I was at 87+ WS on you after my last successful offensive in Europe, If I had had the MP and leaders to keep the offensive up I might had been able to force peace you. 
-
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.
Daniel A said:FAL, this is close to the discussion in John's BoP-post. People that know me knows it pays in the long run to behave well towards me. Simple as that. Alistus did not know this because he has not played that much with me yet (although he could see me as ENG in DbD where he was SPA and you VEN) and thus made the mistake of betraying me. A sin for which he well might have to pay for the rest of his life.
But as stated, your game is about winning it with clearly defined goals.
So, if I would be for example Skane and allied to you, why would I stay allied to you (as Mulli apparently did) in the last session if this means I am going to help the one winning the game presently and not myself to do win it?
This would have only been smart by mulli if his end-game ranking would be lower would he have betrayed you.
It's beyond me why you would hold betrayals in this type of game against someone in future games by the way.
FAL said:
Mulli could not win FAL. If you read the first posts in the thread you will find that if you understood you could not win it was imperative for you to fight on and try to be 2nd, and if that was not possible, then try and get 3rd and so on. And by allying with me he got a good cooperation. He was e.g. allowed to take 4 former Livonian provinces from he (according to a previous agreement). And he succeded in advancing from was it 6th to 4th place. Well played!
Regarding betrayals. Your reputation is a vital asset. Because in the long run we are not playing one game, but an unlimited number of games. So you try to maximise your chances not only in the current game but at the same time in all future games.
If you are a competitive man you will easily see the logic and wisdom of this.
Absolut said:I was at 87+ WS on you after my last successful offensive in Europe, If I had had the MP and leaders to keep the offensive up I might had been able to force peace you.
I wanted to be forced peaced, or rather: I needed the war to end soon - a few provinces lost meant little, I had more than 200 you know. Because then I could benefit from my very high MP pool cap. I needed more than a year of peace to reach that. I had investe quite a lot in making it as high as possible - as you can see if you study my tactics - something no one has commented on surprisingly. My tactics in this regard differs substantially from the rest of you.
Half my winning marginal stemmed from MP my dear Absolut
Daniel A said:I wanted to be forced peaced, or rather: I needed the war to end soon - a few provinces lost meant little, I had more than 200 you know. Because then I could benefit from my very high MP pool cap. I needed more than a year of peace to reach that. I had investe quite a lot in making it as high as possible - as you can see if you study my tactics - something no one has commented on surprisingly. My tactics in this regard differs substantially from the rest of you.
Half my winning marginal stemmed from MP my dear Absolut
Aww, and I thought I pwned you.
You sure know how to break a heart.
Skåne was chronically behind in the endgame. There was simply no chance at all for us to gain first place. So i had to salvage what was left and get the best position possible.FAL said:
The endgame wars are disastrous for the losers. When so much power is focused on one nation, that one being as weak as Skåne was, i would probably end up last place if i had engaged with any try at influence in the wars. So i waited out and scavenged the dead carcasses that the majors mutilated
.This was my main goal and by that, Skåne ended the game with the two richest CoTs in the game and greatly increased income. Not much more i could do really
.
Forgot to say this eariler. Congratulations Daniel, well played.
Had some very interesting and fun wars with you in North America.
Had some very interesting and fun wars with you in North America.
Thanks Absolut
The battles in NA were usually a case of numerical superiority. You had it in the first 2 wars and in the last. Well that 466 leader I had in the last session was not that bad either But a leader I put there in a previous session was killed by you in the first battle because I failed to keep him under watch. That is so stupid: to send one of the precious three generals you get each session to America in order to dominate that scene. Then have him attack a minor force and then not look at that upcoming battle anymore until you get a message that your entire army was annhilated and you can see that your opponent now have a force at least twice as big in that province as it was before the battle.... Arrrg (I wonder if Ego reads this post, I just admitted to having done something stupid )
The battles in NA were usually a case of numerical superiority. You had it in the first 2 wars and in the last. Well that 466 leader I had in the last session was not that bad either
But a leader I put there in a previous session was killed by you in the first battle because I failed to keep him under watch. That is so stupid: to send one of the precious three generals you get each session to America in order to dominate that scene. Then have him attack a minor force and then not look at that upcoming battle anymore until you get a message that your entire army was annhilated and you can see that your opponent now have a force at least twice as big in that province as it was before the battle.... Arrrg (I wonder if Ego reads this post, I just admitted to having done something stupid )
Daniel A said:Thanks Absolut
The battles in NA were usually a case of numerical superiority. You had it in the first 2 wars and in the last. Well that 466 leader I had in the last session was not that bad either
Yeah, but the terrain also played a part, in the first wars you constantly attacked over rivers and such which favoured me quite a lot. In the last war we were pretty much equal in strenght but you had a leader and you pushed me back quite a lot. I was only able to turn the tide once you shipped your leader to Europe. Although I almost got him once.
Absolut said:Yeah, but the terrain also played a part, in the first wars you constantly attacked over rivers and such which favoured me quite a lot. In the last war we were pretty much equal in strenght but you had a leader and you pushed me back quite a lot. I was only able to turn the tide once you shipped your leader to Europe. Although I almost got him once.
The river was not a problem for my superior general, but the fact you had more men coming into the battle than and which I did not know about and that I did not check for, that was a problem. In all the upcoming wars after the two first (when you and SAX attacked me when my MP was depleted) I had superiority and could do just about anything I wanted to. Up to the last long war when my forces were slowly grinded down. Much easier for you to get new soldiers in NA than for me, not least because of the focus I had to put on the European theater of war.
Daniel A said:
It was not the last war I meant when I talked about the river, I dont remember exactly which one it was but I think it was when me and Portugal fought you. The last war would have been much easier to win if I had had Cherokee, the nearest recruiting base was around present day New York, it took a year or so for them to group up and get ready for a fight. If I had still had Cherokee it would have gone much better for me I think. I agree with you, but to be honest I didnt send in troops from Europe until the last stages of the war and those were sent to Mexico. All the other troops I got from Huron and another province, in which I could recruit like 10k at once.
Absolut said:It was not the last war I meant when I talked about the river, I dont remember exactly which one it was but I think it was when me and Portugal fought you. The last war would have been much easier to win if I had had Cherokee, the nearest recruiting base was around present day New York, it took a year or so for them to group up and get ready for a fight. If I had still had Cherokee it would have gone much better for me I think. I agree with you, but to be honest I didnt send in troops from Europe until the last stages of the war and those were sent to Mexico. All the other troops I got from Huron and another province, in which I could recruit like 10k at once.
The max number of men I could recruit in any single province was 2k
Most of my reinforcments came from the other side of the Ocean.
I thinik someone should. Post-game discussions can be very interestingAlistus said:
.