Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: New PBEM Game

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Napoleonics] >> Crown of Glory: Emperor's Edition >> Opponents Wanted >> RE: New PBEM Game Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: New PBEM Game - 7/22/2009 11:17:40 PM   
aqui

 

Posts: 73
Joined: 6/9/2007
Status: offline 		I agree to always ban insurrections and coups against player's Nations (and lallow them only against minor country)
cya
aqui

(in reply to and2)
Post #: 31
RE: New PBEM Game - 7/22/2009 11:51:57 PM   
evwalt

 

Posts: 644
Joined: 11/14/2007
Status: offline 		aqui he doesn't mind either Spain or Britain. Since that is the case, I think I'll take Britain. If for some reason he can't merge the first turn we can switch out.


(in reply to aqui)
Post #: 32
RE: New PBEM Game - 7/23/2009 12:11:25 AM   
evwalt

 

Posts: 644
Joined: 11/14/2007
Status: offline 		I think we are about ready to go.

First, Do we start another thread like we have on Danish Too to keep track of turns (those not in the game can go look at that thread)?

As that is a minor point, we simply need Mus email and for and2 as France to create the game using the settings in the first post and send it to everyone

Also, aqui I would go edit your post to remove your email address as written. Don't want a bot snatching it up.

(in reply to evwalt)
Post #: 33
RE: New PBEM Game - 7/23/2009 12:53:22 AM   
Mus

 

Posts: 1759
Joined: 11/13/2005
Status: offline 		my email is tubit at comcast dot net.

Hope we can get going soon. We should firmly decide on the insurrection house rule by majority vote before the game starts though.

_____________________________

Mindset, Tactics, Skill, Equipment
Diligentia, Vis, Celeritas

(in reply to evwalt)
Post #: 34
RE: New PBEM Game - 7/23/2009 2:30:13 AM   
evwalt

 

Posts: 644
Joined: 11/14/2007
Status: offline 		For this game for the house rule,

Kingmaker, ironclad--AGAINST in this game

aqui, mus, and2--FOR in this game

evwalt--abstain at this point

deerslayer & carl--agreed on the same rule for Danish Too. Please sound off if you do NOT want to play with the house rule in this game, otherwise I will assume you are FOR



< Message edited by evwalt -- 7/23/2009 2:42:07 PM >

(in reply to aqui)
Post #: 35
RE: New PBEM Game - 7/23/2009 7:15:05 AM   
and2

 

Posts: 79
Joined: 1/17/2009
Status: offline 		Evwalt, I can start the game up this evening and mail turn 0 to everyone.

ok?

(in reply to evwalt)
Post #: 36
RE: New PBEM Game - 7/23/2009 8:05:17 AM   
Kingmaker

 

Posts: 1678
Joined: 12/27/2007
Status: offline 		HiHi

Fraid I'm the odd one out, but obviously I will go along with the majority decision.

However my own personal opinion is dead set against the introduction of ‘House rules’ except where it involves a recognised Bug or involves an issue that gives clear advantage to 1 nation.

My reasoning is this is “a game” and any problems with game play that do occur should be flagged for the Devs to sort out in the next patch, in the meantime the probs affect everybody so just get on with it, faults and all.

As I understand it, there are random elements built into the game whereby seemingly shocking events do take place, eg Movement will not always go as you plan, Trade deals will not always go as you plan, Ships will not always go to sea when you order them to, Diplomatic actions will not always come off as planned etc. etc.etc.

But, because there is a random element in the game some events may well come on top of each other, in the case of Insurrections & Coups nobody has seen fit to mention that there is also long, long periods where Diplomats fail time after time after time to pull anything off, also it is simply not true that there is no defence against it, eg set a Diplo to Expel/capture in sensitive provinces, of course that does mean that they can’t be used elsewhere doing glamorous stuff to ‘Reduce Moral’ or ‘Charm’, but then IMO diplomatic actions should not only be seen as offensive but defensive as well, cope with it it’s part of the Game.

But, and it’s a big But, my biggest objection to setting unnecessary ‘House Rules’ is that you set president for the introduction of HR’s further down the line when someone finds their craftily conceived concept doesn’t work, then they too want a HR as well, and then you have gaming time taken up by various discussions for & against till it devolves to the ludicrous situation of, “Voting”, on who is to be ‘Judge’ to monitor the new HR; some of you may think this farfetched, well, it’s already happened once!

Again merely my personal opinion but I want to play the game, warts and all, not get involved in time wasting bickering ‘Rule by Committee’.

Right folks, Rant over, ... guess it's now time for me to get a new nickname, how about ... “Lonely”

PS, from the 'No Frills thread, ... Though it places the peaceful non conquering Turkish peoples at a disadvantage in not being able to use this function! Monte raises a good point here in that it is again the smaller nations that get disadvantaged ie the complete opposite of what this game (No Frills)was trying to do, give the little guys a chance.


All the Best
Peter


< Message edited by Kingmaker -- 7/23/2009 8:24:36 AM >

(in reply to and2)
Post #: 37
RE: New PBEM Game - 7/23/2009 9:16:57 AM   
Kingmaker

 

Posts: 1678
Joined: 12/27/2007
Status: offline 		HiHi

PPS to the above, just found this from ericbabe on another Thread, it maybe helps put the Inserection thing in perspective, note the penelties involved.

I like the idea of only one insurrection per turn per minor -- it's just a little tricky to figure out which diplomat to allow to have that chance. I suppose we could search all the diplomats in the region and only allow the one with the best stats to have a roll.

Remember there is a penalty of -50 attitude with every minor power in the game for a failed insurrection attempt. We've been talking about adding a glory penalty on top of this, and possibly of giving the attempt itself a monetary cost, or perhaps a chance of one.

I think there's enough precedent in the period to justify diplomatically-motivated insurrections, though they shouldn't be as common as some people are describing on this thread -- I'd originally had in mind maybe 3 or 4 successful insurrections per game.

For instance, the insurrection attempt in Amsterdam in 1794 was motivated by French revolutionaries and organized with French assistance.

Stein and Gneisenau planned Prussian insurrection attempts against the French with British assistance in 1808, and engaged in "most careful and secret diplomatic preparations" with Austria, and they received secret funds from the British Foreign Secretary toward this. George Canning also tried to engage Russia to provide secret support for the Prussian insurrection. Stein was impressed with the Spanish resistance against French occupation and was attempting to replicate Spanish guerrilla-style insurgency against French occupied Prussia.

The British gave assistance to the insurgents in the Vendee for years.

Hofer's Tyrolian insurrection started with secret talks between Hofer and Archduke Johann in January of 1809.

I believe that Schill, who lead the 1809 insurrection attempt in Westphalia, had been in secret communication with Austria as well.

I'd also classify Murat's defection following an agreement with Austria in 1813 as a COG:EE-style insurrection. Murat also tried to regain power by holding an insurrection in Calabria.

William Hill, the British minister in Cagliari, worked with Alessandro Turri to promote insurrection in Sardinia.

The British and the Austrians had many clandestine plans for fomenting insurrection in Italy. The British funded many insurrection attempts in Italy, Dalmatia, and Tyrolia that came to no effect. They had so many failed attempts that the British began to give up home of funding a successful insurrection in Italy. Lord Bentinck, a British general, was dispatched as a diplomat to Sicily with the secret mission of attempting to foment an insurrection there. Bentinck traveled all around the Mediterranean, officially as a British diplomat, but all the while secretly engaged in attempting to foment anti-French insurrection. In 1810 Bentinck provided Francis d'Este with £100,000 (which I believe is about .5% of the entire British GDP for that year) to support an insurrection in Illyria and Corfu.

The 1813 Dutch insurrection was supported by 25,000 muskets smuggled from England and propaganda printed in Prussia.

Anyway, I don't think it's at all a-historical to have diplomats attempting to foment coups in conquered territory. A diplomat with a box of cash and maybe some smuggled muskets could, in fact, do what "special forces" often could not do.

All the Best
Peter

(in reply to Kingmaker)
Post #: 38
RE: New PBEM Game - 7/23/2009 10:58:46 AM   
Ironclad

 

Posts: 1924
Joined: 11/22/2006
Status: offline 		Drats, you beat me to it. I saw this when I decided to have a closer look at the issue. Your "rant" makes some very good points and Eric's post highlights the strong case for an insurrection rule applying directly to the powers. Frankly I went with the flow when voting in Danish Too without giving it too much thought although I did note that a large country like Russia was likely to benefit.

On reflection I would like to see how the normal rule works out in pbem play so for this game I am voting No, but of course will abide by the majority view.

(Danish Too I will leave as yes - so that I don't mess up the arrangements there and it would be useful to compare how it works with the house rule exclusion.)




(in reply to Kingmaker)
Post #: 39
RE: New PBEM Game - 7/23/2009 11:08:02 AM   
Kingmaker

 

Posts: 1678
Joined: 12/27/2007
Status: offline 		HiHi

Ah, right, ... maybe that had better be "Lonley (ish)" then as Tom has also raised concerns on 'No Frills'.

All the Best
Peter

(in reply to Ironclad)
Post #: 40
RE: New PBEM Game - 7/23/2009 1:22:41 PM   
jhdeerslayer


Posts: 1194
Joined: 5/25/2002
From: Michigan
Status: offline 		I will be on vacation Aug 10th - 20th and no suitable Internet connection. Being Turkey, I will find a suitable country to take over my files during thisn absence so as not to hold up the game. So somebody will need to be a good friend of mine in more than one way...

(in reply to Kingmaker)
Post #: 41
RE: New PBEM Game - 7/23/2009 2:33:11 PM   
evwalt

 

Posts: 644
Joined: 11/14/2007
Status: offline 		Hummmmm. And now that I read Kingmaker's argument I understand his concerns. Now speaking "cross-game" (ie. Danish Too since many of us are involved in both) it makes more since to NOT allow the change in Danish Too since we didn't discuss it before game start.

For this game, I'm not sure. Guess we need to hash it out before gamestart.

(in reply to aqui)
Post #: 42
RE: New PBEM Game - 7/23/2009 7:11:25 PM   
and2

 

Posts: 79
Joined: 1/17/2009
Status: offline 		Hey all
 
I read your post, Peter, making the case against house rules, and although I generally agree that house rules is something to be avoided and only taken into use as a last measure to preserve game balance, I will in the following make the case why we do need a house rule against insurrections in another major powers territory, until WCS makes a patch.
 

  1. Its too easy to succeed an insurrection mission.

  2. The penalty for an unsuccessful insurrection mission is near non-existent. Minus 50 influence, any decent diplomat can charm that away in a month.

  3. Only counter-measure is other diplomats. Garrisons, National Morale, Glory, Buildings (Art and Courts for example) has no preventive effect.

  4. Success on the insurrection mission isn't influenced by anything but the "roll" of dice against the diplomat's statistics, the target nation's national morale, glory, empire status, buildings, potential garrisons, or even armies. The story about the 400.000 troops being kicked out of Bavaria, by 7.000 insurrectionists springs to my mind as an extreme example of how this game feature can spin out of control in a multiplayer environment.

  5. Moreover Pandora's box is now open. Now we all know, and would be fool's not too exploit this, supposing we play the game to win, besides the other aspects of diplomacy and logistics to mention some other great reasons to play PBEM.

  6. WCS acknowledges that there is a problem and talk about "I like the idea of only one insurrection per turn per minor -- it's just a little tricky to figure out which diplomat to allow to have that chance. I suppose we could search all the diplomats in the region and only allow the one with the best stats to have a roll. Remember there is a penalty of -50 attitude with every minor power in the game for a failed insurrection attempt. We've been talking about adding a glory penalty on top of this, and possibly of giving the attempt itself a monetary cost, or perhaps a chance of one. I think there's enough precedent in the period to justify diplomatically-motivated insurrections, though they shouldn't be as common as some people are describing on this thread -- I'd originally had in mind maybe 3 or 4 successful insurrections per game." End quote.

 
All in all this feature that works ok'ish in single player mode is overpowered in a multiplayer environment and therefore potentially a gamebreaker.
 
My suggestion is that we go with the house rule for now, but I have faith in that WCS will address this exploit and once WCS fixes the exploit we return to normal rules and the use of diplomats as the game allows?
 
Sincerely Chindits

(in reply to evwalt)
Post #: 43
RE: New PBEM Game - 7/24/2009 12:01:48 AM   
Mus

 

Posts: 1759
Joined: 11/13/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kingmaker

PS, from the 'No Frills thread, ... Though it places the peaceful non conquering Turkish peoples at a disadvantage in not being able to use this function! Monte raises a good point here in that it is again the smaller nations that get disadvantaged ie the complete opposite of what this game (No Frills)was trying to do, give the little guys a chance.


Disagree with that.

Its the richer nations that can afford to field the maximum number of allowed diplomats. IMO, this particular aspect of the game is so easily exploited that a player doing so to the best of their ability would make the flaws inherent in the current insurrection system self evident.

I DO like the idea about returning to the "organic" rules if WCS addresses the issue with a patch during the game.

_____________________________

Mindset, Tactics, Skill, Equipment
Diligentia, Vis, Celeritas

(in reply to Kingmaker)
Post #: 44
RE: New PBEM Game - 7/24/2009 9:09:14 AM   
Kingmaker

 

Posts: 1678
Joined: 12/27/2007
Status: offline 		HiHi

Chindits please see post on 'No Frills' thread, I'm buggered if I'm editing all that again!

Mus, I'm assuming Montes point was that at least the Small nations do at least get that option, but ... ?

All the Best
Peter

(in reply to Mus)
Post #: 45
RE: New PBEM Game - 7/24/2009 10:47:13 AM   
jhdeerslayer


Posts: 1194
Joined: 5/25/2002
From: Michigan
Status: offline 		So when do we start?

(in reply to Kingmaker)
Post #: 46
RE: New PBEM Game - 7/24/2009 2:20:55 PM   
evwalt

 

Posts: 644
Joined: 11/14/2007
Status: offline 		In answer to the question, when do we start? I think France is waiting for us to hash out the answer to the houserule.

(in reply to aqui)
Post #: 47
RE: New PBEM Game - 7/24/2009 2:58:14 PM   
jhdeerslayer


Posts: 1194
Joined: 5/25/2002
From: Michigan
Status: offline 		Honestly I think the biggest concern is actually finishing a multi-player PBEM like this in our lifetime...

(in reply to evwalt)
Post #: 48
RE: New PBEM Game - 7/24/2009 5:45:45 PM   
and2

 

Posts: 79
Joined: 1/17/2009
Status: offline 		Im kinda waiting on a house rule yes or no ruling and moreover I've PM'ed a bit with Evwalt about a game name and I've come up with a suggestion, that we are gonna use "Westphalian Discord"? Unless someone comes with a better idea I gonna use that game name rather then "New PBEM"

(in reply to jhdeerslayer)
Post #: 49
RE: New PBEM Game - 7/24/2009 6:52:57 PM   
Kingmaker

 

Posts: 1678
Joined: 12/27/2007
Status: offline 		HiHi

Chindit while there's a delay on starting have you by any chance contacted Mccoy kyriakouvet@icqmail.com, GMT+2

As I've said before I am fine with stepping down to give a Newbie a chance if he wishes to take over Sweden, your call.

All the Best
Peter

(in reply to and2)
Post #: 50
RE: New PBEM Game - 7/24/2009 9:31:14 PM   
evwalt

 

Posts: 644
Joined: 11/14/2007
Status: offline 		Final call: Following house rule or not? I tally the votes one the first post of the thread. I am sure Kingmaker is a NO.

After listening to everyone, I think I will go with an ABSTAIN. Everyone else vote so we can get this rolling! and2 is waiting for the final decision before game start.


(in reply to Kingmaker)
Post #: 51
RE: New PBEM Game - 7/24/2009 9:40:13 PM   
jhdeerslayer


Posts: 1194
Joined: 5/25/2002
From: Michigan
Status: offline 		Abstain here also. Whatever gets the game going I will vote for.

(in reply to evwalt)
Post #: 52
RE: New PBEM Game - 7/24/2009 11:44:11 PM   
Ironclad

 

Posts: 1924
Joined: 11/22/2006
Status: offline 		I have already voted no.

(in reply to jhdeerslayer)
Post #: 53
RE: New PBEM Game - 7/25/2009 12:59:47 AM   
Mus

 

Posts: 1759
Joined: 11/13/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Deerslayer

Honestly I think the biggest concern is actually finishing a multi-player PBEM like this in our lifetime...


One of my PBEM games is more than 65 turns old.

Also, I really dont think any player should be abstaining from a house rule vote. That is just going to make it take longer. Particularly when you have people like evwalt voting yes and then changing their mind and abstaining. We should not have to count, have a recount and then examine the pregnant and hanging chads here.

Yes or no, house rule adopted by majority vote or not, other settings are agreed on, lets get going. Being just after the 40 year anniversary of putting a man on the moon, I gotta say COG:EE isnt, lets go.



< Message edited by Mus -- 7/25/2009 1:17:31 AM >

_____________________________

Mindset, Tactics, Skill, Equipment
Diligentia, Vis, Celeritas

(in reply to jhdeerslayer)
Post #: 54
RE: New PBEM Game - 7/25/2009 1:54:23 AM   
evwalt

 

Posts: 644
Joined: 11/14/2007
Status: offline 		Well, if I have to vote, I say yes. But I guess I will ask this question, does anyone NOT want to play if we use the rule?

If everyone will play regardless, lets go ahead and start. I don't think its going to come up anyway for awhile. Plenty of time to hash it out.

I'll go ahead and start my diplomacy.

< Message edited by evwalt -- 7/25/2009 4:40:46 AM >

(in reply to Mus)
Post #: 55
RE: New PBEM Game - 7/25/2009 3:03:39 AM   
Mus

 

Posts: 1759
Joined: 11/13/2005
Status: offline 		I agree we should just start the game with the rules we already agreed on and give another day or two to hash out the house rule.

Its PBEM. We could keep voting on the house rule for 3-4 more days and probably still be on our first or second turn.

< Message edited by Mus -- 7/25/2009 4:46:12 AM >

_____________________________

Mindset, Tactics, Skill, Equipment
Diligentia, Vis, Celeritas

(in reply to evwalt)
Post #: 56
RE: New PBEM Game - 7/25/2009 5:24:39 AM   
Mus

 

Posts: 1759
Joined: 11/13/2005
Status: offline 		Is France going to send the first turn ASAP or what are we waiting for?



_____________________________

Mindset, Tactics, Skill, Equipment
Diligentia, Vis, Celeritas

(in reply to Mus)
Post #: 57
RE: New PBEM Game - 7/25/2009 5:53:15 AM   
aqui

 

Posts: 73
Joined: 6/9/2007
Status: offline 		as I already wrote I'm for...(no insurrection/coups against players).
I play also if people decide against.
cya
aqui (spanish)

(in reply to aqui)
Post #: 58
RE: New PBEM Game - 7/25/2009 2:45:09 PM   
evwalt

 

Posts: 644
Joined: 11/14/2007
Status: offline 		I'll email France. I think he was just waiting for the ok.

(in reply to aqui)
Post #: 59
RE: New PBEM Game - 7/25/2009 3:16:45 PM   
and2

 

Posts: 79
Joined: 1/17/2009
Status: offline 		I mailed the french turn 0 to everyone

Enjoy! :)

(in reply to evwalt)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Napoleonics] >> Crown of Glory: Emperor's Edition >> Opponents Wanted >> RE: New PBEM Game Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

3.141