| Welcome to Blut Und Eisen. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| The Gathering Storm 2 Discussion Thread | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: May 23 2011, 06:57 PM (2,637 Views) | |
| Dragonknight2 | Jun 11 2011, 10:32 PM Post #91 |
![]()
|
Yes I was a participant in the european war, but that doesnt mean because I lost a few battles in europe the USA should be 100% free to refuse to peace until what, the entire USA is occupied? That kind of crap is what ruined the last game, and we shouldn't bring it back. Edit: No one has said anything about the healthcare exploit (apart from Prof), do you stand by what you said before on ts? |
![]() |
|
| The Professor | Jun 11 2011, 10:40 PM Post #92 |
![]()
|
I'm not ready to really comment conclusively regarding it, i want to hear some more opinions. |
![]() |
|
| theebum | Jun 12 2011, 12:57 AM Post #93 |
![]() ![]()
|
In the last game no one was going to turn things around. People were obviously beaten, had no hope of winning and refused to care. Even the allies had given up by that point if you recall. I really dont see how the USA is beaten. I mean it seems a bit odd after years of a slow fighting retreat we fought so our allies could occupy india and prepare to fight in Europe. Now suddenly as things start to turn around what people just decide they dont hate the Brits anymore and will just give up and forget all the damage they caused. Seriously though I used the best tactic available for fighting a force like the British with my limited resources. I fought a fighting retreat similar to a russian scorched earth. Made sure you stayed in large groups so you would hopefully suffer more attrition. Also only fight when it seemed possible to win. So I'm punished for managing to hold out? I wouldn't have fought at all without allied support. Hell if you had told me that I'd have to surrender after starting to turn things around I would have just stood firm in Penn. and let all my troops die so it was really a lost war. Comon its as if somehow Germany took parts of England and hypothetically the w/e hit 100 just as your french allies and a fleet of fresh British troops landed. Well your beaten too bad you were winning at the end. Also the European war is not a separate war. As the Russian troops fighting in the US proves. Your also no longer pushing west but rather retreating north. |
![]() |
|
| Dragonknight2 | Jun 12 2011, 02:18 AM Post #94 |
![]()
|
In the last game UK wasn't beaten, he still had 800+ brigades operating, plenty of money etc, the point is 100 w/e should be screwing you up (rebels totally suck), and its unrealistic to keep fighting forever with your homeland occupied, no matter what the broken game mechanics tell you (the east coast has been occupied for what, 3+ years now??). If the UK had been occupied for 3 years I would be surrendering, not fighting on. 30k russian troops in the USA doesn't make it a european war as much as a few american troops in france makes that an american war, and soon I'll reinstate my blockade of the west coast, bring all my troops back from France and you'll be dead (since it seems I'll have to occupy the entire US ><) |
![]() |
|
| theebum | Jun 12 2011, 03:04 AM Post #95 |
![]() ![]()
|
oh wait so the east coast is my entire homeland? my god how have I been fighting on! oh thats right by paying attention to the fact that youve only managed to invade a bare quarter of the USAs homeland. My point about the previous game is I believe it would have been impossible for the UK to win that war and at best could have ended with a wp or like it did with a few conssessions. Annex the USA in your power hungry diplo lacking play if you like but I'll not roll over for some technicality you want to dream up so you can get this war over with and start grabbing parts of whatever other nation takes your fancy. I'll tell you what I told you before, if you beat me Ill surrender but Ive yet to be beaten so "NUTS!" (10pts to the person who got it first? ha) and no being beaten does not mean total occupation. Just the inablilty to resist without dying, which ironically is usually the reason people really do surrender. Didnt claim it was a euro war. I claimed it was ONE war. Meaning what my allies have achieved should be taken into account. |
![]() |
|
| Dragonknight2 | Jun 12 2011, 06:32 AM Post #96 |
![]()
|
The East coast of the USA is what the home isles are to the UK. Anyway, I know your are about done, almost all your regular brigades are already non-reinforceable, you are down to under 100k soldiers, and are soon to be blockaded, so next session will be fun :D. |
![]() |
|
| The Professor | Jun 12 2011, 07:35 AM Post #97 |
![]()
|
Sieges of Bastogne. |
![]() |
|
| Beg_Birdal | Jun 12 2011, 08:49 AM Post #98 |
![]() ![]()
|
France has surrendered, however, German is still heavily engaged on French soil with UK (and we are wining). At the moment Germany is not prepared to "Dunkirk" the Brits. Thus, it is time to end this war on all sides, and find a political solution. After all, this is not a 'Total War', where one side has to have a total victory. A fine example can be seen in the German, Austria, and Russian demands from France (nothing to outrages was demanded from France; namely, no French cores were demanded, and no French African colonies) Although, France is more or less totally beaten. Now, it is time for UK to come to the negotiating table, UK cannot just rape the world, if that is the case, than my alliance will not accept the peace with France, and we will destroy the British Army there and force Franc to turn against UK. Frankly, I find it a bit gamy to let Brits evacuate from France, without a peace deal. It was France that saved UK the first time. Now, again it is France that is saving UK. We can continue like this for a very long time. Also, UK is NOT wining this war at the moment! Uk occupied some 3 million Americans, while Russia occupied some 100 million Brits!! |
![]() |
|
| Comrade_L1berty | Jun 12 2011, 09:14 AM Post #99 |
![]()
|
You can go after the UK all you want but I dont think its fair to just go and 'kill france' and take their colonies when they had a pretty horrible sub for the session. Marauder also said he probably wouldnt of joined the war if he was here so why are you still threatening him? Leave France alone, at least for this war, it just sets a bad precedent where if perms cant make a session they can be ruined for the rest of the game. |
![]() |
|
| Beg_Birdal | Jun 12 2011, 09:28 AM Post #100 |
![]() ![]()
|
I disagree. The French sub was, WARNED WARNED WARNED AND WARNED. The sub is the reason that UK wasn't destroyed, and that Germany lost 400k troops in Briton. Now, this old argument "he had a bed sub is BSSS" Moraderd himself said on TS, that if France was winning he would have been happy... You must be drunk, live France alone when we invested so much and when France helped enormously prolong this war! haha.. you know, we are not talking about the little poor Serbia! This is not up for discussion, and besides, France is getting a very very favorable peace. We could demand French cores and destroy the whole French Army.... PS. I was the only one on TS saying it a few times, that Murader wouldn't join this war, but than France was winning and i didn't hear you talk about this than???? so pls. "Our terms are not even close to "Killing France", do u know what u r talking about?" LOL
|
![]() |
|
| ssj18vegeta | Jun 12 2011, 09:39 AM Post #101 |
![]() ![]()
|
I think the peacedeal offer should be a maximum of 100 score. Don't know if that is the case at the moment. It seems to me this is not the case. Also, is it even possible to destroy forts ingame? |
![]() |
|
| Comrade_L1berty | Jun 12 2011, 09:43 AM Post #102 |
![]()
|
It doesnt matter that the sub was a retard and went to war without knowing what Marauder wanted (if there is doubt sub should stay at peace). And you were talking about 'continung the war' with France if you dont get your way...sorry but that sounds alot like you want to break them. I know i wouldnt want to come back after a session and see my country in a horrible position..and I'm sure Marauder will say something similar if/when he posts in here. Anyway, im off to bed-game in 4.5hrs
|
![]() |
|
| Beg_Birdal | Jun 12 2011, 09:45 AM Post #103 |
![]() ![]()
|
That would be a possibility, but only if we have 100 war score per country. having 100 war score for example on UK that is having half of the world, and dividing it up between lets say 5-7 countries is a joke at the best!besides, I say, we go with the rules that we already have. they worked good this far, dont know why to change them now. |
![]() |
|
| Frymonmon | Jun 12 2011, 09:53 AM Post #104 |
![]()
|
The most interesting part is that I was subbing for France and preoccupied with 3 other things. I just did it so there wasn't an AI. Call me a bad sub, but I did pretty good for cooking, getting ready for a business dinner, and helping kids all while immersed in a major war. I however, think that France should surrender and the war is lost. |
![]() |
|
| The Professor | Jun 12 2011, 09:57 AM Post #105 |
![]()
|
Guys, calm the fuck down, this is looking like its getting personal. |
![]() |
|
| Beg_Birdal | Jun 12 2011, 09:58 AM Post #106 |
![]() ![]()
|
I think that u did the best u could! |
![]() |
|
| Ryeassassin | Jun 12 2011, 10:07 AM Post #107 |
![]()
|
I just believe the UK should actually be winning in the US before they can demand a surrender. At this point the UK is actually losing in the US and they have been pushed off the European continent. |
![]() |
|
| Dragonknight2 | Jun 12 2011, 10:20 AM Post #108 |
![]()
|
|
![]() |
|
| Kristjan2 | Jun 12 2011, 10:37 AM Post #109 |
|
Head Administrator
![]()
|
I have to agree with Dragon, I see no evidence that British troops aren't still fighting in France, or in America for that matter. |
![]() |
|
| Ryeassassin | Jun 12 2011, 11:31 AM Post #110 |
![]()
|
Its not that there not fighting its that they are being pushed back everywhere. The UK lost control of a lot of the land they took in the US while at the same time they are going to be pushed out of Europe unless the french change there minds and continue fighting. Im saying the US shouldn't be forced to surrender as long the they keep pushing the UK out of there territory. to force a surrender the offense should be on the offensive not the defensive. |
![]() |
|
| Kristjan2 | Jun 12 2011, 12:15 PM Post #111 |
|
Head Administrator
![]()
|
If France peaces, then the fight in Europe is effectively stalemate, since you guys can't touch the British in the naval department at present. If he redoubles in America again, then chances are he does go on the offensive once more and then we can discuss forced peaces. If what he says about the USA having reached its reinforcement limit on alot of brigades are true, it could mean trouble if he re-blockades sufficiently to prevent other powers from helping USA more. |
![]() |
|
| Nitrousoxide | Jun 12 2011, 01:51 PM Post #112 |
![]()
|
I'm inclined to agree that if a country hits 100 war exhaustion it should be forced to peace out. I, of course, don't know the particulars of last session, but I felt this way about the last game as well. Honestly I would kinda argue that not peacing out with 100 war exhaustion is already borderline nation wrecking which is already banned in the rules. Think of war exhaustion as the equivalent of victory points in HOI3. You can beat down a single country even though the overall alliance may not have fallen yet. Also, while the US certainly has the landmass to do a fighting retreat, you can get to a point where you've really effectively lost even though you have a lot of territory left. It would be like Germany invading Russia and Russia getting pushed back all the way past St. Petersburg or Moscow. If the Germans were able to hold onto that land with no real prospects of the Russians regaining it in a reasonable time then they've really effectively lost even though they still have all of Siberia. The East Coast IS effectively the really important part of the US. I would say look at the war exhaustion. Whoever has hit 100 really should be forced to peace out. I'm aware that the game mechanics are kinda wonky when it comes to war leaders and all, but the US's allies can redeclare war and try to retake US land. Maybe we could refund the prestige for doing such to compensate for the way the war system works, but I would say the US must abide by the truce. |
![]() |
|
| Beg_Birdal | Jun 12 2011, 02:27 PM Post #113 |
![]() ![]()
|
Hey guys, I think that it would be nice if everyone involved in the war, could write AAR accounts of the war for their own country.. would be nice to put it all together. |
![]() |
|
| theebum | Jun 12 2011, 02:45 PM Post #114 |
![]() ![]()
|
I'll admit the east coast is very important...most likely why I've fought so hard to keep from losing part of it to the Brits. May I point out the peace I may be forced to take will be a huge blow to my country. So forgive me if I fought like crazy to keep the UK from raping me. While I havent been to happy about fighting on to 100% w/e I really did not want to lose new england. Especially to the UK. I'd love the chance to fight on and make the UK bleed some more for the bit of land that they decided to cripple me over. Pssh really should have WP...didnt wanna let my allies down though. Well I'll stand by the GM decision. Hell the way I see it I've got a good chance of getting the land back eventually bc half the world hates the UK. |
![]() |
|
| Kristjan2 | Jun 12 2011, 02:48 PM Post #115 |
|
Head Administrator
![]()
|
Beg to MSN! |
![]() |
|
| ssj18vegeta | Jun 12 2011, 03:02 PM Post #116 |
![]() ![]()
|
I'd say as long as the US holds a reasonable army he can't be forced out of the war. I think he even regained some of his lost land in the last couple of months. |
![]() |
|
| Nitrousoxide | Jun 12 2011, 03:02 PM Post #117 |
![]()
|
I know New England is important, but in my mind, if someone invades, conquers, and holds all of the Eastern coast, gets your war exhaustion up to 100 and there are no Immediate (immediate being the key word, there would have to be troops already on ships on their way to free the land) prospects of getting it back, then the US player lost a devastating war and you SHOULD expect there to be some pretty major consequences to the borders. Now I don't know the actual facts of the matter because I haven't loaded up the save and wasn't there for the session, but I would suggest that we add the these war rules to the game. I would like my Co-GM to look over it. 1: If you hit 100 war exhaustion and following that you are unable to recover your conquered lands within 9 months than you must peace out. 2: In the event the your conqueror holds your capital at the end of these 9 months then this is to be considered a complete victory and the victor may demand up to 100 warscore worth of territory from the looser. 3: If the victor does not hold the capital of the looser at the end of the 9 months then this signifies that he people are sick and tired of the war, but that a complete victory has not been achieved. In this case the victor may, if he so desires, continue the war in hopes of capturing the capital and declaring complete victory. Complete victory will be deemed to have been achieved immediately if the capital is captured at any point following the 9 months. There is no additional 9 month waiting period. Otherwise he may still demand immediate peace, but may only demand up to the current warscore, but in the event that the warscore is not sufficient to demand any states than he may demand the lowest warscore state which borders any of his territory or which borders the sea. 4: If a country is forced to peace out because of the above rules then they must wait out the truce and cannot declare war on the victor again, even if called by other allies. |
![]() |
|
| Nitrousoxide | Jun 12 2011, 03:25 PM Post #118 |
![]()
|
To clarify the rational for a few of the those rules. 1: This one is fairly obvious as it's there to prevent countries from engaging in endless war despite being overcome. I might also add that you have to get back ALL your lost territory, not just your core stuff. Of course, if you get back your capital you do prevent your opponent from declaring a complete victory and he can only demand the current war score at the end of 9 months, unless he wants to continue the war and try to retake the looser's capitol 2: This one is here to prevent border skirmishes which never really go anywhere, but which end up raising your W/E all the way to the max from resulting in crippling losses. To really get a total victory you must push past those front lines and grab their capital, not just waste a bunch of their troops but still be unable to make any meaningful progress into their territory. 3: This is to give the winner of the war the option of whether to contineu it or end it if they haven't really achieved complete victory, but can see that it's fairly forseeable or reasonably possible. I would hate to have someone like Germany who might have captured everything up to and around St. Petersburg and have otherwise wiped out the Russian army, but still have not quite gotten the capital to get a really raw deal because the rules force them to peace out. The peacing out should only be mandatory for the victor if they have really achieved a complete victory like I described (100 W/E and control of the capital). 4: This obviously is to prevent the looser from immediately redaclaring war to try to get their land back like our UK player said he would do last game if he was obliged to peace out with the home islands captured. |
![]() |
|
| The Professor | Jun 12 2011, 07:51 PM Post #119 |
![]()
|
I much prefer the war score clause as its a clearer indication of victory; sucks for trying to invade large countries but whatevs, I see no reason why the US wouldn't be willing to fight on from the Mississippi if Europeans were invading to try to break it apart. |
![]() |
|
| Nitrousoxide | Jun 12 2011, 09:07 PM Post #120 |
![]()
|
A: With the entire east coast wiped out, realistically the US wouldn't have the industry to support any army at all. If this were the real world they would have folded from just that. B: We need to be realistic here in that we've had several people who've had core portions of their country occupied for years on end, and still were unwilling to peace out. The current rules governing this issue are not sufficient for dealing with the problem. C: The warscore system does not allow countries to knock the warleader out of the war. Like in the instant case here, the US has had all its really important stuff occupied for a good 3 years. It should be out of the war, there is no question about that. It's like as if all of Russia's European holdings were completely conquered by Nazi Germany and Germany held those territories for half a decade with no prospect of loosing them in sight. The Soviets would be out of the war, no questions. Hell, they probably would have had another revolution like they did during WW1 when they lost far less land. It should be really obvious that the current ruleset is not up to snuff for this. Given the fact that you completely rearranged the rules without even consulting me, I think you should give me this Professor. I have no bone in this war. Honestly, any suggestion which doesn't force the US to peace out with the entire eastern half of their country captured has some major flaws that I think need to be addressed. I might also point out that as the number of belligerents in the war increases your suggestion falls apart quickly, especially when it comes to knocking out the war leader of the war (which coincidentally was the problem last game as well). War exhaustion needs to play a role in determining when people can declare victory. If you've gotten to the point that you've held a nation's capital for over a year (which would be pretty much required to hit 100 W/E in anything but an extremely drawn out war) then you've won the damn war. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · The Gathering Storm 2 (Victoria II) · Next Topic » |














5:57 PM Jul 10