-
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.
Fredrik82 said: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:
iirc tonio didn't try to annex you till after you
1 kept ganging him
2 where extremly stubborn
actualy iirc player before me in russia nearly got himself killed tnx to you+him tryng to gang poland it was in 3pieces when i took over
Last edited:
Daniel,
I only read your original post, because I have very little patience for these kinds of discussions when they are, as you say, self-evident.
The solution is a rule. I'm against them generally, I don't like arbitrary limits outside the game mechanics unless they have a very specific purpose and it is quite true that, technically, Tonio did nothing wrong in Battlefront. At the same time, however:
A. If you play in that manner, pushing wars that are not sawing back and forth but are plainly lost by one power or another, you obliterate any possibility of limited peaces. If you take frontier provinces, get into stabhitting range and stay there for a couple years and your opponent agrees to peace, one or two provinces change hands. If, however, you're forced to 100%, six or seven provinces tend to change hands. This result is bad enough, but the torrent of bitching that results is much worse.
B. Prolonged wars of this kind certainly took place in the time period, but not in the sense that the game engine defines a war. Continual conflict-with one or both sides campaigning each season-was very rare, and when it happened there was a stalemate of some kind. Refusing to give up one province year after year while a quarter of the country was occupied, the army was in shreds and enemy troops ravaged the countryside was a political impossibility.
C. The worst case scenario doesn't fuck up just your game. It fucks up everybody's game. If you're too stubborn to give up one or two provinces, either out of a simpleminded singe player mentality or, as in Tonio's case, because you feel it's "unfair" and "dishonorable," it creates a toxic affect on the game. There's back and forth bitching, a sense of futility, a wariness to start wars because a player will drag them out forever and pitch a fit, etc., etc. And when the worst does come, and it does, the results are catastrophic for balance and everybody's good time.
Take Chill 3 for example. Not a group of egomaniacs and powergamers, by any means. The most aggressive players are Dago and I, and neither one of us, in our pride or subborness, was responsible for any of the Great National Foldings that've defined that game. Moreover, heh, we have a three province rule. You'd hardly be able to tell, though. In order:
1. Nor, playing France, refuses a general white peace with England, then re-DOWs after England makes a seperate white peace and goes after his allies. France is eliminated. (this is a mild example because Nor acted, in the main, appropriately, although he ought to have accepted the first WP and was quite stubborn in refusing to)
2. Nabu, playing the OE, and despite repeated warnings by several players (myself included), chooses to yet again invade Venice, which had taken Greece (this was a 1337 scenario), despite having a grossly inferior fleet. In the course of the multiple wars they'd fought, Nab continued in the same way despite progressively steeper odds. The Ottoman Empire is eliminated.
3. Earendhil, playing Venice, declares another war on Austria to reclaim Milan and Genoa, which he had lost to Tonio. Despite much back and forth, eventually Venice was on the ropes. Its inferior morale was insurmountable, and quickly Ear found himself at -3 stab and taking hit after hit. He himself tells me, by PM, that he'd have to peace out, this because I had bankrolled Venice's various adventures, including this one, into the many thousands of ducats. I tell him it is a good idea to do so ASAP and there's nothing he can about my lost investment. He presses on, however, and on and on, until his government falls. Venice is eliminated.
4. Fnuco, playing Austria, refuses to restore Venice's provinces, despite intense English pressure, and faces an invasion. He loses Genoa and Peidmonte, but, after Earendhil declines to continue playing, makes a deal with England for the partition of Venice and the restoration of his provinces. He has, however, lost key income, troops, ducats and momentum for these years, and it comes back to haunt him. Dago, who had landed several defeats on Austria in defensive wars, DOWs and gains Ansbach and rights to Bohemia. Hungary then DOWs Austria, bringing Brandenburg along, and Dago now has a CRT advantage. In the hopes that he will be helped, Fnuco holds out against these odds until, eventually, Oz, playing Muscowy, sends a large army through Poland to help. Oz, however, is stopped at the Elbe and Fnuco, just as he is finally making peace, loses his government. All of Austrian Italy, except Genoa and Milan, had been rebel controlled. Seven years before Frundsberg, Austria is eliminated.
That's four humans destroyed. At least three of them unnecessarily because they played to the hilt.
A stabhit rule is essential in cases like Tonio's. But often times, with less skilled players or more difficult situations, it's not a simple matter of a divisive play style. You just have to be sensible. Otherwise, you make a mess of a whole four-six month campaign. For everybody.
I only read your original post, because I have very little patience for these kinds of discussions when they are, as you say, self-evident.
The solution is a rule. I'm against them generally, I don't like arbitrary limits outside the game mechanics unless they have a very specific purpose and it is quite true that, technically, Tonio did nothing wrong in Battlefront. At the same time, however:
A. If you play in that manner, pushing wars that are not sawing back and forth but are plainly lost by one power or another, you obliterate any possibility of limited peaces. If you take frontier provinces, get into stabhitting range and stay there for a couple years and your opponent agrees to peace, one or two provinces change hands. If, however, you're forced to 100%, six or seven provinces tend to change hands. This result is bad enough, but the torrent of bitching that results is much worse.
B. Prolonged wars of this kind certainly took place in the time period, but not in the sense that the game engine defines a war. Continual conflict-with one or both sides campaigning each season-was very rare, and when it happened there was a stalemate of some kind. Refusing to give up one province year after year while a quarter of the country was occupied, the army was in shreds and enemy troops ravaged the countryside was a political impossibility.
C. The worst case scenario doesn't fuck up just your game. It fucks up everybody's game. If you're too stubborn to give up one or two provinces, either out of a simpleminded singe player mentality or, as in Tonio's case, because you feel it's "unfair" and "dishonorable," it creates a toxic affect on the game. There's back and forth bitching, a sense of futility, a wariness to start wars because a player will drag them out forever and pitch a fit, etc., etc. And when the worst does come, and it does, the results are catastrophic for balance and everybody's good time.
Take Chill 3 for example. Not a group of egomaniacs and powergamers, by any means. The most aggressive players are Dago and I, and neither one of us, in our pride or subborness, was responsible for any of the Great National Foldings that've defined that game. Moreover, heh, we have a three province rule. You'd hardly be able to tell, though. In order:
1. Nor, playing France, refuses a general white peace with England, then re-DOWs after England makes a seperate white peace and goes after his allies. France is eliminated. (this is a mild example because Nor acted, in the main, appropriately, although he ought to have accepted the first WP and was quite stubborn in refusing to)
2. Nabu, playing the OE, and despite repeated warnings by several players (myself included), chooses to yet again invade Venice, which had taken Greece (this was a 1337 scenario), despite having a grossly inferior fleet. In the course of the multiple wars they'd fought, Nab continued in the same way despite progressively steeper odds. The Ottoman Empire is eliminated.
3. Earendhil, playing Venice, declares another war on Austria to reclaim Milan and Genoa, which he had lost to Tonio. Despite much back and forth, eventually Venice was on the ropes. Its inferior morale was insurmountable, and quickly Ear found himself at -3 stab and taking hit after hit. He himself tells me, by PM, that he'd have to peace out, this because I had bankrolled Venice's various adventures, including this one, into the many thousands of ducats. I tell him it is a good idea to do so ASAP and there's nothing he can about my lost investment. He presses on, however, and on and on, until his government falls. Venice is eliminated.
4. Fnuco, playing Austria, refuses to restore Venice's provinces, despite intense English pressure, and faces an invasion. He loses Genoa and Peidmonte, but, after Earendhil declines to continue playing, makes a deal with England for the partition of Venice and the restoration of his provinces. He has, however, lost key income, troops, ducats and momentum for these years, and it comes back to haunt him. Dago, who had landed several defeats on Austria in defensive wars, DOWs and gains Ansbach and rights to Bohemia. Hungary then DOWs Austria, bringing Brandenburg along, and Dago now has a CRT advantage. In the hopes that he will be helped, Fnuco holds out against these odds until, eventually, Oz, playing Muscowy, sends a large army through Poland to help. Oz, however, is stopped at the Elbe and Fnuco, just as he is finally making peace, loses his government. All of Austrian Italy, except Genoa and Milan, had been rebel controlled. Seven years before Frundsberg, Austria is eliminated.
That's four humans destroyed. At least three of them unnecessarily because they played to the hilt.
A stabhit rule is essential in cases like Tonio's. But often times, with less skilled players or more difficult situations, it's not a simple matter of a divisive play style. You just have to be sensible. Otherwise, you make a mess of a whole four-six month campaign. For everybody.
Last edited:
Fredrik82 said:
So Russia tryed at least 6 times to grab Kurland and failed. And Russia moved almost 200K to help Fried II when he was killed.
And after all, Russia prefers not to offer original demands - Danzig + Kola + Karelia, which were accepted, but prefered to whine and bitch at the forum.
HolisticGod said:
This Chill3-game certainly sounds as the most bloody campaign I have ever heard about.
Almost half the nations eliminated after 160 years of play... Lucky Mondays is my bridge-day, it does not sound as the playing area for an economiser And surely you are right, if the players drive their wars to government collapses the problem solves itself.
Daniel A said:This Chill3-game certainly sounds as the most bloody campaign I have ever heard about.
And surely you are right, if the players drive their wars to government collapses the problem solves itself.
Chill 3 is maybe not a good example because it is really extreme example. We have one dead human player in every two sessions and noone was really noob. It is the game where every mistake backfired while we had stabhiting rule coupled with rule for max. provinces taken.
And yes Daniel, it is the bloodiest campaign I have ever seen. Low tech wars of 14th and 15th century haven't stopped in Europe for the last 160 years. Small countries and armies, low income, extreme tech costs, no fortresses, no money, constant AI DOWs and a crowded neighbourhood of extremely agressive and dangerous players have taken its tool. We are dying one after another while desperate HoG tries to preserve enough nations for a fluid game. In Chill 3 even the AI is a mad dog. I have moved to Timurids (5 provinces in the start) and AI China, Caliphate, Mameluke, Delhi, Yemen, Manchuria and Tibet are in almost constant war with me. Usually, all of them in the same time. I lost 5 provinces to AI China in 7 wars (my first loss to AI in more then 5 years of SP and MP) - it was simply impossible to defend my borders all of the time from all sides at once. Since I moved there I have almost never seen my country without war exhustion (in more then 120 years). If HoG haven't helped me with some cash for bailifs and some loans I could have died there too. Paradox (
) is that I have always belived that I can't loose against against AI. At some point it felt like beeing in a submarine on the bottom of the sea with walls colapsing around me. It is certainly EU hell if I have ever seen one. But enough of my rambling. For those who are interestred to see that slaughter (and FreNgLand) check stats;Chill 3:Monsters of the Underworld
In that game all the rules of the world didn't help, but we are talking about somthing else HoG. I think we are discussing about developed countries in late ages which have a mean to prolong wars almost indefinitely. Current situation with Tonio is also an issue. (GM told the guy that he would like him out of his game because of some other game and forbid us to discuss about that - Daniel went berserk after that) That is why this thread was formed in the first place. Maybe rule can prevent such situations in the future. Smn has some good and revolutionary ideas but any rule can help imo. Good question would also be; where is the fine line between defending yourself with all means and using exploits of the game engine for your own selfish ego purposes.
Last edited:
If there is a possibility that the GM could force a peace there should be a rule for this.
If there is a possibility a player could be kicked for playing badly and letting his nation be destroyed due to bad diplomacy and excessive stubborness, there should be a rule about this.
That some players don't "like" rules has no meaning in this discussion. Clear and easily interpreted rules are a basic right within any rightful judicial system.
This is just a game and we might choose or force players to play without rules, just don't pretend such a game would in any way have the right to be described as "fair" since no player could actually with certainty foresee what exactly would happen in a given situation!
I also fail to understand the frequency parts of the community show in reintroducing non-responsible, rude, non-reliable players into new campaigns, often right after they quit/destroyed/messed up a previous one, often rewarding them with an important nation? I know there are few players available but come on...
If there is a possibility a player could be kicked for playing badly and letting his nation be destroyed due to bad diplomacy and excessive stubborness, there should be a rule about this.
That some players don't "like" rules has no meaning in this discussion. Clear and easily interpreted rules are a basic right within any rightful judicial system.
This is just a game and we might choose or force players to play without rules, just don't pretend such a game would in any way have the right to be described as "fair" since no player could actually with certainty foresee what exactly would happen in a given situation!
I also fail to understand the frequency parts of the community show in reintroducing non-responsible, rude, non-reliable players into new campaigns, often right after they quit/destroyed/messed up a previous one, often rewarding them with an important nation? I know there are few players available but come on...
Heh Juv, "that's words and no ballads" as the Swedish proverb goes
Says Daniel who finds it incessantly funny to translate proverbs word by word from his native language into English.
Says Daniel who finds it incessantly funny to translate proverbs word by word from his native language into English.
Just because being ganged is a natural part of the game doesn't mean annexing someone who keeps doing it isn't part of the game. He had every right to try to annex you for ganging him, just like you had every right to gang him in the first place. Seems rather natural to me if two countries keeps ganging you, you annex one of them if you get half a chance.
CF,
I agree.
Which is why both practices should be, generally speaking, avoided. The game engine allows for simply vile wars and vile rulers that a real political system, even a feudal system, would not.
None of the countries we-and history-consider majors were annexed in the time period except Poland. That includes Portugal, which lost and regained its independence several times. Even Napoleon, after stomping Austria and destroying nearly the entire Prussian army at Jena-Austerdat, did not press his luck by eliminating either country, despite their habit of "ganging" him.
That is not to say that either practice ought to be banned. Quite the contrary-there are situations were eliminating a player (Portugal-Poland-Venice-Denmark) in particular is in one country's national interest. But they ought to be rare, and avoided whenever possible.
I agree.
Which is why both practices should be, generally speaking, avoided. The game engine allows for simply vile wars and vile rulers that a real political system, even a feudal system, would not.
None of the countries we-and history-consider majors were annexed in the time period except Poland. That includes Portugal, which lost and regained its independence several times. Even Napoleon, after stomping Austria and destroying nearly the entire Prussian army at Jena-Austerdat, did not press his luck by eliminating either country, despite their habit of "ganging" him.
That is not to say that either practice ought to be banned. Quite the contrary-there are situations were eliminating a player (Portugal-Poland-Venice-Denmark) in particular is in one country's national interest. But they ought to be rare, and avoided whenever possible.