| 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 (2,636 Views) | |
| Ryeassassin | Jun 12 2011, 09:48 PM Post #121 |
![]()
|
Yeah Holding the capital for a year may due it But the current situation is that the uk was forced to pull most of its troops out of US and ever since the US they have been retaking territory. The US should actually be Losing before they are forced to surrender. If that means the the UK needs to ship troops back to us the thats what it should take. if a country invades another and then promptly withdraws much of its forces then the that country cant expect to force a peace. The UK believes that it controls the Seas and there for it shouldn't be much of a problem to ship the British army back to the US and start retaking territory. |
![]() |
|
| Nitrousoxide | Jun 12 2011, 09:58 PM Post #122 |
![]()
|
I think it would be fair to start the 9 month timer at the start of the next session so that wouldn't result in the retroactive application of the rule against the US, giving them time to retake their capital or forcing the UK to ship stuff out of Europe to the Americas to hold them off long enough. |
![]() |
|
| theebum | Jun 12 2011, 11:56 PM Post #123 |
![]() ![]()
|
I agree with Rye, my biggest problem with having to surrender was that I was actually starting to push the British back. Obviously this could change quickly the moment more troops arrive but the tides of war can always change. Edit- the professor got the 10pts. Also, "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." This implies a rule against breaking truces? I think theres quite enough penalty for truce breaking ingame. If someone decides its worth it to take the penalty rather than wait, then the rules really shouldnt stop them. |
![]() |
|
| ssj18vegeta | Jun 13 2011, 01:48 AM Post #124 |
![]() ![]()
|
So this would implicitly mean that if a country is at war with multiple people the maximum they can claim in a peace deal is 100 warscores worth? A bit unclear on this, seeing Begs comments on this. Also, what if the country that needs to peace out is the warleader? Are the other participants in the war forced and/or allowed to declare a new war? I think this rule takes too much of the scorched earth tactic away. Maybe if we'd make the 9 month period longer, for example 2 years, it would work better. Or maybe have 100 WE together with -60% warscore at least. |
![]() |
|
| Nitrousoxide | Jun 13 2011, 07:39 AM Post #125 |
![]()
|
The 9 month period following 100 W/E is there to allow for the ebb and flow of the war to take its course and for the person loosing to retake their lost land. If you are making progress than you have 3/4 of a year to push him out. I don't think you should be able to stay at war indefinetly despite all of your really core stuff being captured just because at some point in the far off future you might get that land back. That was the exact same problem we had last game. And we've had that problem several times in Gren's game on Sunday as well when people who've lost wars with japan aren't willing to peace out because they are building a naval fleet that won't be ready for another 5 years to even attempt to retake lost pacific islands. Look man, you've lost your capital, and it's been captured for several years now. Honestly you've already fulfilled the requirements for what I'm suggesting several times over, but I'm willing to give you 9 months to try and get your capital back so we don't have a retroactive application of the rule against you. Additionally, last game we had an issue where the UK was just going to redeclare war the moment he was forced to peace out. This isn't knocking someone out of the war. You shouldn't have to completely obliterate an entire alliance to win a decisive victory over one belligerent in the war.
My intention with the 100 warscore was to force a person who's obviously lost a war but is unwilling to peace out to accept a fairly reasonable peace. The parties are still free to contract to something more in a non-forced peace treaty. I stated earlier that I think the other parties should be allow to re-declare war and have the truce breaking cost refunded if this is dealing with a war leader. We need to have a system based entirely on W/E to allow countries to knock the the stubborn warleader out of the war. Warscore does not work when dealing with the warleader because you would have to control 60% of ALL belligerant's territory, not just the war leader's. I am open with tweeks that might need to me made. I can see how 9 months might be too short. However I would say that 2 years is probably too long as the purpose is to bring a war that's obviously lost to a quick end when the person playing the country stubbornly refuses to peace out. Maybe a year would be better? |
![]() |
|
| Beg_Birdal | Jun 13 2011, 11:41 AM Post #126 |
![]() ![]()
|
I agree with Nitrousoxide. I think that 12 months with a war score of 100 is more than enough to consider defeat for the country in question. We cannot have a game that goes on for 50 years at 100 war score, that is ridicules and it will ruin the game for all, it doesn't matter how stubborn somebody is. Thus, having a war score of 100 for a maximum of 12 months in my opinion should be enough to get that country out of the war, everything else is more than ridicules. Also, what a player demands should be states at the beginning of the war, and that should be used as the maximum demand. In other words, you cannot demand more in a war than what you stated at the beginning. At the same time, your demands have to be realistic. Each allay that is added to the war, as the war progresses, will also have to state its demands. In the end, it is the GM who is supposed to consider all of the things and make the final decision in cases where the rules are not clear. That decision has to be fair, and most importantly it has to be accepted by the majority. After all, this is a game of many different personalities, not just two or three, thus,, all players have an equal stake in this game, regardless of the country that they play... |
![]() |
|
| theebum | Jun 13 2011, 12:01 PM Post #127 |
![]() ![]()
|
Well I'd accept the decision even if it was I need to surrender now, just arguing my case! After all I am a stubborn bastard haha. |
![]() |
|
| The Professor | Jun 13 2011, 03:37 PM Post #128 |
![]()
|
I am convinced that at least a certain minimum of warscore needs to be acquired first; 100% WE has its own penalties the longer it goes on such as revolt risk and the chance of separatist movements. I believe that 40% is fair, and that you can only force-peace demand up to the amount of warscore you hold. This would bring it akin to the actual force peace mechanic from Europa Universalis III. This will obviously suck for invading larger nations but then again logically why should they surrender to 'outrageous' demands? There's 2 possibilities here: 1- You want to break apart a nation, in this case all you need to do is stay at war long enough for them/the player to get tired of the war and agree to whatever. This presents fairly balanced penalties to the players wanting a harsh peace (as they have to stay at war longer). 2- You want the war to END quickly then you need to actually conclusively and unamigiously win; war score is the only factor that to my mind convinceingly allows for this. Since ending a war asap can be considered a goal in of itself it would be unbalanced to allow up to 100% warscore demands in such a war. |
![]() |
|
| The Professor | Jun 13 2011, 03:42 PM Post #129 |
![]()
|
A) In 1870? You underestimate the growth of US industry at this time and the growth westwards. Especially regarding Reconstruction. Because they haven't lost yet: If they want to peace out, get 40% war score; if your actually winning this shouldn't be a problem.C) History disagrees with this assessement, as long as the USSR had the manpower and supplies to fight on I see no reason why any nation would give up when the threat is extermination. The situations aren't analogous. We have a clear situation where the US armies aren't yet defeated, their economy clearly still able to support the war effort AND allied troops have arrived in North America to aid in the fighting, also had I known that people would've wanted there to be a "timer" irregardless of Warscore I would've moved ALOT more troops in position in Kamchatka to help the Americans as the current numbers were sufficient to hold the line. It takes 6-9 months as it is to move troops across Siberia, another 3 to move to the front lines; a timer is outrageous when warscore is only at +/-10%. I just don't agree to force peace rules added in the middle of a war, especially ones that don't consider war score. |
![]() |
|
| Nitrousoxide | Jun 13 2011, 03:59 PM Post #130 |
![]()
|
Again, Prof, you are ignoring the fact that you cannot get a seperate warscore when dealing with the war leader. That is why W/E should be the prefered method for determing when to force someone to peace out. And, also, you are ignoring many of my other points. If someone doesn't get the capital and manages to get W/E up to 100 (which is actually pretty difficult as you really only get a good amount of W/E if your capital is taken) then we default to something akin to what you are suggesting, where the winner can only claim up to their War Score. If you can manage to get someone up to 100 W/E without taking any land you're not going to get much out of the forced peace. You'll only get up to the current warscore under my system. My system is primarily there to A: Provide a way to knock out individual allies out of a war to make a snowball effect possible so that seemingly endless wars can end (unlike last game) snd B: provide a way for obviously beaten countries to be fairly forced to peace out. I believe my system does this. The US has had the east coast conquered for THREE YEARS. They ARE BEATEN. There needs to be a system in place for forcing someone who won't peace out despite having half their country controlled by an opponent for 3 years. Prof, why it you will never compromise with me about ANYTHING? I made a system that falls back on your plan if they don't have the capital and you still won't even give me the slightest bit of consideration. I don't really see what the point is in trying to work with you at all. I said before that the timer should only start with next session so that we aren't applying the rule retroactively. If it's going to take you a YEAR or more to even bring anything to the US (assuming you can actually transport anything there with British Navies wandering around) then maybe you should peace out and try to retake the stuff in another war later. This is the same issue we had with Gren's game on sunday where people were saying they were building up fleets that were years out from completion in hopes of retaking pacific islands. Peace out and get ready for another war in 5 years when you have your stuff in place. Don't keep the UK in an endless war like last game because you have SOME PLAN for stuff a year from now. You'll always have the excuse of some plan in the future which to fall back on to prevent peacing out. I'm getting damn frusterated trying to deal with you honestly. You do tons of shit without asking me and then refuse to compromise on ANYTHING. |
![]() |
|
| Nitrousoxide | Jun 13 2011, 04:15 PM Post #131 |
![]()
|
If you don't work with me here I'm just gonna put the issue up for vote as per the tie-breaker rule we have in place. |
![]() |
|
| Beg_Birdal | Jun 13 2011, 05:43 PM Post #132 |
![]() ![]()
|
Look, USA has a war score of 100, so, is it possible for the USA to peace out, and the rest of the war to continue. I absolutely agree that USA needs to accept a peace offer, but at the same time, we cannot ignore the fact that Russia has occupied the whole of India (70 million people).. I don't know, I understand both point, and both points are valide.. USA clearly still has the capacity to wage war. At the same time, the UK demanding New England is ridicules as well. But also, keep in mind, the longer USA is in war, the wors off economicly they are, they are felling behind already. In my oppinion we need to separate these two things, when discussion the whole issue: 1st. UK vs. USA 2nd. UK vs. Russia, Austria, Sweden, Netherlands and Germany |
![]() |
|
| Nitrousoxide | Jun 13 2011, 05:56 PM Post #133 |
![]()
|
This is a fair observation. On this point I would say that we let Russia regain control of those provinces without UK interference and then the war can continue from there. Russia would just need to be quick about it so siege as many as possible with small stacks to get it over with as fast as possible. |
![]() |
|
| The Professor | Jun 13 2011, 06:06 PM Post #134 |
![]()
|
A compromise suggests that two points of view are equally valid and automatically one needs to go to the middle, this is a fallacy. First of all the UK has been slowly been pushed back, this is irrefutable, secondly the UK has not been able to cross the mississippi river, and have generally been unable to decisely end the war; they occupy the east coast yes, but so what, thats only 14% of the total size of the country and maybe only 30% of the US's industry. There's RUSSIAN TROOPS on US soil defending the US for christs sake, its not like theyre fighting the war alone. How about this as a compromise, we change the war leader from the US to Russia who is probably the true war leader at this case and then the UK has more accurate war score vs the US. There's no need to make "fall back rules" there's no advantage to increased complexity. Simplest is best, and simplest is a combination of WE, WS, and occupied capital. Under your suggestion it could be entirely possible to just land 150k troops on a coastal capital, drive up WE to 100 and then automatically peace for whatever you want despite ws only being 1% this is retarded. I say again, if the US is indeed beaten then the UK should have no problem with gaining 40% war score. |
![]() |
|
| Nitrousoxide | Jun 13 2011, 06:52 PM Post #135 |
![]()
|
Alight, I'm starting a poll because you're so damn uncooperative. |
![]() |
|
| The Professor | Jun 13 2011, 08:53 PM Post #136 |
![]()
|
bs mate. Being cooperative is just me agreeing that rules are needed, being cooperative doesnt mean automatically agreeing with every shit idea every tom, dick or harry suggests. |
![]() |
|
| Kristjan2 | Jun 13 2011, 10:14 PM Post #137 |
|
Head Administrator
![]()
|
Nitrous, Professor: In future, please do resolve the GMing disputes by PM, IM, the staff forum when I get Nitrous into a mod group. Airing your dirty laundry on the forum, and I know this from personal experience, accomplishes little. If you need to create a poll as per the tiebreaker rule, then do so, but don't continue arguiing with each other in public. |
![]() |
|
| Dragonknight2 | Jun 13 2011, 11:38 PM Post #138 |
![]()
|
Are we going to talk about other quasi-rule issues too, like the US's adoption of health care, and Begs movement through belgium (in spite of a lack of mil access, how the hell did that work) without which France wouldnt be in the crappy position it is now. |
![]() |
|
| ssj18vegeta | Jun 14 2011, 02:33 AM Post #139 |
![]() ![]()
|
He must have had military access, or he wouldn't be able to walk across their territory. Also, Linny changed that rule last game and the current GMs used it again. It's clearly allowed to use a players territory even if they haven't given their consent as the rules are now. However, I never really understood why Linny changed the rule, so we might need to change it back to how it was originally. |
![]() |
|
| Dragonknight2 | Jun 14 2011, 02:54 AM Post #140 |
![]()
|
I think that was that they were allied and at war, but I'll have to test it out. I would support a rule where minors have to actively choose to (and thus have the ability to deny access) open their borders in war. |
![]() |
|
| The Professor | Jun 14 2011, 07:28 AM Post #141 |
![]()
|
If your stupid enough to give someone military access its your responsibility to cancel it and be proactive if you dont want them using your territory. |
![]() |
|
| Beg_Birdal | Jun 14 2011, 07:50 AM Post #142 |
![]() ![]()
|
I agree. I dont think that we should use AI neutral territory for access during a war. But here we are talking about Human players.. Besides, Germany didnt achieve much by using Belgium, our final and most important punch came through Metz. Also, UK and Germany both had access trough Belgium., while France didnt had any trrops to put in Belgium anyways. |
![]() |
|
| Dragonknight2 | Jun 14 2011, 11:04 AM Post #143 |
![]()
|
It appears that both comrade and I will have an unavoidable family thing on this saturday, is it possible to move the session back to 5pm or so, and run it until maybe 8? I will post back with more info. |
![]() |
|
| Dragonknight2 | Jun 16 2011, 04:45 AM Post #144 |
![]()
|
Seems I can get out of it until about 10:30-11, any thoughts on pushing the start time back an hour or two? Edit: Oh, and i'll be dual controlling Chile, UK-Chile alliance to conquer ze world! |
![]() |
|
| theebum | Jun 17 2011, 06:14 PM Post #145 |
![]() ![]()
|
I'm gonna have to leave around 10. Gotta pick someone up at the bing airport. |
![]() |
|
| GrenadierSchube | Jun 17 2011, 07:02 PM Post #146 |
![]()
|
gentlemen i have to bid thee all farewell. ive got a few weeks left before my academy and i need to start getting ready for it and that includes working on the weekends. so after some thought an realizing i work tomorrow, i have decided to withdrawal from the game, good luck all enjoy Gren |
![]() |
|
| wazzul | Jun 18 2011, 02:16 PM Post #147 |
![]()
|
teamspeak ip?! its not up anymore |
![]() |
|
| Nitrousoxide | Jun 18 2011, 02:30 PM Post #148 |
![]()
|
TS IP 174.142.97.228:9997 |
![]() |
|
| Beg_Birdal | Jun 18 2011, 02:33 PM Post #149 |
![]() ![]()
|
the game is still at 8 |
![]() |
|
| wazzul | Jun 18 2011, 03:11 PM Post #150 |
![]()
|
Yah the old post with all the information got deleted so can someone update it. I even forgot when exactly the game starts so I had to ask. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · The Gathering Storm 2 (Victoria II) · Next Topic » |












Because they haven't lost yet: If they want to peace out, get 40% war score; if your actually winning this shouldn't be a problem.

5:57 PM Jul 10