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 (4/28/2009 10:07:40 PM)

Not sure why Prussia Russia and GB didnt come to an agreement with Sweden and focus efforts on occupying French Holland instead of clobbering Sweden.




barbarossa2 -> RE: PBEM 1A (4/29/2009 12:14:55 AM)

Mus,

I am having fun.  It is just a game. :)  Its a hell of a lot of fun. 

You know what I like about it?  When I am bored or exercising and I need something to concentrate on besides the pain you get from running up a hill in zig zags, it takes my mind off of everything. :)

Great game.

-B2




Mus -> RE: PBEM 1A (4/29/2009 2:57:36 AM)

Im just commenting on the strategic aspects of it, not necessarily the "fairness" after all its just a game.

But it doesnt make good strategic sense for the allies to clobber you like that.  I suppose GB clobbering your fleet makes a small amount of sense, but the rest of it not so much.

France is halfway to winning on Glory and their Austrian ally was on the ropes while the 3 major powers most capable of helping were busy ganging up one of the countries least deserving of major power status (imo) in the game.

Just an observation.




lenin -> RE: PBEM 1A (4/29/2009 6:06:22 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mus

Im just commenting on the strategic aspects of it, not necessarily the "fairness" after all its just a game.

But it doesnt make good strategic sense for the allies to clobber you like that.  I suppose GB clobbering your fleet makes a small amount of sense, but the rest of it not so much.

France is halfway to winning on Glory and their Austrian ally was on the ropes while the 3 major powers most capable of helping were busy ganging up one of the countries least deserving of major power status (imo) in the game.

Just an observation.


It did indeed make some sense getting rid of that fleet. It also made a degree of sense that at a crucial juncture of time, another power just "happened" to wander all overcentral Europe, trying to grab territory, and that same power seemed perfectly happy to allow French forces to pass freely through its "sovereign" territory. It was those actions that left Austria isolated, not the actions of Russia and Britain who could not leave a hostile force alone along their line of supply.




barbarossa2 -> RE: PBEM 1A (4/29/2009 3:21:33 PM)

Posted:

To: George III, King of Britain and Alexander I (aka Peter the Terrible), Tsar and Autocrat of all the Russias
From: Gustav IV Adolf, King of Sweden
Date: September, 1804
RE: Diplomatic Situation

I was very strongly pro-British until I was attacked.  I was merely preparing for the possibility of a Russian attack on me and had never once considered stepping foot on Russian soil. Every scenario I gamed was defensive in nature and limited to the defense of Swedish soil.

Sweden wonders if we weren't allowed to take Mecklenburg, why Austria was allowed to take Naples without an attack on her--that certainly didn't make Austria an enemy of Britain or Russia.  Only large nations get to expand their borders at the expense of neutral minors?

Anyway, the facts speak for themselves, I was not the first to declare war.  I was not the first to fire shots.  And I was not the one to shut down communications channels.  You might have been able to express your concerns verbally and Russia, Britain, and Sweden could have achieved agreements on what needed to be done to secure my security in the face of a cancellation of an alliance by Russia, followed by a threat, political, and ecomomic isolation.  When one is the only nation bordering a collosus like Russia which doesn't have an alliance with it, and you have 1/4 of the mobilization limit, who would send all of his troops into central Europe to fight for the Russo-British alliance?  That's where you lost me.

The terms of Sweden's armed neutrality were made clear three months ago. Any attacks on her forces in the field would result in my taking permanent sides against the attacker. The only chance the British-Russo alliance have of reversing this policy is to immediately begin compensation for the damage inflicted on Sweden. In lieu of the several thousand money and resources which are owed to us for the sinking of a large portion of our fleet, this can be accomplished by the repatriation of the remainder of the Swedish fleet, the granting of occupation rights of Denmark as well as Mecklenburg, as well as the immediate cessation of all hostile activities and moves against Sweden.

Sweden would have never attacked anyone.  Indeed, until the point of the attacks on our forces in the Danish Sound had made clear the policy to take land only through the purchase of rights from the current holder.  Sweden worked hard merely to stay out of conflict to keep our forces in tact in case of a Russian invasion.  Indeed, I picked up warnings from the international community that something like this might be possible.  But I will not reveal my sources as I will keep communications confidential when necessary and when asked.

Only the attacks on Swedish units made us "hostile" territory.  We were on extremely good terms with Britain until all communications were cut off. 

Gustav IV Adolf
King of Sweden




IronWarrior -> RE: PBEM 1A (4/29/2009 3:36:24 PM)

B2, I love the way you've played Sweden and King Gustav IV. [:)] Makes a great game even more fun with some creative and fun diplomacy... bravo!

I was mulling over the whole Glory Points thing, and at first i didn't like it... felt like a way to metagame your nation's attitude just to stop the major power in the lead from winning. But then I thought about a small power like Sweden... in this case it's a way for them to have some clout where they would not have any without the Glory Points. Anyone else seeing it this way?




Franck -> RE: PBEM 1A (4/29/2009 6:27:27 PM)

quote:

Not sure why Prussia Russia and GB didnt come to an agreement with Sweden and focus efforts on occupying French Holland instead of clobbering Sweden.


I was a strong advocate of this. I must admit I'm quite disapointed by the way my allies have ''helped'' me! The coalition was happy to let me fight the battles while they just sat back and enjoyed the scene. In truth, had the French not been asking for so much, I might have been on there side now... As is, I'll just have to stay put for a while and heal my wounds... Espescially after the draconian terms imposed on us by France! But that's the problem of beieng in the middle of the map(I asked for it tough).


One of the most astomishing aspect for me is the fact that Britain didn't move on top Paris on the turn after it landed in Normandy. All of the french's armies where far away (at least 6 provinces). By moving on Paris he would have lowered french national moral close OR below -750. This would have given us a 1 on 4 chance of a French surrender. On top of that, I would have expected Napoleon to keep moving toward Paris (and thus give me a couple of turns to build back my NM) if the british did take Paris. Unfortunetely, the Brits stood back and justified there move because there was ''an army'' of around 90K in Paris. (of wich the huge majority I'm 90% sure were captured Austrian units). Since I had spotted about 400k troops in northern Italy the turn before and 150K were in Danemark.


The failure to move to Paris is the single greatest mistake of the allies in this game. (the second is that I should just have surrendered once France declared on me. He would have gotten about 1500 surrender point and I would have kept all my minors and the fleet that came with it.)




Franck -> RE: PBEM 1A (4/29/2009 6:29:36 PM)



By the way, I'm loving the ''request'' made by the swedish parlimant...




lenin -> RE: PBEM 1A (4/29/2009 6:49:03 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Franck

quote:

Not sure why Prussia Russia and GB didnt come to an agreement with Sweden and focus efforts on occupying French Holland instead of clobbering Sweden.


I was a strong advocate of this. I must admit I'm quite disapointed by the way my allies have ''helped'' me! The coalition was happy to let me fight the battles while they just sat back and enjoyed the scene. In truth, had the French not been asking for so much, I might have been on there side now... As is, I'll just have to stay put for a while and heal my wounds... Espescially after the draconian terms imposed on us by France! But that's the problem of beieng in the middle of the map(I asked for it tough).


One of the most astomishing aspect for me is the fact that Britain didn't move on top Paris on the turn after it landed in Normandy. All of the french's armies where far away (at least 6 provinces). By moving on Paris he would have lowered french national moral close OR below -750. This would have given us a 1 on 4 chance of a French surrender. On top of that, I would have expected Napoleon to keep moving toward Paris (and thus give me a couple of turns to build back my NM) if the british did take Paris. Unfortunetely, the Brits stood back and justified there move because there was ''an army'' of around 90K in Paris. (of wich the huge majority I'm 90% sure were captured Austrian units). Since I had spotted about 400k troops in northern Italy the turn before and 150K were in Danemark.


The failure to move to Paris is the single greatest mistake of the allies in this game. (the second is that I should just have surrendered once France declared on me. He would have gotten about 1500 surrender point and I would have kept all my minors and the fleet that came with it.)



As I explained to you Franck at the time, the reason I did not move on top of Paris was that not only was an army larger than mine just 3 or 4 zones away in one of the Batavian provinces (and you had already complained about how the French seemed to be able to just run several zones across the Alps and catch you up before you could move, but there was an equal sized formation around Paris itself. Now I could have moved the British away from the coast, where they could not be supplied as I did not own Normandy that turn, and I could have fought 2 consecutive battles against 2 equal sized armies who were better trained (though of equivalent morale) than mine. If I had not been forced to retreat, which would have meant the surrender of the entire British Army, as they had no friendly province to retreat to, I might then have finished movement in Paris. If this had occured, France would still have been several hundred morale away from a 25% chance of forced surrender. Personally, I did not think the added benefit of this at the cost of losing my entire army, and making Britain occupiable by anyone who wanted to visit there and allied to France - ? Sweden / ? Spain worth the risk, particularly as it also became evident that turn that neither Prussia would DOW France or the Russians would make any sort of move towards Paris to keep up the pressure if I failed.

Hope this clears things up.




Franck -> RE: PBEM 1A (4/29/2009 6:54:26 PM)


:)

Lenin, no hard feeling on my part. I have felt left donw by my allies in this war. That's all. I kept getting messages telling me that something would pop up to create some more pressure against the french but everytime something happened that just meant I'd get my ass kicked.

I do admit that I was Highly surprissed by the french 3 provinces moves accros the alp to catch and beat my 3 armies on the other side!

Just like the real napoleon did I guess :) Only in the other direction (ie from Italy)




lenin -> RE: PBEM 1A (4/29/2009 7:00:18 PM)

No hard feelings taken on my part either Franck. You sure did get a proper battering!




Kingmaker -> RE: PBEM 1A (4/30/2009 8:56:34 AM)

HiHi

Russias T17 orders sent in.

All the Best
Peter




barbarossa2 -> RE: PBEM 1A (4/30/2009 2:18:46 PM)

Sweden's turn is in.




Matto -> RE: PBEM 1A (4/30/2009 4:12:25 PM)

So waiting just for Turkish turn ...




Mus -> RE: PBEM 1A (5/1/2009 4:12:47 AM)

Sorry thought I already sent my T17 turn in.




barbarossa2 -> RE: PBEM 1A (5/1/2009 1:54:53 PM)

Wow.  Is Britain losing these Glory Points for taking Portugal as a protectorate?  Interesting.

By the way, the British attack on Sweden by Britain certainly has historical precedent. Britain attacked Denmark for fear Napoleon would move in and take their fleets. After being defeated in the battle of Copehagen by the British, the Danes gave their navy to Britain in exchange for leaving them alone. The Brits did all kinds of underhanded things to maintain their naval supremacy. After reading Adkins' "War for All the Oceans", I was less impressed with Britain than I ever had been really. Something I also didn't know is that Britain had declared war on France in 1803! So, I would say Lenin is playing them true to their historical character :).

I wish you could buy and sell and exchange fleets as part of the treaty terms. :)




lenin -> RE: PBEM 1A (5/1/2009 8:25:26 PM)

I'm losing the Glory due to defunct deals with Austria (mainly). Hardly played single player before this game, and the one thing I've learned is to be very, very, careful which deals you make diplomatically, especially in pbem (I'm losing glory due to my allies defaults) - maybe I should cancel -I'll have to read the rules again.

Thanks for helping us all out Barbarossa, by taking over a minor power in our game at the drop of a hat, and playing well with a position somebody else left you. However, I wish you were punished more for breaking the two alliances that you so casually swept aside at the start of the game, hehe [:D]

By the way, if you were not at war with my ally Prussia, my fleets would not have sunk yours. If you had also not decided to just wander all over the north German Plain, seizing control of territories that were not yours, and then letting the French just wander over them at will, I would not have felt compelled to place my fleets in a position by which they would sink yours if you would not withdraw from your course of action.

You can call me an aggressor if you like, but at least I haven't sold my soul to the Bonapartist Demons....[X(]

PS, really heavy week at work. Got blisters on the blisters on my blisters. Might be a bit quiet til tomorrow night.




barbarossa2 -> RE: PBEM 1A (5/1/2009 8:38:00 PM)

:) I don't remember the Bonapartists ever once moving through my territory.  And we concluded our "Russian Defense Pact" because I was isolated by Russia and even threatened.   

Lenin, how do you know you are losing those points for agreements made that aren't being followed through on?

P.S. This is definitely the most fun I have had playing a PBEM in a long time.  CoG:EE is just one great game.  Sure there are a few things I would personally change.  But on the whole, just a blast.




lenin -> RE: PBEM 1A (5/1/2009 8:46:53 PM)

Last reply, I really need to sleep!

I'm just guessing Barbarossa, but the Treaty section of the report tells you what is going on. Mine is largely full of the stuff Austria can't do due to the conditions of the France peace. I'm only guessing though. I can meet all of my treaty obligations.

P.S. this game is a blast. Well done everyone who had anything to do with it's development.




barbarossa2 -> RE: PBEM 1A (5/1/2009 9:05:40 PM)

Concerning our diplomatic issues, perhaps engaging Sweden and discussing these matters with her would have made Britain and Russia safer in the long run.  [:)] I was better able to communictae with Napoleon than I was with my Russian and British "allies."




IronWarrior -> RE: PBEM 1A (5/1/2009 11:35:13 PM)

Yeah this really is a great game, I only wish that some of the features from single player could be included in pbem... maybe one day.

I do think there is some kind of issues (hate to say bug without knowing) with Glory Points. France took a huge hit this turn because of Austria's inability to meet the terms of surrender and I assume this is going to continue each turn. Doesn't seem right that France should take this hit... Austria should be forced to break thier other treaties in order to comply or take the hit.

Just my opinion.




barbarossa2 -> RE: PBEM 1A (5/1/2009 11:38:00 PM)

Iron Warrior,

Can you explain?  Elaborate on why you are taking hits on your Glory for Austria not complying with their surrender terms?

-B2




IronWarrior -> RE: PBEM 1A (5/1/2009 11:44:24 PM)

Will do... I'll go take some screen shots and post them... something seems wrong imo.




IronWarrior -> RE: PBEM 1A (5/2/2009 12:06:52 AM)

OK, so here in the first screenshot it shows the various things Austria was unable to comply with. The second screenshot shows the hits I took. My guess is that being 3 things, was because of the inability to comply with declaring war on France's enemies due to existing treaties. This seems wrong imo becuase it was terms of surrender and should be enforced... or at the very least France should not take a hit for it. I have a feeling the other nations may be taking similiar hits as well.

[image]http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g164/screamingpalm/COGEEtreatyissues1.jpg[/image]

[image]http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g164/screamingpalm/COGEEtreatyissues2.jpg[/image]




barbarossa2 -> RE: PBEM 1A (5/2/2009 12:21:12 AM)

IronWarrior,

So you don't know where else these -40, -40, and -40 are coming from?  Do you have any other treaties you are defaulting on? I think you should post this as a thread in the main section with these screenshots.

-B2




IronWarrior -> RE: PBEM 1A (5/2/2009 12:25:34 AM)

Nope, just appeared on this turn, so it has to be something to do with the Treaty of Vienna.

The only other thing it could possibly be is Austria's inability to liberate Berg, Wurzburg, and Augsberg... equalling three items. I have a feeling it is the DoW issues though... will know for sure next turn if it has to do with the liberation issues or not (if I still take a hit, it is obviously not that [:D]).

Edit: posted in support.




Kingmaker -> RE: PBEM 1A (5/2/2009 12:35:52 AM)

HiHi

Bill not sure on this, but there's another way of looking at this, ie if you put the clauses in the surrender treaty that Austria had to go to war with Britain & Russia, then, knowing we were all in alliance and that therefore Austria would not be able to comply that would suggest the cause of your GP hits is your fault, I don't mean this in any nasty fashion at all, we are all learning the game, but as I suggested in a previous post folk may well be looking at some of these treaty clauses completely Cock-eyed.

Of course if the AI inserted the clauses for you then yes it is a bug as it should be programed to recognise un-enforceable clauses.

Just a thought.

All the Best
Peter





IronWarrior -> RE: PBEM 1A (5/2/2009 12:48:23 AM)

Yeah I totally understand what you're saying Peter and that's why I stopped short of calling it a bug... it may very well be WAD.

If that is the case, I just don't agree with it. France isn't forcing Austria to break treaties, but neither should she take the hit for it if Austria declines.

To the victor go the spoils?




Mus -> RE: PBEM 1A (5/2/2009 1:11:47 AM)

Guys, I asked about this issue in the patch update thread.  In the "another PBEM" game, the 1796 one, Prussia took massive glory hits because I (GB) couldnt declare war on France under the terms of the Anglo-Prussian Mutual Defense Pact.  This is because the war between France and Prussia started after France had surrendered to me and there was an enforced peace involved.  I think I should have taken the glory hit every turn unless I canceled my treaty with Prussia, but instead Prussia took -40 Glory every turn for the 4-5 turns the war lasted.

I think its a definite bug that in some cases the glory hits for noncompliance to a treaty goes to the wrong party.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2101531&mpage=1&key=�




IronWarrior -> RE: PBEM 1A (5/2/2009 1:14:18 AM)

That's right! I knew I saw a similiar situation before... that was it.

Mus, could you add that to the thread I put up in support?




Page: <<   < prev  14 15 [16] 17 18   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.9375