Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
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:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Changes To War Rules Vote
Nitrousoxide's Proposal 5 (41.7%)
The Professor's Proposal 3 (25%)
Other (explain in comments) 2 (16.7%)
Abstain/Magic Brownies 1 (8.3%)
None of the above/no rule additions. 1 (8.3%)
Total Votes: 12
Changes To War Rules Vote
Topic Started: Jun 13 2011, 08:01 PM (773 Views)
Nitrousoxide

Viceroys
Nitrousoxide's proposal for rules to be added:

1: If you hit 100 war exhaustion and following that you are unable to recover your conquered lands within 12 months than you must peace out.

2: In the event the your conqueror holds your capital at the end of these 12 months then this is to be considered a complete victory and the victor may force his opponent to accept his wargoals, however in no situation may the amount sought exceed 100 warscore.

3: If the victor does not hold the capital of the looser at the end of the 12 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 12 months. There is no additional 12 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.


-----------------------------------------------------------

The Professor's Proposal:

1) You must have at least 40% War score.
2) He has to be at 100% WE for one full consequentive year.
3) You can demand only up to the amount of war score you have assuming the minimum requirement of 40% has been met. (Thus, only 100% ws has to be accepted, if you literally have 100% war score.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theebum
Member Avatar

House of Commons
wait 100 warscore worth of goals? I thought if they won this way it could only be their orginal goal. Why should w/e be worth as much as warscore?

Thats the only complaint I would have against either choice.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nitrousoxide

Viceroys
oh sorry, I forgot to change that part. It was supposed to be "Up to 100 war score" meaning that he can't go over it but that otherwise he should only get his existing war goals. I'll edit the OP to represent that.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The Professor

House of Lords
The biggest problem to your suggested ruleset nitros is that it incentivizes fighting the war to win to meet the requirements of the rules (occupying the capital and working on gamey ways to raise war exhaustion) instead of actually fighting to >win< the war, by gaining war score.

As such, the proposed rule is silly and is going to lead to unintented consequences.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nitrousoxide

Viceroys
As opposed to yours which doesn't even work for war leaders and is polluted by battles on the other side of the world which have no impact on whether a country is loosing at home or not.

Also yours incentives getting the capital the same as mine because you need 100 war exhaustion under yours as well, and the capital is the best way to get 40 warscore. Both proposals encourage the same thing but yours just flat out doesn't work for the war leader unlike mine.

The only way yours could conceivably work for warleaders is by editing saves to switch warleaders mid session to check to see the progress on the war. But that is tedious and disruptive for the gameplay.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kristjan2
Member Avatar
Head Administrator
Head Administrator
I've added a 5th option - which those who dont' want to see any rule changes/additions should vote.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dragonknight2

Viceroys
Just to add to the conservation of war score, and indication of how broken as a mechanic it is played itself out in our Sunday Game. In a war with Germany and Italy vs (just!) France (Ie not overseas allies affecting it), was crazily broken by (apparently), some tactical battles at the start. Despite the Germans blockading close to 100% of french territory, wiping out 3/4 of the french army, and winning every battle for a year or two, the battles w/s remained at -25%. Hell, after France turned AI, all I havent got is a tiny bit of Africa (occupied the rest) and Madagascar and I'm only at 50 something w/s. Its a totally broken mechanic.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The Professor

House of Lords
Nitrousoxide,Jun 13 2011
09:43 PM
As opposed to yours which doesn't even work for war leaders and is polluted by battles on the other side of the world which have no impact on whether a country is loosing at home or not.

Also yours incentives getting the capital the same as mine because you need 100 war exhaustion under yours as well, and the capital is the best way to get 40 warscore. Both proposals encourage the same thing but yours just flat out doesn't work for the war leader unlike mine.

The only way yours could conceivably work for warleaders is by editing saves to switch warleaders mid session to check to see the progress on the war. But that is tedious and disruptive for the gameplay.

It is significantly more fair than your broken and easily exploited suggestion that renders wars to simply a race to push someone into maximum war score.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ryeassassin

House of Lords
Im all in favor for nitrouses rules except for the one about ur enemies capital. I dont think holding an enemy capital should have anything to do with it. we should go either on war score and War exhaustion or war score alone.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nitrousoxide

Viceroys
Ryeassassin,Jun 14 2011
01:16 PM
Im all in favor for nitrouses rules except for the one about ur enemies capital. I dont think holding an enemy capital should have anything to do with it. we should go either on war score and War exhaustion or war score alone.

Problem with warscore is it doesn't work for war leaders. You can't seperate out how they are doing as compared to the rest of the war.

Additionally, all battles get attributed to the overall warscore (which is what you see when you try to peace out as the war leader) This means that battles half way across the world which have nothing to do with how the country is doing at home impact the warscore. A war leader could be 100% occupied but he could still only have a 30% warscore if battles elsewhere in the world have gone badly, or there are a lot of other countries in the war with a lot of unconquered territory.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ryeassassin

House of Lords
Nitrousoxide,Jun 14 2011
02:15 PM
Problem with warscore is it doesn't work for war leaders. You can't seperate out how they are doing as compared to the rest of the war.

Additionally, all battles get attributed to the overall warscore (which is what you see when you try to peace out as the war leader) This means that battles half way across the world which have nothing to do with how the country is doing at home impact the warscore. A war leader could be 100% occupied but he could still only have a 30% warscore if battles elsewhere in the world have gone badly, or there are a lot of other countries in the war with a lot of unconquered territory.

Again this has nothing to do with a nation capital. That rule make countries with coastal capitals especially vulnerable and could lead to people just grabbing a capital and sitting on it for a year to win a war.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nitrousoxide

Viceroys
Ryeassassin,Jun 14 2011
04:17 PM
Nitrousoxide,Jun 14 2011
02:15 PM
Problem with warscore is it doesn't work for war leaders.  You can't seperate out how they are doing as compared to the rest of the war.

Additionally, all battles get attributed to the overall warscore (which is what you see when you try to peace out as the war leader)  This means that battles half way across the world which have nothing to do with how the country is doing at home impact the warscore.  A war leader could be 100% occupied but he could still only have a 30% warscore if battles elsewhere in the world have gone badly, or there are a lot of other countries in the war with a lot of unconquered territory.

Again this has nothing to do with a nation capital. That rule make countries with coastal capitals especially vulnerable and could lead to people just grabbing a capital and sitting on it for a year to win a war.

That's a fair point, but what would you suggest? It's matter of trade offs. If you rely on War score at all for the requirements to peace out then the system falls apart when you are dealing with warleaders.

I'm open to suggestions. I'm aware that my ruleset has its weaknesses so anything you can come up with that doesn't make it just completely fail when dealing with stuff like warleaders I'm open to listening to.

Edit: Maybe I could just add a little note in the rule saying "hey, don't just grab the capital and nothing else to game to system" and leave it up to the GM to decide if someone is trying to game the ruleset to achieve victory.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The Professor

House of Lords
Nitrousoxide,Jun 14 2011
04:17 PM
Ryeassassin,Jun 14 2011
04:17 PM
Nitrousoxide,Jun 14 2011
02:15 PM
Problem with warscore is it doesn't work for war leaders.  You can't seperate out how they are doing as compared to the rest of the war.

Additionally, all battles get attributed to the overall warscore (which is what you see when you try to peace out as the war leader)  This means that battles half way across the world which have nothing to do with how the country is doing at home impact the warscore.  A war leader could be 100% occupied but he could still only have a 30% warscore if battles elsewhere in the world have gone badly, or there are a lot of other countries in the war with a lot of unconquered territory.

Again this has nothing to do with a nation capital. That rule make countries with coastal capitals especially vulnerable and could lead to people just grabbing a capital and sitting on it for a year to win a war.

That's a fair point, but what would you suggest? It's matter of trade offs. If you rely on War score at all for the requirements to peace out then the system falls apart when you are dealing with warleaders.

I'm open to suggestions. I'm aware that my ruleset has its weaknesses so anything you can come up with that doesn't make it just completely fail when dealing with stuff like warleaders I'm open to listening to.

Edit: Maybe I could just add a little note in the rule saying "hey, don't just grab the capital and nothing else to game to system" and leave it up to the GM to decide if someone is trying to game the ruleset to achieve victory.

This is why I just don't agree, your opening what should be a closed one case fits all rule into something incridibly open to abuse and interpretation.

The rule you suggest is massively unfair, because its blurring the difference between refusing to peace a perfectly winneable war to stubburnly refusing to peace despite total victory clearly being won.

This is disingenous to what we seek to do, clearly what we could do as a compromise is simply swap around war leaders, which should be a simple edit during the inevitable rehost and work from there as being massively simply then an open to being broken rule that is easily and as you concede, an easily abused rule.

Is it possible to see everything that contributes to war score? And simply disregard battles and use total occupation warscore?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ryeassassin

House of Lords
Well make the rule that once you reach 100 percent war exhaustion u have 12 months to make major progress in expelling the occupying enemy . ( major progress to be decided by the gm). if you don't make major progress then you have to surrender and give the enemy can demand up to 100 percent war score
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The Professor

House of Lords
Ryeassassin,Jun 14 2011
07:17 PM
Well make the rule that once you reach 100 percent war exhaustion u have 12 months to make major progress in expelling the occupying enemy . ( major progress to be decided by the gm). if you don't make major progress then you have to surrender and give the enemy can demand up to 100 percent war score

This is terribad, because what if the GM isn't impartial? The rule also seems suspiciously designed to end the current war quickly; I know for sure if I knew about it I would've moved alot more troops over to the US.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ryeassassin

House of Lords
Any rule we make is going to be problematic. Yes this rule is designed to end this war and any future wars. we need to have someone that makes the final decision. or maybe a group of three to make decisions. This is what the GMs are supposed to do. They are supposed to settle disputes and make the final judgement. if you cant be impartial as a GM maby you shouldn't be GMing. As a GM it is your responsibility to be fair. If you cant do that then maby someone else should be GM
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nitrousoxide

Viceroys
The Professor,Jun 14 2011
07:11 PM
Nitrousoxide,Jun 14 2011
04:17 PM
Ryeassassin,Jun 14 2011
04:17 PM
Nitrousoxide,Jun 14 2011
02:15 PM
Problem with warscore is it doesn't work for war leaders.  You can't seperate out how they are doing as compared to the rest of the war.

Additionally, all battles get attributed to the overall warscore (which is what you see when you try to peace out as the war leader)  This means that battles half way across the world which have nothing to do with how the country is doing at home impact the warscore.  A war leader could be 100% occupied but he could still only have a 30% warscore if battles elsewhere in the world have gone badly, or there are a lot of other countries in the war with a lot of unconquered territory.

Again this has nothing to do with a nation capital. That rule make countries with coastal capitals especially vulnerable and could lead to people just grabbing a capital and sitting on it for a year to win a war.

That's a fair point, but what would you suggest? It's matter of trade offs. If you rely on War score at all for the requirements to peace out then the system falls apart when you are dealing with warleaders.

I'm open to suggestions. I'm aware that my ruleset has its weaknesses so anything you can come up with that doesn't make it just completely fail when dealing with stuff like warleaders I'm open to listening to.

Edit: Maybe I could just add a little note in the rule saying "hey, don't just grab the capital and nothing else to game to system" and leave it up to the GM to decide if someone is trying to game the ruleset to achieve victory.

This is why I just don't agree, your opening what should be a closed one case fits all rule into something incridibly open to abuse and interpretation.

The rule you suggest is massively unfair, because its blurring the difference between refusing to peace a perfectly winneable war to stubburnly refusing to peace despite total victory clearly being won.

This is disingenous to what we seek to do, clearly what we could do as a compromise is simply swap around war leaders, which should be a simple edit during the inevitable rehost and work from there as being massively simply then an open to being broken rule that is easily and as you concede, an easily abused rule.

Is it possible to see everything that contributes to war score? And simply disregard battles and use total occupation warscore?

The only potential abuse you're talked about is someone capturing just the capital and sitting on it for a year to get a victory. Something like that should be easy for the GM to rule as gamey and an illegitimate use of the rule.

An impartial GM should have no problem declaring that an abuse of the rule and refusing to grant them their otherwise obliged victory.

My system is superior to yours in every other way because it does not require rehosts, edits, and isn't clouded by battles half a world a way that have no impact on the theater in question.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nitrousoxide

Viceroys
Ryeassassin,Jun 14 2011
09:17 PM
Well make the rule that once you reach 100 percent war exhaustion u have 12 months to make major progress in expelling the occupying enemy . ( major progress to be decided by the gm).  if you don't make major progress then you have to surrender and give the enemy can demand up to 100  percent war score

My system is intended to codify something like this. I'd prefer to reduce the leeway that any GM has in deciding on this issue, aside from whether someone is abusing it, so that GM's themselves can't abuse the rule to favor their own alliances.


How about this, how about I make my proposal this:


1: If you hit 100 war exhaustion and following that you are unable to make significant progress recovering your lands within 12 months then you must peace out. Significant progress is defined as regaining at least half of your lost lands over a 12 month period. You must recover at least half of your lost territory every 12 months that you are at 100 war exhaustion otherwise you will be deemed to have not made significant progress in your war.

2: In the event the you are unable to regain half of your lost territory over that 12 month period described above this is to be considered a loss and the victor may force his opponent to accept his wargoals, however in no situation may the amount sought exceed 100 warscore.

3: If the territory controlled by the victor is minor (Example: only a few border provinces or only colonies) then only one low warscore state/colony which borders the victor's territory or which is a coastal state/colony may be sought.

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.

5: Parties are free to otherwise agree to any peace treaty without invoking the above rules and any such a peace treaty shall not limited by the above rules.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Beg_Birdal
Member Avatar

House of Lords
Nitrousoxide,Jun 14 2011
07:54 PM
Ryeassassin,Jun 14 2011
09:17 PM
Well make the rule that once you reach 100 percent war exhaustion u have 12 months to make major progress in expelling the occupying enemy . ( major progress to be decided by the gm).  if you don't make major progress then you have to surrender and give the enemy can demand up to 100  percent war score

My system is intended to codify something like this. I'd prefer to reduce the leeway that any GM has in deciding on this issue, aside from whether someone is abusing it, so that GM's themselves can't abuse the rule to favor their own alliances.


How about this, how about I make my proposal this:


1: If you hit 100 war exhaustion and following that you are unable to make significant progress recovering your lands within 12 months then you must peace out. Significant progress is defined as regaining at least half of your lost lands over a 12 month period. You must recover at least half of your lost territory every 12 months that you are at 100 war exhaustion otherwise you will be deemed to have not made significant progress in your war.

2: In the event the you are unable to regain half of your lost territory over that 12 month period described above this is to be considered a loss and the victor may force his opponent to accept his wargoals, however in no situation may the amount sought exceed 100 warscore.

3: If the territory controlled by the victor is minor (Example: only a few border provinces or only colonies) then only one low warscore state/colony which borders the victor's territory or which is a coastal state/colony may be sought.

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.

5: Parties are free to otherwise agree to any peace treaty without invoking the above rules and any such a peace treaty shall not limited by the above rules.

Perfect in my opp. I support this!! good job! Now we r talking..
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ryeassassin

House of Lords
Nitrousoxide,Jun 14 2011
07:54 PM

My system is intended to codify something like this. I'd prefer to reduce the leeway that any GM has in deciding on this issue, aside from whether someone is abusing it, so that GM's themselves can't abuse the rule to favor their own alliances.


How about this, how about I make my proposal this:


1: If you hit 100 war exhaustion and following that you are unable to make significant progress recovering your lands within 12 months then you must peace out. Significant progress is defined as regaining at least half of your lost lands over a 12 month period. You must recover at least half of your lost territory every 12 months that you are at 100 war exhaustion otherwise you will be deemed to have not made significant progress in your war.

2: In the event the you are unable to regain half of your lost territory over that 12 month period described above this is to be considered a loss and the victor may force his opponent to accept his wargoals, however in no situation may the amount sought exceed 100 warscore.

3: If the territory controlled by the victor is minor (Example: only a few border provinces or only colonies) then only one low warscore state/colony which borders the victor's territory or which is a coastal state/colony may be sought.

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.

5: Parties are free to otherwise agree to any peace treaty without invoking the above rules and any such a peace treaty shall not limited by the above rules.

I support this Rule as the best way to insure fairness

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The Professor

House of Lords
I feel that we shouldnt have double standards in the rules, if theres going to be a rule against breaking truces then it should apply to all cases.

5 I feel is extranous and unnessasary, the force peace rule should only have to deal with force peacing, that people not invoke the rule and thus not limited by it is obviously implicit.

I disagree with 3 as "minor" could still be of strategic importance, if you only control a few border provinces then either its the provinces occupied themselves (within an ingame wargoal) or a colony thats occupied (thats within an ingame war goal).

I also heavily disagree with (2) as it puts a disproportionate amount of responsibility to "win" on the defender and makes it too easy on the attacker to win wars, there should be an equal emphasis on attack and defense.

Under your rules IRL France would be forced to surrender to Germany by year two of WWI regardless of the fact that the Germans are incapable of offensive action or breaking the stalemate, a situation I consider the UK here analogous to.

Also I think the objections regarding the difficulty of force peacing an alliance leader to be nonsensical and ignores historical realism, realistically the BENEFIT of being a member of a coalition in a coalition struggle is that you don't have to struggle alone and your endurance factor is now an aggregate average of the healthiness and cooperation ability of the coalition as a whole.

Why SHOULD the USA be forced to peace out if its apparant that the UK is unable to win at other fronts and is in fact having difficulty maintaining its control of the high seas and fighting a significant number of industrialized states?

The argument that "They would totally surrender at this point!" ignores the very real life occurrences of when this DIDNT happen as expected, almost everyone considered the USSR would surrender within 9 months but they held out and fought on for years and eventually won, primarily because of the coalition nature of the struggle.

Thus, I say no change to the rules until after the current war is over and then add in new rules; its clear that its incredibly unfair if not metagaming to add in rules mid war, they should have been agreed upon prior to the war, and especially prior to the campaign starting, once again, had I known I would've sent another 100k troops to recover territory more quickly.

Thus all we need to do, is swap leadership from who your trying to peace out (USA to Russia) and then my rule can apply, if you have 40% warscore from occupation then you can force peace the USA out.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nitrousoxide

Viceroys
Unfortunately, Professor, my ruleset seems to be getting more approval than yours.

Also these rules would go into effect immediately, as I, and people here recognize that the US is being very stubborn in it's refusal to accept peace despite being beaten. However the timer would only start ticking at the start of the session so that the rule wouldn't be applied retroactively. The US would thus have 1 year to recover half of their lost land when the session starts, otherwise they will be required to peace out.

I can agree to changing the war leader as after a year here the US will likely have to peace out when they are likely unable to recover 1/2 of their lost lands, so switching warleaders via edit now will save us a bunch of trouble next session.

Should I delete and restart the vote given the changes suggested to the proposals? I would just want to get an official tally with the final drafts of the proposals. If you have any changes to yours feel free to forward them to me and I'll edit the OP to reflect it when I restart the poll.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theebum
Member Avatar

House of Commons
Question, was this half the territory the UK took before I started taking it back or half the territory the UK has now? haha

And I believe the politically correct term is nearly beaten :P

Not that it really matters at this point, negotiations seem rather promising.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nitrousoxide

Viceroys
theebum,Jun 14 2011
11:25 PM
Question, was this half the territory the UK took before I started taking it back or half the territory the UK has now? haha

And I believe the politically correct term is nearly beaten  :P

Not that it really matters at this point, negotiations seem rather promising.

I would say half of the territory at the final save from last session. I don't have any memory of what it was before that because I wasn't there for that session.

I do hope that you can work out an agreement without this rule having to be called upon. The rule is just supposed to be a last resort, not a substitute for diplomacy
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ssj18vegeta
Member Avatar

House of Commons
Nitrousoxide,Jun 15 2011
04:54 AM
1: If you hit 100 war exhaustion and following that you are unable to make significant progress recovering your lands within 12 months then you must peace out. Significant progress is defined as regaining at least half of your lost lands over a 12 month period. You must recover at least half of your lost territory every 12 months that you are at 100 war exhaustion otherwise you will be deemed to have not made significant progress in your war.

2: In the event the you are unable to regain half of your lost territory over that 12 month period described above this is to be considered a loss and the victor may force his opponent to accept his wargoals, however in no situation may the amount sought exceed 100 warscore.

3: If the territory controlled by the victor is minor (Example: only a few border provinces or only colonies) then only one low warscore state/colony which borders the victor's territory or which is a coastal state/colony may be sought.

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.

5: Parties are free to otherwise agree to any peace treaty without invoking the above rules and any such a peace treaty shall not limited by the above rules.

Me likey.

However, I don't like the truce rule (4). I think that if the victor is going to force peace someone, he should bare the risk of the defender attacking him again. Maybe we should shorten the period to a 1-2 years truce. And also just an 'attacking' truce. Otherwise a nation can go to war with the allies of the beaten nation without the risk of the latter responding to a call to arms (i.e. he can take most of their sphered nations and smaller allies).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dragonknight2

Viceroys
I agree that the winning nation shouldnt be able to go and kill spheres and such after a peace (should be dealt with in the 100 w/s peace and/or once they are peaced out)

However, the truce rule should stay, otherwise the forced peace is essentially worthless, the loser can just come back re-mobilised, and probably stronger to attack the winner.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The Professor

House of Lords
Nitrousoxide,Jun 14 2011
09:09 PM
Unfortunately, Professor, my ruleset seems to be getting more approval than yours. 

Also these rules would go into effect immediately, as I, and people here recognize that the US is being very stubborn in it's refusal to accept peace despite being beaten.  However the timer would only start ticking at the start of the session so that the rule wouldn't be applied retroactively.  The US would  thus have 1 year to recover half of their lost land when the session starts, otherwise they will be required to peace out.

I can agree to changing the war leader as after a year here the US will likely have to peace out when they are likely unable to recover 1/2 of their lost lands, so switching warleaders via edit now will save us a bunch of trouble next session.

Should I delete and restart the vote given the changes suggested to the proposals?  I would just want to get an official tally with the final drafts of the proposals.  If you have any changes to yours feel free to forward them to me and I'll edit the OP to reflect it when I restart the poll.

Lulz at the hypocrisy.


I would actually argue that there is no clear majority and not clear consensus on changing the rules mid campaign, so no changes to the rules.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nitrousoxide

Viceroys
:null:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nitrousoxide

Viceroys
The Professor,Jun 15 2011
08:59 AM
Nitrousoxide,Jun 14 2011
09:09 PM
Unfortunately, Professor, my ruleset seems to be getting more approval than yours. 

Also these rules would go into effect immediately, as I, and people here recognize that the US is being very stubborn in it's refusal to accept peace despite being beaten.  However the timer would only start ticking at the start of the session so that the rule wouldn't be applied retroactively.   The US would  thus have 1 year to recover half of their lost land when the session starts, otherwise they will be required to peace out.

I can agree to changing the war leader as after a year here the US will likely have to peace out when they are likely unable to recover 1/2 of their lost lands, so switching warleaders via edit now will save us a bunch of trouble next session.

Should I delete and restart the vote given the changes suggested to the proposals?  I would just want to get an official tally with the final drafts of the proposals.  If you have any changes to yours feel free to forward them to me and I'll edit the OP to reflect it when I restart the poll.

Lulz at the hypocrisy.


I would actually argue that there is no clear majority and not clear consensus on changing the rules mid campaign, so no changes to the rules.

There is a clear majority who feel that a rule change needs to be made. 90% of the people think so.

Of those that think a rule change is needed, 44% believe mine offers the best ruleset. (possibly more because I believe that at least one person who voted for "other" now supports mine) 33% believe that yours is the best

It would be a disingenuous to claim that no rule should be put into place here.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nitrousoxide

Viceroys
Well it seems like my proposal is the preferred one so that'll go into affect next session.

Luckily it seems as though everyone is peacing out for the previous war, so there won't be any issue with regard to applying it retroactively.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · The Gathering Storm 2 (Victoria II) · Next Topic »
Add Reply