Support NeoGAF

[Kabouter]

Ok, Kabouter, you win. I don't want that on my conscience.

I guess I'll continue to half-heartedly limp along then

Yeah, that sounds exciting . Seriously though, people just need to stop creating permanent mega alliances and the problem is solved. Then no one has to be in a position where they can't progress anymore. The only reason people get in that position is because people create mega alliances really early on and stick to those unconditionally.

 

[Toma]

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.

Why would Burgundy not ally Brandenburg anymore? They are in close proximity and can help each other against everything. Since he can have two allies, he'll be allied to Brandenburg and Aragon, Aragon because of the common interest in France and Brandenbug is highly valuable as ally because of how strong he can become rather quickly.

 

[Kabouter]

Why would Burgundy not ally Brandenburg anymore? They are in close proximity and can help each other against everything. Since he can have two allies, he'll be allied to Brandenburg and Aragon, Aragon because of the common interest in France and Brandenbug is highly valuable as ally because of how strong he can become rather quickly.

Because if he helps Brandenburg along more he's severely hurting his own long-term interests. Brandenburg will limit the amount of money coming into the English channel node, and will eliminate any opportunity for Eastward expansion. Because truces with France last a long time, that will mean KingSnake's expansion will be very slow.

 

[Toma]

Yeah, that sounds exciting . Seriously though, people just need to stop creating permanent mega alliances and the problem is solved. Then no one has to be in a position where they can't progress anymore. The only reason people get in that position is because people create mega alliances really early on and stick to those unconditionally.

I don't see how players can afford not to do that. Not to mention backstabbing in he finest of traits and will come back to bite you in he arse.

 

[Toma]

Because if he helps Brandenburg along more he's severely hurting his own long-term interests. Brandenburg will limit the amount of money coming into the English channel node, and will eliminate any opportunity for Eastward expansion. Because truces with France last a long time, that will mean KingSnake's expansion will be very slow.

Yeah, but he is allied to the winning country, which makes him win the game then if he mostly support Brandenburg. He doesn't need much expansion if his ally does, sorta the same thing I was going for with Poland. I increased my trade income to be the financial backbone of his expansion, my own expansion didn't really matter.

Not to mention, the moment they stop allying each other, Brandenburg is not in a state to win against Sweden/Novgorod/Poland anymore.

 

[Kabouter]

Yeah, but he is allied to the winning country, which makes him win the game then if he mostly support Brandenburg. He doesn't need much expansion if his ally does, sorta the same thing I was going for with Poland. I increased my trade income to be the financial backbone of his expansion, my own expansion didn't really matter.

I don't see how Burgundy wins the game if he's completely boxed in by his allies, I don't think any alliance wins. I think a player, maybe two can win. Clearly in your scenario Burgundy is not a winner.

Not to mention, the moment they stop allying each other, Brandenburg is not in a state to win against Sweden/Novgorod/Poland anymore.

Which is the point I'm making. Because interests change, alliances should shift, and situations change.

 

[Toma]

Which is the point I'm making. Because interests change, alliances should shift, and situations change.

Interests dont change though. Brandenburgs interest is staying safe from the alliance block from the east/north, while gobbling up Germany. Anything else is not a big threat. That was the case since the beginning of the game and will be the same until the end of the game.

Burgundys interest is taking apart France, for which he needs strong allies. He cant ally Scotland, because Scotland would want french lands in return for that war, which leaves him with Brandenburg in a "you help me fight here, I help you fight there"-deal. After that, he would probably go across the UK.

 

[Kabouter]

Interests dont change though. Brandenburgs interest is staying safe from the alliance block from the east/north, while gobbling up Germany. Anything else is not a big threat. That was the case since the beginning of the game and will be the same until the end of the game.

Burgundys interest is taking apart France, for which he needs strong allies. He cant ally Scotland, because Scotland would want french lands in return for that war, which leaves him with Brandenburg in a "you help me fight here, I help you fight there"-deal.

In his current war with France, KingSnake should be able to take enough that France isn't a threat anymore. He really shouldn't need help after that. So the only thing his alliance with Brandenburg after that does is ensure he loses the game by being completely boxed in. I definitely agree with it being in Brandenburg's interests to stay allied though, of course he's interested in not having any threat from the West.

 

[KingSnake]

If only the one or two players who have the best chance of winning a game would play then there is no point in a MP game, really.

I probably enjoyed my first MP game as Wallachia more than any after that, despite being conquered in the end by the Ottomans. My most boring game was as Portugal, where I did ok and only faced the threat of MGO towards the end of the game, while expanding my colonies in America and Africa and being not really in the European wars. I played last session as Scotland beyond being thrown out of Europe by England and only quit once they got also my Cuban provinces. I had to move my capital two times. I think the fun of the game is also to survive in the difficult times, not only when you are rich and have a big army.

But I understand that everyone has a different idea of what a fun EU game is. I still think in the current game is all on the table.

Edit: you know what's funny? Before fanboi's attempt at diplomacy P) my agreement with Jazz was to not get my troops to help him with Poland and rather try to settle the other war (the coalition war against him). Of course all that changed when he got 3 players against him and the 4th one waiting to get me with the help of France. Things changed quite dramatically in one session. I'm sure the same could happen in future sessions.

 

[fanboi]

Stop being so easy to troll people...

We are ofc not ending

 

[Deleted member 125677]

I'd still like to hear Jazz' take on it all though

 

[Jazzerman]

I like to point out the fact that with Scotland pressuring Burgundy not to help me, the aggressive side (Poland, Novgorod, and Scandinavia) were not looking for any kind of fair fight at all (even with Burgundy) and had not approached me to say they only wanted a single province. Scandinavia was clearly after the trade lands I'd taken from the Hansa, which are now independent and under siege by them anyway (so I'll be getting that back from your alliance in a couple of years right Toma?!) and I've no idea why Novgorod were determined to ally Poland and who's to say that is going to change? What has your interest been since the beginning of the game Toma and why is that never going to change, hmm?

To suggest that it's in some way in the spirit of the game to allow a technicality like this to force a player to simply roll over and die is hilarious. Even with Burgundy and Aragon we were outnumbered and slowly losing, until the Ottomans declared, which just barely seemed to turn the tables.

Nobody has directly gained from this war and everyone has sacrificed, although Scandinavia is taking my most valuable land (Hamburg), while France is weakened enough to allow Burgundy to safely take from them, I'm still stuck right in the middle with the large alliance to my North / East.

Outside of this war everything is still up for grabs, I don't understand how the game is suddenly ruined for those involved. To me it seems as if Poland and Novgorod are upset at missing out on an easy victory. If you can only enjoy the game when steam rolling other countries then what's the point? At the same time if you're not enjoying the war, perhaps we should end it immediately, in which case I'd be happy to go along with a white peace.

 

[Uzzy]

I'd be pretty sad if the game ended this early, so I'm glad that's off the table. I mean, sure, after setbacks I've wanted to quit too, but the feeling of coming back stronger is a great one. Even now with the AI having basically sabotaged my country, I'm gonna see what I can do to come back.

I'd also like to point out that the Ottomans are on the doorstep of the HRE right now. So anti-Ottoman coalition, anyone?

 

[Toma]

To me it seems as if Poland and Novgorod are upset at missing out on an easy victory. If you can only enjoy the game when steam rolling other countries then what's the point?

Wow, well since most of your post doesnt need any comment, I'll just say that its good to know what you think about me/us for future reference.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Yeah, that sounds exciting . Seriously though, people just need to stop creating permanent mega alliances and the problem is solved. Then no one has to be in a position where they can't progress anymore. The only reason people get in that position is because people create mega alliances really early on and stick to those unconditionally.

People do that because it is the optimum way to play. Take last game: I either stuck with Fitz or got fucked. Why would I ever defect? Toma-fanboi would have destroyed me. If you're not in an alliance bloc, you're dead. It's just a function of how eu4 works as a game. If you don't want to have to rely on a vague conception of sportsmanship or necessarily imperfect rules, you'd have to mod the game - increase attrition, particularly naval attrition, reduce siege times, make war exhaustion more difficult to buy down, etc. As it is, the base game is just massively stacked against localized wars.

As for defections or alliance changes, trust is the single most important resource in the game. As an example, I will probably never have fanboi as an ally (no offence, fanboi, still love you) because I can't trust the alliance to actually hold. The way I think and plan whilst in an alliance with a partner I know to be untrustworthy is functionally the same as the way I do while going solo. So, it doesn't really solve the problem to hope that people switch blocs more often because people can only do that maybe once or twice then it follows them between games.

 

[Kabouter]

People do that because it is the optimum way to play. Take last game: I either stuck with Fitz or got fucked. Why would I ever defect? Toma-fanboi would have destroyed me. If you're not in an alliance bloc, you're dead. It's just a function of how eu4 works as a game. If you don't want to have to rely on a vague conception of sportsmanship or necessarily imperfect rules, you'd have to mod the game - increase attrition, particularly naval attrition, reduce siege times, make war exhaustion more difficult to buy down, etc. As it is, the base game is just massively stacked against localized wars.

Well, Paradox makes it work internally by just handing out awards to the top 3 in score right? Is there something we could do along those lines?

 

[Fitz]

Wow, well since most of your post doesnt need any comment, I'll just say that its good to know what you think about me/us for future reference.

I think it was simply a comment on the current situation, not a critique of your character.

People do that because it is the optimum way to play. Take last game: I either stuck with Fitz or got fucked. Why would I ever defect? Toma-fanboi would have destroyed me. If you're not in an alliance bloc, you're dead. It's just a function of how eu4 works as a game. If you don't want to have to rely on a vague conception of sportsmanship or necessarily imperfect rules, you'd have to mod the game - increase attrition, particularly naval attrition, reduce siege times, make war exhaustion more difficult to buy down, etc. As it is, the base game is just massively stacked against localized wars.

In general I agree with you, especially with your example. But in this case, as an outside observer, the current politics in Europe make no sense. Of course there was some pre-game discussions that determined the current alliance web, but the reasons for them still being in place are opaque to me.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Well, Paradox makes it work internally by just handing out awards to the top 3 in score right? Is there something we could do along those lines?

I mean, the scores are okay but they're like the scores in Mario levels: nobody really cares and it would be difficult to make them care. Some of the things which increase score are rather unintuitive (for example, keeping military maintenance at max) and are for the most part bad play. Ultimately, none of us are here for the scores, we're here to crush our enemies, see them driven before us, hear the lamentations of their women.

 

[KingSnake]

In general I agree with you, especially with your example. But in this case, as an outside observer, the current politics in Europe make no sense. Of course there was some pre-game discussions that determined the current alliance web, but the reasons for them still being in place are opaque to me.

I kind of agree with you. Normally I shouldn't have allied Brandenburg, but also there is no point in Scandinavia-Novgorod-Poland alliance, that's a boiling pot right there. There's no way the three of them can grow together at a satisfying pace. Even if they would have beaten Brandenburg. But most of current alliances were not set like this at the beginning of the game and it is mostly because the game evolved in such a way.

 

[Deleted member 125677]

I mean, the scores are okay but they're like the scores in Mario levels: nobody really cares and it would be difficult to make them care. Some of the things which increase score are rather unintuitive (for example, keeping military maintenance at max) and are for the most part bad play. Ultimately, none of us are here for the scores, we're here to crush our enemies, see them driven before us, hear the lamentations of their women.

I'm here for the shit storm, and the character assassinations

It's nice to get confirmation on what a weak sauce character I am once in a while !

 

[fanboi]

I think we should give some prize to the top 3, and how do we solve who is the top 3? Well, easy, we vote beased on how they performed (a comeback from a great set back can be more valueble then just keep going so to say, example is Uzzy that got recked in the beginning but have climbed back (and he deserves a fucking medal for staying even after the defeat initially).

Since we will also need to vote on each player after this due to ranking for next session.

 

[Toma]

I kind of agree with you. Normally I shouldn't have allied Brandenburg, but also there is no point in Scandinavia-Novgorod-Poland alliance, that's a boiling pot right there. There's no way the three of them can grow together at a satisfying pace. Even if they would have beaten Brandenburg. But most of current alliances were not set like this at the beginning of the game and it is mostly because the game evolved in such a way.

Scandinavia goes into Germany, Poland goes south towards the Ottomans, I stay smallish and put all my efforts into money and colonizing eastwards.

Bam, busy for another 300 years.

 

[FACE]

Things sure got exciting around here

 

[KingSnake]

Scandinavia goes into Germany, Poland goes south towards the Ottomans, I stay smallish and put all my efforts into money and colonizing eastwards.

Bam, busy for another 300 years.

Right.

Also Poland goes for the poor provinces in the South and a war against strong Ottomans instead of the rich provinces in the West. Double right.

 

[Toma]

Right.

Also Poland go for the poor provinces in the South and a war against strong Ottomans instead of the rich provinces in the West. Double right.

Geez. Well it would be SUCH a trouble for Scandinavia and Poland to divide some of that German territory to split a bit of the wealth. UNTHINKABLE.

Besides, an alliance with a strong ally partner is worth more than a few more wealthy provinces, as last game proved.

 

[KingSnake]

Well, except for some German provinces Poland can still go south and Novgorod can still stay smallish and expand eastwards. The only one fucked in the end is Scandinavia. And maybe Scotland as a collateral victim.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I think we should give some prize to the top 3, and how do we solve who is the top 3? Well, easy, we vote beased on how they performed (a comeback from a great set back can be more valueble then just keep going so to say, example is Uzzy that got recked in the beginning but have climbed back (and he deserves a fucking medal for staying even after the defeat initially).

Since we will also need to vote on each player after this due to ranking for next session.

It's difficult though because the fact Uzzy had to make a comeback was entirely due to his own poor play in the first place. In rating him, I would consider the fact he came back s positive, but equally I wouldn't rate him as high as someone who knew how to manage AE effectively. This also applies to diplomacy - the diplomatic game is obviously a huge part of EU4 and even if Toma launches a strong comeback (which he obviously can, that Muscovy is nothing and the hordes don't last) it's less indicative of good play than someone who didn't get into that position in the first place.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Geez. Well it would be SUCH a trouble for Scandinavia and Poland to divide some of that German territory to split a bit of the wealth. UNTHINKABLE.

Besides, an alliance with a strong ally partner is worth more than a few more wealthy provinces, as last game proved.

And, yes, this so hard. An alliance with a strong partner, even one who partially constrains your expansion, is better than them not being allied in the vast majority of cases. Take our last game: I do not backstab allies and there's reasonable evidence to suggest given my support of Fitz and Manik in the past that I am a loyal friend. In hindsight, it really made very little sense for Toma and fanboi to ostracize me, even though I partially cut off their expansion, because having someone who won't attack you, even if they constrain you a bit, is better than being forced to release Byzantium.

 

[Deleted member 125677]

I do not backstab allies and there's reasonable evidence to suggest given my support of Fitz and Manik in the past that I am a loyal friend.

Valhelm's reaction to this:

 

[Kabouter]

Valhelm's reaction to this:

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Valhelm was not an ally. I gave him the offer to be one, but he was never there. If he had helped me with Castile, I genuinely never would have touched him for the rest of the game.

 

[Kabouter]

Valhelm was not an ally. I gave him the offer to be one, but he was never there. If he had helped me with Castile, I genuinely never would have touched him for the rest of the game.

lol

 

[fanboi]

Valhelm was not an ally. I gave him the offer to be one, but he was never there. If he had helped me with Castile, I genuinely never would have touched him for the rest of the game.

That what she said.

 

[Toma]

It's difficult though because the fact Uzzy had to make a comeback was entirely due to his own poor play in the first place. In rating him, I would consider the fact he came back s positive, but equally I wouldn't rate him as high as someone who knew how to manage AE effectively. This also applies to diplomacy - the diplomatic game is obviously a huge part of EU4 and even if Toma launches a strong comeback (which he obviously can, that Muscovy is nothing and the hordes don't last) it's less indicative of good play than someone who didn't get into that position in the first place.

Btw, I disagree on the notion of this being "obviously" possible, considering the now 65k-70k opponents in my near vicinity with my 20k army stack.
Even if Poland recovers in time, which is not likely, they would fight Ottomans while I need to take care of Muscovy+Hordes+Uzbek.

Not saying its impossible, but I have no illusion of being able to pull this off.

 

[Kabouter]

Btw, I disagree on the notion of this being "obviously" possible, considering the now 65k-70k opponents in my near vicinity with my 20k army stack.

Even if Poland recovers in time, which is not likely, they would fight Ottomans while I need to take care of Muscovy+Hordes+Uzbek.

So ally with mgo, who also needs to kick Ottoman ass?

 

[Deleted member 231381]

This just proves my point from earlier, though: half the reason for perma-alliances is that if you do anything even mildly shady it sticks with you for games and makes alliance making more difficult. Like, who will honestly consider allying fanboi now unless he gives you a security deposit?

 

[Uzzy]

It's difficult though because the fact Uzzy had to make a comeback was entirely due to his own poor play in the first place. In rating him, I would consider the fact he came back s positive, but equally I wouldn't rate him as high as someone who knew how to manage AE effectively. This also applies to diplomacy - the diplomatic game is obviously a huge part of EU4 and even if Toma launches a strong comeback (which he obviously can, that Muscovy is nothing and the hordes don't last) it's less indicative of good play than someone who didn't get into that position in the first place.

Yeah, had I not been stupid and declared war on Hungary, I'd probably could have avoided that massive eight nation army roaming over Venice. I'm certainly proud of the fact that I came back and retook nearly all the lost territory, but it was still a disappointing start that was pretty much my fault.

Now though, it's the AI's fault that I lost Brescia. Retaking that and beating Milan is going to be monstrously hard, given that I'd be at war with Milan, Austria AND France, as well as leaving myself open to an Ottoman attack.

 

[Toma]

So ally with mgo, who also needs to kick Ottoman ass?

That helps Poland versus the Ottomans, but I am still overrun by 70k troops.

Not to mention, the moment Poland/Novgorod enters an ottoman/muscovy/horde war, Brandenburg/burgundy/aragon might as well enter the war with poland. No reason for them to not go into poland as soon as we open a huge battlefield to the east.

I know I would use that opportunity if my nearest aggressors are stuck in a war vs Ottomans and the Golden Horde at the same time.

 

[Kabouter]

This just proves my point from earlier, though: half the reason for perma-alliances is that if you do anything even mildly shady it sticks with you for games and makes alliance making more difficult. Like, who will honestly consider allying fanboi now unless he gives you a security deposit?

What if I have compromising information involving his girlfriend's panties? Can I successfully blackmail him with that?

 

[Deleted member 231381]

What if I have compromising information involving his girlfriend's panties? Can I successfully blackmail him with that?

I mean, we're all intimately acquainted with fanboi's girlfriend's panties so I'm unsure how much weight that holds.

 

[CloudWolf]

Scandinavia goes into Germany

I'd rather go west and divide NA between fanboi and me, the HRE is a scary place.

 

[FACE]

What if I have compromising information involving his girlfriend's panties? Can I successfully blackmail him with that?

I mean, we're all intimately acquainted with fanboi's girlfriend's panties so I'm unsure how much weight that holds.

Plot twist:

Spoiler

fanboi has no girlfriend, those are his panties.

 

[KingSnake]

Burgundy (and Aragon too I think) has no real interest in sacrificing troops in destroying Poland. Not at this moment in time, while France is still not on its knees. Defending Jazz from aggression was a different story.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Having said all this, Jazz would be my clear 5 nomination. Fighting a triple player alliance to a standstill for the most part solo is fucking bad-ass.

 

[Toma]

Burgundy (and Aragon too I think) has no real interest in sacrificing troops in destroying Poland. Not at this moment in time, while France is still not on its knees. Defending Jazz from aggression was a different story.

"Upholding the power balance", huh. I wonder where I heard that before.

Having said all this, Jazz would be my clear 5 nomination. Fighting a triple player alliance to a standstill for the most part solo is fucking bad-ass.

He definitely played well, but him and Burgundy together were losing the war to Novgorod and Poland (Scandinavia never actively participated in the mainland fights). They might have lost the whole war even together with Aragon if we wouldnt have retreated our troops after his agreement to the peace deal. At that time we had sieged most of Brandenburg and were in a tactical position to never let him gain ground in the war.

 

[Deleted member 125677]

He definitely played well, but him and Burgundy together were losing the war to Novgorod and Poland (Scandinavia never actively participated in the mainland fights). They might have lost the whole war even together with Aragon if we wouldnt have retreated our troops after his agreement to the peace deal. At that time we had sieged most of Brandenburg and were in a tactical position to never let him gain ground in the war.

Scandinavia did participate, so I think you must have seen wrong or missed that

Having said all this, Jazz would be my clear 5 nomination. Fighting a triple player alliance to a standstill for the most part solo is fucking bad-ass.

He is an amazing player, he also destroyed a huge coalition war earlier in the game including me, sweden, hansa, bohemia etc. I have lots of respects for him as a player - perhaps too much - which is the major part of the reason I thought Novgorod and Scandinavia was needed to take Danzig. Brandenburg also has better troops, better national ideas and better military tech.

The other part was that Jazz told me Burgundy was already involved, and KS showed no sign of wanting to peace out - despite the excellent diplomatic effort by Fanboi

 

[Toma]

Scandinavia did participate, so I think you must have seen wrong there

Oh, my mistake then, sorry. Didnt notice his units were on our stack. Didnt I even ask you why his armies were not participating? Weird.

Anyway, yeah. I should probably stop discussing this now and just look forward to the next muscovian encounter.

He is an amazing player, he also destroyed a huge coalition war earlier in the game including me, sweden, hansa, bohemia etc. I have lots of respects for him as a player - perhaps too much - which is the major part of the reason I thought Novgorod and Scandinavia was needed to take Danzig.

True, he did some great wars this game. But even then, Novgorod and Scandinavia definitely were needed, considering he always could have called Burgundy and Aragon into the mix if it was needed.

 

[KingSnake]

The war caught me with the lowest number of troops ever, because of the damn event(s) that raised autonomy to 100% in all the Dutch provinces to the point I could no longer sustain an army so I had to lower it to 75% giving me 5-15% unrest in most of my provinces and subsequently a lot of rebels rising. It took a ton of loans and mercenaries to fight them and two parallel wars (three for a short time). With my 30k stack it was a 60k vs. 85k fight to start off if I'm not mistaken. I don't know if Scandinavia was in that or not, though, but initially there were around 85k troops attacking against 30k of Brandenburg.

 

[Toma]

The war caught me with the lowest number of troops ever, because of the damn event(s) that raised autonomy to 100% in all the Dutch provinces to the point I could no longer sustain an army so I had to lower it to 75% giving me 5-15% unrest in most of my provinces and subsequently a lot of rebels rising. It took a ton of loans and mercenaries to fight them and two parallel wars (three for a short time). With my 30k stack it was a 60k vs. 85k fight to start off if I'm not mistaken. I don't know if Scandinavia was in that or not, though, but initially there were around 85k troops attacking against 30k of Brandenburg.

That is kinda crazy. No clue why you would join a random Brandenburg war in that condition with Scotland threatening you. Thats quite brave.

 

[KingSnake]

That is kinda crazy. No clue why you would join a random Brandenburg war in that condition with Scotland threatening you. Thats quite brave.

Jazz had most of his territory occupied because Aragon had to wait for the 100+ opinion and I was held back by Fanboi's blackmail. Only when Fanboi greediness make him get a coalition against him (which I joined) and made Austria not having me as a rival anymore I could be sure enough to send the troops to help in the war.

I practically joined full fight because of Fanboi's diplomacy.