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
Looking Ahead/General Discussion
Topic Started: Jan 16 2015, 02:40 PM (3,579 Views)
Yenzen
Member Avatar

House of Commons
What? Oh frick, we haven't changed the clock yet so I had no idea. I'm going to suspect it's the same for others.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Crimdal

House of Lords
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-31800580 Spain is on it's way to be a rival of this nation. Population 2.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
icendoan
Member Avatar

House of Commons
Crimdal,Mar 10 2015
07:47 AM
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-31800580 Spain is on it's way to be a rival of this nation. Population 2.

Kristjan, can I get this as a releasable nation? I want to have Achzivland as a puppet.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
am300307
Member Avatar

House of Commons
When I get time I will find out how much prestige I have to transfer for the fake real war vs UK over Guam. Ive got a save of the second host and a couple days after the war happened.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Crimdal

House of Lords
icendoan,Mar 10 2015
03:13 AM
Crimdal,Mar 10 2015
07:47 AM
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-31800580    Spain is on it's way to be a rival of this nation. Population 2.

Kristjan, can I get this as a releasable nation? I want to have Achzivland as a puppet.

That guy is a bad ass huh ice?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Crimdal

House of Lords
Can you open edit requests? I need to send 1 million pounds to russia.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Felicity
Member Avatar
cutest
Viceroys
Done, apologies.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kristjan
Member Avatar
Administrator
Head Administrator
Gentlemen, my apologies for the profane outburst which occurred towards the end of the previous session. It was an unacceptable public reaction for a GM to use, on the subject of a legitimately frustrating game matter involving his nation.

Also, I posted the updated EFS scores.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Felicity
Member Avatar
cutest
Viceroys
Hi everyone,

basically, we'd like to put forward a rules clarification. We want whoever's opinion on the matter. Essentially, it would be changing this rule:

1.
a )The original attacker and defender on each side of a war shall be counted as the War Leaders for negotiating peace. All nations in each alliance are presumed to support the wargoals announced by their leader. Defender must state wargoals when asked to do so by the attacking party or by a GM. The Defending War Leader may demand an equivalent value of warscore as the Attacking War Leader for his side, should the Attacking party surrender.

What this means is that, if the attacking side surrenders, the defenders may demand a wargoal equal to or less the warscore of the attacker's main wargoal. However, this causes a few problems, since what is clearly an obvious equal trade may not be so in game terms, because warscore has other factors than simple land quality.

Instead, the proposed change would be that a reasonable counter wargoal may be used, equal to the relative quality of the attacker's wargoal. This would be up to interpretation by a GM if the relative quality is in question.

If anyone objects, please say why. I think it's a reasonable change, and while I would not like to change rules midgame, it may be needed.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ryeassassin

House of Lords
Shouldn't a defender be able to demand anything under 100 warscore? Attacking someone should carry the risk of losing a lot. Its unfair to limit the defending party to what the attacker wanted to take.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Felicity
Member Avatar
cutest
Viceroys
Ryeassassin,Mar 11 2015
08:15 PM
Shouldn't a defender be able to demand anything under 100 warscore? Attacking someone should carry the risk of losing a lot. Its unfair to limit the defending party to what the attacker wanted to take.

The defender already has the advantage of, well, defending. Allowing a defender to take literally whatever they want would just discourage people from attacking at all, since any war where you might win but it's risky would possibly be a death sentence.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ryeassassin

House of Lords
Attackers can attack for anything up to 100 warscore so why shouldn't defender be able to take anything up to 100 Warscore if the attacker miscalculated? People usually don't attack unless they think they can win so it really shouldn't discourage attacking. Also this could encourage people to attack for something with low war score value just to gain a truce. For example nation X could attack the Y for something worth 1 war score just to prevent Y from attacking later and demanding 50 warscore. Over all I think there should be some protections for the defenders and attackers and this should be based on EFS difference not on who attacking or defending. The attacker is responsible for the war and they for should bare the consequences of losing a war they started.

Edited*
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Felicity
Member Avatar
cutest
Viceroys
Ryeassassin,Mar 11 2015
09:52 PM
Attackers can attack for anything up to 100 warscore so why shouldn't defender be able to take anything up to 100 Warscore if the attacker miscalculated?  People usually don't attack unless they think they can win so it really shouldn't discourage attacking.  Also this could encourage people to attack for something  with low war score value just to gain a truce.  For example nation X could attack the Y for something worth 1 war score just to prevent Y from attacking later.  Over all I think there should be some protection for the defender.  The attacker is responsible for the war and there for should bare the consequences of losing a war they started.

What you're defining is possible NOW. With the proposed change, there is a more liberal definition of 'equal', which gives the GMs a bit more power to work around a situation like that.

I understand you're saying that, say, Germany can dec on the UK for x shitty colony, give up a colony himself, and then be able to war France immediately without worrying about the UK. That is absolutely abuse of the system, and is actually possible right now, technically, but still no one does it. I would frankly give people the benefit of the doubt in not trying to abuse most of the rules in such a way that would only get them contempt from the other players and the GMs.

With how the EFS system works, wargoals are already being limited. We already saw that NGF was able to defend (defending advantage) against two and a half other powers, with the help of Ukraine and Scandinavia. We saw the transfer of Bavaria (extremely valuable to NGF compared to the original wargoal of Bohemia, and still extremely beneficial to the NGF regardless). Imagine if NGF could take 100 warscore from all 3 of them- it was a risky war, and an NGF crippling all 3 of those nations even further than they already were would have sealed the deal. Bavaria, more parts of Russia released, etc etc. Especially since UK joined the war right at the end; he could have taken stuff from him, too. Would not only keep as many wars from happening by opportunistic people who think they might be able to rush a win, but would also keep people from joining a losing side if they can't immediately change everything.

If the attacker attacks for 100 warscore, then the defenders can do basically the same.

That's my thought process on this. I can see why giving the defender a huge bonus would be nice, but I don't think it's really necessary.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ryeassassin

House of Lords
Allowing the defender to take up to 100 war score isn't giving the defenders any more bonuses then they already have. The defender still has to take the territory, meaning the attacker has to have over extend and allow themselves to get invaded. If an attacker does this they should be held accountable for there poor choices.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Yenzen
Member Avatar

House of Commons
Let me give you a good example. It's good because it happened:

Austria-Hungary, Italy and Russia (and later, the UK) declare war on Germany, ai-zombie-Ukraine and Sweden for Bohemia. This costs 16 warscore.

After a long and hard war, Germany eventually comes out on top. The attacker had a vast EFS score advantage, yet he only demands Bayern. This seems fair, right? In fact he's demanding less than he might be able to.

Except, that's against the most stringent interpretation of the rules. Bayern may be a less populated state held by a larger coalition, but it's 27 warscore! After defeating a numerically superior enemy, following many years of war, NGF can't demand a single state against a superior aggressor because the rules stipulate that he's limited to the war score demands of the attacker.

Now, Russia did make a demand against the AI, which makes this example a bit more unclear. However, had Russia known that, he could simply not have done it and NGF might never be able to form Germany, because Austria could just keep declaring war first!

What's being proposed is basically that if you attack for a state, the defender can in return, at the very least, demand a single non-capital state or something of relatively equal value.



The attacker still has an advantage other than a long planning period, that should encourage aggressiveness: He can still demand a war for one region, but intend to increase it to 2-3 once it's clear that he will eventually win. If things go south, he's only risking losing one state.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Felicity
Member Avatar
cutest
Viceroys
Ryeassassin,Mar 11 2015
10:31 PM
Allowing the defender to take up to 100 war score isn't giving the defenders any more bonuses then they already have.  The defender still has to take the territory, meaning the attacker has to have over extend and allow themselves to get invaded.  If an attacker does this they should be held accountable for there poor choices.

But it wasn't necessarily a poor choice; winds of change and all that. I'm saying I don't want additional punishments for attacking because the game already gives you not that many good reasons to attack as it is. The defender doesn't necessarily need to take any territory, the attacker just needs to surrender. If the attacker surrenders that fast then it wasn't a very costly war, either, apparently, so the point is to give the defender something instead of just a white peace, and giving them 100 warscore is excessive in that instance, imo.

The point of it is to give an incentive to be the attacker. Giving the defender 100 warscore in countergoals right off the bat would certainly draw out wars a bit longer if the attacker fucks up significantly, but I don't think that necessarily helps the flow of the game.

Another option is to allow that after great wars are discovered, instead. The early game has a slower feel to begin with, anyway.

edit: Another example I thought of; a colonial war. Say the UK attacks Italy or whatever for a colony. If the UK loses for some asinine reason (Bad player, oops my maintenance was down, can't properly land troops to take the area) then should Italy really be allowed to take something worth way more when it was clearly a colonial war? A 2 warscore colony, and the UK has to release scotland? It's far more reasonable for Italy to get a colony in return, or even two.

Essentially this allows the aggressor to decide the scale and importance of the war, and then after a year in the war may escalate or diminish on either side.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Felicity
Member Avatar
cutest
Viceroys
Since I didn't hear a compelling argument against it, the rule will be altered to read as 'a reasonable exchange' or some similar thing.

Prestige will still not be transferred. Player mistake is player mistake, now you know.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ryeassassin

House of Lords
Felicity,Mar 14 2015
12:29 PM
Since I didn't hear a compelling argument against it, the rule will be altered to read as 'a reasonable exchange' or some similar thing.

Prestige will still not be transferred. Player mistake is player mistake, now you know.



There were some pretty reasoned arguments against the rule change. It seems wrong to be changing rules in the middle of the game when players object especially since the rule isnt a problem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Felicity
Member Avatar
cutest
Viceroys
Ryeassassin,Mar 14 2015
01:41 PM
Felicity,Mar 14 2015
12:29 PM
Since I didn't hear a compelling argument against it, the rule will be altered to read as 'a reasonable exchange' or some similar thing.

Prestige will still not be transferred. Player mistake is player mistake, now you know.



There were some pretty reasoned arguments against the rule change. It seems wrong to be changing rules in the middle of the game when players object especially since the rule isnt a problem

You were the only one who gave any sort of reason, and frankly, I found it kind of bad, as did everyone else who I brought it up with including someone unaffiliated with this site but familiar with the game. I understand the reasoning, but I think it's not very good for game flow.

I agree with the second part and I dislike changing rules midgame, but if I hardline enforced it as it was then then we would have even more problems that I would have to deal with today + tomorrow, and frankly I don't find it to be that big of a deal. This way, we 1. avoid drama over something small, 2. keep the game going smoothly, 3. fix a kinda broken and oft ignored rule on the fly.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Crimdal

House of Lords
I didn't comment because I think this is one of those arbitrary reinterpretations of a rule. But I don't care enough to argue with Kristjan about the rules anymore.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Erthel
Member Avatar

House of Commons
Keep the sabres down!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Felicity
Member Avatar
cutest
Viceroys
Since it's become an issue and there are a lot of questions around it, the following change will be made to avoid exploits, and the rules themselves will be changed following this game:

1. If you peace out of a war separately, you are not allowed to rejoin that war again regardless of whether you have a truce or not. This applies to all members of the war, including AI partners.

2. White peaces now cause truces. There is a bug in PUIR that causes a white peace to only have a truce period of 0 days, so truces will now be enforced even if there is no little flag in your diplomacy window. This means that for 6 years, you may not join any wars against the people you peaced out from, or declare any. You may join defensive wars AT THEIR START if a member of the war is in a truce with you, but cannot be called into them later.

This ruling is not retroactive.

White peaces in vanilla v2 DO cause truces, so I don't know why we didn't realize that at first. I thought it was a mod bug to begin with but idduno.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kristjan
Member Avatar
Administrator
Head Administrator
Please take time to read and vote in this thread, thanks!

http://z7.invisionfree.com/Blut_und_Eisen/...?showtopic=3740
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ryeassassin

House of Lords
Hey guys so I may not be around for the first half of next weeks session so if anyone knows someone who can sub for mexico send the, my way.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
icendoan
Member Avatar

House of Commons
Ryeassassin,Mar 18 2015
07:50 AM
Hey guys so I may not be around for the first half of next weeks session so if anyone knows someone who can sub for mexico send the, my way.

Likewise, I'm probably going to be missing the first part of next session, and the session after (I'm back at home for the holidays, and so I don't get total control over my early evenings).

I don't really mind being AI'd for a short while, but I'd much rather not have to.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
GrenadierSchube

Viceroys
Ryeassassin,Mar 18 2015
12:50 AM
Hey guys so I may not be around for the first half of next weeks session so if anyone knows someone who can sub for mexico send the, my way.

Santa Anna will return to control Mexico


then if necessary Santa Anna can then be exiled and take over the Sultanate in a bloodless coup
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
GrenadierSchube

Viceroys
I would be willing to play canada on an off if that is ok with the group. I can't guarentee every sunday just yet but it would be fun to roleplay it!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Crimdal

House of Lords
GrenadierSchube,Mar 28 2015
09:56 AM
I would be willing to play canada on an off if that is ok with the group. I can't guarentee every sunday just yet but it would be fun to roleplay it!

Thanks for the offer but since you can't play it consistently I would prefer to have someone who can or just to eat it. I might have a canada player showing up but he doesn't sound too reliable either.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kristjan
Member Avatar
Administrator
Head Administrator
GrenadierSchube,Mar 28 2015
10:56 AM
I would be willing to play canada on an off if that is ok with the group. I can't guarentee every sunday just yet but it would be fun to roleplay it!

I would be open to it, subject to Felicity's approval of it. However, if you don't have a sub on the days you are not here, it will be hard to expect your nation to be left alone. Especially if you have multiple absences.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
GrenadierSchube

Viceroys
Crimdal,Mar 28 2015
09:29 PM
GrenadierSchube,Mar 28 2015
09:56 AM
I would be willing to play canada on an off if that is ok with the group.  I can't guarentee every sunday just yet but it would be fun to roleplay it!

Thanks for the offer but since you can't play it consistently I would prefer to have someone who can or just to eat it. I might have a canada player showing up but he doesn't sound too reliable either.

I can see your point, if anything I might be willing to take over Spain then (from what I have heard he is gone?). See if I can salvage them a little bit if that is allowed.

Also, kristjan I am more than willing to waive the rights of "neutral" nation if I can not make a session due to work. Sundays are usually super slow days for the Banquet department and I usually have them off, just on rare occasions we have a random one or something (like today, 7am breakfast buffet for 70 middle-schoolers....joy)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Age of Empire VI · Next Topic »
Add Reply