I don't really see the reason for that. It wouldn't end. OE player would then also ask for patriarchate and reform events. Russia player would then start asking for Russia events. England for Act of Union, etc. etc.
-
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.
We don't want those infidels on european grounds, so you just stay down there 
Just because the event doesn't fire til 1429, doesn't mean you can't annex Byz before. The capital will just not be moved till 1429 probably.
Just because the event doesn't fire til 1429, doesn't mean you can't annex Byz before. The capital will just not be moved till 1429 probably.
Should we open for a 9th player (Grabah) ?
HG wanted to play China, which i denied. He is too good to be left alone over there.
But if a 9th player is invited, should be play Portugal, Venice or China?
HG wanted to play China, which i denied. He is too good to be left alone over there.
But if a 9th player is invited, should be play Portugal, Venice or China?
playing China would suck bigtime for the player playing it.... besides the events and all, the maptrading rule will prevent him from seeing anything in Europe, where all the actions would be, and even if he could, with no RMs, it would still suck.
so i am against China. or Venice.
Porto is cool.
so i am against China. or Venice.
Porto is cool.
All,
Actually, China can marry Europeans and you'd be quite surprised what it's capable of. I still wish to play it, if possible.
As far as adding a ninth, who's our host? And bear in mind that we're going to have trouble finding subs as it is, even if our host can handle it.
Actually, China can marry Europeans and you'd be quite surprised what it's capable of. I still wish to play it, if possible.
As far as adding a ninth, who's our host? And bear in mind that we're going to have trouble finding subs as it is, even if our host can handle it.
China would be quite evil, since it's large and has a large income from the beginning.
All,
A couple of notes.
The purpose of a province rule, at best, is to prevent countries from being dismembered in a single war. Therefore, vassalization, forcing white peace, etc., ought not be restricted at all. This is a deal breaker for me, I think. It's taking it so far that wars become little more than skirmishes.
There are two more deal breakers, I think, because without them this system, which you evidently want to use, will not work. The first is a stabhit rule, which I see has been added. That's important. The second is changing the perspective of the province limit. It just doesn't work if you limit what a country can take because each alliance risks only three provinces. You have to limit what can be taken from each country in a single war, by any party. Which has the added benefit of discouraging gangs and scavenging.
So, for example, Austria and Russia declare war on the Ottoman Empire. The OE may lose, total, 3 provinces. But so can Austria and so can Russia. If Spain joins, the OE can still lose only 3 provinces. But because it's facing a threeway ganging, it has the option of taking up to nine, three from each enemy, if it wins.
I also suggest that the number of conquerable provinces goes up to 5 in 1400, 6 in 1600 and unlimited after 1700. By the age of Napoleon, at least, province rules are utterly unnecessary, bad for the experience and blatantly ahistorical.
A couple of notes.
The purpose of a province rule, at best, is to prevent countries from being dismembered in a single war. Therefore, vassalization, forcing white peace, etc., ought not be restricted at all. This is a deal breaker for me, I think. It's taking it so far that wars become little more than skirmishes.
There are two more deal breakers, I think, because without them this system, which you evidently want to use, will not work. The first is a stabhit rule, which I see has been added. That's important. The second is changing the perspective of the province limit. It just doesn't work if you limit what a country can take because each alliance risks only three provinces. You have to limit what can be taken from each country in a single war, by any party. Which has the added benefit of discouraging gangs and scavenging.
So, for example, Austria and Russia declare war on the Ottoman Empire. The OE may lose, total, 3 provinces. But so can Austria and so can Russia. If Spain joins, the OE can still lose only 3 provinces. But because it's facing a threeway ganging, it has the option of taking up to nine, three from each enemy, if it wins.
I also suggest that the number of conquerable provinces goes up to 5 in 1400, 6 in 1600 and unlimited after 1700. By the age of Napoleon, at least, province rules are utterly unnecessary, bad for the experience and blatantly ahistorical.
HolisticGod said:
I would guess that several of these would be cores, therefore it could go up to 6/18. And is Spain doesn't join the alliance, but attacked by themselves, they can demand 3 points for themselves.
HolisticGod said:
That would be too extension in my view. Just because you can't take a lot of provinses in each war, doesn't mean you can't attack several times in a row.
HolisticGod said:
Only one problem, ofcourse..
Suppose Russia and OE were getting a deal arranged to transfer a couple provinces (or they in fact have "set aside" a few provinces for it) .. Austria DoWs OE, Russia quickly dows too, Russia peaces for 3 provs, Austria can't get any?
..it doesn't even need to be so obvious, Russia might just blitz into OE after OE and HAB have been fighting for a while, and take 3 provs, leaving Austria out in the cold.
There are both pros and cons to being alliance leader But doing that would only get you a new enemy i'm sure.
But doing that would only get you a new enemy i'm sure.
well if im accepted i would like to play venice or poland, im fine with portugal too.
and if i may, perhaps it would be good idea if we had (if our host can handle it offcourse) much more semi perm players or occasional players who would play minor countries. their purpose would be to make quick expansion harder for all of us. (enhanced ai ). for instance if someone plays genova for couple of sessions.. We could treat such countries without any respect and bash them with all the rest of ai.
and if i may, perhaps it would be good idea if we had (if our host can handle it offcourse) much more semi perm players or occasional players who would play minor countries. their purpose would be to make quick expansion harder for all of us. (enhanced ai
). for instance if someone plays genova for couple of sessions.. We could treat such countries without any respect and bash them with all the rest of ai.
Ozzeh said:The host can certainly NOT handle it
well we can always find a new host and kick ozzeh from the game :nods:
so you can handle 8 but not 9?
ForzaA said:
True! But that is uber gaymey and I haven't even thought in that direction. We can introduce rule that third party which attacks country in a war and want ordinary peace (provinces) can't take more then 30% of the war points and at cost of +10BB. That would prevent people from doing that as effectively as if you forbid it. This rule will not apply if extraordinary peace is demanded (no provinces). But in all other aspects HG is right: this rule will discourage gangs.
Dr Bob said:
9 might do, but grabah was suggesting other players to play minors. That would become too much I think. 8 is fine, 9 is stretching it, more than that is just not possible.
I can live with 9, bringing Portugal in play. I think we need another colonization power.
actually, I would really quite like to play as Portugal if we are including them in the playable countries.