RE: PBEM 1A (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Napoleonics] >> Crown of Glory: Emperor's Edition >> Opponents Wanted



Message

Mus -> RE: PBEM 1A (4/23/2009 4:03:36 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Franck

I'd also like to play with next patch for 2 bug that I really hate:

-The one why we created the house rule
-THe one were a depot that was in supply in a conquered province becomes a supply souirce if the supply chain is broken! (this one no house rule can take care of!)


Thats a good point. So we should probably hold off for the patch to start a really long term game.



barbarossa2 -> RE: PBEM 1A (4/23/2009 2:30:05 PM)

Okay, I will have my turn out tonight.  This means that you can all do this turn and then send out the next one.  I should be home by Sunday evening and can then do my next turn and send it in the same night (I think).  Monday morning at the latest.



IronWarrior -> RE: PBEM 1A (4/23/2009 2:46:40 PM)

I'd like in on the next one too... I like using Bonaparte difficulty as far as the attrition goes (and I believe it's supposed to be the most realistic). The other pbem seems a bit too tough for France, and I think this is a pretty good scenario for pbem (I'm rethinking the email I sent you Franck). It is inevitable that everyone will start off watching France's every move and waiting for a chance to hit them hard, even if it's a scenario where France is weak. Also, some scenarios the player won't even get Napoleon, and others like 1796 he has more limited stats (not sure if he gains them later, doubt it though) such as Heroic Leader which is hugely important.

Ironically the most glaring bug for me is support orders not working. I would think it would affect the smaller allies trying to coordinate attacks on France more than it does me, but oddly noone else seems to see it as a problem.

The supply stuff i still dont agree with the majority on. I have a bad feeling it's going to be even more comically unrealistic in the next patch, but I insist on someone else taking a turn as France next time, so it won't be my problem. Whoever it is, good luck taking two steps out of France. [:D]

Ok well maybe not insist... I admit that I DO enjoy playing as France/Napoleon. [;)]

PS- have a good trip B2



barbarossa2 -> RE: PBEM 1A (4/23/2009 7:15:46 PM)

Thanks IronWarrior.

I am interested in playing a game covering a longer time span too.  So I would have to say I am interested.  But I am actually testing this game for a group of friends who are interested, and hope to be playing with them once the first patch comes out. 

But if I haven't pissed anyone off too much, I would probably be up for another game with you all. :)

-B2



lenin -> RE: PBEM 1A (4/23/2009 8:33:55 PM)

Count me in for a longer game too, not really fussed who I play, just someone different from now.



Mus -> RE: PBEM 1A (4/24/2009 12:10:55 AM)

I would be happy to take a crack at France in the next game, and would bid high for the right.

As far as support orders not working correctly, I have never used them, so I dont know how they are supposed to work.

As far as scenarios go I really believe the 1805 scenarios are the best. I think playing 1805 economic challenge highest glory maximum time with an agreed upon march attrition rate and throwing in a coopted bidding system, maybe from Empire in Arms or some other game where unbalanced powers are bidded for would be the best.



Kingmaker -> RE: PBEM 1A (4/24/2009 1:39:52 PM)

HiHi

Russias T15 orders sent in.

All the Best
Peter



Matto -> RE: PBEM 1A (4/24/2009 8:29:30 PM)

Waiting for Prussian turn ...



Franck -> RE: PBEM 1A (4/25/2009 12:28:10 PM)



I'm not sure I aready played turn 16 but I believe I didn't. I don't have time to play and I'm going camping until monday. I'll send the turn when I get back (I don't know when on monday).



barbarossa2 -> RE: PBEM 1A (4/26/2009 11:36:55 PM)

You know, when I was young, I didn't mind battling against my friends around a table for some reason.  But as I grow older, I hate it all the more. :)  I hate battling guys who I think are nice people.  It must be so much easier when you're doing this for real and hate your opponents. LOL  I am sure there was no love lost between Napoleon and his enemies.  But I think we all like each other.  Not much fun beating (or trying to beat) friends anymore.

Well, I hope everyone just has fun as the shot hits the fan. LOL

P.S. Sweden Turn 16 in.



Kingmaker -> RE: PBEM 1A (4/27/2009 9:23:39 AM)

HiHi

Russias T16 sent in.

All the Best
Peter



Matto -> RE: PBEM 1A (4/27/2009 9:41:01 AM)

So waiting for Prussia and Austria ...



barbarossa2 -> RE: PBEM 1A (4/27/2009 9:35:27 PM)

Just curious as to what's up with Prussia and Austria. :)



Matto -> RE: PBEM 1A (4/27/2009 9:46:58 PM)

Austria done ... but need Prussia. I will write him ...



barbarossa2 -> RE: PBEM 1A (4/27/2009 9:56:55 PM)

Posted:



[image]local://upfiles/19419/ACE5A01B57004A2A9ADB38D09FB28968.jpg[/image]



barbarossa2 -> RE: PBEM 1A (4/27/2009 10:56:28 PM)

posted:



[image]local://upfiles/19419/49A5E6A58F084A999285B4480A9632B1.jpg[/image]



barbarossa2 -> RE: PBEM 1A (4/27/2009 11:14:59 PM)

Sweden had planned NOTHING but defensive actions and staged defensive games to determine her viability in the face of a Russian onslaught.  Games which had gone well, demonstrated our ability to survive well.  We had again and again talked of the necessity of defensive actions and preparations.  After being SURROUNDED by a major power with a mobilization limit FOUR times her own, Sweden moved to a strategy which would gain it 2-3 minor German states and would have been happy to settle with this equilibrium.  As a result of our peaceful and defensive actions, Sweden is now at war with FOUR central European nations--all of them fellow Christian monarchies.

Again, Sweden DEMANDS immediate talks with Britain for FULL reparations for the TOTALLY illegal damage to her naval forces in the Sound, located between Sweden and Denmark during operations to support our annexation of Mecklenburg which no one had any legal claim to at that point.



Mus -> RE: PBEM 1A (4/27/2009 11:26:00 PM)

I dont believe theres currently any way for somebody to give you textiles timber, etc.



Kingmaker -> RE: PBEM 1A (4/27/2009 11:51:51 PM)

HiHi

Mus I think the above is an attempt at Humour by B2 ... I certainly hope so! as I personally would take extreme umbrage at the implied accusation of being a Christian.

All the Best
Peter



barbarossa2 -> RE: PBEM 1A (4/28/2009 12:51:57 AM)

:D  Everything here is in humor.  It's the only way to play these games.

I would be willing to consider Russia any religion its ruler, Peter the Terrible, Tsar and Autocrat of all the Russias deems it to be.



lenin -> RE: PBEM 1A (4/28/2009 6:16:04 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: barbarossa2

Sweden had planned NOTHING but defensive actions and staged defensive games to determine her viability in the face of a Russian onslaught.  Games which had gone well, demonstrated our ability to survive well.  We had again and again talked of the necessity of defensive actions and preparations.  After being SURROUNDED by a major power with a mobilization limit FOUR times her own, Sweden moved to a strategy which would gain it 2-3 minor German states and would have been happy to settle with this equilibrium.  As a result of our peaceful and defensive actions, Sweden is now at war with FOUR central European nations--all of them fellow Christian monarchies.

Again, Sweden DEMANDS immediate talks with Britain for FULL reparations for the TOTALLY illegal damage to her naval forces in the Sound, located between Sweden and Denmark during operations to support our annexation of Mecklenburg which no one had any legal claim to at that point.


Given the fact that the Swedish Crown no longer posesses anything that could be defined as a fleet, nor even a ship, I don't feel they are in a position to demand anything from Britain. Sweden's claims in central Europe are not recognised by Britain or any of the other central European powers. Of course, should Sweden wish to open negotiations with Britain in the light of her disrupting the anti-French effort at a crucial juncture, I'm sure my government would be willing to listen to any pleas for terms of surrender....

In terms of other treaties, of course it was not Britain that broke the original alliance. Neither was it France that broke the alliance between Sweden and France either....



timurlain -> RE: PBEM 1A (4/28/2009 6:36:03 AM)

Hello, I did send the turn yesterday, but bit later than expected.



Matto -> RE: PBEM 1A (4/28/2009 9:11:43 AM)

Turn on the way ...



barbarossa2 -> RE: PBEM 1A (4/28/2009 2:40:12 PM)

Posted:

To: George III, King of Britain
From: Gustav IV Adolf, King of Sweden
Date: September 1804
RE: Your debts in Sweden

Sweden worked actively and supported all of the nations around us.  It was Russia who completely severed ties, isolated us, and even threatened us. No trade with Sweden was ever approved or reciprocated by Britain or Russia.  The fact that Russia is more valuable to your war effort than we are does not give you a Casus Belli against us.  I clearly stated that Russia had no business in Denmark, but my requests went unheeded. We made it clear that we needed nothing more than Denmark to satisfy our claims in the Baltic.  Sweden also made its policy clear in its posting about its absolute armed neutrality.  It is most unfortunate that the ineptitude of your own alliance in recognizing the right to a secure and included Sweden with territorial objectives forced us to behave purely defensively.

Additionally, after the illegal declaration of war by Britain and Russia without a Casus Belli, efforts were made by the Swedish crown to settle matters diplomatically, and no response was received.

We did not declare war, we did not deny trade, we did not deny anyone access to minors, we did not fire the first shot.

The moral cause of Britain is lost and your actions have made clear who the aggressors in the Baltic are.

Indeed, until the month before your attack, I was still sending gifts to the British and Russian monarchs in an effort to prevent any conflict...and once again received no response. None.

Payment is expected for 746 money, 280 labour, 18 men, 456 iron, 300 timber and 100 textiles.  And until the remainder of our fleet is repatriated, under the terms of the Malmo Act, an additional 631 money, 250 labour, 10 men, 360 iron, 279 timber and 460 textiles are expected.

Additionally, and at this time, Sweden would like to make it clear that we have absolutely no fight with the people of Prussia and their good natured king.

Gustav IV
King of Sweden



Kingmaker -> RE: PBEM 1A (4/28/2009 8:19:40 PM)

HiHi

B2 I have no figuers showing for Swedish losses in their Non-aggresive assault on Copenhagen, Russia lost 419, how many did you lose?

All the Best
Peter



lenin -> RE: PBEM 1A (4/28/2009 9:01:12 PM)

I still remember the non-aggressive attack and seizure of Prussian owned cities...



IronWarrior -> RE: PBEM 1A (4/28/2009 9:05:45 PM)

I'm starting to think that the liberation of Mecklenburg was a better move than I originally thought.

Can't put a price tag on the chaos it seems to have caused. [:)]

I'm enjoying the Swedish Assembly Acts... 460 textiles! [X(]



lenin -> RE: PBEM 1A (4/28/2009 9:08:10 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: IronWarrior

I'm starting to think that the liberation of Mecklenburg was a better move than I originally thought.

Can't put a price tag on the chaos it seems to have caused. [:)]


Hahaha



Kingmaker -> RE: PBEM 1A (4/28/2009 9:11:56 PM)

HiHi

Can't fault you on that Bill [&o] , your "Non- aggresive" sleeper is certainly earning his keep [:)]

All the Best
Peter



IronWarrior -> RE: PBEM 1A (4/28/2009 9:54:52 PM)

lol I wish I could take credit for that as part of my strategy. [:D]



Page: <<   < prev  13 14 [15] 16 17   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.796875