| 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: |
| Enquiries regarding House Rules; Discuss Rules and Post Questions Here | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Oct 16 2013, 01:19 PM (1,390 Views) | |
| LotosSlayer | Oct 16 2013, 01:19 PM Post #1 |
![]()
|
House Rules have been posted. |
![]() |
|
| icendoan | Oct 16 2013, 03:23 PM Post #2 |
![]() ![]()
|
A couple of comments: Upon the loss of a battle, it's not always the case that my armies go where I send them. If they were to end up in neutral ground, after my opting for a retreat, the rules say that that army is no longer allowed to fight. Can I suggest alterations? Also, on lateness; if I'm going to be late at short notice, it will almost certainly be the case that I won't have time or ability to access a computer to notify the GM. How can this be resolved? |
![]() |
|
| am300307 | Oct 16 2013, 04:50 PM Post #3 |
![]() ![]()
|
The defender should win incase of a stalemate. |
![]() |
|
| Erthel | Oct 17 2013, 05:19 AM Post #4 |
![]()
|
About china, the rules seem a bit outdated:
Korea is already released in current version, while it remains allied with China (can we annex it aside of Japan?) There is now a button to remove from sphere, no need to require other GP to remove it. |
![]() |
|
| LotosSlayer | Oct 17 2013, 12:49 PM Post #5 |
![]()
|
True. Yes, anyone can annex Korea. |
![]() |
|
| DEFAULT | Oct 18 2013, 11:35 AM Post #6 |
![]()
|
I can understand not having a player as China but not being completely neutral. This rule has always been there as long as i've played, does anyone know why it came about? Nothing much ever seems to happen in Asia, i think opening up China might make it a bit more interesting.
I'm not sure this rule makes much sense. What is wrong with walking from home/allied territory to home/allied territory through a neutral?
Why does it matter that you are surrounded? Retreating more than one province that makes you magically immune from attack is still ridiculous whether surrounded or not.
I would add any player mistakes, I recall people wanting edits because they selected the wrong option in an event.
I'm not a fan of this rule either. I don't think you should be forced to surrender unless warscore is 100%
Maybe a percentage of current prestige would be better. -80 would be alot for some but not much others. However -50% would be serious for everyone.
Why do you have to have 100%? Anyone that doesn't will probably lose the war their in. I don't see why anyone would choose to do so but if they want to for some reason, why not? |
![]() |
|
| Magister Equitum | Oct 18 2013, 01:50 PM Post #7 |
![]()
|
The prohibition against annexing territory from China was first introduced, to my recollection, in The Gathering Storm (TGS) 4. While I am not aware of what occurred in TGS 3—which would give us some insight into the reasoning behind the rule—it is possible that repeated OOSes resulting from wars with China was the reason. As recently as Age of Industrialisation 8, OOSes were occurring on account of wars with China, hence rule 21 in AOI9:
In principle, I am all in favour of opening up more of China for annexation. I have spoken with Eidur in some detail about creating modifications that open up the historic Treaty Ports for foreign acquisition. Short of modifying the game file (as the creation of Treaty Ports seems to involve the creation of new states), I would not, in principle, be opposed to allowing Chinese coastal territories to be annexed. [align=center] [/align]Or evening allowing the sub-state of Xinjiang to be annexed (in much the same way as Korea, Manchuria, Tibet, Mongolia). Note: Xinjiang was in fact occupied by the Russians in 1871, but returned to China via the Treaty of St.Petersburg [align=center] [/align]However, while I think these additional annexations are good in principle, the fact that we have seen OOses when additional territory from China has been annexed, makes me hesitate to support these additional annexations in practice. |
![]() |
|
| Magister Equitum | Oct 18 2013, 02:10 PM Post #8 |
![]()
|
Yes. I agree. I think Rule 48 should be struck from the Rules. While I recognise the importance of preventing parties from attacking from neutral territory, I don’t see the need to prevent walking through neutral territory to move units as long as an attack into non-neutral territory is not being launched from the neutral territory. Ie.) In a France v. Prussia War, it would NOT be allowed for Prussia to march through Neutral Belgium to attack France. However, if Prussia had troops in Persia, it would be allowed for Prussia to march those troops through neutral Russia, into Prussia. Preventing attacks out of neutral territory, but allowing for movement between home territories through neutral territories actually encourages more diplomacy. In the example above, Prussia would have to discuss with Russia whether or not it would be allowed to march through Russian soil, for example.
I agree. I think the “surrounded” aspect of the rule was included because this sort of immune retreat has only been witnessed happening to surrounded units. (It happened twice in the Franco-Prussian War in AOI9.) I don’t think the player can actually control these “immune retreats.” So it’s not clear what should be done if this happens.
I agree. I’m not sure if the “mistake” edits were made during the AOI9 game. However, with regards to edits, However, in AOI8, edits were made when subs made orders that the main player disagreed with. (I don’t think that should be allowed.) Nevertheless, I think that some “mistakes” do happen and require edits. For example, Portugal was a human player in a game but the main player decided not to attend the session at the last minute. A sub was found by the G. I justified war on the sub. However, as my CB was processed, the GM decided to reassign the sub before I could declare my CB. Without a sub, Portugal was again under the protection of the rules. Therefore, my infamy had to be edited.
I disagree. For example, I don’t think that England should be forced to occupy all of France simply to gain French Madras. It is rare that players refuse to surrender when they have lost a war, since continuing the war leads to all sort of problems for the defeated country, not only in terms of potential additional war-goals but also war-exhaustion etc. Nevertheless, I think this rule is important to keep.
I agree. A percentage reduction (calculated at the time of the infraction) is better than a flat deduction.
I agree. I had this same discussion with Lotos. If people want to ruin their chances of winning a war, why stop them. Part of Lotos’ reasoning was that people will only fund their navies when in battle (rather than for the duration of the war.) I will let Lotos explain his reasoning more fully on this one. |
![]() |
|
| DEFAULT | Oct 18 2013, 04:13 PM Post #9 |
![]()
|
I can see how wars with China would cause OOS' because of the huge amounts of brigaes they can build. However if they are annexed by different countries they would be colonies and so the amount of brigades you could make is alot less than the Chinese themselves not to mention no ability to mobilise. If British Bombay doesn't cause OOS' then why would Spanish Shanghai? I would just like something to happen in Asia.
As far as i'm aware you can retreat to any province you control and have access to. Whilst retreating you cannot be touched so your enemy cannot chase you to destruction. It should always be only retreat one province, if you are surrounded then you cannot retreat and are destroyed.
I meant in terms of nation ruining where you can be completely occupied and forced to surrender even if you have allies that are on the way to save you. Your example would be covered by rules 39 and 40 on colonial wars. Being alone in a war and completely occupied and refusing to surrender is clearly nation ruining but being completely occupied in a war where you have allies trying to help clearly isn't. Even though the effect on your nation is exactly the same.
It takes quite a while to build your organisation back up so it's not entirely risk free and if you are at war with a country that has no navy whats wrong with not funding it. Your enemy isn't funding anything either because they don't have anything.
I mean where edit is happening because of the players fault for doing something wrong in game. You didn't do anything wrong in your example as the rules, regarding Portugal, were changed by the GM while justifying. Had you starting justifying after Portugal was protected then it would have been your fault and no edits would be deserved. I mean mistakes like choosing the wrong option in an event or demobilising in the middle of a war. Both of which in previous games have been edited or gone to an earlier save to fix and really shouldn't be. |
![]() |
|
| DEFAULT | Oct 18 2013, 04:32 PM Post #10 |
![]()
|
This is what I was refering to about player mistakes being reason for edits. I can't think of what is meant by glitches but if you want to push the limit by having 24 infamy then you run the risk of getting an event that adds some more and puts you over the limit. Everyone knows these events exist and everyone knows about the 25 infamy limit. If you want to risk it by going up to 24.99 infamy that is your choice and should the event fire at that moment making you go over 25 that is your fault. 99% of the time you'll be fine but if you are very unlucky then take the 50 prestige penalty and move on. Hopefully we will have land edits between sessions so no more fake wars causing problems. |
![]() |
|
| Magister Equitum | Oct 18 2013, 04:39 PM Post #11 |
![]()
|
Good point. While I am not convinced by your opinion as yet, I have indicated above that in principle I am not against the idea of opening more of China. Not that it matters what I think, really. I don’t make the rules.
I agree. Retreats—understood as the withdrawal of units from a conflict at a time when they are untouchable—should be limited to one province. (Withdrawing units when they are open to attack is a separate matter)
I agree. Nations occupied but with allies fighting a war (and potentially winning) shouldn’t be forced to sign peace. While I am ok with leaving these situations to the GM’s discretion—even though I prefer not to leave as little as possible to GM discretion—it would be useful to have a response from Lotos on this questions.
I agree.
I agree. Mistakes should not be edited. |
![]() |
|
| Magister Equitum | Oct 18 2013, 05:01 PM Post #12 |
![]()
|
Proposed Rule Revisions:
Proposal that rule is revised to: Edits are at the discretion of the GM. Mistakes, Bankruptcies, prestige loss for unanswered alliance calls etc. are not reasons for edits, re-hosts or other actions to reverse the course of the game.
Remove “when an army is surrounded” and “this is to prevent the exploitation of the encircling battle tactic.” The rule should read: 52. No retreating more than one province from a battle. (Retreating is understood at the movement of units during which time the game mechanics prevent them from being attacked.)
This rule should be struck out completely. |
![]() |
|
| Erthel | Oct 19 2013, 02:16 AM Post #13 |
![]()
|
About China: in PDM, there is a great series of events involving a lot of small coastal provinces (The Unequal Treaties) that allow any nation to force port cession from china (along with a nice economic reparation). It is great, because there are 10 or so possible provinces for this. The problem, still, are the possible OOS. |
![]() |
|
| Magister Equitum | Oct 19 2013, 10:54 AM Post #14 |
![]()
|
NICE! Will have to check out their game files to see how it was made. I've wanted this feature for a long time. I wish PDM was stable for multi-player. |
![]() |
|
| Erthel | Oct 19 2013, 10:57 AM Post #15 |
![]()
|
I'm trying to savage a few things from PDM for a vanilla/lightweight adaptation, but economic and balance ties make it somewhat difficult
|
![]() |
|
| Magister Equitum | Oct 20 2013, 11:32 PM Post #16 |
![]()
|
Rule Revisions: Following fruitful discussion on this thread, the following rules have been revised: 10. Bankruptcy & unanswered alliance calls are not a reason to create a prestige edit, rehost, or any other action to reverse it. If it happens, do not ask. Changed to: 10. Edits are at the discretion of the GM. Mistakes, Bankruptcies, prestige loss for unanswered alliance calls etc. are not reasons for edits, re-hosts or other actions to reverse the course of the game. Added: 21a. Existing alliances are to be made clear on countries' embassies and are to be updated each session. Renewals of existing alliances are likewise to be made clear with all parties indicating their renewal through communication on the forum. Alliances not clearly renewed, are considered to have expired after a session. 22. Dishonouring an Alliance will carry the penalty of -40 points of the violator’s prestige Changed to: 22. Dishonouring an Alliance will carry the penalty of -20% points of the violator’s prestige. Note: Rule 24 ("A violation of an Alliance occurs if the conditions specified in the treaty are met and member refuses to act upon the agreed terms.") included in Rule 22a. 23. After 1880, the penalty for Dishonouring an Alliance will carry the penalty of -80 points of the violator’s prestige. Changed to: 23. Documents contracted between players requiring a time-limit Example: Non-aggression pacts) are only valid for one session and my be renewed each session if so desired. a. A violation of documents other than alliances may stipulate their own penalties in the document's text 24. A violation of an Alliance occurs if the conditions specified in the treaty are met and member refuses to act upon the agreed terms. Changed to: 24. Whereas alliances may be agreed to and stated on countries' embassies, treaties other than alliances require a separate thread. Example: a post on the forum with the treaty's name. Ie. "Treaty of Paris") 47. No attacks from, or retreats to, may be made from neutral nations and their territories that are not currently in a player versus player war. Armies that retreat to neutral territories in these wars are considered to be "interned" and may not leave that territory until the end of the war. Changed to: 47. You may not enter or leave a country you are at war with through neutral territory in a player versus player war. Units retreating to neutral territory by accident must return to home territory or the territory of allies participating in the war on their side, before re-entering the conflict. Example: France and Belgium v. Prussia. French troops retreat to the Netherlands (Neutral). French troops must move either to Belgian or French territory before re-entering the conflict. 48.Troops passing into neutral territory must return to the most appropriate home/allied territory. For example in a French/British war, French troops cannot walk from France through neutral territory to French colonies then attack from these French colonies. Changed to: 48. Troops going between home territories may pass through neutral territories 52. When an army is surrounded, no retreating more than one province from a battle. This is to prevent exploitation of the encircling battle tactic. Changed to: 52. No retreating more than one province from a battle. (Retreating is understood at the movement of units during which time the game mechanics prevent them from being attacked.) |
![]() |
|
| Erthel | Oct 21 2013, 03:28 PM Post #17 |
![]()
|
About china again:
Currently, Mongolia and Manchuria are considered substates and so cannot be freed from China. Korea is independent (as stated before), and only tibet is considered a satellite/puppet and can be freed. This said, are we allowed to annex Mongolia and Manchuria through acquire substate region CB? I think this might be overpowered for Russia (I'm playing Russia) as I could add a load of manpower anexing those regions, and take about 1/3 of China area. A proposal for the reform of this rule would be: 60. China and its sub-states are considered to be neutral territory in the game. They may not be attacked or sphered except in the following circumstances: a. Any nation may attack China to force the release its puppets (Tibet), or release Manchuria and Mongolia when China is unified. b. Attacking China to acquire any/all of the 'Hong Kong and Macao', Port Arthur ("Chinese Manzhouli"), or 'Formosa' regions is permitted. c. The sub-states of Mongolia & Manchuria are now annexable by any player, as long as they're independent nations (usually after they civilize or get released after Chinese reunification). I think this could end easily in a more historical result, where Manchuria is in the Japanese sphere or even a puppet after its release from a civilized and convulsed China, and Mongolia rather in Russian sphere after releasing it than totally invaded and green. |
![]() |
|
| SchFerreira | Oct 24 2013, 12:44 PM Post #18 |
![]()
|
Does this mean that it is not allowed for any CAP to form an alliance with any other CAP, or merely that the 5 CAP cannot all be part of one single alliance? |
![]() |
|
| Magister Equitum | Oct 24 2013, 12:52 PM Post #19 |
![]()
|
I believe it means that all Class A powers cannot be allied with one another. Meaning, France and Prussia could not participate on the same side of a given war. (However, these rules do not apply in Crisis Wars and Great Wars.) |
![]() |
|
| rorlegion | Oct 24 2013, 03:52 PM Post #20 |
![]()
|
I am unclear on rules 47 and 52. Rule 47: No attacks from, or retreats to, may be made from neutral nations and their territories that are not currently in a player versus player war. Armies that retreat to neutral territories in these wars are considered to be "interned" and may not leave that territory until the end of the war. ^Does this mean that I cannot station troops in an AI-allied country and attack from that AI-allied country? For example, if I am playing as Prussia in a war of France vs. Prussia where Belgium is my ally but is not at war with France, would I be forbidden from having troops stationed in Belgium attacking France? Rule 52: No retreating more than one province from a battle. (Retreating is understood at the movement of units during which time the game mechanics prevent them from being attacked.) ^Does this mean I cannot retreat troops more than one province? For example in the aforementioned hypothetical war, if France defeated my Prussian troops in battle, would I be forbidden from moving those defeated troops out of combat on the Franco-Prussian border to say, Berlin? Or does this mean that France cannot chase my defeated troops all the way to Berlin if I decide to retreat there? I am unclear on how this rule functions. Thank you for any clarifications you can provide. |
![]() |
|
| Seleukos | Oct 24 2013, 04:07 PM Post #21 |
![]() ![]()
|
Regarding rule 47: No, you cannot attack through neutral nations. Only way this would imply is if (using your example) Belgium was also involved in that EXACT war on your side. Regarding rule 52: If an army is defeated in battle, you cannot have a army (using your example) go from Strasbourg straight to Berlin. But once those units are fully retreated from the battle and have normal function again, they can be moved to wherever you wish. |
![]() |
|
| Magister Equitum | Oct 24 2013, 04:15 PM Post #22 |
![]()
|
Yes. Rule 47 means that you cannot attack from or retreat to territories not involved in the conflict. The purpose of this rule is to prevent instances where one player can hide safely behind the borders of a particular country and be invulnerable to attack.
Yes. It means that you're troops cannot retreat more than one province. Retreating is the time when there is a silver arrow line showing where your troops are moving. (When this is occurring the game mechanics prevent your troops from being attacked.) The purpose of this rule is to prevent players from using defeat in battle and retreats to give their units immunity while moving around the map during wars. Retreating Unit: [align=center] [/align]Retreating is different from what we'll call withdrawing, where you actively order your troops to move to a different position. This appears as a yellow arrow line. Withdrawing is like a regular movement, meaning that the game mechanics allow your troops to be attacked while in the process of withdrawing. Moving Unit: [align=center] [/align] |
![]() |
|
| rorlegion | Oct 24 2013, 04:48 PM Post #23 |
![]()
|
Magister, Thank you for your quick response and detailed explanation. As my understanding goes: 1. If an AI ally is involved in the conflict, I may attack from my AI ally's lands. 2. Encircling tactics are allowed to defeat an enemy army. 3. I can chase a retreating army until it is destroyed. |
![]() |
|
| Magister Equitum | Oct 24 2013, 05:06 PM Post #24 |
![]()
|
1. Yes. 2. Yes. 3. Yes.
You're most welcome. ![]() This is the first time a rule set with this level of detail is being tried[1] so it's a learning process for all of us. I'm happy to clarify questions about the rules. (And if I don't know, I will bug Lotos until he provides an answer.) On the whole, the purpose of the rules Lotos has in place for this game is to encourage diplomacy on the forums. [1] Although the specific retreating rule has been implemented before |
![]() |
|
| Erthel | Oct 24 2013, 05:11 PM Post #25 |
![]()
|
Actually I'm enyoing diplomacy so much that the game seems a secondary matter
|
![]() |
|
| Magister Equitum | Oct 24 2013, 05:14 PM Post #26 |
![]()
|
Same.
|
![]() |
|
| rorlegion | Oct 24 2013, 05:36 PM Post #27 |
![]()
|
I have another question, this time concerning Rules 30 and 34. Rule 30:In order to encourage in-character communication during the session, players are expected to issue a formal declaration of war 60 seconds before declaring war upon another human participant. Formal declarations of war may be delivered by a typed message through in-game chat with 5 stars before and 5 stars after the text. (ie. ***** France declares war on UK*****) Rule 34:Declarations of War must include the war-goals of the attacking party. (Ie. *****France declare war on the UK for South Bengal, North Bengal*****) As I am playing as the USA in the coming match, I will almost immediately be in conflict with human-controlled Mexico for Texan independence. I am concerned with the timing of declaring war and what I should state as the war-goal. The problem deals with "Friendly" status with lesser nations - I wish to "intervene" in the war between Texas and Mexico. 1. Must I make a declare war announcement against Mexico and wait 60 seconds before intervening? 2. If so, and I make the declare war announcement, what happens if I am unable to actually declare war due to the war going in Texas's favor (leaving me unable to "intervene" until Mexico takes some Texan territory)? 3. How should I phrase my declare war announcement? Is this sufficient: *****USA declares war on Mexico for Status Quo***** As always, thank you for any clarification you can provide. |
![]() |
|
| SchFerreira | Oct 24 2013, 05:54 PM Post #28 |
![]()
|
I'm guessing that since pretty much everybody knows what's coming, and you will indeed be in conflict pretty much from the start, you can just declare war on their embassy or whatever. |
![]() |
|
| Magister Equitum | Oct 24 2013, 07:47 PM Post #29 |
![]()
|
Notes on the Treaty of Corsica OOC NOTE:
Treaties are valid for a session (approximately 10 in-game years). While treaty can create obligations beyond the session period, these obligations would only be valid if they treaty is constantly renewed. This means that Two Sicilies would only be obligated to enact Cavour's Diplomacy for as long as the treaty was valid. Similarly, this treaty would only obligate Two Sicilies to dissolve her absolute monarchy if the treaty was valid. In any session before 1860, Two Sicilies could refuse the renew this treaty and would no longer be obliged to comply with the terms (as the treaty would be invalid) The purpose of this rule, to my understanding, is to prevent parties from signing documents that span beyond the duration of a session. A document with obligations in 1860, for example, is attempting to create legal obligations almost two and a half decades into the future. |
![]() |
|
| LotosSlayer | Oct 24 2013, 07:52 PM Post #30 |
![]()
|
That was only supposed to be for alliances and NAPs. Gunna consider what to do with the rule. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Age of Diplomacy (AOD.I) · Next Topic » |











[/align]
[/align]

[/align]
[/align]

1:51 AM Jul 11