New EU3 MP Game: Proposal

[High Chunker Greens]

You still could have kept the Austrian alliance if you wanted, but a new ally would have changed the alliance bloc's.

No see, that make a bigger alliance bloc. 2 powers + 1 power = 3 powers

You're learning!

[Ynen]

Castille would be a nice change. Put me up as them if this happens.

[Ciciro]

Austria for me.

[Musthavename]

Just to make where I am clear. I'm up for a themed game, but I don't want to play a game where alliances are completely banned. Otherwise I'll wait for EU4 to get some games going again.

[IZob]

You know 100 byzantine galleys plus a bunch of Italians in the mediteranean easily kill 26 early game carracks right? Which I had no money for to replace if destroyed... And you know I had Sicily and Sardinia in my empire? Sardinia got taken by Italy. You know end game italy had a fairly strong fleet of big ships right? And did you also know I had a colonial 1 v 1 war with Italy which was fought mainly on the seas where I won, but not with that much of a margin...? Italy had I think 3 strong fleets, while I had 3 as well with a fourth in the making of a new generation of ships which in the end won the war for me. So the question is not if I know, but if you know

I'm talking about late game (ie: after I left), when you should be clearly ahead in the naval race vs Italy, Byzantium ... anyone from the main land.

It's interesting that you won on just 1 extra fleet vs Italy. Very interesting. Beginning to think your Portugal was not that great

No see, that make a bigger alliance bloc. 2 powers + 1 power = 3 powers

You're learning!

It would mean my bloc would become stronger and yours weaker (because I would have an extra ally). Cant really say more then that, diplomacy changes all the time and when it does, new opportunities are found

[Pat89]

I'm talking about late game (ie: after I left), when you should be clearly ahead in the naval race vs Italy, Byzantium ... anyone from the main land.

It's interesting that you won on just 1 extra fleet vs Italy. Very interesting. Beginning to think your Portugal was not that great

I became very rich in a very short amount of time. The war with Italy just happened a little too early for me. I was in the process of building fleets of the newest type (I had the highest naval tech in the world). I could easily afford more, but just was short in time. At the time I left the game (which was a maybe a few months after I peaced out with Italy), I had nearly 18k ducats in the bank (after finishing about six factories) and was making a profit of 20 ducats a month and 500 a year with my four fleets on max maintenance. A total of over 350 ships. 130 more than GB and 160 more than Italy (though I obviously sunk a lot of his ships in the battles we had).

Your problem is that you underestimate your enemies all the time. In that one post you didn't just underestimate my Portugal, but also Italy, which was very capable of fielding a strong fleet.

It would mean my bloc would become stronger and yours weaker (because I would have an extra ally). Cant really say more then that, diplomacy changes all the time and when it does, new opportunities are found

The problem with you is that you're an unreliable ally, so noone wants to ally you for a strong block. You can just as easily turn against your former ally to get better yourself (on the short term). So diplomacy doesn't change all the time, you change all the time

[High Chunker Greens]

The problem with you is that you're an unreliable ally, so noone wants to ally you for a strong block. You can just as easily turn against your former ally to get better yourself (on the short term). So diplomacy doesn't change all the time, you change all the time

To be fair, that is the way that we should all play. We just don't want to lose our pretty little empires so we don't make short term alliances.

[Pat89]

To be fair, that is the way that we should all play. We just don't want to lose our pretty little empires so we don't make short term alliances.

Permanent teams of two isn't that much different to permanent teams of 1 imo. And I don't see why the locked teams are necessarily bad. And I personally believe our teams aren't that fixed at all generally. They only are if there is another team of equal strength to counter the first. Who will then end up in a struggle for power where possibly one side will gain the upper hand. But when that does happen, the strongest of the two teams mostly ends up falling apart too. Just look at the game where I was Germany. I've been allied to Sweden, the Netherlands, Austria, France, Italy and the Ottomans. I've been at war with the Netherlands, Austria, France, Italy and the Ottomans. My only alliance I had kept was with Sweden, but even that wasn't all that sure. If Poach had taken Danzig and/or pommerania as his intentions were, I'd have been less friendly. he was just a tactically very valuable ally (securing my Northern front) and the same worked the other way round.

Indeed, this last game saw a fairly stable alliance in Ynen and you. But that was in the first place part of roleplaying and in the second place never in a position where there was no combination of countries thinkable to take the alliance down. You never were allmighty, so there never was a need to break the alliance.

[Border Patrol]

Ricky dumped me when he became top dog. I jumped in on every war I could for the lulz. And because Russia. I like to think of myself as your Perfidious Albion, but then that's probably just an inflated sense of importance to our game.

So really I think the only two perma-alliances last game were Ynen/Greens and Border/Apple

[Poach]

To answer some questions:
- The House Rules apply to all nations, AI or Player.
- Holy War CB allows for one religion to attack another and take any provinces they want for reduced cost. This is a valid Casus Belli. This will make our only normal Muslim Player nation (Ottoman Empire) in a position of both great strength and great vulnerability.
- People allying each other for the sole purpose of watching a war will be permitted as long as the alliance is ditched at the war's conclusion (for example, England allying France and Austria to watch them fight each other, without ever becoming involved in the war: issuing a Call to Arms will be banned)
- I'll add a player list. We have very few people signed up. Let's skip this weekend (ie tomorrow) and see if more people want to play. I'll ask normal players who haven't signed up if they're interested.

[Selukon]

Should be able to take whatever you want from the AI, no matter the CB, instead of applying the same rules as to players. PvP > PvAI.

[Poach]

No, because the whole point is to make the game more dynamic: the HRE will remain competitive throughout the game because the Electors won't all be vassals within 50 years, and Europe will blob up much more slowly. In fact, with so few missions that grant CBs that allow for vassalisation, Europe should see many independent minors even into midgame. CBs for overseas expansion are already pretty liberal in their allowances.

There is extremely little true PvAI in our MP games: everything is political and competitive. France expanding into the HRE by annexing minors will draw the ire of the HRE players. Spain jumping into India by expanding against AI minors there will draw the ire of other powers competing for India. The only real (uncontested) PvAI you can see happens in session 1, where England eats the British Isles, France eats their minors, etc. Moves other players cannot readily oppose or undo.

[IZob]

I like the war-goal rule, but how does it apply to enemies you are at war with, who are not part of the origional CB target?

Also its quite often you will see the AI start wars without a CB (usually when their target is very weak), what can players do about that?

[Pat89]

That's part of the challenge for it Sel

[Poach]

As it says in the rules, wargoals only plus/or, followed by a list of things you can do ontop of a wargoal. Concede defeat, demand money, etc. If you don't have a wargoal applying to someone you're peacing, you need to do something from that list.

[Lord Romanus III]

Put me down as Venice.

[Poach]

Question for everyone: Should we limit the "Release annexed/Release vassal" CB options in the Guarantee and Warning CBs to only the country you're fighting over? Otherwise, for example, England could force Spain to release something like Aragon over a CB that was generated in India by Spain attacking some Indian country.

[Lord Romanus III]

I thought they couldn't release Aragon if it wasn't part of their culture? Aragon isn't English culture, so GB can't release anything.

[Poach]

The Casus Belli generated by violating a Guarantee or Warning allows for forced release of vassals or annexed nations. As far as I'm aware the CB itself doesn't distinguish, and so the ruleset in post 1 would let the player demand the release of whatever they want: do the ingame CBs only permit you to demand the release of the country that caused the CB to spawn?

[Ynen]

The Generated CB should apply to the country that it was generated by. Ergo: If Spain annexes Navarra, who was guaranteed by England, England can only release Navarra. Not Galicia or Aragon or something.