RE: 1792 No frills PBEM

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 18 19 [20] 21 22 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: 1792 No frills PBEM - 9/6/2009 9:29:32 PM

Mus

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshal Villars

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.

Well he also created the Duchy of Warsaw out of land taken from Prussia Austria and Russia and made it a French protectorate. The game system is a little too tight to allow that in most circumstances. In singleplayer I was able to do a work around where I sent a diplomat to insurrect a minor (galicia?) and conquer it and demand adjacent lands from there.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Marshal Villars)

Post #: 571

RE: 1792 No frills PBEM - 9/7/2009 12:56:11 PM

Marshal Villars

Posts: 976
Joined: 8/21/2009
Status: offline

I am unilaterally declaring adherence to a rule I will follow concerning protectorates, known as the PAVNPT. If anyone else wants to join me I would encourage it and would welcome you. If you like you can be a signatory to section I, II, III, IV, or V--you don't have to be a signatory to all sections. Note: these rules are nothing more complicated than anything anyone ever bumped into in Empires In Arms, so stop complaining!

THE PROTECTORATE ABUSE VOLUNTARY NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY
Because of the nature of the way the game currently handles the transfer and division and conquest of protectorates, which some of us find not in keeping with historical flavor, we the signatories agree to abide to the following provisions:

SECTION I
Intended to prevent nations which came to you for their protection from being handed over to another nation and incorporated into it!
1. If a protectorate is transferred to us, we will immediately create a protectorate with the lands which result.
2. Exceptions to point 1 of Section I are made only as part of an enforced peace treaty, where the protectorates of any party which is having a peace imposed on it can be split, handed over, and incorporated as per the "vanilla" rules.
3. Additional exceptions to point 1 of Section I include:
a. The Kingdom of Naples and Sicily, Parma, and the Austrian Netherlands at the beginning of 1792 scenarios and until they are converted into conquered minors for the first time, after which they are treated normally. in 1792 these were part of the royal families' possessions (as the kingdom of Norway was to Copenhagen and Hungary was to Vienna) and every argument can be made that they should be treated differently than regular protectorates. Indeed, for much of the 1700s, Austria sought a buyer for their Austrian Netherlands. At the beginning of each 1792 game, we encourage the option of transfer-retransfer incorporation of Parma, the Kingdom of Naples, and Sicily to Spain due to the nature of their relationship historically which was much closer than that of a true "protectorate". In a similar manner, at the beginning of each 1792 game, we encourage the option of transfer-retransfer-incorporation of the Austrian Netherlands into Austrian territory for similar reasons. All other transfer-retransfer-incorporation is strictly frowned upon. Transfer-retransfer-incorporation is defined as the act of transferring a protectorate province to a friend or ally and having him transfer it back to you, resulting in the instant conversion of a protectorate into a conquered minor--once again, not exactly what a protectorate is your friend for!

SECTION II
Intended to prevent nations which came to you for their protection from being split up and handed to other people.
1. We refuse to accept portions of protectorates in regular treaty transfers. That is, when protectorates are transferred, they are transferred whole.
2. We refuse to transfer portions of protectorates belonging to us in regular treaties. That is, when protectorates are transferred to others, they are transferred whole.
3. Exceptions to points 1 and 2 of Section II: Are made only as part of an enforced peace treaty, where the protectorates of any party which is having a peace imposed on it can be split, handed over, and incorporated as per the "vanilla" rules.
4. Additional exceptions to points 1 and 2 of Section II include:
a. The Kingdom of Naples and Sicily, Parma, and the Austrian Netherlands at the beginning of 1792 scenarios and until they are converted into conquered minors. Because these minor nations were not properly protectorates, they can be treated as desired, including splitting them, ceding them in regular treaties, receding, and incorporation. To avoid confusion, provinces which are part of these nations should be transfered-retransferred-incorporated at the beginning of each 1792 game. All other transfer-retransfer-incorporation is strictly frowned upon.
b. Bavaria. The minor nation of Bavaria's lands of Palatinate, Kleves, and Berg were actually three independent entities which belonged to the same extended family that ruled the Electorate of Bavaria (Munich, Augsburg, Upper Palatinate). As a result, if Bavaria is a protectorate, Palatinate, Kleves, and Berg may be transferred individually as long as they become protectorates immediately after their transfer per PAVNPT Section I. For the purposes of PAVNPT Section II, Upper Palatinate, Augsburg, and Munich are considered to be ONE protectorate.
c. The Papal States. For the purposes of Section II, Wurzburg, Salzburg, and Malta are independent protectorates. While influenced by Rome, they were not politicially the same entity and Bishoprics could show surprising independence from matters in Rome. The three provinces of the Papal States in Italy (Rome, Ancona, and Romagna) are considered to be one unified protectorate for the purposes of Section II. As a result, Wurzburg, Salzburg, and Malta may be transferred individually as long as they become protectorates immediately after their transfer per PAVNPT Section I. For the purposes of PAVNPT Section II, the three provinces of the Papal States on the Italian peninsula are considered to be ONE protectorate.

SECTION III
Intended to keep people from adopting a tactic of liberating their protectorates and then attacking them without any consequences with their other protectorates.
1. If we liberate a protectorate and declare war on it it within 18 months of the liberation date, we will liberate all of our other protectorates on the following turn.

SECTION IV
Intended to let people know that "regular" provinces (non-protectorates) are always handled with vanilla rules.
1. Sections I, II, and III apply ONLY to protectorates and protectorate handling. If any of the regions above or other provinces in play are converted to conquered minor status in any way other than those prohibited by this agreement, they continue to be controlled normally and in accord with regular "vanilla" rules.

SECTION V
Intended to make sure people know they can keep playing vanilla.
1. We will respect those who continue to play vanilla. However, encouraging players to adhere to the PAVNPT as bargaining tools in the game can also be done--for instance, encouraging those around us to adhere to it through in-game means.

SECTION VI
1. We will do our best to play according to the spirit of the sections we have undersigned and if we are in doubt, we shall go to Kingmaker for voluntary, non-binding interpretation advice, whether he is a signatory or not. Additional clarification can be received from Marshal Villars--however it is in no case binding.

This is our code of honor and conduct.

Signatories of the PAVNPT:
Marshal Villars (Signatory to Sections I, II, III, IV, V, and VI)
King of France and protector of Genoa and Corsica

< Message edited by Marshal Villars -- 9/8/2009 5:15:40 PM >

(in reply to Mus)

Post #: 572

RE: 1792 No frills PBEM - 9/7/2009 8:18:34 PM

montesaurus

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

Turkish turn 31 is in!

_____________________________

montesaurus
French Player in Going Again II 1792

(in reply to Marshal Villars)

Post #: 573

RE: 1792 No frills PBEM - 9/7/2009 11:38:43 PM

montesaurus

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

Turkish, FR, PR, and RU are posted!

_____________________________

montesaurus
French Player in Going Again II 1792

(in reply to montesaurus)

Post #: 574

RE: 1792 No frills PBEM - 9/8/2009 1:09:36 PM

montesaurus

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

Just GB and AU to go!

_____________________________

montesaurus
French Player in Going Again II 1792

(in reply to montesaurus)

Post #: 575

RE: 1792 No frills PBEM - 9/8/2009 6:47:18 PM

Marshal Villars

Posts: 976
Joined: 8/21/2009
Status: offline

Kingmaker, I agree with you on the gaminess of the quick surrender option. In fact, I have mentioned it to WCS several times.

Please see my posting under your surrender thread.

If you want to propose a house rule to use to keep its use down in this game, I will be happy to consider it.

However, I also feel we need to make sure that protectorate abuse doesn't run rampant.

< Message edited by Marshal Villars -- 9/8/2009 6:48:25 PM >

(in reply to montesaurus)

Post #: 576

RE: 1792 No frills PBEM - 9/8/2009 7:05:26 PM

Marshal Villars

Posts: 976
Joined: 8/21/2009
Status: offline

Kingmaker:

The above "Historical" production also brings to mind the rather surprising anomaly that it is as often as not the people who bang on and on with great intensity about historical accuracy and �feel� for the Napoleonic era who are the prime offenders in �Lets Surrender in case something awful happens.�

King,

If you have a concern about the historical accuracy of the game, suggest a house rule, we can debate it, and I can swing with it. I like to play with house rules which add to realism. And in my opinion, we need one here. I am just as concerned about the rational option of quick surrenders and I have written several emails and posts to Eric and Co. with included thoughts on this very issue. The fact that the rational decision in many situations is a quick surrender is a problem which should be addressed. However, I surrendered to you for PURELY one reason. To teach Prussia a lesson--namely that we don't like making plans for a year and then having the rug pulled out from under us with secret treaties. By showing Prussia I was willing to accept a British imposed peace over this single principle, I will have made my point rather strongly. (what you should be arguing for in the forum--in addition to a fix for the quick surrender--is a fix for the fact that everyone can see when you are slipping your wads of cash under the table to subvert our efforts!

)

In fact, I would have recommended a house rule for these things and have recommended changes to Eric and Co., including the fact that if you felt strongly about it you should be able to go back to war to keep me from attacking Prussia now--though I think the workaround would be virtually impossible. The point is that there is a mechanism for it in the game called the alliance...secret alliances and deals do not afford your friends protection against situations like this. It was THAT loophole that I am exploiting. Not the quick surrender. I was prepared to fight you for years. But when I want to teach a nation a lesson, why do it while fighting another?

But I ain't gonna fight just to be the nice guy--not if CoG:EE delivers a rational option of surrender. No one had even mentioned their concern about quick surrenders in here. How was I to know I wasn't the only person who didn't like it much. Coming up with a house rule for it will certainly be harder than adding some other house rules, so I figured "forget it." However, maybe we can introduce a "Quick Surrender Abuse Voluntary Non-Proliferation Treaty". If we can think of anything decent which will work within the framework of the game. Perhaps...just perhaps...players can't surrender until morale hits 200 or less? I don't know. But that would penalize players with high morale.

There are lots of "problems" in CoG:EE, but I won't be a nice guy about them all. I doubt, for instance, you will reduce your naval amphibious landing capacity to 35,000. It would be arguable that this was the British capacity historically. And I don't expect you to do this to be a nice guy without at least someone mentioning it first. And sure as heck not afterwards!

Again, this is all a game, and it is certainly entertaining, and now I am taking what I have learned here to make yet more suggestions for the effort I am working on. So, since this is Kingmaker's game, if you want to recommend any fast surrender house rules, I am listening. :D In the meantime, I hope that this has brought enough attention to the quick surrender debate that something gets done about it in the next patch!

< Message edited by Marshal Villars -- 9/8/2009 7:21:23 PM >

(in reply to Marshal Villars)

Post #: 577

RE: 1792 No frills PBEM - 9/8/2009 8:04:52 PM

montesaurus

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

I believe everyone is in except for AU!

_____________________________

montesaurus
French Player in Going Again II 1792

(in reply to Marshal Villars)

Post #: 578

RE: 1792 No frills PBEM - 9/8/2009 8:23:10 PM

montesaurus

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

Spain advised me AU has also posted, so all have posted!

_____________________________

montesaurus
French Player in Going Again II 1792

(in reply to montesaurus)

Post #: 579

Turn 32 - 9/8/2009 11:13:21 PM

DaveConn

Posts: 254
Joined: 5/3/2001
From: Bainbridge Island, Washington
Status: offline

Turn 32 just sent out.

Also:
1. Spain intends to abide by the PAVNPT, and as a result intends to make Malta a protectorate. However, Malta doesn't show up in the list of countries under Details on the Diplomacy screen, so I can't figure out how to do it. Any hints? Does it have something to do with the unrest in the province?

2. I am at war "Spanish Revolt", and there are Spanish guerrilla units in a couple of provinces. Do I just move and attack them? I couldn't find anything about "revolts" in the manual. Again, thanks for any help.

Your Ignorant Spanish Player,
King Charles

(in reply to montesaurus)

Post #: 580

RE: 1792 No frills PBEM - 9/8/2009 11:48:05 PM

Marshal Villars

Posts: 976
Joined: 8/21/2009
Status: offline

One thing is obvious, we cannot expect people to do things which are disadvantageous to them just to be the "nice guy".

We have to accept the fact that CoG:EE at the moment, encourages quick surrender in PBEM mode.

Below is a method which could be the cornerstone for a system we could use for eliminating quick surrenders in PBEM. Note this is only a model for one nation versus many. Additional models should be developed for multi national complex conflict. I AM NOT SUGGESTING THIS SYSTEM ACTUALLY BE USED! I am only laying it out there, since apparently Kingmaker wasn't happy with my rational decision--or Mus's. If we want to force people to be "dumb", then we can use a table like this and work around the problem. What is below is just a rough sketch of how such a rule could work. But it could work within the framework of PBEM because I am assuming everyone is efficient in math. I don't know how we could make 100% sure that someone did the calculations 100% correctly before surrender, but it is an idea, and it is better than expecting people to "hang in there and take their lumps" like nice guys should--especially after we make fun of them for not dealing with supply in a 100% effective manner (though I had issued warnings to people I thought were my allies that I was headed for Munich and it would over-extend me so I needed their cooperation and cover...only later to discover that on the very turn I said that Prussia was taking money under the table from Britain).

1.0 SURRENDER AND THREAT RATINGS: When ONE nation is at war with ONE OR MORE OTHER NATIONS, a player may not surrender to any one of them until he compares the threat ratings of the nations he is at war with with his own threat rating.

TABLE 1: THREAT RATIOS ALLOWING A PLAYER TO SURRENDER
If your morale is 500 to 599, you may not surrender unless the threat factor is 4 times what yours is.
If your morale is 400 to 499, your may not surrender unless the threat factor is 3 times what yours is.
If your morale is 300 to 399, you may not surrender unless the threat factor is 2 times what yours is.
If your morale is 200 to 299, you may not surrender unless the threat factor is at least 1.5 times what yours is.
If your morale is 100 to 199, you may not surrender unless the threat factor is at least 1.0 times what yours is.
If your morale is 0 to 99 or higher, you may not surrender unless the threat factor is at least 0.8 times what yours is.
If your morale is -100 to -1 or higher, you may not surrender unless the threat factor is at least 0.7 times what yours is.
If your morale is -200 to -101 or higher, you may not surrender unless the threat factor is at least 0.6 times what yours is.
If your morale is -300 to -201 or higher, you may not surrender unless the threat factor is at least 0.5 times what yours is.
If your morale is -400 to -301 or higher, you may not surrender unless the threat factor is at least 0.4 times what yours is.
If your morale is -500 to -401 or higher--GET THE FLOCK OUT OF DODGE!!! WHAT ARE YOU STILL FIGHTING FOR!?!!?!?!

1.1 DETERMINING THREAT RATINGS: To determine BASIC threat factors, a player determines the glory ranking of each nation involved by using the following table.

TABLE 2: BASIC THREAT VALUES FOR NATIONS
A nation ranked number 1 in glory has a threat factor of 12 points.
A nation ranked number 2 in glory has a threat factor of 11 points.
A nation ranked number 3 in glory has a threat factor of 10 points.
A nation ranked number 4 in glory has a threat factor of 9 points.
A nation ranked number 5 in glory has a threat factor of 8 points.
A nation ranked number 6 in glory has a threat factor of 7 points.
A nation ranked number 7 in glory has a threat factor of 6 points.
A nation ranked number 8 in glory has a threat factor of 5 points.

1.2 THREAT FACTOR MODIFICATION: Once the BASIC threat factor for a nation has been determined, he multiplies it by the following modifiers to determine its FINAL threat factor for use in comparisons to determine whether or not he can surrender. Note that ONLY a-h are used when evaluating the threat value for the player wishing to surrender. ALL possible modifiers (a-p) are used when evaluating the individual threat ratings of his enemies.

TABLE 3: THREAT FACTOR MODIFIERS:
a. The nation is Spain: x0.9
b. The nation is Russia: x.1.6
c. The nation is France: x1.5
d. The nation is Britain: x1.5
e. The nation is Turkey: x0.9
f. The nation is Sweden: x0.7
g. The nation is Prussia: x1.1
h. The nation is Austria: x1.2
i. The paths between your capitals can be traced through an uninterrupted line of provinces which belong to either you or him: x1.4
j. There is no neutral territory between your capitals: x1.2
k. The nation has 3x as much money on hand as you do: 1.2 (not cumulative with l or m)
l. The nation has at least 6x as much money on hand as you do: 1.3 (not cumulative with k or m)
m. The nation has at least 10x as much money on hand as you do: 1.4 (not cumulative with k or l)
n. The nation is at war with at least one other major nation: x0.7
o. The nation is at war with at least three other nations: x0.5
p. The nation is at war with at least four other nations: x0.3

Once the modified threat values are calculated for the player wishing to surrender and his enemies and each one of his enemies, the total of the modified enemy threat modifiers is calculated and compared with the modified threat rating for the player's own nation and the ratio is determined and compared to table 1.

An example: France (glory ranking of 2) is currently at war with Britain (glory ranking of 4). At the moment Britain has 7 times as much money "in the bank" as France does. France's threat ranking base value is 11. Since only the national value is applied to the player wishing to surrender (and thus doing the surrender calculation), the French modifier c, is 1.5, giving France a modified threat value of 16.5. With a glory ranking of 4, Britain's BASIC threat value is 9. Additional modifiers (this time going down the list from a to p, since it is NOT the player wishing to consider surrender): d (x1.5), l (x1.3). Multiplying 9x1.5x1.3, we get a British modified threat rating of 17.55. Comaring this to the French value of 16.5, we get a total of 1.064. Comparing this with table 1, we see that France would not be able to surrender to Britain unless France's current morale were to be at 199 or lower.

< Message edited by Marshal Villars -- 9/9/2009 1:03:03 PM >

(in reply to montesaurus)

Post #: 581

RE: 1792 No frills PBEM - 9/8/2009 11:56:07 PM

Mus

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

Regarding Quick surrenders, I would just make it so that VPs awarded were more stable, somewhere between the range of 4-6k, I would make it so these VPs would be "split" between the victors based on their contribution, to not reward gamey gangups so much, and I would split the Glory as well towards the same purpose. I would also give a Glory and National Morale penalty to the surrendering nation if they didn't at least make a show for their national honor. This would consist of some kind of casualty threshold that had to be suffered (IN BATTLE OR SIEGE, march attrition would not apply) by the surrendering power before surrender could be given without increased Glory and NM penalties. This would be adjusted by size of the country involved, similar to the current casualty threshold for getting full VPs.

< Message edited by Mus -- 9/9/2009 12:42:34 AM >

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Marshal Villars)

Post #: 582

RE: 1792 No frills PBEM - 9/9/2009 1:10:56 AM

Mus

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

Austrian T32 is done. I will turn it in in the morning unless I receive frantic messages that I need to do such and such.

< Message edited by Mus -- 9/9/2009 3:56:26 AM >

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Mus)

Post #: 583

RE: 1792 No frills PBEM - 9/9/2009 3:52:26 AM

montesaurus

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

Ru SW and TU are in for turn 32~!

_____________________________

montesaurus
French Player in Going Again II 1792

(in reply to Mus)

Post #: 584

RE: 1792 No frills PBEM - 9/9/2009 4:24:06 AM

Mus

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

merged.

< Message edited by Mus -- 9/9/2009 4:28:58 AM >

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Marshal Villars)

Post #: 585

RE: 1792 No frills PBEM - 9/9/2009 4:28:26 AM

Mus

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshal Villars

However, I surrendered to you for PURELY one reason. To teach Prussia a lesson--namely that we don't like making plans for a year and then having the rug pulled out from under us with secret treaties. By showing Prussia I was willing to accept a British imposed peace over this single principle, I will have made my point rather strongly.

How did this kind of strong arm diplomacy and waging wars to teach neighbors "lessons" work out for Napoleon?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshal Villars

In fact, I would have recommended a house rule for these things and have recommended changes to Eric and Co., including the fact that if you felt strongly about it you should be able to go back to war to keep me from attacking Prussia now

What we need is the ability to lay out clauses inside the surrender document (enforced peace with X, respect neutrality of Y, etc.) that if violated immediately result in the canceling of the 18 month enforced peace and a CB for the offended victor.

Perhaps the VPs should even automatically allocated so that a certain amount of the VPs go towards these kinds of specific clauses, with only a fraction going toward the more traditional demands, give me money, territory, reduce military readiness, raise feudal level, yada yada yada.

< Message edited by Mus -- 9/9/2009 4:32:04 AM >

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Marshal Villars)

Post #: 586

RE: 1792 No frills PBEM - 9/9/2009 7:16:16 AM

timurlain

Posts: 135
Joined: 5/17/2008
From: Czech Republic
Status: offline

This is an ingame Diplomacy post:

Prussia is being accused for pulling a rug from under the French feet and that being the sole reason why the French will spend the rest of their game trying to Punish Prussia.

This is simply French trying to invent a cassus belli to start another losing war for them and their allies that do get involved.

I would like to refute such statement. I was being offered a lot by the French king, but his offers tend to offer lands he doesn't control or are owned by others. (no I have no idea what would Prussia do with Corsica). The wind blows, the sun shines and the French king promises. We all have heard those promises and some of them were kept. First of all, every monarch tends his garden first, I do not tend to trust others for my wellbeing standing in front of their neither I want that. Thus the French kings speeches seemed bit too good to be true. Sit back, relax, we'll do all for ya'. Than with overy offer the lands being offered got smaller as promises had to be given to other nations and also to supply the French greed. I really didn't feel right about this. No I didn't do any backstabbing, I simply didn't want to declare war on Britain.

The French bully than kind of got scared of messing with the big boys and surrendered with and an uneasy smile and thought to himself he can beat the little kid. Well, well. We'll see to that. It may or may not happen, but Prussia will not pull her breeches before the ford is still quite far away.

_____________________________

- playing Austria in 1792 Going again COGEE PBEM

(in reply to Mus)

Post #: 587

RE: 1792 No frills PBEM - 9/9/2009 7:28:17 AM

timurlain

Posts: 135
Joined: 5/17/2008
From: Czech Republic
Status: offline

This is a game rule post:

Funny that you can cross your enemy lands while you have surrendered to them. House rule anyone ? Or maybe wait until we've used that tactic succesfully and than a house rule ?

I am being bit sarcastic and not just to Marshal Villars / B2 as he does have some valid suggestions for the other game rules.
One thing though. The rules should be shorter and less complicated as a quote from Pascal said "I apologize this letter is long, but I didn't have time to write a short one." I understand the complexities, but we are players, not EU farmers trying to maximize their subsidies.

_____________________________

- playing Austria in 1792 Going again COGEE PBEM

(in reply to timurlain)

Post #: 588

RE: 1792 No frills PBEM - 9/9/2009 10:46:58 AM

Kingmaker

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

HiHi

Also:
1. Spain intends to abide by the PAVNPT, and as a result intends to make Malta a protectorate. However, Malta doesn't show up in the list of countries under Details on the Diplomacy screen, so I can't figure out how to do it. Any hints? Does it have something to do with the unrest in the province?

1st off Dave, it is of course your call if you wish to abide by B2s personal 'House rule', however as the original proposal was Vetoed by Mus, and was subsequently accepted as vetoed by B2, there is no compunction for you to do so. You may not have had a chance to read the concepts behind the game set out on the 1st page, but basically there are no 'House rules' unless it's to cover for a 'Bug' which is discovered in game play, see also

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2139858&mpage=2&key=

Re Malta, as I understand it, Malta was/is a part of the Papacy (you still have the papacy flag superimposed over Spains) that you have purchased off the Protectorates owner Mus, so you can�t do what you want to do anyhow, other than going to War with Austria, capturing Rome (the capital of the protectorate) and ... err

, Nope, to tell the truth I ain't too sure how you would go about it from there, but suffice to say it's gonna be a wee bit messy to accomplish.

2. I am at war "Spanish Revolt", and there are Spanish guerrilla units in a couple of provinces. Do I just move and attack them? I couldn't find anything about "revolts" in the manual. Again, thanks for any help.

Yer, just go and beat the hell out of them, but don�t go in under strength, from my experience they can sometimes be awkward (there�s a Regular Div in there as well) and they don�t necessarily just lie down and ask for forgiveness, also suggest you don�t pull any Militia garrisons in the area to help, ie use your army, they can move, and may just go to ground in an empty city, which would mean you then have to siege that city.

Your Ignorant Spanish Player,
King Charles

Please don�t think of yourself as �Ignorant� Dave, the rest of us have been playing for some time now and basically all you have to do is catch up, I can assure you that most of us would freely admit that even after some time playing we can still learn things about the game, so if in doubt about anything please just ask, either here on the MBs or via direct email, all the guys, I�m sure would be only too willing to help to the best of their ability.

All the Best
Peter

(in reply to timurlain)

Post #: 589

RE: 1792 No frills PBEM - 9/9/2009 10:54:32 AM

Kingmaker

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

HiHi

Or maybe wait until we've used that tactic succesfully and than a house rule ?

Tom are you making some obleque reference here to the "T of Marseille" were protectorate provinces were ceded between france & Spain?

All the Best
Peter

(in reply to Kingmaker)

Post #: 590

RE: 1792 No frills PBEM - 9/9/2009 12:55:39 PM

Marshal Villars

Posts: 976
Joined: 8/21/2009
Status: offline

Kingmaker is right. No one is compelled to adhere to the PAVNPT. No one. It is all voluntary, just like the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (though we do feel all civilized nations work to adhere to it!

).

I would have liked to suggest a house rule limiting amphibious invasions to under 40,000 troops. But I knew this would affect Kingmaker disproportionately and simply cannot bring myself to suggest/consider it even remotely seriously because of this. I don't care how "gamey" 100,000 man invasions are, if he wants to, he can do it. I walked into the game knowing about the amphib invasion issue, but the protectorate issues have kind of surprised me.

I can tell you all that I am the designer on an upcoming WCS project, and I can also tell you that I am using this PBEM game to work hard to discover where, exactly, the holes are at which need to be patched and improved on. Furious debate is good for this. I found the number of ideas presented yesterday on the matter of quick surrenders VERY useful. So, if anyone notices that there are any loopholes which they themselves are exploiting, please tell me so I have a chance of taking care of them. However, I also do not feel it is anyone's job to be "Mr. Nice Guy" and hang in there and not do things which vanilla allows. It is perhaps through their abuse that we will learn better ways of things which need to be implemented. :D

Oh my. These house rule issues are all so complex. Believe me I will work to make as many changes as we see necessary in this game in the project I am on. One thing is certain is that no one should be forced to play by them, but it appears that solutions like non-proliferation treaties are the best for a game which everyone agreed was to be played Vanilla.

One thing I do believe MUST be changed it the absolute 100% inability to declare war on someone before an 18 month enforced peace is up. I will recommend strongly to Eric, that there be no immutable enforced peace, but after the first turn of surrender, I think there should be a 400 glory point penalty on the first turn for returning to war, a 366 point glory penatly on the second turn, a 366 point glory penalty on the third turn and on until a 0 point glory penalty is reached. Perhaps violations of neutrality immediately drop this cost to zero. Instead of an indicator indicating how many months he had to wait until he could declare war, a player would be shown how many points a declaration of war will cost him at that point. This way players will be able to go to war again in emergencies (such as this one between France Britain and Prussia) and they themselves can decide when it is important enough. Any thoughts on this in here? Unfortunately, for this problem, there is absolutely no way to add "house rule".

One complication with agreeing to a "nation may not trespass on the land of another nation", is that of course I took the surrender option instead of fighting on to get Britain out of Germany because I knew I could. However, I would perhaps be open to an NPT at some point.

< Message edited by Marshal Villars -- 9/9/2009 3:38:25 PM >

(in reply to Kingmaker)

Post #: 591

RE: 1792 No frills PBEM - 9/9/2009 2:23:01 PM

montesaurus

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

I don't think a "glory" point penalty would suffice, for some players. There are always those loose cannons who do not care whether they win or not, but how much illogical damage they can cause!
I like the enforced peace aspects of the game, but then there should be certain causes that would give a playar a "cassus belli". I prefer a system that enforces peace, with the exception that when someone violates your neutrality it would give you a cassus belli against that party.
I think that might be an easier change for the designer to incorporte also!

_____________________________

montesaurus
French Player in Going Again II 1792

(in reply to Mus)

Post #: 592

RE: 1792 No frills PBEM - 9/9/2009 4:55:22 PM

Marshal Villars

Posts: 976
Joined: 8/21/2009
Status: offline

Non-Proliferation Treaty Alternatives for "gamey-ness"?

One thing that is very complicated is that no one knows where the borderline between "gamey" moves which will be heavily criticized and "legal moves" lies. As I have indicated, after intense reading on the subject of 17th, 18th, and 19th century naval warfare, it is clear that landing 70,000 troops in any amphibious invasion without planning in advance for two-four months is extremely gamey. But that won't keep Britain from doing it (and I don't expect him not to do it).

Who draws the line between "gamey" and "vanilla"? And since no one should be required to play anything other than vanilla, this means anything in the framework of the vanilla CoG:EE game is allowed, I suppose.

I believe the best solution to issues like this are "non-proliferation treaties" to be drawn up by anyone concerned about anything and then giving each player the OPTION of being a signatory. I know that Kingmaker wasn't pulling punches on my supply line just to be a nice guy to me!

And I don't expect him to pull any punches when he tries his first 1 month of planning 80,000 man amphibious invasion.

Again, what CAN be expected from everyone is that no one should feel like they need to pull a punch just to be a nice guy unless they have signed an NPT.

< Message edited by Marshal Villars -- 9/9/2009 6:08:04 PM >

(in reply to montesaurus)

Post #: 593

RE: 1792 No frills PBEM - 9/9/2009 5:55:58 PM

Marshal Villars

Posts: 976
Joined: 8/21/2009
Status: offline

French T32 In

(in reply to Marshal Villars)

Post #: 594

RE: 1792 No frills PBEM - 9/9/2009 6:08:53 PM

Marshal Villars

Posts: 976
Joined: 8/21/2009
Status: offline

What I can promise everyone here is that you have a player in here (me) who is doing a WCS project which you will very likely enjoy (I can't say more about it just yet). So everything we say and do, every problem we have while playing this PBEM game which turns up new issues for debate, and every NPT proposed by someone has a very good chance of being taken damned seriously and things that happen here will probably have a greater impact on the game I am working on than anything anyone can do or post anywhere. So, let's have fun breaking this system until there is nothing left to do but pick up the pieces and ask..."What can we do better so that we are all even more addicted WCS games in a little over a year than we are now?!?!?!"

I am thrilled that I have the most dedicated CoG:EE fans in this game and only wish we could get a few more choice picks playing in here too. Like Anthropoid and Terje, just off the top of my head. However, that is what the AltHist-A PBEM game I will be starting when the next patch is released will be for.

< Message edited by Marshal Villars -- 9/9/2009 6:16:49 PM >

(in reply to Marshal Villars)

Post #: 595

RE: 1792 No frills PBEM - 9/9/2009 6:29:02 PM

montesaurus

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

Missing only PR and AU!

_____________________________

montesaurus
French Player in Going Again II 1792

(in reply to Marshal Villars)

Post #: 596

RE: 1792 No frills PBEM - 9/9/2009 8:39:25 PM

DaveConn

Posts: 254
Joined: 5/3/2001
From: Bainbridge Island, Washington
Status: offline

And I have the AUS turn directly.

(in reply to montesaurus)

Post #: 597

RE: 1792 No frills PBEM - 9/9/2009 10:00:40 PM

Mus

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

Think there might be issues trying to form protectorates out of portions of minor countries, like with Malta.

Unfortunately the game doesn't currently allow you to assign a new "national identity" to a province, so you can't split off for example Kleves into it's own protectorate or make a protectorate out of the national territory of a major power, even if that territory is a protectorate in another scenario.

That is unfortunate. I would like to see greater functionality in this regard in future COG patches or sequels. Each province should have a "provincial identity" seperate from its national identity and a number of protectorates or minor/major nations that it is allowed to be assigned to. In certain situations territory of Austria might be actual Austrian national territory, but if demanded to be ceded could be assigned to Venetia or Italia as a protectorate instead of held as national territory by France.

< Message edited by Mus -- 9/9/2009 10:09:33 PM >

_____________________________

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

(in reply to DaveConn)

Post #: 598

RE: 1792 No frills PBEM - 9/9/2009 10:04:14 PM

montesaurus

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

Need only Prussia!

_____________________________

montesaurus
French Player in Going Again II 1792

(in reply to Mus)

Post #: 599

RE: 1792 No frills PBEM - 9/9/2009 10:14:44 PM

Marshal Villars

Posts: 976
Joined: 8/21/2009
Status: offline

Mus, so you're saying in cases like Malta, the PAVNPT won't even work? I think I see why. Hmmmm... so if the Papal States disappear into bigger nations, who gets to form a "Papal States Protectorate"? The first player holding one of the provinces to declare a protectorate?

< Message edited by Marshal Villars -- 9/9/2009 10:15:53 PM >

(in reply to montesaurus)

Post #: 600