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
Enquiries regarding House Rules; Discuss Rules and Post Questions Here
Topic Started: Oct 16 2013, 01:19 PM (1,393 Views)
DEFAULT

House of Commons
LotosSlayer,Nov 16 2013
01:23 PM
Yeah, something will have to be done about this. Tell me what you lost in the war, Peru, and how much prestige you lost.


The region of Arequipa and prestige I don't know but I would guess about 10ish.

LotosSlayer,Oct 12 2013
04:46 PM
Rule Infractions
61. Each rule infraction shall come with the following penalties:
a. A base deduction of 50 prestige points
b. A treasury penalty up to 4 months of income @ maximized taxes, to be redistributed equally to all other players in the game who did not break the rule.

The GM will enforce an alternative prestige penalty of approximately 30% if the nation in question has less than 51 prestige. The 30% penalty may also be applied in lieu of the base deduction if it would be a greater penalty and the GM feels that the rule violation was particularly severe or deliberate. After 3 infractions or at any time pursuant to other rules, the GM may remove any player from the game or reassign him to a smaller nation and that decision will be final.


As for this, does everyone get one free rule breach or...?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SchFerreira
Member Avatar

House of Commons
Quote:
 
Alliance Limitations
Note: Great Wars and Crisis Wars are not subject to the Alliance rules.

14.The Top-5 Military Powers (Class A Powers) cannot be allied to one another.

15.In 1880, Class A powers will be defined as the Top-6 Military Powers.

16.Military power class is calculated by ranking all human player countries in order of soldier population.

17.Military power class is calculated and published prior to each session and remains in place for the duration of the session.

18.Japan will not be included in the Class A ranking, even if qualified to be placed therein, until 1880.


This means that when Great Wars are in play, it is ok for class A powers to be allied to one another, right? But what if a Great War begins, with only one CAP per side, say Germany and France. The prohibition for, say, the UK and Germany forming an alliance is no longer in place, but can they form an alliance right then -- or the UK just join the war, without a forum alliance? Because if the rule against non-forum alliances stays the same, Great Wars wont mean anything anyways.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
philly_boy
Member Avatar

House of Commons
DEFAULT,Nov 16 2013
05:33 PM
LotosSlayer,Nov 16 2013
01:23 PM
Yeah, something will have to be done about this. Tell me what you lost in the war, Peru, and how much prestige you lost.


The region of Arequipa and prestige I don't know but I would guess about 10ish.


I accept full responsibility for this oversight with regards to the rules. I have already offered £10,000 from Chile's treasury as compensation for this violation of the rules if it will help settle the issue as it is a first violation and the GM said at the time they would not punish Chile for a first offence.

Giving Arequipa back to Peru would, in my view, be unfair. Even if Chile had not requested help from Brazil, its army is still larger than that of Peru. Not to mention that Chile has more military techs than Brazil, let alone Peru. If anything, Brazil's contribution to the war (on the Peruvian front) was negative as it lost the first (and only) battle fought before the hasty peace (it had more success against Argentina). It was Chile that began to occupy Peru and raised the warscore. At the time of the invasion, Peru did not have a standing army, its force is made up of conscripts.* It is also worth remembering that Arequipa is a Chilean core as well as a Peruvian one and that Chile consulted with a number of powers before declaring war on Peru. We enquired if anyone was going to protect Peru, and we were told that Peru's isolation from global politics is Peru's own fault.

*I think this is the case, I cannot remember if at the time of the invasion Peru had started to create an army, however I remember that for the majority of the game Peru's military score has been 0. In its invasion of Bolivia it utilised an army made up exclusively of conscripts from what I can tell.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
LotosSlayer

House of Lords
I'll make a ruling soon, but I think you're gunna have to give the state back, Chile. If you say you would've beaten Peru, that's hearsay, or whatever the word is for it. Most logical thing so far seems to be to give the state back. You also had a rule infraction before this one, too.

UK - Put your stockpile spending above 50% right when the next session starts. This is your final and only warning.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
LotosSlayer

House of Lords
Correction.. UK, Netherlands, Spain, Italy, OE, Brazil, Mexico, USA, Chile, Peru, USA, put your stockpiles to 50% right away at the start of the session, and keep it above 50%, I'll checking all the saves.

Props to Austria, NGF, Russia for remembering.

This is the last warning for any rule breaks.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
al3xytp

House of Commons
LotosSlayer,Nov 17 2013
09:06 AM
Correction.. UK, Netherlands, Spain, Italy, OE, Brazil, Mexico, USA, Chile, Peru, USA, put your stockpiles to 50% right away at the start of the session, and keep it above 50%, I'll checking all the saves.

Props to Austria, NGF, Russia for remembering.

This is the last warning for any rule breaks.

I can't remember what "Stockpile" is (yeah, sometimes I just forget everything). You're talking about the military and navy expenses ?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Magister Equitum

Field Marshals
LotosSlayer,Nov 17 2013
09:06 AM
Props to Austria, NGF, Russia for remembering.

I don't understand this sentence. Props? (is this some sort of theatre reference?)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
DEFAULT

House of Commons
philly_boy,Nov 17 2013
10:03 AM
DEFAULT,Nov 16 2013
05:33 PM
LotosSlayer,Nov 16 2013
01:23 PM
Yeah, something will have to be done about this. Tell me what you lost in the war, Peru, and how much prestige you lost.


The region of Arequipa and prestige I don't know but I would guess about 10ish.


I accept full responsibility for this oversight with regards to the rules. I have already offered £10,000 from Chile's treasury as compensation for this violation of the rules if it will help settle the issue as it is a first violation and the GM said at the time they would not punish Chile for a first offence.

Giving Arequipa back to Peru would, in my view, be unfair. Even if Chile had not requested help from Brazil, its army is still larger than that of Peru. Not to mention that Chile has more military techs than Brazil, let alone Peru. If anything, Brazil's contribution to the war (on the Peruvian front) was negative as it lost the first (and only) battle fought before the hasty peace (it had more success against Argentina). It was Chile that began to occupy Peru and raised the warscore. At the time of the invasion, Peru did not have a standing army, its force is made up of conscripts.* It is also worth remembering that Arequipa is a Chilean core as well as a Peruvian one and that Chile consulted with a number of powers before declaring war on Peru. We enquired if anyone was going to protect Peru, and we were told that Peru's isolation from global politics is Peru's own fault.

*I think this is the case, I cannot remember if at the time of the invasion Peru had started to create an army, however I remember that for the majority of the game Peru's military score has been 0. In its invasion of Bolivia it utilised an army made up exclusively of conscripts from what I can tell.

I had 9 brigades, you had about 11 I think. I am defending my own country, which is mostly mountains. I would have to seriously fuck up to lose to you alone. It was Brazil's 24 brigades, and probably 20 more if they mobilised, which made me have to surrender.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Magister Equitum

Field Marshals
DEFAULT,Nov 17 2013
03:44 PM
I would have to seriously fuck up to lose to you alone.

To quote falloutboy14: "language!"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
icendoan
Member Avatar

House of Commons
Magister Equitum,Nov 17 2013
06:46 PM
LotosSlayer,Nov 17 2013
09:06 AM
Props to Austria, NGF, Russia for remembering.

I don't understand this sentence. Props? (is this some sort of theatre reference?)

It just means 'well done'.

Sure I'll stick my maintenance to 50%. Is there a reason for 50%? I think I'm currently at 30% for both, but we'll see. It could become really quite expensive. :(
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Otto of England
The Free State of Kiev
Viceroys
Wait does both the army and navy have to be 50% or just army?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SchFerreira
Member Avatar

House of Commons
Am I not at 100% on both army and navy?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Erthel
Member Avatar

House of Commons
I'm at 100% for the war with China, but I've maintained it at 50% for most of the last 2 sessions.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
rorlegion
Member Avatar

House of Commons
LotosSlayer,Nov 17 2013
09:06 AM
Correction.. UK, Netherlands, Spain, Italy, OE, Brazil, Mexico, USA, Chile, Peru, USA, put your stockpiles to 50% right away at the start of the session, and keep it above 50%, I'll checking all the saves.

Props to Austria, NGF, Russia for remembering.

This is the last warning for any rule breaks.

My stockpile spending is at 100% - what's the warning for??
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SchFerreira
Member Avatar

House of Commons
SchFerreira,Nov 16 2013
05:43 PM
Quote:
 
Alliance Limitations
Note: Great Wars and Crisis Wars are not subject to the Alliance rules.

14.The Top-5 Military Powers (Class A Powers) cannot be allied to one another.

15.In 1880, Class A powers will be defined as the Top-6 Military Powers.

16.Military power class is calculated by ranking all human player countries in order of soldier population.

17.Military power class is calculated and published prior to each session and remains in place for the duration of the session.

18.Japan will not be included in the Class A ranking, even if qualified to be placed therein, until 1880.


This means that when Great Wars are in play, it is ok for class A powers to be allied to one another, right? But what if a Great War begins, with only one CAP per side, say Germany and France. The prohibition for, say, the UK and Germany forming an alliance is no longer in place, but can they form an alliance right then -- or the UK just join the war, without a forum alliance? Because if the rule against non-forum alliances stays the same, Great Wars wont mean anything anyways.

Lotos you never answered my question :(

I'm thinking if the rule could work the following way:

Since the restriction on alliances between Class A powers doesn't apply during Great Wars, could for instance two Class A powers sign an alliance that would only be valid should a Great War erupt? Say France and UK sign a defensive/offensive alliance, but France gets into a war with Sweden, and it doesn't turn into a GW. Obviously, UK can't intervene. Then France gets into a war with the German Empire, and it does turn into a GW. In that case the alliance comes into play.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Magister Equitum

Field Marshals
The rules explain that when two Class A powers are at war, a third Class A power cannot attack either of the two.

What happens to countries that entered a war as a non-Class A power but have become Class A powers over the course of a session?

For example, the U.S.A was not a Class A power for the previous session, but now is a Class A power.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Magister Equitum

Field Marshals
Quote:
 
14. The Top-5 Military Powers (Class A Powers) cannot be allied to one another.


Recommended Addendum:
14.
a. Countries not listed as Class A Powers are considered Class B powers
b. If a Class B Power is involved in a war, and the war carried over a session, during which time the Class B Power has become a Class A Power, the country will be considered as a Class B power for conflicts in which it has been participating prior to attaining Class A status.

Example:

U.K (Class A) + U.S.A (Class B ) v. Russia (Class A)

The U.S.A becomes a Class A Power. However, for the above war, the U.S.A would still be considered a Class B power for the purpose of the conflict.

France (Class A) + Spain (Class B ) + Italy (Class B ) v. U.S.A (Class B )

The U.S.A, although a Class A power, would be considered a Class B power for the purpose of this conflict.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Erthel
Member Avatar

House of Commons
I'd leave it for the USA to decide if they want to be considered class A or B for the span of those wars (afther they're over, USA would obviously be Class A).

If he decides to become Class A from the start, they'd be forced to leave the Persian war, but could keep on Panama war unmolested by other Class A powers. If they decide to stay as Class B until those conflicts are decided, then they could remain in the Persian war, and any other Class A power could bully them around.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Magister Equitum

Field Marshals
Situations where Class B Powers become Class A powers while involve a war that spans across sessions will likely be rare. However, if players are to decide their status without predetermined rules, there needs to be some sort of deadline by which their status is determined.

A country’s status has significant implications for game diplomacy. Given what seems to be a trend for last minute declarations, alliances, etc. Allowing countries to wait until the eleventh-hour to declare something as central as their status as either Class A or Class B shouldn’t be yet another means of last-minute “diplomacy.”
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Erthel
Member Avatar

House of Commons
Maybe just consider it Class A for any future war declaration, but Class B for dragged wars from previous session.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
icendoan
Member Avatar

House of Commons
I read it as "A Class A power cannot enter a war involving two Class A powers", which implies that even if you become a Class A power during the war, as you're not entering it, that's OK.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Erthel
Member Avatar

House of Commons
That makes sense
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
LotosSlayer

House of Lords
Just some new rules/mod features I'll be implementing for the next MP after this one is finished(there will be more than these obviously).

Rules:

- You can only build forts in provinces bordering other nations.
- No NFing soldiers in India(except states that start independent and aren't puppeted by the UK, like Sindh)


Mod features:

- Ukranian and Byelorussian will be removed from Russia's accepted cultures.
- Czech will be added to Austria-Hungary's accepted culture(unless I play Austria, don't want people to start ignorantly complaining about the GM trying to benefit himself -_-)
- Players will be able to switch their capital(once every 3 sessions), although they will have to be reasonable choices approved by the GM, and some countries will have more restrictions than others. For example, France and the OE likely won't be able to change their capitals, however Germany can switch their capital to cities like Munich, Frankfurt, Cologne, Hamburg, or the US can switch to New York, Phillidelphia, Richmond, Chicago, etc. Russia to Moscow, Tsaritsyn, Omsk, etc. It has to make sense. This will be done via edits.


I also might make great wars come earlier, like 1890, or loosening alliance restrictions earlier, among other things.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
rorlegion
Member Avatar

House of Commons
LotosSlayer,Dec 7 2013
05:19 PM
- You can only build forts in provinces bordering other nations.

Sounds good. What about building forts along shorelines? That's sort of like a border.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Crimdal

House of Lords
LotosSlayer,Dec 7 2013
05:19 PM

- You can only build forts in provinces bordering other nations.
- No NFing soldiers in India(except states that start independent and aren't puppeted by the UK, like Sindh)

Is this a joke? Because if so it's not a funny one. What Kind of idiot doesn't build forts elsewhere besides their border and why wouldn't indian states be able to encourage soldiers?

While you probably think these changes well help 'balance' the game most changes to mods like adding accepted culture and putting limitations on certain countries that have no effect on others (why not make it so everyone can't encourage soldiers in colonies or something universal instead of trying to fuck over whoever owns England, the game is named after their most favorite queen and you are trying to nerf India).

I'm sure you won't be bummed to hear I won't be signing up if you change those rules unless you are picking England.

Also not being able to build forts where you want, especially on coastal provinces and land near a border is beyond retarded.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
LotosSlayer

House of Lords
Crimdal,Dec 7 2013
05:42 PM
LotosSlayer,Dec 7 2013
05:19 PM

- You can only build forts in provinces bordering other nations.
- No NFing soldiers in India(except states that start independent and aren't puppeted by the UK, like Sindh)

Is this a joke? Because if so it's not a funny one. What Kind of idiot doesn't build forts elsewhere besides their border and why wouldn't indian states be able to encourage soldiers?

While you probably think these changes well help 'balance' the game most changes to mods like adding accepted culture and putting limitations on certain countries that have no effect on others (why not make it so everyone can't encourage soldiers in colonies or something universal instead of trying to fuck over whoever owns England, the game is named after their most favorite queen and you are trying to nerf India).

I'm sure you won't be bummed to hear I won't be signing up if you change those rules unless you are picking England.

Also not being able to build forts where you want, especially on coastal provinces and land near a border is beyond retarded.

I value your opinion so much, Crimdal!

Legion: Shoreline is probably a good idea too, maybe even 1 fort per state(for any state except shorelines and bordering provinces).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Crimdal

House of Lords
LotosSlayer,Dec 7 2013
05:47 PM
Crimdal,Dec 7 2013
05:42 PM
LotosSlayer,Dec 7 2013
05:19 PM

- You can only build forts in provinces bordering other nations.
- No NFing soldiers in India(except states that start independent and aren't puppeted by the UK, like Sindh)

Is this a joke? Because if so it's not a funny one. What Kind of idiot doesn't build forts elsewhere besides their border and why wouldn't indian states be able to encourage soldiers?

While you probably think these changes well help 'balance' the game most changes to mods like adding accepted culture and putting limitations on certain countries that have no effect on others (why not make it so everyone can't encourage soldiers in colonies or something universal instead of trying to fuck over whoever owns England, the game is named after their most favorite queen and you are trying to nerf India).

I'm sure you won't be bummed to hear I won't be signing up if you change those rules unless you are picking England.

Also not being able to build forts where you want, especially on coastal provinces and land near a border is beyond retarded.

I value your opinion so much, Crimdal!

Legion: Shoreline is probably a good idea too, maybe even 1 fort per state(for any state except shorelines and bordering provinces).

you act like you don't but I know you do.

What about Indian colonies that become states? They would be civilized then right? Wouldn't it make sense to be able to encourage soldiers after they become civilized?

In the Age of Empire game it's 1867 and I haven't used any NF on India yet, don't think I want to arm the pissed off people I have over there, but if I turn any of them into states later it wouldn't be a bad idea to encourage soldier pops there, and it seems like a historical time for the Empire to start encouraging in a region after it becomes a State.


Also 1 fort (you can level up the forst past lvl 1 right?) per state not on a border sounds good.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Erthel
Member Avatar

House of Commons
Instead of that, take any mod that adds an inbetween unit between irregulars and infantry for non-accepted pops. Problem solved.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
rorlegion
Member Avatar

House of Commons
Erthel,Dec 7 2013
06:24 PM
Instead of that, take any mod that adds an inbetween unit between irregulars and infantry for non-accepted pops. Problem solved.

I believe this is the ideal solution. Non-accepted pop soldiers deserve a nerf.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
DEFAULT

House of Commons
LotosSlayer,Dec 7 2013
08:19 PM
Just some new rules/mod features I'll be implementing for the next MP after this one is finished(there will be more than these obviously).

Rules:

- You can only build forts in provinces bordering other nations.
- No NFing soldiers in India(except states that start independent and aren't puppeted by the UK, like Sindh)


Mod features:

- Ukranian and Byelorussian will be removed from Russia's accepted cultures.
- Czech will be added to Austria-Hungary's accepted culture(unless I play Austria, don't want people to start ignorantly complaining about the GM trying to benefit himself -_-)
- Players will be able to switch their capital(once every 3 sessions), although they will have to be reasonable choices approved by the GM, and some countries will have more restrictions than others. For example, France and the OE likely won't be able to change their capitals, however Germany can switch their capital to cities like Munich, Frankfurt, Cologne, Hamburg, or the US can switch to New York, Phillidelphia, Richmond, Chicago, etc. Russia to Moscow, Tsaritsyn, Omsk, etc. It has to make sense. This will be done via edits.


I also might make great wars come earlier, like 1890, or loosening alliance restrictions earlier, among other things.


What if you build a fort that is at the border then the border moves. For example, most Prussian states border German minors at the start, what happens to the forts built there after unification.

I have no idea why you would add Czech as an accepted culture and what that would add to the game.

If a country moves their capital to the Americas/Oceania they will then get the immigration bonus so you probably shouldn't allow that.

After the colonisation of Africa, all the additional resources this adds to the market and the advent of Dye factories causes mass unemployment in India. The unemployed farmers will demote to soldiers upto the 5% maximum whether you NF or not. I did suggest before this game opening up China to colonisation. Then if other countries have a few Chinese states it will make British India less overpowering by comparison.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Age of Diplomacy (AOD.I) · Next Topic »
Add Reply