RE: PBEM 1A

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: PBEM 1A

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: PBEM 1A

Page: << < prev 18 19 [20] 21 22 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: PBEM 1A - 5/20/2009 9:41:17 AM

Kingmaker

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

HiHi

Russias T25 orders sent in.

All the Best
Peter

(in reply to Franck)

Post #: 571

RE: PBEM 1A - 5/21/2009 9:25:01 PM

Matto

Posts: 1138
Joined: 11/24/2000
From: Czech Republic
Status: offline

Waiting for Ottomans ...

_____________________________

Excuse my English ... I hope is better then Your Czech ... :o)
My MatrixGames: WitP, WitP AE, WPO, JTCS, P&S, CoGEE, ATG, GoA, B.Academy, C-GW, OoB all DLCs, all SC, FoG2/E, most AGEOD games ...

(in reply to Kingmaker)

Post #: 572

RE: PBEM 1A - 5/21/2009 10:09:59 PM

barbarossa2

Posts: 915
Joined: 1/17/2006
Status: offline

You mean the sultan hasn't sent in his turn orders?

The most glorious Padishah, who is the defender of the faith, whose Majesty is as great as that of Solomon, who is the substitute of God in the world, and who has justified the maxim that an equitable Sultan is the shadow of God on earth;...the supporter of Islam and Musulmans, the exterminator of heresies and of the polytheists, the Sovereign of the two Holy Cities, the Treasure of Mankind and the apple of the age, who is protected by the Supreme Being whose divine assistance men implore, and favored by the most High and propitious God?

He hasn't sent in his turn orders?

:)

(actual language from a Persian treaty with the Ottoman Sultan)

(in reply to Matto)

Post #: 573

RE: PBEM 1A - 5/21/2009 10:30:36 PM

Mus

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

My turn will be in in a few minutes, I needed turn by Monday to get it in was super busy last two days with school related stuff. Quarter ends 6/10 for the summer.

(in reply to barbarossa2)

Post #: 574

RE: PBEM 1A - 5/21/2009 10:48:31 PM

Mus

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

Turk turn 25 in.� Under the terms of the surrender Im forced to declare war on the enemies of France.� Does that mean Im to cancel all treaties that make that impossible?� Isnt that what we decided when Austria was placed in a similar situation?

I canceled my agreement with Russia as required by the terms and I think thats it. Let me know if I got that wrong.

(in reply to Mus)

Post #: 575

RE: PBEM 1A - 5/21/2009 11:01:39 PM

Kingmaker

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

HiHi

You have to be willing to cancel Alliances to comply, you can�t be forced, if you don't, then whoever tries imposing the terms takes massive hits to GP.

EG. Austria stuck by its treaties and france is still taking losses from it.

But if you have willingly chosen to break any Alliances then I imagine you will take GP loss.

All the Best
Peter

(in reply to Mus)

Post #: 576

RE: PBEM 1A - 5/21/2009 11:03:40 PM

Mus

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

I thought Austria canceled its agreements because we all agreed (including WCS) it was a bug giving the glory penalty to the wrong party. They canceled their agreement with me.

Oh well. Heres to the patch I guess, hope it comes soon.

(in reply to Kingmaker)

Post #: 577

RE: PBEM 1A - 5/21/2009 11:17:04 PM

Kingmaker

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

HiHi

Sorry, I wasn't aware Austria had an Alliance with Turkey to break.

Not really sure where all the Bug stuff & WCS comes in to it, again, as far as I know, we only have Francks 'House rule' re captured provinces up & running in this game, but I may be wrong.

All the Best
Peter

(in reply to Mus)

Post #: 578

RE: PBEM 1A - 5/22/2009 12:00:25 AM

Mus

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kingmaker

HiHi

Sorry, I wasn't aware Austria had an Alliance with Turkey to break.

Not really sure where all the Bug stuff & WCS comes in to it, again, as far as I know, we only have Francks 'House rule' re captured provinces up & running in this game, but I may be wrong.

Ok, well I thought thats what we were doing with the treaty glory bug. If Im wrong and nobody minds I could resubmit my turn 25.

(in reply to Kingmaker)

Post #: 579

RE: PBEM 1A - 5/22/2009 12:08:19 AM

Kingmaker

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

HiHi

May be best to check that out with Mat, he may already have merged the files.

All the Best
Peter

(in reply to Mus)

Post #: 580

RE: PBEM 1A - 5/22/2009 12:16:10 AM

Mus

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

I just resubmitted and said if nobody objects yada yada yada.� If its already merged or anyone has a problem with it we can just roll with the punches.

Im tempted to say this game is already permanently damaged by the glory bugs, but I suppose every turn we play is learning how different things work so may as well keep playing (at least until the patch).

(in reply to Kingmaker)

Post #: 581

RE: PBEM 1A - 5/22/2009 11:54:07 AM

IronWarrior

Posts: 801
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: Beaverton, OR
Status: offline

Hey Mus, no worries about cancelling traties and the glory penalty bugs (at least for France). If I understand things correctly it is indeed a bug that will be fixed in the patch, and I'm not worried about it for this game anyway.

I did set the treaty, or terms of surrender, differently this time. You won't actually DoW France's enemies until your treaty with Russia expires, so we might not take the Glory hits, but who knows. Just thought I'd try and be creative this time.

Looking at the end turn results, I have no idea what on earth is going on though... interesting to say the least! I'll throw up a screenshot for anyone that might not see this...

(in reply to Mus)

Post #: 582

RE: PBEM 1A - 5/22/2009 12:11:18 PM

IronWarrior

Posts: 801
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: Beaverton, OR
Status: offline

Here it is, not sure if everyone can see this or not:

Notice the line where it says that Turkey and Russia broke their alliance in accord with the terms of the surrender treaty? Then note how Turkey re-allied herself with Russia under the Russo Turkic Agreement Treaty.

It appears that the line that I added to the surrender agreement (something like Turkey cannot make alliances or treaties with Russia, etc) forces Turkey to actually break the existing one, but then it doesn't actually go away and they are able to re-ally.

I found it kindof interesting at least :D. Now I wonder if either Russia or Turkey took a Glory Penalty hit because of that?

< Message edited by IronWarrior -- 5/22/2009 12:13:16 PM >

(in reply to IronWarrior)

Post #: 583

RE: PBEM 1A - 5/22/2009 12:58:36 PM

Kingmaker

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

HiHi

In haste.

Sorry about this Bill but there are 2 treaties between Turkey & Russia re Alliance, one that expire in Oct/Nov (?) 1805 and the important one, well from my point of view anyhow

that is a full no dates Alliance, and No, not had any hits to Russias GP but I think that may not kick in till next turn if applicable.

All the Best
Peter

(in reply to IronWarrior)

Post #: 584

RE: PBEM 1A - 5/22/2009 4:44:39 PM

Franck

Posts: 394
Joined: 10/1/2004
Status: offline

Crap I tought you wouldn't get that money from me :( because it's a subsidie! Oh well at least I know not to ask for them until I'm not under those DRACONIAN and UNWARRANTED terms anymore!

ANyway IW, noticed how I fought really HARD to break turkey for you ;P. I even left the seeas wide open so I wouldn't interfere with it's supplies!

(in reply to Kingmaker)

Post #: 585

RE: PBEM 1A - 5/22/2009 5:16:18 PM

barbarossa2

Posts: 915
Joined: 1/17/2006
Status: offline

I am proposing that Franck mediate and interpret all rules questions/patch problems to optimize this game for the remainder of its duration.

I have no problem with this. I don't have any reason to believe that Franck is slavishly interpreting everything to his own advantage/his coalition's advantage. And even if he were, I wouldn't care. This game is really beyond repair due to glory issues, and we are really all just playing for the experience with the system until the patch is released I am guessing.

So: Can I have a show of hands in favor/against Vienna's courts having jurisdiction over ALL rules related matters and interpretations for the balance of this game? I have already surrendered the jurisdiction of all matters dealing with Sweden to Vienna. Who else would like to join me? I feel this will make our lives much simpler, so things don't have to be decided by jury every time (for instance, Mus's desire to resubmit his turn...would be decided by Vienna if it came down to it).

-B2

(in reply to Franck)

Post #: 586

RE: PBEM 1A - 5/22/2009 5:21:40 PM

IronWarrior

Posts: 801
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: Beaverton, OR
Status: offline

B2, I'm sure we're really just playing this until the patch comes out. I rather doubt anyone can say the Glory Points are working correctly with a straight face. But sure, I'm fine with that.

Peter, if you guys didn't take a Glory hit, then it's probably fine. Maybe it's because you guys realigned before the end of the turn.

Franck, indeed I noticed. I will be sure to shoot myself in the foot even harder for the next terms of surrender in spite!

(in reply to barbarossa2)

Post #: 587

RE: PBEM 1A - 5/22/2009 8:39:59 PM

Kingmaker

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

HiHi

Don't think it is to do with Mus resubmiting an Alliance last turn Bill, if you can see it, check out the 'Treaty of Izmir' on the Diplo page, said Treaty to take effect from Oct 1803, ie both Turkey & Russia are party to a full Alliance.

So we now wait with baited breath to see what next turn brings re GP hits

All the Best
Peter

(in reply to IronWarrior)

Post #: 588

RE: PBEM 1A - 5/22/2009 8:51:21 PM

barbarossa2

Posts: 915
Joined: 1/17/2006
Status: offline

Hi there. :)

I didn't post that recommendation because of any particular issue. I just posted it because issues come up in general, and I am loathe to create a mini judicial system with the rules required when I think we would all just be better off recognizing one person as the "judge". And even though the Danish decision went heavily against me, I still say Franck is the guy who should have the job.

Does anyone have a problem with that?

-B2

(in reply to Kingmaker)

Post #: 589

RE: PBEM 1A - 5/22/2009 9:22:10 PM

IronWarrior

Posts: 801
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: Beaverton, OR
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kingmaker

HiHi

Don't think it is to do with Mus resubmiting an Alliance last turn Bill, if you can see it, check out the 'Treaty of Izmir' on the Diplo page, said Treaty to take effect from Oct 1803, ie both Turkey & Russia are party to a full Alliance.

So we now wait with baited breath to see what next turn brings re GP hits

All the Best
Peter

Did Mus resubmit an alliance last turn? According to the report, the realliance came from the existing Russo Turkic one. I certainly didn't expect Turkey to be forced to break the alliance, just thought it was odd the way the turn went. (Basically I was surprised that the Refuse Alliance clause affected an existing treaty, I assumed it was meant to prevent any new ones).

Was wondering if a Glory Penalty was enforced due to the breaking of the alliance/treaty. I'm trying to figure out when that is calculated (appears to be at the end of the turn since you guys escaped unscathed). I must have missed that other treaty, but probably doesn't make a difference... there could be a million secret treaties of alliances with Turkey for France to take Glory hits from for that matter.

< Message edited by IronWarrior -- 5/22/2009 10:16:43 PM >

(in reply to Kingmaker)

Post #: 590

RE: PBEM 1A - 5/23/2009 1:46:25 AM

Franck

Posts: 394
Joined: 10/1/2004
Status: offline

I don't mind trying to Arbitrate (spelling?) disputes... But please try to always contact me threw Email. I tend to hate having to connect here just to reply to a PM. Ether post in the forum or if you want to talk privately, contact me tru email please.

Also as most of you probably noticed english isn't my main language and I have some problem typing it... Even if I'm typing my esay in english and planning to do my Ph.D in an American university

(talk about crazy)

(in reply to IronWarrior)

Post #: 591

RE: PBEM 1A - 5/23/2009 4:33:01 AM

Mus

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

I canceled my alliance automatically and it reformed automatically, no action on my part.� Pretty odd.

I believe somebody (may not be the right party, in other words IW might get hit) will start paying penalties next turn for me not obeying the refuse alliance clause, because the enforced alliance agreement with Russia is not canceled, therefore I will automatically form alliance with Russia, if that makes sense.

I gotta say the Diplomatic system is a little bit screwy in the way some of the clauses are working. I think it needs some work, but hopefully the most odd occurences will be over with the patch.

< Message edited by Mus -- 5/23/2009 4:35:01 AM >

(in reply to Franck)

Post #: 592

RE: PBEM 1A - 5/23/2009 8:22:14 AM

Kingmaker

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

HiHi

Just in from work so Brainbox may not be completely aligned with the Real world, but a thought suddenly struck me, "maybe", there is no Bug on the treaty thing, ie it is, in the main, WaD, the only Bug bit is where allies of the Surrendering nation also get hit for GP just coz they are allies.

My reasoning is this, if an ordinary Treaty was proposed whereby Nation x asked Nation y to declare war on all its enemies (really do think we should have an option there to choose who we go to war with instead of just blanket coverage) then under normal circumstances the clause would not go ahead (because of an Alliance or somesuch), as it would not be ratified by the second party coz they would know the breaking of a previous Treaty will cost them hits against their Glory points.

Now, if a Surrender Treaty is forwarded without the Clause �Terms of Surrender� included then it can be ratified or not by the recipient ie there�s no forcing of issues that go contrary to any already established Treaties, so, as above.

But, and here�s the Biggie, if �Terms of Surrender� is added as a clause then that forces all clauses through irrespective of any standing Treaties, so therefore it would seem logical for the proposing Nation to suffer GP loss coz it�s, in modern day terms, �Out of Order!� etc. etc.

So maybe the lesson to be learned is as Mat intimated a long time ago, be very, vey careful what you try to force through in a Surrender Treaty, it may well Backlash on you.

Right that me done, I�d better go keep my bed company before I get Nagged to death.

Thoughts?

All the Best

Peter

(in reply to Mus)

Post #: 593

RE: PBEM 1A - 5/23/2009 9:27:59 AM

IronWarrior

Posts: 801
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: Beaverton, OR
Status: offline

Peter,

Eric did say that it should be fixed in the upcoming patch, which leads me to believe that it is indeed a bug and not WaD.

On principle I would agree with you under a normal treaty, but not as Terms of Surrender. Doesn't seem very likely that the surrendering nation should dictate the terms, ie: "we surrender Mr. Bonaparte, but look here... this is what we will and won't do...". Now, I do think the surrendering nation shouldn't have to comply, but that should not penalize the winner. If there is historical precedence for this that I am unaware of, I might be able to stomach it a little better. To me, Terms of Surrender are "enforced" and not "proposed", so I would say it is illogical for the originating nation to be penalized for non compliance by the surrendering nation (including secret treaties).

Terms of Surrender are already limited by what happens during the war (casualties sustained, how badly the side was defeated, etc) which should be enough imo. The victor should not be further penalized by limiting what they can demand under Terms of Surrender because of existing treaties (which may have caused the war in the first place

). Perhaps they may need tweaked if the terms seem to harsh by adjusting the amount of points given for treaties, or clauses cost more if too powerful etc, but I like the system as it is. If a nation doesn't want to face harsh Terms of Surrender then they shouldn't tempt fate with a long and drawn out war against a stronger opponent. They can surrender at any time that they think it is a lost cause and take terms that wouldn't be as harsh.

'To the victor go the spoils'?

< Message edited by IronWarrior -- 5/23/2009 9:55:22 AM >

(in reply to Kingmaker)

Post #: 594

RE: PBEM 1A - 5/23/2009 12:21:15 PM

Kingmaker

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

HiHi

Fair enough Bill, but I�m still wondering if we might not be reading the wrong message into Erics statement, if this is indeed the one you refer to

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mus
The Glory penalties in certain diplomatic situations appear to be transposed.

Yes, these should all be fixed in the patch. Unfortunately this bug crept in when I made a change to glory default levels a few weeks before the gold version and nobody caught the error before the game shipped.

Ie it�s the Transposition bit that�s being fixed in the patch.

The lines I�m working along are that forcing another nation to DoW to my (admittedly limited) Knowledge "may" be unhistorical and therefore in Game terms carries a heavy penalty (if that is so, retrospectively it may have been better to simply code it in that it couldn�t happen), as far as I know, and again I might be wrong, despite all her defeats at French hands Austria was never forced to DoW on for eg England or Russia, same for Russia (Prussia I ain�t so sure about ie they may have joined in the 1812 invasion of Russia willingly but I ain�t familiar with the terms of their surrender, Spain�s participation alongside france against England is again fuzzy ground re if they were forced into it or not but ...)

As far as I remember the period, the most aggressive thing Napoleon did along the lines we are talking about, and which shocked Public opinion throughout Europe was the imposition of his �Continental System� against England, that, would presumably be covered Game wise by the inclusion of an �Embargo� clause.

Re, ie: "we surrender Mr. Bonaparte, but look here... this is what we will and won't do...".

Mmmm, keep in mind that in the historical setting a lot of negotiations would have been taking place between Diplomates etc. before any final Surrender document was drawn up, this would in the game I assume be covered by a Cease fire and a Surrender Treaty without the �Terms of Surrender� clause, in the Game, Surrender comes up before Terms are drawn up.

Aaanyhow, I suppose we will just have to wait and see what the Goodfolk at WCS

come up with, I do hope overall though that they don�t over react to all the critisism on the MB's and Dum the game down.

In the meantime Bill here�s a promise; as a magnanimous gesture on my part, I will not include any clause in frances Surrender terms that includes them going to war with another nation, thats OK, don�t thank me now, ... later will do.

All the Best
Peter

< Message edited by Kingmaker -- 5/23/2009 12:23:27 PM >

(in reply to IronWarrior)

Post #: 595

RE: PBEM 1A - 5/23/2009 1:28:04 PM

IronWarrior

Posts: 801
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: Beaverton, OR
Status: offline

Well as cool as it might be, I can't rewrite the Treaty of Pressburg in game.

I agree with what you are saying about forcing other nations to DoW at face value, but I see it as a game mechanic to try to achieve what actually did happen, which was the dissolution of the 3rd Coalition (and the 4th and 5th etc). I knew full well that Franck wouldn't actually fight any battles against his former allies. I just considered the DoW to be semantics... a means to an end.

I might be confused but I thought the transposition was exactly the bug that I am currently afflicted with as France.

(in reply to Kingmaker)

Post #: 596

RE: PBEM 1A - 5/23/2009 1:52:02 PM

Kingmaker

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

HiHi

I might be confused but I thought the transposition was exactly the bug that I am currently afflicted with as France

Ah! in which case I'm barking up the wrong tree, which wouldn't be a 1st! time

For some reason I thought the Transposition bit was in relation to England & Russia taking heavy GP hits earlier because Austria couldn't comply with your terms and go to war with us.

Ho hum, wrong again.

All the Best
Peter

(in reply to IronWarrior)

Post #: 597

RE: PBEM 1A - 5/23/2009 2:29:26 PM

IronWarrior

Posts: 801
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: Beaverton, OR
Status: offline

No no... I thought it was both cases, but please don't get me wrong... I find WCS manuals and MB answers to be extremely vague and open ended. This would certainly not be the first time I've misinterpreted them!

quote:

Mmmm, keep in mind that in the historical setting a lot of negotiations would have been taking place between Diplomates etc. before any final Surrender document was drawn up, this would in the game I assume be covered by a Cease fire and a Surrender Treaty without the �Terms of Surrender� clause, in the Game, Surrender comes up before Terms are drawn up.

Last thing I wanted to add before I let this dead horse carcass RIP

is don't forget we have limited surrender as well. I think a forced surrender would have less negotiations than an offer of a limited surrender. One of the things I like about this system is having this distinction. I'm surprised noone has tried using it yet.

(in reply to Kingmaker)

Post #: 598

RE: PBEM 1A - 5/23/2009 4:47:26 PM

Franck

Posts: 394
Joined: 10/1/2004
Status: offline

Well I doubted that you had your preference set to not agressibe toward Austria... So the best way for me to get out of the mess was to just surrender ;)

(in reply to IronWarrior)

Post #: 599

RE: PBEM 1A - 5/24/2009 2:36:22 PM

Kingmaker

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

HiHi

Russias T26 orders sent in.

All the Best
Peter

(in reply to Franck)

Post #: 600