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: 1792 No frills PBEM

 
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: 1792 No frills PBEM Page: <<   < prev  17 18 [19] 20 21   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: 1792 No frills PBEM - 9/4/2009 1:22:11 PM   
Marshal Villars


Posts: 976
Joined: 8/21/2009
Status: offline 		Sure Kingmaker. I can do that. :D

(in reply to Kingmaker)
Post #: 541
RE: 1792 No frills PBEM - 9/4/2009 5:09:30 PM   
montesaurus

 

Posts: 489
Joined: 7/27/2003
Status: offline 		Per Kingmaker!

"In light of Andrews weekend away can we all please try and get our turns done fast this time in the probably vain hope that we can get T47 & T48 in before he departs".

What happened to turns 30-46?



_____________________________

montesaurus
French Player in Going Again II 1792

(in reply to Marshal Villars)
Post #: 542
RE: 1792 No frills PBEM - 9/4/2009 5:51:00 PM   
montesaurus

 

Posts: 489
Joined: 7/27/2003
Status: offline 		DRConn has poste the turn!

_____________________________

montesaurus
French Player in Going Again II 1792

(in reply to Marshal Villars)
Post #: 543
RE: 1792 No frills PBEM - 9/4/2009 7:28:17 PM   
montesaurus

 

Posts: 489
Joined: 7/27/2003
Status: offline 		TurkishTurn30isPosted!

_____________________________

montesaurus
French Player in Going Again II 1792

(in reply to Marshal Villars)
Post #: 544
RE: 1792 No frills PBEM - 9/5/2009 1:54:15 AM   
Mus

 

Posts: 1759
Joined: 11/13/2005
Status: offline 		Austria is in.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to montesaurus)
Post #: 545
RE: 1792 No frills PBEM - 9/5/2009 1:33:51 PM   
montesaurus

 

Posts: 489
Joined: 7/27/2003
Status: offline 		Just need PR, FR, and RU!

_____________________________

montesaurus
French Player in Going Again II 1792

(in reply to Mus)
Post #: 546
RE: 1792 No frills PBEM - 9/5/2009 3:41:46 PM   
Kingmaker

 

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

We'll just have to wait on them while B2 decide who's having what re Englands German lands.

All the Best
Peter

(in reply to montesaurus)
Post #: 547
RE: 1792 No frills PBEM - 9/5/2009 7:29:00 PM   
Marshal Villars


Posts: 976
Joined: 8/21/2009
Status: offline 		Hey guys. Actually I am dealing with a bug in the game and trying to get an answer from Eric on it before I make my decision.

(in reply to Kingmaker)
Post #: 548
RE: 1792 No frills PBEM - 9/5/2009 7:30:10 PM   
Marshal Villars


Posts: 976
Joined: 8/21/2009
Status: offline 		Actually, another thing that makes this complicated is a rule loophole which I would like to make sure disappears in the CoGEE patch. However, this is exactly why I am playing PBEM--for testing! It has been noted and I will simply have to discuss it with Eric.

< Message edited by Marshal Villars -- 9/5/2009 7:34:24 PM >

(in reply to Marshal Villars)
Post #: 549
RE: 1792 No frills PBEM - 9/5/2009 9:41:44 PM   
Mus

 

Posts: 1759
Joined: 11/13/2005
Status: offline 		What bug are you running into?

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Marshal Villars)
Post #: 550
RE: 1792 No frills PBEM - 9/5/2009 9:52:51 PM   
Marshal Villars


Posts: 976
Joined: 8/21/2009
Status: offline 		BEFORE ANYONE READS WHAT IS BELOW, REALIZE I AM FOR EVERY SINGLE PLAYER HERE HAVING A VETO OVER ANY CHANGES OR ADDITIONS OF HOUSE RULES. SO WE WOULD ALL HAVE TO AGREE.

**********************************************************************

You know, I wanted to recommend that we discuss this when I started to notice the effect of protectorate transfers, but I was dissuaded from bringing it up. However, I think now is the time. It is my strong opinion that the transfer of whole protectorates or portions of protectorates to anyone should be prohibited unless it is in a forced peace treaty. I was willing to live with it when the number of protectorates was small, but the potential for abuse is now so high, that I don't know what to say anymore.

Just the first problem with this situation is that a protectorate, when transferred, becomes a homeland province of the accepting nation! This allows any nation to convert protectorates into home land provinces by transferring them to allies and having them transferred back again. Currently, there is NO rule against it.

An extreme example: All of Germany's minor powers which sought out British protection could now, without a hiccup, be handed to another power for wholesale incorporation into another nation's lands, and apparently there isn't a prince in Germany who would complain.

Another issue which I wanted to bring up before, but decided against it because this is "vanilla", is the following problem: I could liberate Genoa and attack it the next turn and incorporate it into France. Fine, this is just an isolated incident, but what happens if this happens 10 times? Do protectorates of powers like this stay protectorates?

In "vanilla" CoG:EE they do. But it is my strong opinion that if someone liberates a protectorate and then declares war on it within one year, that he must then liberate all of his protectorates. If he waits longer than a year to attack it after liberating it, then no problem. If it is liberated through insurrection, then no problem, go ahead and attack it without penalty I guess...or lose 50% of all of your protectorates randomly if attacked within a year as determined with some random method).

If you see my "Thoughts on Treaties" thread, you will see that I have had these concerns for some time, but did not want to post here because of the use of the world "vanilla" when recruiting players.

I don't care if Kingmaker is the appointed rules interpreter if things get grey. And I have nothing against Kingmaker (indeed, I admire his knowledge of the CoG:EE system and his play enough to have dubbed this:"Kingmaker's school of CoG:EE" . However, I do like to play games with a little realism, and this is really just about to blow it for me. Note, I have no problem with Kingmaker, his style of play (which is always an interesting education in the mechanics of CoG:EE), or with him as a person. In fact, I believe Kingmaker is a player of high integrity who likes to win--and there ain't a damned thing wrong with that! How much integrity do I believe Kingmaker has? So much, that if we had to determine protectorate losses by die roll, I think I would be happy having him do it, but there are better and verifiable ways which would make everyone feel better I think. Indeed, in the period where we had no Spanish player, as everyone can see above, I seconded Montesaurus's recommendation to allow Kingmaker to do the Spanish moves (because I am here to test and take notes on problems...not just to win).

In some aspects, I too wanted to play "vanilla" to see how things worked. For instance, and especially, insurrections. However, I have felt for some time that the protectorate problem has been broken and finally felt I had to speak.

Anyway, those are my thoughts. Now, we can keep playing vanilla if everyone wants to. Or we can consider this. Either way, I will keep playing, knowing exactly what needs to be changed in the next CoG:EE patch (or the one after that).

(By the way, the Kingdom of Naples and the Austrian Netherlands were controlled by the larger ruling families of their kingdoms--however, I have a strong feeling that abilities to do anything they pleased with the lands were strongly curbed. So as such, my recommendations to the scenario designer would be to make these regions part of the nations instead of making them protectorates--which should be fully sovereign nations looking for help to keep the greedy French off of them and remain independent).

< Message edited by Marshal Villars -- 9/6/2009 5:42:25 AM >

(in reply to Marshal Villars)
Post #: 551
RE: 1792 No frills PBEM - 9/5/2009 10:34:34 PM   
Marshal Villars


Posts: 976
Joined: 8/21/2009
Status: offline 		My turn will be done and in before I go to bed here in a few hours.

(in reply to Marshal Villars)
Post #: 552
RE: 1792 No frills PBEM - 9/5/2009 10:40:16 PM   
Mus

 

Posts: 1759
Joined: 11/13/2005
Status: offline 		A minor point, protectorates do not become homeland provinces when ceded or liberated and occupied. They become conquered minor provinces. Worth 1 empire point each.

Anyways, I agree with you on the idea of ceding protectorates. It came up and was discussed during "Another PBEM" as something that generally the vast majority people don't think should be happening or possible or so easy depending on the individual.

A Protectorate is a fairly defined legal phenomenon. A protecting power handing over portions of the protected country should either suffer a massive glory hit or just lose the protectorate.

Some kind of mechanism where insurrection would result and guerillas would spawn and troops have to be brought in to quell the uprising might be needed, or perhaps that is more work than it is worth and it just shouldn't be allowed.

I have also noticed issues with demanding liberation of protectorates. Don't know if anyone else has seen it. It just doesn't appear to allow you to demand it.

< Message edited by Mus -- 9/5/2009 11:08:08 PM >

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Marshal Villars)
Post #: 553
RE: 1792 No frills PBEM - 9/5/2009 11:07:42 PM   
Marshal Villars


Posts: 976
Joined: 8/21/2009
Status: offline 		"A Protectorate is a fairly defined legal phenomenon. A protecting power handing over portions of the protected country should either suffer a massive glory hit or just lose the protectorate. Some kind of mechanism where insurrection would result and guerillas would spawn and troops have to be brought in to quell the uprising might be needed, or perhaps that is more work than it is worth and it just shouldn't be allowed."

Mus, yes, it would be NICE to have such rules which allowed such attempts perhaps, but the easiest thing to do (and certainly the only thing within our power to do) is to disallow it in our PBEM.

I am for this type of a house rule, and I would suggest a vote, AND giving Kingmaker a veto, since this would obviously affect him the most at the moment.

I think we should vote on the following things (and give Kingmaker a veto, because my code of honor says you don't change the rule to screw the most affected guy in the middle of the game without giving him a veto):

TOPIC 1
1a) Is the transfer or splitting of protectorates to be TOTALLY disallowed?
OR
1b) Is the transfer of WHOLE protectorates to be allowed under the condition that the recipient IMMEDIATELY create a protectorate with the received provinces?

TOPIC 2
2a) If a nation liberates a protectorate and declares war on that protectorate within two years of liberation, that nation must surrender all of its protectorates on the turn thereafter.
OR
2b) If a nation liberates a protectorate it may not declare war on it for 2 years PERIOD.

Of course, the alternate is, we keep playing vanilla, and no one will be faulted for wanting to do that. :)

< Message edited by Marshal Villars -- 9/6/2009 5:44:07 AM >

(in reply to Mus)
Post #: 554
RE: 1792 No frills PBEM - 9/5/2009 11:11:25 PM   
Mus

 

Posts: 1759
Joined: 11/13/2005
Status: offline 		What is raising this discussion? Did I miss England starting to cede out protectorate territories this turn?

I wouldn't be opposed to a house rule necessarily, but generally speaking at the beginning of the game is the better time to do it if it is going to be done.

And what bug were you saying you ran into? Is that the protectorate thing? Is that not WAD?

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Marshal Villars)
Post #: 555
RE: 1792 No frills PBEM - 9/5/2009 11:28:18 PM   
Marshal Villars


Posts: 976
Joined: 8/21/2009
Status: offline 		Mus, like I said, I would be happy to keep playing vanilla. In fact, I am happy to give everyone playing a veto to keep things as they are. I am not insisting on anything. However, do want to point out a possible serious problem.

And no, Kingmaker has not started handing out provinces. However, I wanted to raise this question a long time ago, when I noticed the effect when other provinces were transferred and I became concerned. And now, I simply want it discussed. Nothing more.

Again, I will go with the crowd on this, but I did want to bring it up.

< Message edited by Marshal Villars -- 9/6/2009 1:38:32 AM >

(in reply to Mus)
Post #: 556
RE: 1792 No frills PBEM - 9/6/2009 1:30:15 AM   
Marshal Villars


Posts: 976
Joined: 8/21/2009
Status: offline 		Another possibility would be not to allow any peace time handing over of protectorates/parts of protectorates unless 6 out of 8 players okay it--as part of a move. That is, someone must propose a peace time treaty transfer of a protectorate, and for the upcoming turn then 6 out of 8 people have to okay it for it to be allowed. This is just an idea, but it does allow for some transfers which are internationally acceptable (which has merit too, I suppose).

But this starts to get things a little more complicated. Yet I like it.

(in reply to Marshal Villars)
Post #: 557
RE: 1792 No frills PBEM - 9/6/2009 4:15:52 AM   
Marshal Villars


Posts: 976
Joined: 8/21/2009
Status: offline 		I just heard that Kingmaker does not like house rules at all. So, if that is the case, I am cool with that.

My house rule is always "no rules changes in mid game unless EVERYONE agrees".

French turn 30 in.

< Message edited by Marshal Villars -- 9/6/2009 5:22:39 AM >

(in reply to Marshal Villars)
Post #: 558
RE: 1792 No frills PBEM - 9/6/2009 1:58:05 PM   
montesaurus

 

Posts: 489
Joined: 7/27/2003
Status: offline 		Everybodys and posted and ready to go for turn 30~!

_____________________________

montesaurus
French Player in Going Again II 1792

(in reply to Marshal Villars)
Post #: 559
RE: 1792 No frills PBEM - 9/6/2009 3:24:43 PM   
Kingmaker

 

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

Monte re What happened to turns 30-46?

Just testing see if anyone was awake ... Ok,OK I was thinking of the wrong game

Re all T30 returs in, has Tom sent direct coz he ain't showing on Hotmail?

All the Best
Peter

(in reply to montesaurus)
Post #: 560
RE: 1792 No frills PBEM - 9/6/2009 5:36:10 PM   
timurlain

 

Posts: 135
Joined: 5/17/2008
From: Czech Republic
Status: offline 		Prussian turn 30 in. I do apologize for being latest, but I have been quick previous and it is the weekend and I wanted to spend some time away from the humming noise of computers and the virtual worlds :)



_____________________________

- playing Austria in 1792 Going again COGEE PBEM

(in reply to Kingmaker)
Post #: 561
RE: 1792 No frills PBEM - 9/6/2009 6:43:43 PM   
Marshal Villars


Posts: 976
Joined: 8/21/2009
Status: offline
I would like to have these voted on discussed. Each player should have a veto over any change, giving any one player explicitly opposed to a change a chance to continue playing vanilla...

See my discussion above for the rationale behind the proposed votes. As some of you may know, I am on a mission from God and am doing some play-testing here. I would like to try some of these variants out if possible. If not, that is fine.


Possible House Rule One
1a) The transfer or splitting of protectorates is to be TOTALLY disallowed through the method of treaty transfer. The single exception to this treaty transfer prohibition is an enforced peace treaty, where any nation being forced to accept terms can have portions of protectorates or whole protectorates stripped away from it. Kingmaker would be the sole interpreter of the rule to avoid committee decisions which slow the game down.
OR
1b) The transfer of WHOLE protectorates through the method of treaty transfer is to be allowed under the condition that the recipient IMMEDIATELY create a protectorate with the received provinces (instead of keeping it as a conquered minor). Partial protectorates may not be transferred with this method. The single exception is an enforced peace treaty, where any nation being forced to accept terms can have portions of protectorates or whole protectorates stripped away from it. Kingmaker would be the sole interpreter of the rule to avoid committee decisions which slow the game down.
EITHER option 1a or 1b can be adopted, but not both.


Possible House Rule Two
2a) If a nation liberates a protectorate and declares war on that protectorate within two years of liberation, that nation must surrender all of its protectorates on the turn thereafter. Kingmaker would be the sole interpreter of the rule to avoid committee decisions which slow the game down.
OR
2b) If a nation liberates a protectorate it may not declare war on it for 2 years PERIOD. Kingmaker would be the sole interpreter of the rule to avoid committee decisions which slow the game down.
EITHER option 2a or 2b can be adopted, but not both.

Again, because both of these rules proposals would appear to affect Kingmaker more than others, I am especially interested in his veto if he would like to apply it.

I would have liked a vote/discussion before I entered my last turn, as it would have had an impact on my actions, but since I am only here to learn/take notes and not to WIN WIN WIN, I can wait until I submit the next turn.


< Message edited by Marshal Villars -- 9/6/2009 7:40:54 PM >

(in reply to timurlain)
Post #: 562
RE: 1792 No frills PBEM - 9/6/2009 8:04:02 PM   
Mus

 

Posts: 1759
Joined: 11/13/2005
Status: offline 		I don't like the house rules particularly.

I would like to see it be possible to cede a protectorate, but the ceding power have the rest of the protectorate go into unrest and possibly spawn some "X Revolt" guerilla units where X is the ceding country. That would be a patch solution or solution for a new game, not a house rule.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Marshal Villars)
Post #: 563
RE: 1792 No frills PBEM - 9/6/2009 8:07:47 PM   
Marshal Villars


Posts: 976
Joined: 8/21/2009
Status: offline 		Mus, I agree that there are better and more realistic ways of dealing with it.

If you want to say "veto", just say "veto". Everyone has the right of course. And there will be no hard feelings.

I am just interested in avoiding some serious abuse potential.

(in reply to Mus)
Post #: 564
RE: 1792 No frills PBEM - 9/6/2009 8:13:02 PM   
Mus

 

Posts: 1759
Joined: 11/13/2005
Status: offline 		Well, you still need adjacent territory. So there can't be that much abuse.

I would say veto, just because I don't like those particular solutions.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Marshal Villars)
Post #: 565
RE: 1792 No frills PBEM - 9/6/2009 8:27:01 PM   
Marshal Villars


Posts: 976
Joined: 8/21/2009
Status: offline 		Well, we have one veto. And that is enough.

However, after you made the following statement, it is confusing why you would choose to veto:

"A Protectorate is a fairly defined legal phenomenon. A protecting power handing over portions of the protected country should either suffer a massive glory hit or just lose the protectorate. Some kind of mechanism where insurrection would result and guerillas would spawn and troops have to be brought in to quell the uprising might be needed, or perhaps that is more work than it is worth and it just shouldn't be allowed."

Just curious. Can anyone give me an example in history of a nation handing away half of a nation which came to it for protection? Or even the whole thing? Outside of a forced peace treaty? I am curious. I am looking for examples of this behavior. And frankly, I can't find any.

In the late 1700s, Austria was looking to sell, swap, or trade the Austrian Netherlands, and found no buyers. But the Austrian Netherlands were actually part of the Habsburg family inheritance--not really a "protectorate", although shown as one in the 1792 scenario.

I am talking about cases where a fully independent nation basically becomes very closely allied to another, larger nation. And the larger nation says, "Hey, I have an idea, I think I will trade half of these lands to the Austrians/French/Ottomans/Russians and get some money out of the deal!". Any examples?

Mus did just make the point to me in a PM that Napoleon basically remade nations on a whim. Just curious is that an example of this? It might be, I don't know.

How can one work to prevent abuse, but allow people like Napoleon to do what he did? Is it a matter of glory being high enough--so that all of Europe is in awe at you?

< Message edited by Marshal Villars -- 9/6/2009 9:17:27 PM >

(in reply to Mus)
Post #: 566
RE: 1792 No frills PBEM - 9/6/2009 9:02:31 PM   
Mus

 

Posts: 1759
Joined: 11/13/2005
Status: offline 		Check out what Napoleon did during the period. I submit that the only real flaw is that the game doesn't model any penalties for that kind of behavior.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Marshal Villars)
Post #: 567
RE: 1792 No frills PBEM - 9/6/2009 9:16:36 PM   
Kingmaker

 

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

If I ain't replied to any Diplo stuff recently please bare with me, fraid with my present Work & Games commitments I'm feeling I'm running round like the little Dutch boy sticking my finger in Dams trying to stem the tide, it's not deliberate Bad manners on my part and I'll try to get some time cleared to respond in the near future.

But if you ain't heard from me in the next 24 hrs send me an "Oy! were's my answers then?" I won't take offence, it just may be your stuff has slipped under the Radar.

Again my apologies for any lack of communication on my part.

All the Best
Peter

(in reply to Mus)
Post #: 568
RE: 1792 No frills PBEM - 9/6/2009 9:18:22 PM   
Marshal Villars


Posts: 976
Joined: 8/21/2009
Status: offline 		Mus, I have checked out what Napoleon did at the time. I think the most interesting aspect of it is the dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire and the creation of the Confederation of the Rhine. :D

I do PREFER your ideas on allowing it with penalties. But that is even more complicated.

< Message edited by Marshal Villars -- 9/6/2009 9:19:37 PM >

(in reply to Kingmaker)
Post #: 569
RE: 1792 No frills PBEM - 9/6/2009 9:19:16 PM   
montesaurus

 

Posts: 489
Joined: 7/27/2003
Status: offline 		Hi Guys,
I agree with Marshall Villers, that it's "very gamy" situation with the protectorate issue, I likewise don't recall ever reading about these things happening in history. But I think this is something the designer should address in the game, and consider changing(though not knowing much about programming I wonder if that would be huge amount of work?).
But, I prefer not adding house rules in mid game.

Personally, I don't like incorporating house rules in any game (if a game is that unbalancing or unplayable then I will find something else to do!). I've always felt that it's better to play the game as it's designed, even with it's flaws! You start a game with a house rule, and play half of the game, and if just one player forgets about the rule for a moment then it could mess it up and create problems/hard feelings for everyone! In addition, by changing rules, your really don't know, without play testing that house rule, what type of unbalancing effect it might have upon the game, later on!

If everyone knows about the flaws then we're all on the same playing field! It's when one player doesn't know about the rule due to inexperience with the game, and the other player takes advantage of that lack of knowledge is when hard feelings are created!
Even with this flaw I love COGEE, and can forget about the flaw! The nice thing about computer games is there can always be another patch to make things better!

And if Turkey gets a protectorate in Italy, I can guarantee you I will not give it up willingly!



_____________________________

montesaurus
French Player in Going Again II 1792

(in reply to Marshal Villars)
Post #: 570
Page:   <<   < prev  17 18 [19] 20 21   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Napoleonics] >> Crown of Glory: Emperor's Edition >> Opponents Wanted >> RE: 1792 No frills PBEM Page: <<   < prev  17 18 [19] 20 21   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

1.469