RE: 1792 No frills PBEM (Full Version)

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



Message

Mus -> RE: 1792 No frills PBEM (9/12/2009 10:48:40 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshal Villars

Fine. I have no problem with it. My problem was the fact that Kingmaker posted a lambasting of my surrender. And I wanted to make sure I wouldn't get it again if I surrendered quickly. Because it is easy to get people not to surrender quickly if you make them feel stupid for it. And I won't have Kingmaker make fun of anyone else, like he did me for doing it (PURE OPINION).


I don't really care about personal issues between players. Some people are not going to get along, that is the way the world works.

I don't see the issue being quick surrender at all. A rule in gunfighting is "you can't miss fast enough to win" and this kind of logic applies to quick surrender as well as you can't surrender fast enough to win either. A quick surrender is not an effective strategy to winning the game, it's a way to minimize the damage done to you in an unwinnable war. Nothing more, nothing less. People are making a mountain out of a molehill when it comes to quick surrenders. Your Glory is halved and then another subtraction of glory applied. Austria went from 2nd Place in the standings to nearly last place from our quick surrender. France did nearly the same and from the terms imposed by the surrender I doubt it even qualifies as a quick surrender as it appears England got plenty of VPs. Hardly a game winning exploit, the fuedal reforms alone will be hurting France longterm.

The references to quick surrender as some kind of "strategy" that can be repeatedly utilized is very humorous. The result of course would be coming in last place in the Glory standings.

The concern for me is in the seeming exploitation of a game bug to side step an enforced peace dictated as part of a surrender. That is why I requested that you inform everybody of the "bug" you had found rather than exploit it privately. Either the game should have forced France to back off from the Prussian ultimatum when Saxony sought Protectorate Status or France should be getting hit with Glory penalties every turn it stays at war with Prussia. This doesn't seem to be the case.

Again, I would propose that this kind of activity be refrained from in a game not particularly started for the purposes of finding these kinds of bugs (and this is definetely a bug), and I would also suggest a testbed PBEM be started immediately (rather than waiting for a patch) so that this kind of work can continue because the game is rife with these kinds of issues that need to be found, then exposed (rather than exploited privately) and FIXED.

So I don't know if this game is dying or what, but if the majority doesn't have a problem with this becoming an exploit festival I will just bow out now as well.



timurlain -> RE: 1792 No frills PBEM (9/13/2009 6:48:36 AM)

One thing. I have never declared or planned any surrender against the French. Not in this turn. Where did that rumour come from ? I have stated that as an option in one of my email and later in the email said I wouldn't do it. That rumour is false.

To Marshal Villars - if you surrender you kind of can expect your martial prowess to be doubted. I haven't really felt that KM was all that offensive (on this forum at least) to that.

I think he was much more angry about the exploit of marching through his lands, though that was not the last straw. I can see how that is way more important than any protectorate splitting or even quick surrender treaty. You are right you have fought England for long time, so you shouldn't have been scorned for the quick surrender - which wasn't that quick. As Mus pointed out the quick surrender tactic isn't all that great in the long run.

What was worse was that you made it appear that you surrender only to sort of break the game and show KM a lesson, that attitude was unnecessary in my eyes, as was KM attitude towards your surrender, which agai n was mainly influenced by your reasoning for the surrender.

Anyways, will we play a new game or find someone for England ?



timurlain -> RE: 1792 No frills PBEM (9/13/2009 7:01:05 AM)

I have read Marshall Villars long post again and I will again clarify I did not think too much of surrendering. I didn't want France to create some strange condition in the treaty that would harm me in a big way. I felt that France was exploiting movement across your rival land, but did I complain here or not ?

If Russia wouldn't have joined in and other bugs / exploits were presented I think I still stand a chance against France.



Marshal Villars -> RE: 1792 No frills PBEM (9/13/2009 12:55:46 PM)

(All statements above about Kingmaker below are my PURE opinion)

@Mus and Timurlain...no Kingmaker wasn't overly rude to me in just his comments criticizing my playing style. What brought 6 months of my one way boot kissing all to an end was his outrageous posting when he quit with its implication (in my opinion) that I was bombarding him with tons of worthless emails and traumatizing letters. And the fact that for the last six months I have worked my butt off to say nothing but good things about him in these forums again and again and again and again...and again, calling him, "great", "smart", "diplomatic", "eloquent", thanking him for his help, telling him what an asset he was to the CoG:EE community, telling him about his "great finds", sending him an occassional email telling him I found learning CoG:EE from him during play rewarding.

And on and on and on and on. I don't think it would be exaggerating to say I could find 30 such compliments scattered around these forums not to mention the emails I sent him. And I felt all he could do in that time was criticize me (with an occasional neutral return email)--in the forum and by email. Can anyone find a SINGLE decent comment about me posted by Kingmaker in here? I am offering the next matrix release to anyone (my treat!) if they can find just ONE clearly positive statement posted by Kingmaker about me. I was busting my butt to be nice to him.

So, having done ALL of this boot kissing, HOW can he think I am interested in hurting HIM or teaching HIM a lesson? HOW could he take it personally? I THOUGHT we were all here to teach each other VANILLA. Crossing into people's neutral territory is VANILLA. If Kingmaker doesn't want people crossing his territory, then MAKE HOUSE RULES SO IT DOESN'T COME TO THIS WHEN PEOPLE DO CROSS INTO YOUR TERRITORY. BUT DON'T PRETEND YOU WANT TO PLAY VANILLA THEN. Do not complain when people play vanilla. Do not think that people playing vanilla should know the difference between a "bug" and "vanilla". Playing vanilla to me means allowing everything doable in the game and not magically expecting people to know what is allowed and what isn't "because it is a bug". Or publish a "code of honor" so people know what the guidelines are. Make a neutral party a quick and efficient judge. And my code of honor says, "You NEVER, EVER get upset with anything anyone does when playing vanilla--or ANY game--because you knew anything could happen walking in." Please ask Timurlain about my letters reassuring him that I held NOTHING against him personally for cooperating with Kingmaker or making secret treaties with him! From the looks of Kingmaker's farewell post such an email (one of which I sent) would have pissed him off! Apparently like all of my other nice emails (when sending personal mail) were.

[sm=00000939.gif][sm=00000939.gif]
****MORE DETAIL FOR THOSE INTERESTED BELOW:****
For those with shopping to do, I suggest you go do it instead of reading further. You have better things to be doing with your time.

@Timurlain. I have absolutely NO problem with what you have done/said/planned or anything. You are probably one of the nicest guys on the planet. You can take quick surrender. See if I care. Mus is cool too. He knows how to separate the game from OOC and human interaction.

I was sick of paying Kingmaker 100 compliments throughout these forums and in emails (heck what did I NOT compliment him on???), when I felt all he could ever do about me in this forum was criticize me, refused to communicate, and could call me disingenuous about my discovery of the "secret treaty problem". I just got sick of it. Anyway, I think Kingmaker is a nice [8|], eloquent [8|], diplomatic [8|] guy. And I wish him the best. [:)]

Where I did not bulls**t him was when I said he was a great CoG:EE player and I liked learning from playing against him and that I considered him a valuable asset to the CoG:EE community. I even invited him to my play-testing group.

@Mus and Timurlain: How am I to know what a "bug" is and what is Vanilla? People declaring war on you with their PBEM settings is VANILLA. There was no enforced peace between Prussia and France. Also, marching across neutral lands can hardly be described as a bug. Because it is done all of the time. I just used my knowledge of vanilla to help me achieve my goals. I don't think Kingmaker was caught in the act of surrendering advantages to me in here. I didn't know about some of the vanilla stuff he was handing me my butt in. And I certainly would have never complained about anything he would have come up with. He didn't know about some of the vanilla stuff I was doing--but when I do true vanilla, apparently Kingmaker got upset (which Timurlain's post above leads me to believe). The fact that Britain would go to war with France was obvious to me and perhaps to everyone. But isn't it funny that it was the FIRST war that broke out? And is it coincidence who did the declaring?

I can deal with Mus and Timurlain because with guys like you I know that personal is personal and game is game. Two different things. But with Kingmaker, it is my opinion that personal was personal and game was personal. That was the feeling I got after posting dozens of positive comments about KM and stroking his ego without EVER getting a decent comment back. And two days ago, he went so far as to accuse my not bringing up the secret treaty problem in advance as being "disingenuous". ????? Excuse me? Like I KNEW about this problem? And even IF I did, it IS vanilla--isn't it? CoG:EE with any and all warts? In my opinion, Kingmaker has never done much more than disagree with me in every post. And all I ever did was come back and kiss his boot for fear that IF I ever got any kind of advantage over him in a game he would quit.

LOL. I did not surrender to Kingmaker to show HIM a lesson. Timurlain, you of all people probably know that I do not take losing, or in-game backstabbing personally, or anything. I am not a vindictive person. I think I have sent you 3 or 4 personal emails trying to make clear to you that personally, the "secret treaty" thing was a hill of beans to our friendship and the fact that I think you are a nice guy. I send you these notes because I don't want you to have to worry that I DO hold it personally against you like I worried every day that if I do anything to outmaneuver Kingmaker in vanilla that HE would take it personally (and apparently he did). Before I met Kingmaker, I didn't think those kinds of notes had to be sent when obviously playing a GAME. Now I do.

The GAME is the GAME. And Kingmaker's inability ever ONCE pay any compliment to me in here after ALL of my b**t kissing made me feel that with Kingmaker everything I did in the game was personal to him. I surrendered to Britain to accomplish the first steps in my long term goals in Germany by playing vanilla. Not to piss Kingmaker off. Those IN GAME goals were to hold Prussia responsible for British actions (though how often did I apologize to you by email for having to do that Timurlain?). And if Kingmaker doesn't like people marching over his lands after a surrender, then he should make a house rule for it--not HOPE people won't march over his lands to be nice when playing vanilla. Kingmaker didn't take it easy on my supply lines. And I wouldn't have expected him to. Was it vanilla? Or was it not vanilla?

The PAVNPT and the QSQNPT were my way of saying, LOOK, I will not be criticized for playing VANILLA. And I will not keep paving you a street of compliments just so I don't have to worry about you quitting when I play VANILLA. I just wanted to know where the line was that Kingmaker would let me play in without getting crud for it or having to fear being exiled by him for another eight months! Or hating me even more. I thought you could march over people's lands when they surrendered. That is pure vanilla. As far as I know it isn't a bug. And even if it was a bug, who draws the lines between bugs and WAD in vanilla? And if Timurlain says that Kingmaker didn't like it and didn't like my doing it and that is what bugged him, it is precisely another reason I wanted to know what Kingmaker Vanilla was and get it defined. And I can guarantee you that "Vanilla Epic Ultra" would have caused all of this as well.

The problem with real vanilla, is that it needs house rules. As Vanilla Epic Ultra would have demonstrated. But Vanilla Epic Ultra isn't any more unrealistic than any British 100,000 man amphibious landing in enemy held territory is. And I doubt very little that Britain would voluntarily give that up to be nice to the French! And you know what??? I wouldn't expect him to.

Perhaps IF Kingmaker could have spared ONE inking of an IOTA of "niceness" to me in these forums over the last eight months, then I wouldn't have had to worry so much about more "Kingmaker Fallout" for playing vanilla.

Oh. And one of the primary reasons I didn't take a quick surrender against Britain when he initially declared on me, was because I feared Kingmaker's response to that. And that it would all start to slowly add up and end up in him quitting if I ever actually had any advantage over him. I guess I was right.

(All statements above about Kingmaker above are PURE opinion--I still think Kingmaker is a great, nice, eloquent guy and that his quitting the game has no reflection on his character. And that other players should obviously continue any correspondence and game play with him normally)



Marshal Villars -> RE: 1792 No frills PBEM (9/13/2009 1:09:05 PM)

So, are we playing real VANILLA (fine with me). OR are we playing with house rules to prevent some pretty silly things from happening.

I don't care which we play. But I want to KNOW which we are playing before I go on.

But NO ONE should get crap for playing pure vanilla IF we are playing vanilla. No human being is required to be a nice guy just to "make the game work" or help someone else out with their glory score.



montesaurus -> RE: 1792 No frills PBEM (9/13/2009 3:02:13 PM)

Hi Guys,
In regards to quick surrenders I agree with Mus. Those 300 initial experience points are nice but they are'nt equal to what you will lose! The province Krajina which I took from Austria was generating some good Glory points for Turkey! AS far as surrendering on a regular basis I feel one would find your country's economy and power would be pounded back into the Dark Ages. Instead of one Turkey in the game there would be several!!

I oppose house rules, but after communicating with Marshall Villars there is one house rule that I would consider. If you are at peace with another nation then one should'nt be able to enter that nation's core provinces, or protectorates, unless you've selected that as a victory condition that allows that option! Otherwise, you could theoretically move a significant force onto another's nations capital, right before an enforced peace ended! Just imagine France being able to transport an army to London right before peace ended, and the British Fleet could do nothing to stop them! Granted that army more and likely would be destroyed, but if the british army was occupied elsewhere, thinking the fleet would protect him, then things could become very complicated for the British!

Best Regards to all!
Montesaurus



Marshal Villars -> RE: 1792 No frills PBEM (9/13/2009 3:37:36 PM)

NOTE: All statements pertaining to Kingmaker are PURELY opinion and that I consider him to be a nice guy and that it is too bad it came to this.

WAR PLAN VANILLA EPIC ULTRA:
The plan to create three corps of crack engineers who are forage free and land them on the shores of Britain one month before the enforced peace ends, marching on London and conquering Britain--while the British fleet stands by and does nothing to stop it.

Yes. Montesaurus. You hit it on the head. Montesaurus has revealed my "Vanilla Epic Ultra" plan. Which is fine with me, because I hope to God I NEVER play in a game which would allow such a thing to happen. Please note that I was even being encouraged to TRY "Vanilla Epic Ultra" by one other CoG:EE veteran (NOT Montesaurus). We both thought there was a chance that Kingmaker might quit over this demonstration of vanilla. So. I decided enough of the madness. How was I to know what was legal and wasn't anymore--especially since in vanilla, by definition EVERY move is legal. How was I to know anymore which move which would eject Kingmaker from the game cussing and what wouldn't?

Why should someone have to reveal their surprise plans to anyone to see if it conforms to Kingmaker Vanilla standards of acceptability before deploying it? No one should have to do this for fear of a player quitting about it all. Not if we have been told we are playing vanilla by a player whom I have been told goes nuts if anyone suggests not playing vanilla. I do not like playing vanilla games with loopholes like this and wondering where the limits of acceptable behavior lie.

As ridiculous or gamey as war plan Vanilla Epic Ultra sounds, to someone at all familiar with 17th and 18th century naval issues, the ability to land 80,000 British troops on a whim with no advance planning any where in Europe is EQUALLY ridiculous. Yet, I am sure Kingmaker would have done it if he could have (And you know what? I wouldn't have minded. And I wouldn't have quit the game cussing and slamming the door behind me. No. I would have probably bent over backwards trying to be nice and telling him what a great guy he was and I appreciated having him show me how the game is played!)

I simply was NOT going to sit here wondering what I CAN do or CAN'T do without Kingmaker's approval anymore. Not after six months of dealing with this.

Anyway. I am glad that "Kingmaker Vanilla Guessing Game " is over, where every in-game move you make could be taken personally. And one had to worry about possibly beating him in a battle or taking the quick surrender option for fear of never being talked to again. I am sure that due to the fact that Timurlain received three personal messages from me guaranteeing the fact that I would NEVER take the "secret treaty" issue which came up personally and it would not affect what I thought about him, he knows I DO NOT and WILL NOT take any in game actions of another player personally. And I do not take any moves to inflict personal anguish ON A PLAYER. Duh.

Please note that when I communicated with Montesaurus and revealed War Plan Vanilla Epic Ultra, I did not say we needed a house rule. I said I hoped I would never have to play in a game that allowed something like that. But if it is allowed, then why not use it? This may have convinced Montesaurus that for the first time in his life he may like the idea of a house rule.

NOTE: All statements pertaining to Kingmaker are purely opinion and that I consider him to be a nice guy and that it is too bad that it came to this.



Marshal Villars -> RE: 1792 No frills PBEM (9/13/2009 4:17:35 PM)

...



Mus -> RE: 1792 No frills PBEM (9/13/2009 8:26:32 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshal Villars

@Mus and Timurlain: How am I to know what a "bug" is and what is Vanilla? People declaring war on you with their PBEM settings is VANILLA. There was no enforced peace between Prussia and France.


When you say you discovered a bug, I ask you several times to reveal what it is so it can be discussed, you refuse to reveal it, saying it could endanger you strategically, and then you exploit it I can hardly see how you can be claiming to have been confused whether it was a bug or not.

[;)]

quote:


Why should someone have to reveal their surprise plans to anyone to see if it conforms to Kingmaker Vanilla standards of acceptability before deploying it?


Not Kingmaker's standards, any questionable situation involving a bug or exploit should be brought up so the GROUP can decide on adopting or not adopting a house rule regarding it.

I wasn't aware of Kingmaker being elected dictator of the game. Have disagreed in every instance be it your or Ironwarrior deciding that any one player would have veto power in the adoption of house rules when the majority of players think a rule needs to be adopted to prevent the game coming off the tracks.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshal Villars

Oh. And one of the primary reasons I didn't take a quick surrender against Britain when he initially declared on me, was because I feared Kingmaker's response to that. And that it would all start to slowly add up and end up in him quitting if I ever actually had any advantage over him. I guess I was right.


You could hardly have used a tactic you weren't aware of, so I don't understand making this claim as some kind of rhetorical device.

Regardless, none of this stuff really matters. The bottom line is this game appears to be damaged beyond repair, if I am wrong point it out to me how so.

Contrary to other stated opinions, I think the British position is rather weak to expect to be able to find a replacement. Britain pursued a very unusual strategy of focusing on getting lands on the Rhine that can't possibly be held in the longterm at the expense of forming real relationships with major powers. The power dynamic is screwed up beyond belief as a result, IMO.

I have zero interest participating in a game where France/Russia/Turkey run the board for the entire game while a bunch of the smaller countries sit and eat French table scraps and that is the way things were set to go with nobody willing to form a coalition to stop French hegemony.



montesaurus -> RE: 1792 No frills PBEM (9/13/2009 11:10:51 PM)

I have zero interest participating in a game where France/Russia/Turkey run the board for the entire game while a bunch of the smaller countries sit and eat French table scraps and that is the way things were set to go with nobody willing to form a coalition to stop French hegemony.

Hi Mus,
I just noticed your above posting.  The thing about any multiplayer diplomatic game, even when historically based, is that to expect it to run historically is inaccurate! I feel the fascination with COGEE, as well as with EIA are the diplomatic aspects. The abiltiy to use your skills,  interacting with people, to effect a response!  If this was a pure historical simulation where one is expected to follow the dictates of history then there would be no point of diplomacy. It's the free nature of running one's country, and the deals you make, that make it so interesting! If the French player knew that he would be at war with a massive coalition every single time he played because thats how history happened, it would become very boring.
But I think it is inaccurate to assume that a coalition against AU would last the entire game. Especially if the other players desire to be the winner!
I've played other games of EIA in the past as France, where I have been facing coalitions. But there was always a weak link that could be expolited. One game it occured   when I persuaded the Austrian player to leave the coaition, because I pointed out to him the other players were getting the lion share of the spoils and victory points. When I showed how much better he would fare by joining the French he left the coalition and became the French ally! It's those type of human interactions/diplomacy that make this period so fascinating!
Regards,

Montesaurus



Marshal Villars -> RE: 1792 No frills PBEM (9/13/2009 11:15:06 PM)

We can do whatever you guys want. I am done worrying about it all.

Anything is fine with me.

But the Russian, French, Ottoman coalition was a strong one.





Marshal Villars -> RE: 1792 No frills PBEM (9/13/2009 11:17:50 PM)

Oh! Mus, the bug I was talking about was that I couldn't produce any artillery ANYWHERE in France! Nothing else. I have reported it to Eric, and I hope he gets a chance to look into it. I thought it only applied to me! LOL It had nothing to do with any of this other stuff. I see now why that must have confused everyone. I meant the ARTILLERY production in France was off!!!!!!! Does anyone else have this problem in any games? Or in our PBEM?

I was worried if I revealed that, that people would kick my ass big time knowing that France's armies were weak.

On the other stuff, I am not interested in squabbling about PRECISELY what I meant and what he meant anymore--the bug misunderstanding shows there are a million ways to mean one thing and have someone take it a totally different way. It is the age old problem of the low bandwidth of human communication. Without the Vulcan ability to "mind meld" too much information always goes lost.

But at least now I understand why some people thought I was holding back on some big bug problem that I wanted to exploit! I see that now. LOL Oh well.

Besides, I can say that I have nothing against Kingmaker. I think he is a great guy. But we just do not get along in multi player games. And I suppose there is nothing wrong with that! :D



Marshal Villars -> RE: 1792 No frills PBEM (9/13/2009 11:41:39 PM)

By the way, the French strategy was to not piss Austria off with taking any of her core regions, including her starting Italian possessions. I was not going to cross that border (through annexation at least). I was ready to pave the way for a strong Prussia, until Frederick William II screwed me. LOL. (NOT Timurlain--again, I don't mind anything ANYONE does in character! And I certainly didn't have ANY problems with Kingmaker's style of play.)

My problem was convincing people I did not want to run central Europe. I wanted to build and support a strong central European ally. It was going to be Prussia, and when he hopped to the British that strategy crumbled. Which sucked. Because I had already pissed Austria, my desire to have a strong cooperative power in Germany was in shambles. I was prepared to let either Austria or Prussia run things up to the Rhine and help them get there. I would have felt safe that way!

In my opinion, the only thing that makes this game unplayable was the fact that France is now violating British lands in a war which has just started against Prussia. Which makes the war impossible IF we were to adopt a house rule which would prevent the execution of War Plan Vanilla Epic Ultra (and we need that kind of a house rule, because I don't want to play in a game where War Plan Vanilla Epic Ultra can be executed).







IronWarrior -> RE: 1792 No frills PBEM (9/14/2009 4:47:22 AM)

quote:

Have disagreed in every instance be it your or Ironwarrior deciding that any one player would have veto power in the adoption of house rules when the majority of players think a rule needs to be adopted to prevent the game coming off the tracks.


Well since I'm getting dragged into this.... my opinion was that since insurrections was not discussed prior to starting the game the best thing to do was all in or none- a unanimous vote. Truth be told, I don't think that insurrections are nearly as bad as I previously thought and am sort of glad Matto decided against the house rule. I have seen great success with new diplomats getting a good legal roll on capture/expel and have been proven wrong on the issue.

Generally speaking, I am not a big fan of house rules. Many times something that appears broken can actually be countered. This isn't always the case, and I do agree there are issues that need some TLC, but I am of the opinion that it is much better to open topics for debate and discussion rather than derail an ongoing pbem game. I also have nothing against proposing house rules when there is an obvious need, but I also feel that if everyone isn't on board with it you need to let it go and use it for the next game. Insisting on different flavors of house rules in an already started game isn't the way to go IMO. At the end of the day it's better to carry on and be the wiser for next game where you can propose such things up front.

Just my 2 spits for what it's worth.



MorningDew -> RE: 1792 No frills PBEM (9/14/2009 5:25:41 PM)

I don't even understand what the hell happened. From my perspective, having two opponents that don't like/trust each other as France and England is perfect. How absolutely historical is that!!!

We never agreed on any house rules, although I don't think anything should preclude someone from asking if we want to adopt some. However, and Marshal always approached it this way, acceptance had to be unanimous. It never was so, as far as I'm concerned, we've never adopted any house rules in this PBEM game.

I don't let a lot of e-mails/PMs bother me. I read the ones I want to read and skip those I don't care about. I answer when I have something to say and I don't respond if I have nothing to say.

I probably shouldn't ask this, but what am I missing?




Marshal Villars -> RE: 1792 No frills PBEM (9/14/2009 10:55:43 PM)

You're not missing much.

I won't say Kingmaker is a bad guy. It is my opinion that apparently he just doesn't like me much. I don't know why.

It is my opinion that these are facts:
1. I have posted flattering, complimentary statements about how I think Kingmaker is a great guy, fantastic CoG:EE player, eloquent writer, etc., at least over 30 times around these forums. You will find several of my boot kissing comments in this very nofrills thread. It is my opinion that Kingmaker has posted exactly ZERO good thing about me. When he does post in any way relating to me, it is my opinion that he either disagrees, or has something negative to say. If anyone can find ONLY ONE positive Kingmaker comment about me posted before he quit the game, I will buy them a copy of the next Matrix release (SERIOUSLY!)! :D Indeed, if anyone can find only ONE negative comment I made about Kingmaker before all of this happened I will also buy you a copy of the next Matrix release.
2. In the "nofrills" game, the first war could have happened between ANY two nations, giving 56 possibilities (basically an 8x8 grid minus the nations declaring war on themselves options). I don't hold it against Kingmaker in any way, but it is a fact that the first war which broke out in the game was a British declared war on France. Coincidence? I don't know.
3. Kingmaker has certainly seen MANY quick surrenders. Several of them possibly IMMEDIATE surrenders. However, the FIRST time he decided to post a front page long complaint about quick surrenderers with little backbone, it was after I had surrendered to him following almost two years of conflict. Apparently, there was no problem with Austria's immediate surrender one game year earlier. When I posted my own "quick surrender discussion thread" to make sure we would see fewer of them, Kingmaker did not participate in the constructive effort to come up with ways of incentivizing and rewarding sticking it out.
4. Kingmaker quit on the turn I had shown that using vanilla without house rules I could get Prussia to declare war on me--blowing about 1000 of the treaty points he could have used on me and putting a hole the size of Montana in his German strategy.
5. Kingmaker quit immediately after I made the statement that I would use vanilla rules to take quick surrenders against Britain when I wanted to and would not make decisions which were not rewarded in-game, just to help British foreign policy and glory accumulation.
6. I was tired of worrying about any possible strategic upper-hand I may gain perhaps causing Kingmaker to quit. I was worried that in spite of all of my nice letters and postings, that for some reason he didn't like me enough and might have something personal against me which would spill over into the game and any serious victory of mine would be rewarded with him quitting. I told one player here (who knows who he is) that this is why I did not want to play here when the game started up.
7. I wanted to have an agreed to manner of play so that when I did anything which might upset kingmaker, I wouldn't have to worry about an outcome like this.
8. Instead of discussing these matters, Kingmaker quit, bringing the entire game to a screeching halt for everyone.
9. I think I have been accused of being "disingenuous" for not notifying everyone about a possible Secret Treaty bug and for hiding another bug I was dealing with from other people. The bug I did not want to share with everyone in the game was the fact that France could not produce artillery, no matter what I tried. I did not want to share this publicly, as I felt it would make me look very weak and people might take advantage of it.
10. I sent several diplomatic and complimentary emails to Kingmaker during the course of the game, which, based on his departing statement I am lead to believe he can't stand. Since I have given Kingmaker more positive compliments and statements than anyone in these forums, I am simply lead to believe that he can't stand me.

There is nothing wrong with Kingmaker not liking me. He is certainly entitled to his opinion. Again, I think he is a great guy, top notch CoG:EE player, and an asset to the CoG:EE community. In my opinion, what happened here does not reflect on his character and I would encourage other people to keep playing with him.

That is my side of the story. I think he has his. He can tell it if he wants to.



Mus -> RE: 1792 No frills PBEM (9/15/2009 12:41:24 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronWarrior

Well since I'm getting dragged into this.... my opinion was that since insurrections was not discussed prior to starting the game the best thing to do was all in or none- a unanimous vote.


Understand that is your opinion, just don't agree with it. Wasn't meant as a personal attack, just as an example of the other time I have seen it used.

I am fine with majority or supermajority decisions on house rules whenever something is badly damaging the game.

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronWarrior

At the end of the day it's better to carry on and be the wiser for next game where you can propose such things up front.


With a defined end point like 1000 or even 2000 Glory I am OK with that concept, in a 276 turn game that is likely to last more than a year not so much. I have better things to do with my time.

I agree with you on the severity of the insurrection issue BTW, although I still see it as a problem, but still disagree on the idea of not adopting a house rule on the objection of a single player because there is a laundry list of issues that have been found since then that badly need to be addressed.


quote:

ORIGINAL: montesaurus

I have zero interest participating in a game where France/Russia/Turkey run the board for the entire game while a bunch of the smaller countries sit and eat French table scraps and that is the way things were set to go with nobody willing to form a coalition to stop French hegemony.


I want to clarify these comments, because they are not based on the fact that Austria has a bunch of hostile neighbors as suggested. If that was an issue I would have never agreed to play a country like Austria in the first place, as I have witnessed them be the whipping post of Europe in all my PBEMs thus far and while played by good players I might add. Have made comments in several of the PBEM threads that Austria is big weak and ORANGE, AND smack in the middle of the map. Something about the human predatory drive must get activated by that I don't know what it is.

[;)]

The issue is whether or not there is an interesting/competitive dynamic going on which is going to require a GOOD ACTIVE PLAYER to take over as Britain.

If we could find an experienced player to step in for Britain who could take one look at the game situation and see that France is going to win unless Britain forms friendships and expends money to stop it right now, I would be willing to continue.

Failing that, this game looks screwed, because a newbie British player is in a very bad situation with no friends and tied to a corpse (Rhine territories he can't possibly hold in the long term).

That is my assessment of the strategic situation, and as I requested before, correct me if I am wrong on that. Without somebody with the ability to do something, and soon, France will win. I could hit end turn every move and the outcome wouldn't change much, and that kind of game I have no interest in continuing.

If we got Terje or Matto or Lenin or some other "old hand" the game might be salvaged.



Marshal Villars -> RE: 1792 No frills PBEM (9/15/2009 1:54:31 AM)

Mus, if we continue, something has to be done with the fact that there is a hole the size of Laos in the vanilla rules which would allow me to execute War Plan Vanilla Epic Ultra. Again, I am not a fan of War Plan Vanilla Epic Ultra, but if there is no house rule which prevents these things from happening, then who in this game knows what they can do anymore. My surrender against Britain was taken knowing I could march across neutral lands (even those of people I had surrendered to).

However, since I am not all about winning, I would be happy to cancel the war with Prussia and withdraw to France and respect the neutrality of Britain if everyone else would also agree to respect the neutrality of any power which had conquered them as long as the enforced peace lasted unless a special in-game treaty was drawn up to allow for passage of lands in such instances. We also have to worry about a winning nation taking advantage of this during an enforced peace. Ultimately I would like to have an official umpire appointed (can be Timurlain as far as I am concerned, because I am not obsessed with beating anyone) who can make calls and decisions which we must all respect. I don't want committee decisions with no rules on how the decision is reached which take ages to resolve because no one knows what the rules of decision making are.

However, War Plan Vanilla Epic Ultra demonstrates that Vanilla DOES need AT LEAST this one house rule, so I don't kick Britain's ass every few years in this most unrealistic and offensive manner currently allowed in "vanilla".

I have no problem with your dislike of French power. I would worry too. But remember, I am equally worried with Austrian power! [:D] And I believe you have 50% more provinces than I do! [:D]

NOTE: Because the enforced peace screws a lot up and makes things complicated, I really wish there was a different method with dropping glory point penalties for going to war against a recent enemy--but the glory penalty would be dropped if there were a casus belli.



Mus -> RE: 1792 No frills PBEM (9/15/2009 2:20:08 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshal Villars

However, War Plan Vanilla Epic Ultra demonstrates that Vanilla DOES need AT LEAST this one house rule, so I don't kick Britain's ass every few years in this most unrealistic and offensive manner currently allowed in "vanilla".


I will address this issue in a PM, but I don't think this plan is as Epic as you think it is.

Agree though that just the possibility of doing something like that is idiotic and the ability for the loser to violate neutrality at will needs to be quickly addressed .



IronWarrior -> RE: 1792 No frills PBEM (9/15/2009 3:13:01 AM)

quote:

With a defined end point like 1000 or even 2000 Glory I am OK with that concept, in a 276 turn game that is likely to last more than a year not so much. I have better things to do with my time.


Good point and a fair point. However this was a "no frills" game, and when all's said and done you can't really insist on or hold the game hostage for house rules. That's kindof like the kid who would hold the dice hostage in Monopoly until his demands were met for trading properties. [:D] I DO agree that it sounds like something that needs looking at and addressed in a patch. Nations that surrender really should not be able to violate the neutrality of the nation(s) that they surrender to.

On the other hand this game was advertised as "no frills" vanilla and a long one. Perhaps the best thing to do is for those of us who want to expose and test exploits and such, is to start a short-length game, perhaps the one Marshal started. Once the issues have been ironed out and debated and brought to the attention of the devs, a longer game could be started with house rules in place for anything not covered in a patch. I was looking forward to seeing War Plan Vanilla Epic Ultra in action, for as it stands we still don't know for sure that it would work. Sometimes things that look good on paper don't always work out.... I think Karl Marx would vouch for that. [:D]

Anyway, if there is enough interest in a short game to test these sorts of things, I'm willing to help out.



Mus -> RE: 1792 No frills PBEM (9/15/2009 3:21:00 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronWarrior

Good point and a fair point. However this was a "no frills" game, and when all's said and done you can't really insist on or hold the game hostage for house rules.


I actually believe that is why Kingmaker quit, not the rather petty reasons speculated about, not that I want to take sides in any personal squabbles, just sayin'.

Anyways,

I will try to send in my files in the morning. I am out of town Thursday through Sunday. If we can find an experienced player to take over for Britain I will continue when I get back.

And I am also down for any game testing.



Marshal Villars -> RE: 1792 No frills PBEM (9/15/2009 1:50:46 PM)

Yes, the bug I was having problems with was what I thought was an artillery production bug which had prevented me from adding any artillery since the beginning of the game--ask Montesaurus, he knew about it. Indeed, so did Eric (though I don't think he has yet had time to get to it in his pile of work). IF Kingmaker thought I was trying to screw him with a "neutral march-over" bug strategy, then that is tragic, and I feel badly for him and for me because of such a misunderstanding. I do hope that Mus considers telling Kingmaker that I am sorry if there are any hard feelings. It was my honest opinion that it was vanilla and so I did it. But the tactic should be banished.

And as I said, I do not want to present Kingmaker as a bad guy at all. It is possible that, as in so many situations within the realm of human communication, that without all of the facts at our disposal, we did not understand each other. Perhaps he DID think I was trying to use the neutral territory cross over as a "bug" exploit--keeping it a secret from everyone until the last minute. If that had been the case, then I WOULD have been kind of a jerk.

Anyway, because I know that people can have misunderstandings, and it is possible that the problem here was based on JUST that, as I said , it would be nice to remind people that what happened has no reflections on Kingmaker's character and people should of course keep playing with him. He is a good player, I enjoyed it when he handed me my ass in the game because it REALLY got me to improve my game and he is still one of the top assets of the CoG:EE online community. If he doesn't want to talk to me again, that is fine.

I do hope everyone here takes the fact into account that just before this happened I had invited Kingmaker into my next play-testing group and sees this as a sign that I truly DID think Kingmaker is a super-valuable member of the community (even if we shouldn't be playing games against each other)--and that offer still stands.



Marshal Villars -> RE: 1792 No frills PBEM (9/15/2009 1:59:06 PM)

Whether War Plan Vanilla Epic Ultra would have worked or not, it would have been ludicrous and I would have felt sorry for Kingmaker with every step the plan came closer to action (no, I don't dislike Kingmaker--though I was a little pissed after his quitting).

I am happy to play with no house rules, as long as I know I am really playing without house rules and no one will get pissed if I take a quick surrender or try War Plan Vanilla Epic Ultra (though the odds of its success are now virtually zero because the element of surprise has been tossed to the wind). Because, folks, that is vanilla.

I have a feeling that just before I hit him with War Plan Vanilla Epic Ultra, I would have tried to get a voluntary non-proliferation treaty agreed on which would have prevented my landing. But, again, he wouldn't have been interested and I would have gone ahead with the landing, which in my pure opinion, could have also lead to this.

Now that this is public knowledge, War Plan Vanilla Epic Ultra probably wouldn't work. Surprise would have been at least 50% of the reason for success.



Mus -> RE: 1792 No frills PBEM (9/15/2009 8:37:49 PM)

I will have to look at the circumstances of France about the artillery bug. When I was hit with this the reason was insufficient barracks, a requirement unpublished in the manual. That shouldn't be an issue with France.



Page: <<   < prev  18 19 20 21 [22]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.638672