 

[smn_]

Question is SMN,
if that defend the fact that you decline about 30 stabhits under a 8 years period when you never, in this period, got below +70WS. 25 of those stabhits were about two shit provinces, Kola and Karelia and Danzig to Brandenburg.

In the end, i lost interest, i went passive so Tonio could slowly take back provinces as i didnt bother anymore.
Whats the point?

And if this was a one time incident, i wouldnt bother much.
But this is the way Tonioz play, in 95% of all situations.
It doesnt matter if he playes Austria, Sweden or Portugal.

Fredrik,

I wasn't there to witness it so I can't say anything else but that I understand your frustration. I would probably have lost interest too. I'm in this thread just to raise the point that stabhit rules can be abused and if a nation is able to fight even with the stab hitting going on, they should be allowed to. It is severely hurting trade and taxation already.

In your case, Sweden had a combination of a powerful fleet and a powerful army, both still active and usable. So I can't see how they had lost. Either the navy or the army would need to be destroyed first. And when that happens, the demands should be comparable to the costs of the war (meaning maybe 10-12 provinces?).

 

[unmerged(18425)]

Well, any non-coastal province would have required 'actual effort' from Sweden (Mazovia? Savolaks?). But then again, England, Netherlands and Portugal were all in a position to destroy the Swedish naval mobility. That's what should have happened. While I can see that Tonio being stubborn greatly annoyed people, the point is that if he could capture any province he wanted to, he was certainly in a perfectly viable position to fight and thus should not be forced to accept any peace rules.

What should have happened is that a naval nation got pissed off and sailed over to sink some swedish fleet. Then Sweden would lose some 10 provinces, and suddenly, stubborness doesn't pay off. And we wouldn't be here discussing these issues.

Agreed. Unfortunately at least one naval power didn't want to make it 3 vs 1, because that would be unfair.

 

[unmerged(18425)]

You have a valid point here. The time period can't be too short, for we would want such an extreme rule to be used only in the most extreme of cases, it serving more as a better alternative to turboannexation.

Maybe dependent on house rules, 5-10 years? If that's not enough for Spain to land 100k in the Lowlands for some assaulting or to find an ally to do it for them, do they deserve to keep it? Same goes for the Austria example. If France is really able to keep all that territory in continuous control for so long, don't they deserve it?

Agreed again. Why should Spain be allowed to keep the Netherlands if she can't take it back in, say, five years?

 

[Fredrik82]

stubborness pays off in the end.
People gets frusterated and do dumb stuff, those we lost Fred II the last months in this war.

Question remains,
do you have to loose all your armies, fleets, cash and provinces before you accept a defeat?
Isn't it enough that you are being stab hitted for 8 years time?
That you loose 90% of the battles, that you are unable to fight back in such manner that you cant take back lost land?

I know that by far, the most players here, would never had gone this far as Tonio did.
And i'm very glad for that.
Makes it worth to bother playing this game still.
Were everything aint about winning, loosing is a part of it aswell.

 

[King John]

Agreed. Unfortunately at least one naval power didn't want to make it 3 vs 1, because that would be unfair.

I think we need to make another thread about the attitude toward gangbangs . IRL wars fair seldom if ever factored into a nations foreign policy. If DOWing Sweden were in Port or England's interests, there's no reason they shouldn't do so. This isn't soccer where England and Scottish teams double teaming Brazil or something like that would be against the rules. Diplomacy is a part of the game, and should be treated that way, so good diplomacy(ability to organize gangbangs) shouldn't be considered bad sportsmanship, and bad diplomacy(always being the victim of gangbangs) shouldn't be elevated to being righteous and honorable.

 

[unmerged(6147)]

No, he couldn't.
The last two years of the war however, i stopped to bother.
I stopped recruiting troops and moving my armies.
It was with little or none joy i played.

The only thing Sweden did during this war, was to retake a province every now and then. But which was taken back quickly by Russia/Prussia.

Yes, and that is what we discuss, would smn's rule be of any use in a situation as this: when the defeated nation easily can take back (temporarily) almost any province after his own choice? It appears obvious he could.

Not to talk about your own provinces, especially PRU was hard defended.

We had 99% warscore 90% of this time. We won 95% of all battles.

I examined the battle score in the autosave and IIRC SWE had plusscore in battles on both of you. Which is exactly how I believe Tonio would fight an underdog fight: he would choose his battles carefully.

but what the point, if someone cant accept a defeat anyway?

Yes, that's why we need a rule about it. And it should of course be a clear one to avoid any further quarrels like this one.

 

[smn_]

Question remains,
do you have to loose all your armies, fleets, cash and provinces before you accept a defeat?

Can't really deny anyone from fighting to the bitter end, can we? I think it is a 'human basic right'

However it should be instead generally accepted in the community that when such thing are about to happen, 'gangbangs' should be encouraged and lots of territory should be lost. A total defeat indeed. How many players would want to risk that? Prevention by players is always better than prevention by rules.

These kind of wars happen because they are allowed to happen by other players. Some allow it because of diplomatic reasons, wanting to see a strong Sweden, others allow it to happen because of misleadingly thinking about the 'fairness', not realizing that 'fairness' in this case means that Sweden will never lose anything, which is not very fair to start with

 

[Fredrik82]

Yes, that's why we need a rule about it. And it should of course be a clear one to avoid any further quarrels like this one.

A rule doesn't solve everything so easily either Daniel,
it might help out a bit, which is good and perhaps also then worth it to implant a new rule.

But it is about the player, like always.
if you dont mind to post an example, of this new rule in BF3.
I will happily take a closer look at it when i get home.
If it seems reasonable, i'm all up to implant it.

 

[smn_]

I think we need to make another thread about the attitude toward gangbangs . IRL wars fair seldom if ever factored into a nations foreign policy. If DOWing Sweden were in Port or England's interests, there's no reason they shouldn't do so. This isn't soccer where England and Scottish teams double teaming Brazil or something like that would be against the rules. Diplomacy is a part of the game, and should be treated that way, so good diplomacy(ability to organize gangbangs) shouldn't be considered bad sportsmanship, and bad diplomacy(always being the victim of gangbangs) shouldn't be elevated to being righteous and honorable.

Well said, I agree completely.

The socc.. erm football p) anecdote is spot on

 

[Stonewall]

I think we need to make another thread about the attitude toward gangbangs . IRL wars fair seldom if ever factored into a nations foreign policy. If DOWing Sweden were in Port or England's interests, there's no reason they shouldn't do so. This isn't soccer where England and Scottish teams double teaming Brazil or something like that would be against the rules. Diplomacy is a part of the game, and should be treated that way, so good diplomacy(ability to organize gangbangs) shouldn't be considered bad sportsmanship, and bad diplomacy(always being the victim of gangbangs) shouldn't be elevated to being righteous and honorable.

Best post of the thread.

 

[admiral drake]

No, he couldn't.
The last two years of the war however, i stopped to bother.
I stopped recruiting troops and moving my armies.
It was with little or none joy i played.

Russia controled the baltics, Brandenburg all swedish german land and Danzig.
The only thing Sweden did during this war, was to retake a province every now and then. But which was taken back quickly by Russia/Prussia. We had 99% warscore 90% of this time. We won 95% of all battles.
The only thing Sweden could do, was to take back a province and loose it again some month after that. Tonio fought for WP from day one, it was never in his head to accept any kind of losses.

If i hadnt given up in the end, cause of Tonioz stubborness. Sweden would never ever gone below 99% warscore. Stab hits still sent every month etc.
but what the point, if someone cant accept a defeat anyway?

i remember a certain bb that refused peace to tonios poland in 1 of the new order games fred iirc you where far more stubborn in that game then tonio is

 

[Fredrik82]

i remember a certain bb that refused peace to tonios poland in 1 of the new order games fred iirc you where far more stubborn in that game then tonio is

With the difference however, that i were about to be annexed here
I fought with the little i had, and i fought hard to try not to be annexed
In the end, Poland won and Hive moved me to Denmark :rofl: