The Hamburg situation might be something that's unavoidable due to those massive rebel stacks that had already enforced (or were at least very close) their demands before all this shit happened. But I'm okay with rolling all the way back, the Hamburg war was more a case of me making use of a good situation without thinking of the long-term consequences (as in, I'll probably lose Hamburg as vassal whenever my truce with Brandenburg ends).
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Europa Universalis IV MP Community Thread of Don't trust the Russian or trains-Part 3
- Thread starter fanboi
- Start date
- Status
Mgoblue201
Won't stop picking the right nation
I have no idea what's going on, so I probably can't suggest anything. Isn't this just a Polish war for Danzig? Why are fanboi and smjanssen involved in this?
Then I'd need to fix that via console stuff, which is fine if that's what you guys want, but I don't have a savegame stretching that far back, and I will need a detailed description of what exactly to change.
Also, I'd never want to go back that far in a save given all I've done in the meantime
Edit: As far as enforce peace goes, I have added a rule to the OP about that, just don't do it in wars where you are opposed by human players. That still leaves the current situation unresolved however.
Edit 2: Also going to add something to prevent what fanboi did in the OP
Regarding the Enforce Peace deal: Is that still fine for all other wars? Thats still really easily exploitable for wars versus the AI. We have rules about not being allied to more than one human player until 1500 but with the enforce peace deal you can get more players into that war, making much more progress than players not allying with others this way.
And yeah, I'd be fine with editing the save file to revert the country states if the others have no objection. I assume Brandenburg needs everything back from Hamburg, and I need a lot of provinces back from Perm, Muscovy and Golden Horde (Not sure if Ottomans took something from Poland).
Fanboi threatened KingSnake that he would go to war with him if he joined Jazz. KS joined Jazz and fanboi declared a no CB war. Smjanssen meanwhile used the Enforce Peace diplomatic action to join Brandenburg against Poland without allying him in order to get around the three human allies rule.
He has a CB though and talked about using it, lol. Great idea to not click on it, fanboi =p
D
Deleted member 125677
Unconfirmed Member
Me neither. In my mind the war was over, I even had a deal with Jazz, and then everything became a gigantic mess. :/
A white peace at this point feels like a game over, after molesting my country (and Toma's) through all the mess afterwards, so I'm fine with just leaving the game, if that makes it easier for the rest of you guys to go on.
I have no hard feelings for Jazz, Stefan, KS or anyone else, I guess we all did what we had to to survive
I acknowledge my own responsibility for the mess we're in, as I did contact Fanboi to try to convince KS to remain passive or accept white peace, but I agree with Toma too on there being differents shades of shadiness at play here.
Anyway, some amazing battles were fought in North Germany today!
A white peace at this point feels like a game over, after molesting my country (and Toma's) through all the mess afterwards, so I'm fine with just leaving the game, if that makes it easier for the rest of you guys to go on.
I have no hard feelings for Jazz, Stefan, KS or anyone else, I guess we all did what we had to to survive
I acknowledge my own responsibility for the mess we're in, as I did contact Fanboi to try to convince KS to remain passive or accept white peace, but I agree with Toma too on there being differents shades of shadiness at play here. Anyway, some amazing battles were fought in North Germany today!
Good point, I will edit it to just ban enforce peace altogether for wars that already involve human players on any side. That sound okay?
True, but still a different magnitude of a "rule violations" to me, which also had widely different outcomes. Your ingame action was not against the rules itself, the Enforce Peace Deal was.
I mean you might even had an interest in Burgundy not joining the war, because you know Burgundy is allied to Brandenburg and you dont want Burgundys ally to grow even stronger because that would make progress in europe for you impossible. Scotland had an inherent interest in Brandenburg losing that war, so you'd gain an advantage in the upcoming struggle with Burgundy.
That is another thing btw, Jazz already agreed to a peace deal, so we moved army back from everything. He rejected the peace offer and we completely lost our position because we didnt anticipate that the war would continue. My army was already back close to Novgorod when Brandenburg rejected the peace offer. Not sure what the moral stance on "accepting a peace deal and then rejecting it" is, but we really should have won that war and gotten Danzig and already did so in fact with the peace deal discussion being done.
That's for certain, those armies were huge.
I always interpreted the Alliance limit to refer to only "overt" alliances you can see in the game, and that it didn't cover backroom deals whatsoever. In my Hansa game, both Fitz and I declared war on Denmark + Friends in a prior agreement to synchronize our wars and have his army work together with my navy. Both he and I were capped out on our player alliances at the time with other players, but for all intents and purposes, we had an alliance going around the Baltic.
Hey, don't forget me! I was in those wars, too
I'd argue that that was different though, since those weren't player vs. player wars.
I can see your point, and no clue whether that needs re-evaluation, but that is still something set before a war and both of you had claims on his country I suppose. A player joining a war that he is not even close to and no one can anticipate seems like a whole different thing to me.
France declaring on Aragon, after Castille attacked Aragon is something Aragon can anticipate and search allies for (poor Aragon). France declaring on... brandenburg however via the enforce peace deal because they are secretly allied to Denmark is a completely different issue.
Yeah, that sounds okay to me.
Mgoblue201
Won't stop picking the right nation
I think a deal should be made that assumes the new rules had been in place all along. That's probably the most equitable solution.
That would mean Poland receives Danzig, wouldnt it? Poland, Scandinavia and Novgorod won the war vs Brandenburg+Burgundy+small allies. Burgundy entered the war anyway, so fanbois threat didnt make a difference and without Aragon and Brandenburg going back on his agreed peace deal, we would have won that war, since we already occupied most of Brandenburg (and as I said, Brandenburg did agree on Poland taking Danzig).
On the other hand, this would also mean that Brandenburg gets Hamburg back I think. At the time we made the peace deal, he still owned those provinces if I remember correctly.
So its either:
- That war never happened, every province swap is reverted
- That war was won by us, Poland receives Danzig and Brandenburg gets their Hamburg provinces back, but Novgorod stays the way it is.
Mgoblue201
Won't stop picking the right nation
By the way, what does the other side think of this? I haven't seen them express their opinions.
How did Jazz lose Hamburg?
We thought it was peaced out by someone but that didnt seem to be the case. Maybe it was rebel demands. But even then, if we peaced out earlier, he could have fought back those rebels and retain Hamburg.
And maybe the others are sleeping already, but we have 3 days to resolve this , so I assume they'll chime in in the coming days. But yes, I'd also prefer if they said something on this and we agreed on a settlement instead of just enacting any change.
I don't know about that, there were 50k rebels stationed in Hamburg. But yeah, let's wait to hear from Jazz, smjanssen and KingSnake.
I'm not sure how you can regulate backroom deals anyway. I'm sure everyone's engaged in temporary collusions to benefit both parties, and requiring people to engage in formal alliances everytime you do something like that seems over the top.
My opinion is that the fact that Aragon had 3 player alliances is irrelevant for this war. If he would have known that Enforce peace is a breach of rules he would have dropped the alliance with Fitz and joined in. It's not like he brought any human player into the war, it was a 3 vs. 3 players war. I see nothing wrong with that, other than trying to win through some technicality. And it's not easier to use Enforce peace, as you actually need +100 opinion on the war leader on one side, as opposed to the alliance which can be done with +1, so it's not that easy to abuse.
Anyhow, my point is that Aragon didn't benefited in any way from this "bending" of the rule and he could have easily joined the war even under the new rule, by dropping one alliance. He was not the subject of the war so the number of his alliances is irrelevant. It was never a 4 vs. 3 war (except for Fanboi psychological war), to be unfair.
In the end I think it's quite petty from this point of view to try to apply retroactively a rule just because the war didn't go the way you wanted. Jazz didn;t peace out not because of Stefan, but because Ottomans went to war, which was changing totally the balance.
I really liked this session, it was crazy and fun and full of tension and like a roller coaster, at list for me and Fanboi. I would really hate to see this transform from a game into some Hague tribunal case or something.
Anyhow, my point is that Aragon didn't benefited in any way from this "bending" of the rule and he could have easily joined the war even under the new rule, by dropping one alliance. He was not the subject of the war so the number of his alliances is irrelevant. It was never a 4 vs. 3 war (except for Fanboi psychological war), to be unfair.
In the end I think it's quite petty from this point of view to try to apply retroactively a rule just because the war didn't go the way you wanted. Jazz didn;t peace out not because of Stefan, but because Ottomans went to war, which was changing totally the balance.
I really liked this session, it was crazy and fun and full of tension and like a roller coaster, at list for me and Fanboi. I would really hate to see this transform from a game into some Hague tribunal case or something.
Well how about not accusing others of "trying to win through a technicality" then? That is rather low. As I said, I'd be fine with taking back the effects from this war, so I am not trying to "win this war", but we are looking for a way out that sorta fits both parties.
Not to mention, the new rule wouldnt allow him to join the war either because Enforce Peace Deals are not allowed in any war with a human player anymore. Aragon wouldnt have joined that war with the new rules, even if we disregard the alliance number thing.
With no enforcing peace, he would have just allied Brandenburg instead of Morocco and be called to war.
Edit: if it would have been Brandenburg's fault and resulted in a 4 vs. 3 war, I would totally agree. But I see nothing wrong in principle in a 3 vs. 3 war.
Edit 2: and Fanboi's action had a big impact on the war actually, as I kept my troops at home until I saw there was quite a coalition going against him and I felt safe joining the fight.
Edit: if it would have been Brandenburg's fault and resulted in a 4 vs. 3 war, I would totally agree. But I see nothing wrong in principle in a 3 vs. 3 war.
Edit 2: and Fanboi's action had a big impact on the war actually, as I kept my troops at home until I saw there was quite a coalition going against him and I felt safe joining the fight.
Wasnt there an ingame rule on that only being possible for one month after the start of the war? I really missed some of those rule changes in EU4 in the past few months -_- Though now that you said it, Poland might have called me after 1 month as well.
If thats true, then Aragon could have joined the war, I agree. I am still annoyed at me retreating troops because Brandenburg already agreed on the peace deal though and then rejecting. Not sure how that is much better than getting Aragon to exit the war through accidental misinformation. But I guess thats not a rule problem, so we dont need to discuss that here and I'll keep my thoughts on this to myself.
That changed with the last patch and Art of War, you can call now an ally into a war at anytime. Actually what Fanboi just did with France before all going into a big bang.
Mgoblue201
Won't stop picking the right nation
Humans have always been able to call in other players at any time, I think. Is it that bad if roboleon simply accepts a white peace? He doesn't get Danzig, but as long as that PU with Lithuania is secure he's still in a good position, and Jazz suffered a big setback in that war by losing Hamburg. I don't think it's bad for him, as long as he has positive prestige.
Brandenburg losing Hamburg means not much really. He is an easy position to get it back within a few years. However I was losing Perm, 6 provinces to muscovy, another 1-2 to golden horde (Muscovy being a vassal of golden horde) and I think poland lost at least one to the ottomans. My army size limit shrunk from 36 to 23 and my country is now split in 3.
So yeah, the effects of that war a bit heavier for me. Considering neither me, nor poland are in any good state after this war, thats not a good outlook.
But I guess since we define our rules more clearly, we still take something positive out of this all and I shouldnt trust any peace deal negotiations until they are actually accepted ingame if such a diplomatic move is fair game.
Speaking of rule changes, just thought of another small loop hole? Say 3vs3 war, party b gets to white peace one country of party a, making it a 2vs3 war. The 2vs3 could then get another play to join, making it a 3vs3 war again with a new player having full manpower. That way you could still have 4 player countries fight on the same side in the same war without violating any of the current rules.
Anyway, since Aragon could have joined that war fairly, I guess there is not much to argue about this anymore and this war could have played out the same without breaking any of the new rules.
Not sure whether I still can continue playing though, but I guess I'll notice once I see how strong Muscovy and Golden Horde actually became.
On the positive side: It was a fun war though, loved discussion the unit positions with roboleon and working around enemy maneuvers for however long that endless war seemed to last
Not sure whether I still can continue playing though, but I guess I'll notice once I see how strong Muscovy and Golden Horde actually became.
On the positive side: It was a fun war though, loved discussion the unit positions with roboleon and working around enemy maneuvers for however long that endless war seemed to last
Seems like you guys had a crazy session! Anyways, I think the diplomatic move Brandenburg did, first accepting the peace and then rejecting it, should be a fair thing to do since it adds some extra flavour. But of course, it lovers his reliability in the other players eyes - so such a move does come with a cost.
True, the more I think about it, the more it seems like it was my fault for removing my troops from the frontline before the peace deal was made.
It was fun though.
At least no one can say I played a particularly good game with Novogorod! Better rating for me next time!
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
The alliance rule was really only ever there to stop the usual problem of EU4's iron alliances where you end up, almost straight from the start, with two almost immutable Cold War-esque blocs. Nobody can afford to be outside an alliance bloc or they're a free meal ticket, and being inside an obviously weaker alliance bloc serves no purpose, so you end up with two roughly equal alliance blocs that everyone is at least tacitly aligned with. The rule was there to allow some 'free movement' at the start of the game because otherwise you end up with very early world wars that alter the early game dynamic very heavily to the detriment of anyone who isn't already a major power. There are really two responses to the use of Enforce Peace: firstly, accept that tacit alliances and the Cold War blocs are unfortunately an effectively inevitable feature that will happen anyway, and that trying to prevent that is useless, or secondly trying to make these rules more vigorous to ensure that there are distinct early games 'theatres' where a player can feel somewhat safe in engaging without provoking such an enormous war there is no incentive to do so. I think more and more I'd lean towards the first option: the Cold War-esque nature of EU4 is just an unfortunate product of bad design in that all the things which limited the scope of polities in the period aren't really modeled, and there's little use in trying to escape that - there will always be an incentive to try and work around it. Regardless, as a ruling, the spirit of the law may have been broken but the law itself was not; in a competitive game the spirit is to do what wins while remaining inside the strictness of the law and the spirit of the law is where sportsmanship resides but is ultimately not an arbiter. I think that the best option is probably to accept it happened the way it dead, and focus instead on deciding between future avenues.
Random thing though which I am not sure about the current Art of War Rules. Would have Aragon been able to ally Brandenburg if Brandenburg is currently in a war?
Nevertheless, doesnt matter in the end anymore. Any other solution than a straight white peace just seems to messy for everyone involved and I guess whatever happens, happens.
Nevertheless, doesnt matter in the end anymore. Any other solution than a straight white peace just seems to messy for everyone involved and I guess whatever happens, happens.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Would the AI? Only if Brandenburg was the defender, and even then unlikely. Would an Aragon player? Yes. It's actually easier than Enforce Peace, which requires 100+ relations. Alliance only requires 0+ relations.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Also, with fanboi having backstabbed an early ally 3 games in a row now, I have no idea why anyone would trust him!
True, the more I think about it, the more it seems like it was my fault for removing my troops from the frontline before the peace deal was made.
It was fun though.
At least no one can say I played a particularly good game with Novogorod! Better rating for me next time!
Game is not over for you damnit
You're not quitting and leaving a power vacuum two games in a row, the rest of us have games going too you know
. It's not like the situation is likely going to remain the same, with the war won (or at least white peaced) by Brandenburg, he's in such a good position that it would make no sense for all his allies to remain his allies. Specifically, Burgundy will very soon become an effective competitor given the vast riches that Brandenburg's control of the Lübeck node denies Burgundy and the barrier that he forms to Eastwards expansion for KingSnake, when he is already limited in his eventual expansion to the south by Aragon. Burgundy's long-term interests are far better served by an alliance with Poland-Lithuania and/or Sweden than an alliance with Brandenburg. Venice is also likely to not be eager to be in the same alliance bloc as Aragon, given that their interests clash to a massive degree.
D
Deleted member 125677
Unconfirmed Member
Well, I've slept on it, and I still don't see any satisfying way out of this mess.
Here is the line of thought that has led me to a conclusion:
1) I agree with Toma and most people, that getting your ally's ally into a war with Enforce Peace clearly violates rule 7.
In this case it also violated the maximum number of human alliance, but that's not really important since they technically could have gotten Aragon into the war with some alliance ad-hoc jumping (whether this also violates rule 7 should be discussed for next session imo. I think we should have some quarantine between jumping between human alliances next session, as it makes it too easy to effortlessly switch between wars and blocks. If you can do it even mid-war, then what's the point of the rule at all?).
At the same time I agree with KingSnake, I don't want to win, not even a single province, because of a rule technicality and I would feel pitiful if I did.
So: I don't want to continue in a losing game due to an exploit, nor win because being anal about the rules. It would take all the fun out of continuing this game no matter how we solve it.
2) I can't imagine a two-block game with one side consisting of all the human continental European (and Western Tech) Powers being any fun at all. If it's not possible to fight a war with Brandenburg over a single province without Aragon joining from half around the globe (to protect their ally Burgundy's ally from losing a province?), I can't see how PvP wars is viable at all. (PvP wars have other problems too, yesterday it was impossible for us to peace out and claim a single province with +50 warscore. This means in defensive wars you can drag the war out forever, and hope that something will happen sooner or later to your opponent. I think it could be an idea to make it possible to peace out at +50 if you grab only 50% of your score or something?)
3) Because the war went on forever, my country, and even more so Toma's, is a fucking mess.
3) Nothing will ever top yesterday in terms of craziness and fun.
tl;dr:
Here is the line of thought that has led me to a conclusion:
1) I agree with Toma and most people, that getting your ally's ally into a war with Enforce Peace clearly violates rule 7.
In this case it also violated the maximum number of human alliance, but that's not really important since they technically could have gotten Aragon into the war with some alliance ad-hoc jumping (whether this also violates rule 7 should be discussed for next session imo. I think we should have some quarantine between jumping between human alliances next session, as it makes it too easy to effortlessly switch between wars and blocks. If you can do it even mid-war, then what's the point of the rule at all?).
At the same time I agree with KingSnake, I don't want to win, not even a single province, because of a rule technicality and I would feel pitiful if I did.
So: I don't want to continue in a losing game due to an exploit, nor win because being anal about the rules. It would take all the fun out of continuing this game no matter how we solve it.
2) I can't imagine a two-block game with one side consisting of all the human continental European (and Western Tech) Powers being any fun at all. If it's not possible to fight a war with Brandenburg over a single province without Aragon joining from half around the globe (to protect their ally Burgundy's ally from losing a province?), I can't see how PvP wars is viable at all. (PvP wars have other problems too, yesterday it was impossible for us to peace out and claim a single province with +50 warscore. This means in defensive wars you can drag the war out forever, and hope that something will happen sooner or later to your opponent. I think it could be an idea to make it possible to peace out at +50 if you grab only 50% of your score or something?)
3) Because the war went on forever, my country, and even more so Toma's, is a fucking mess.
3) Nothing will ever top yesterday in terms of craziness and fun.
tl;dr:
Fuck you. No.
D
Deleted member 125677
Unconfirmed Member
Alternately me and Jazz could settle this over beers and SUPER SMASH BROTHERS
Yeah, especially for Scotland.
Sweden still has a huge potential of expanding towards east.
Well, when you decide to go into a war, you have to evaluate all the consequences.
I think that both Poland and Novgorod are still in a good position, especially if the decision is to get a white peace in that war.
If we end up this round so soon, I think we should all chose just lowest tier countries next session, so at list we can play for a longer time.
I think that both Poland and Novgorod are still in a good position, especially if the decision is to get a white peace in that war.
If we end up this round so soon, I think we should all chose just lowest tier countries next session, so at list we can play for a longer time.
We're not ending this round so soon, people just need to be sensible about alliances and not treat them as ironclad, because that is what keeps ending games quickly. Interests change. For instance, for Burgundy, allying with Brandenburg was advantageous, but clearly isn't anymore. Same with Venice and Brandenburg who were allied before.
Edit: Honestly, if we end up quitting this early, I'm not participating in future GAF EU4 games. I don't feel like always restarting the second one ironclad mega alliance wins a war over another ironclad mega alliance.
Edit: Honestly, if we end up quitting this early, I'm not participating in future GAF EU4 games. I don't feel like always restarting the second one ironclad mega alliance wins a war over another ironclad mega alliance.
D
Deleted member 125677
Unconfirmed Member
Ok, Kabouter, you win. I don't want that on my conscience.
I guess I'll continue to half-heartedly limp along then
I guess I'll continue to half-heartedly limp along then
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
- Locked
- Poll
- Locked
- Poll