Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In

It's OVER! Options · View
danomite
Posted: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 9:13:30 AM
 Tribunus laticlavius

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 9/17/2008
Posts: 2,768
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Irsh Faq wrote:
If Odd and Fiv were going to stick together till they had no other rivals, that's one thing (and yeah, that was clear enough five hundred years ago). It's about after that that I am asking.

What I don't actually understand is why you guys ended early without a single dominant nation - that is, after Cata and Germany defeated their rivals, but before they determined the hegemon between the two of them. Did AOD turn out to suck? (I admit back when I was still in the game I was growing a bit disenchanted with it as I came to be familiar with the, IMO, pretty serious, weaknesses of the game, and if I had it to do again I'd have voted for hoi3 or plain Arma). Still I was kind of looking forward to watching the Ger-Cata war after Africa was beaten.
I quite enjoyed the wars at the end, and AoD in general. The loosing side not so much.

It is said that the future is always born in pain. The history of war is the history of pain.
If we are wise, what is born of that pain matures into the promise of a better world,
because we learn that we can no longer afford the mistakes of the past.
oddman
Posted: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 11:32:56 AM
 Admiral

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 3/16/2007
Posts: 2,824
Location: Netherlands
Irsh Faq wrote:
If Odd and Fiv were going to stick together till they had no other rivals, that's one thing (and yeah, that was clear enough five hundred years ago). It's about after that that I am asking.

What I don't actually understand is why you guys ended early without a single dominant nation - that is, after Cata and Germany defeated their rivals, but before they determined the hegemon between the two of them. Did AOD turn out to suck? (I admit back when I was still in the game I was growing a bit disenchanted with it as I came to be familiar with the, IMO, pretty serious, weaknesses of the game, and if I had it to do again I'd have voted for hoi3 or plain Arma). Still I was kind of looking forward to watching the Ger-Cata war after Africa was beaten.


Valid questions, all.

Given that Fiv and I were not gong to turn on each other (and we weren't; explanation to follow), it only became commonly accepted that we weren't going to be beaten after winning the war against the Africans - or at least when the war turned out to be unwinnable for the Africans, which was the cause for us to end it.

Why weren't Fivoin and I going to turn on each other?
Because very, very early on we both decided it would be extremely beneficial for both of us to have an ally we could completely depend on. Especially if said ally were are dependable, reasonable, and stable player, which I think we both were. Either way, we got along rather well, which helped, and trust only grew.

EDIT:
Archival research shows that Fiv and I formalized our relationship in "the Toledo Doctrine", posted Feb. 26, 2011.


"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts."
-Bertrand Russell
Irsh Faq
Posted: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 12:40:36 PM
 Primus pilus
One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 8/29/2009
Posts: 1,640
Location: Ipswich, Massachusetts
Heh, a bit different philosophy from me I guess. I would be the guy who gives a gentlemanly nod to his faithful ally, takes a few months breather to set things up good and proper, and then test it out to see who really is the better player in the end. No betrayals, we both knew it was coming and we helped each other onto the podium, but there's only room for one gold medal.

Plus it would be fun if you divided up the other nations into puppets and went at one another in a cold-war-gone-hot scenario. Tongue

How did you sell the dual victory for you and Fiv to your other allies in the last war? Were they just suckers? Tongue

Emperor of Ethiopia, High King of Ceylon, Pharaoh of Alexandria, Sultan of Arabia, Prince of Antioch and Damascus, Lord Protector of the Tamil Coast, Maharaja of Gujarat, Bhatara of Java and Sumatra, Archduke of Australia, Captain of the Cape of Storms, Autocrat of Carthage, Sea Lord of the East Pacific, Caliph of Baghdad, and Defender of the Ark of the Covenant.
jodokus
Posted: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 1:11:11 PM
 Generaloberst

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 10/17/2009
Posts: 2,575
Location: places...
Im going to post here what i posted also in the Diplo room thread about this matter:

Quote:
this game was not victory for anything but cowardness... when me and golly decided to go into premature to the death naturall consequence of it in any other game would have been just what it was in NSRAN ending... end of tripolarity into bipolarity. In every other game, germany and america would have started to compete against each others, so the eager need to end the campaing at the same time it ended for africa was not to do anything else but offering the cheapest, easiest and convidient passport for "megacampaing" victory one can ever get. It tells quite lot about the players of the final roster that it didn't raise any objections whatsoever...

And not at all suprising,Big Grin
Thats why me and Golly didn't have any objections to the end, and voted for it (it was going to be end for us regardless what others would have decided), becouse it kinda brougth the morale victory for us ...We were rigth about the rantings of mega-perma-alliances. and the all those points of them ruining games came so cruely testified to everyone.

I do seriously hope the next game doesen't end in similar mockery.


I can say without any doupt that had Africa won everyone else, we would have then fougth the final war against each others, rallied up the remainer minors to each of us and had a valiant battle just to statisfy the wargods and our own enjoyment of paradox interactive games. there can be only one. this time there weren't.


oddman
Posted: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 1:33:19 PM
 Admiral

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 3/16/2007
Posts: 2,824
Location: Netherlands
Irsh Faq wrote:
How did you sell the dual victory for you and Fiv to your other allies in the last war? Were they just suckers? Tongue


I.e. Dano and KoM.
No, they were not just suckers, though they did make a sacrifice of sorts. Here's why.

While they were allies and our equals in discourse, it was clear to everyone that the diplomatic weight in the alliance lay with Germany and myself, for various reasons:
1. The bond between Fiv and me was the oldest and deepest. While I had an agreement of sorts with Dano for a long time, there was always a bit of well-founded mutual paranoia up till our joint wars against Japan - the V only turned into a triangle in 1940 or so). KoM joined us mostly because he needed support against Japan, Punjab and Russia - he would have stabbed us if he could to dismantle the alliance, but there was no way for him to do so effectively. He simply didn't have the strategic tools to seriously harm us, nor the outlook of gaining that. Joining the opposition was not an option for him either, as that meant getting partitioned between Japan, Punjab, and Russia. So he joined us, because the alternative was lingering in obscurity as a minor or even destruction; this way, he at least got to be part of a functional and victorious alliance and fight a few fun wars.
2. Germany and Catalonia dwarfed all others in terms of industrial capacity and therefore war-waging responsibility and therefore diplomatic responsibility.

This led both of them to more or less grudgingly accept being junior partners in the alliance. The alternative was, quite simply, even worse. In the end, they can say there were on the winning side, and Fivoin and I give them that credit.

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts."
-Bertrand Russell
Irsh Faq
Posted: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 3:15:30 PM
 Primus pilus
One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 8/29/2009
Posts: 1,640
Location: Ipswich, Massachusetts
oddman wrote:
I.e. Dano and KoM.
No, they were not just suckers, though they did make a sacrifice of sorts. Here's why.

While they were allies and our equals in discourse, it was clear to everyone that the diplomatic weight in the alliance lay with Germany and myself, for various reasons:
1. The bond between Fiv and me was the oldest and deepest. While I had an agreement of sorts with Dano for a long time, there was always a bit of well-founded mutual paranoia up till our joint wars against Japan - the V only turned into a triangle in 1940 or so). KoM joined us mostly because he needed support against Japan, Punjab and Russia - he would have stabbed us if he could to dismantle the alliance, but there was no way for him to do so effectively. He simply didn't have the strategic tools to seriously harm us, nor the outlook of gaining that. Joining the opposition was not an option for him either, as that meant getting partitioned between Japan, Punjab, and Russia. So he joined us, because the alternative was lingering in obscurity as a minor or even destruction; this way, he at least got to be part of a functional and victorious alliance and fight a few fun wars.
2. Germany and Catalonia dwarfed all others in terms of industrial capacity and therefore war-waging responsibility and therefore diplomatic responsibility.

This led both of them to more or less grudgingly accept being junior partners in the alliance. The alternative was, quite simply, even worse. In the end, they can say there were on the winning side, and Fivoin and I give them that credit.


I kind of figured that with him converting so small KOM was a lost cause if Ethiopia wanted to keep its alliance with Japan, yeah. I would likely have done the same thing in his shoes tbh. TBH I had hopes he would emerge stronger than he did from the partition of China, but the curse of the free market got his industries. A Mongolia that was Japan's equal would have had a bit more freedom to choose sides internationally without always being bound by fear of his neighbors - which would have been more beneficial to me as the international underdog. I had KOM pegged as a lost cause even before AOD though and was pretty much only trying to buy as much energy as possible off him before war came (in which I succeeded greatly - I didn't want to tell you, but your rock-bottom priced energy exports fueled pretty much the entire prewar African war machine, KOM! Wink )

Dano was the mystery. If I were him and with that history I would totally have picked a moment to stab you instead of bowing out of the race for victory, I admit. Tongue

Emperor of Ethiopia, High King of Ceylon, Pharaoh of Alexandria, Sultan of Arabia, Prince of Antioch and Damascus, Lord Protector of the Tamil Coast, Maharaja of Gujarat, Bhatara of Java and Sumatra, Archduke of Australia, Captain of the Cape of Storms, Autocrat of Carthage, Sea Lord of the East Pacific, Caliph of Baghdad, and Defender of the Ark of the Covenant.
BlitzMartinDK
Posted: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 7:04:49 PM
 Lieutenant Colonel
One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 10/13/2011
Posts: 628
Location: Denmark
And this is what I do not understand : You are starting a MP game, supposed to be running 2-3 years. It is supposed to be "last man standing" and "all vs. all". Early on, you two just decide to change it into the 2 of you against everyone you can single out? I can see the real world parallels, I can see the benefits. But I would never play for 2 years with the understanding that I will under NO surcomstances be able to win!

You simply decided that nobody else should be allowed to win! Of course this leads to some other alliances becoming rather set in stone..

This is why I advocate some sort of scoring system : so even with a perma alliances like this, only one can win, and it WOULD be possible to have peaceful competition between partners, if you so chose..(Of course I expect it to turn non-peaceful if one gets too far behind..)

Next time, if this is the way you intend to play, just make x teams instead.

..edit : but of course it was still brilliantly played, and not against the rules. Just not as I would have played, and not as I would have wanted my opponents to play..
It's not so much that your alliances has lasted so long, and effectively ended the game somewhere around late vicky. It's the intend to never end the alliance! It's not WHAT you did, but WHY.
jodokus
Posted: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 7:17:51 PM
 Generaloberst

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 10/17/2009
Posts: 2,575
Location: places...
you don't need rules against the way fivoin-oddman played, just better players around themWink

King of Men
Posted: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 7:22:42 PM
 Legatus legionis

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 11/23/2007
Posts: 8,211
Location: Nowhere
Quote:
the curse of the free market got his industries.


The three massive revolts at the end of Vicky didn't help either. If I'd converted with my 1925 military, it would have been quite a different game in Asia.

I would, indeed, have joined the African alliance if I had thought it would be effective. But since there was basically nothing I could do to hurt Germany, Catalunya, or California, that would have meant sitting about all game with nothing to do except send expeditionary forces to the Russian front (where the strategic command would lie with someone else) and, in the end, being perhaps rewarded with Rome and Constantinople, at most. (Well, maybe Italy.) As it was, I at least got to fight and had the prospect of taking India, as would surely have happened if we'd gone for another session. And the war in Asia was actually quite fun; just the right size to be commanded by one player, and evenly matched in skill and industry.

Read my blog.
Norway Rome The Khanate Scotland Scotinavia Christendie the Serene Republic has always been at war with the Bretons False Empire Caliphate Persians Russians English Hungarians Oceanians Saracen Jackal! Death, death, death to the Frogs barbarians infidels necromancers vodka-drinking hegemonists Sassenach nomad menace Yellow Menace heathen Great Old One!
oddman
Posted: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 8:38:12 PM
 Admiral

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 3/16/2007
Posts: 2,824
Location: Netherlands
BlitzMartinDK wrote:
And this is what I do not understand : You are starting a MP game, supposed to be running 2-3 years. It is supposed to be "last man standing" and "all vs. all". Early on, you two just decide to change it into the 2 of you against everyone you can single out? I can see the real world parallels, I can see the benefits. But I would never play for 2 years with the understanding that I will under NO surcomstances be able to win!

You simply decided that nobody else should be allowed to win! Of course this leads to some other alliances becoming rather set in stone..

This is why I advocate some sort of scoring system : so even with a perma alliances like this, only one can win, and it WOULD be possible to have peaceful competition between partners, if you so chose..(Of course I expect it to turn non-peaceful if one gets too far behind..)

Next time, if this is the way you intend to play, just make x teams instead.

..edit : but of course it was still brilliantly played, and not against the rules. Just not as I would have played, and not as I would have wanted my opponents to play..
It's not so much that your alliances has lasted so long, and effectively ended the game somewhere around late vicky. It's the intend to never end the alliance! It's not WHAT you did, but WHY.


First off, we see things differently.
That said, if an opportunity to plausibly forge ahead all by myself ever presented itself, I might well have taken it. However, since the beginning of EU3, going against Fiv would have been ruinous. Not just for him, but for me as well. It's in the nature of conquest in EU3: the marginal benefit is just not that great (I had too much room for my magistrates already), and me conquering him would have led to a massive power vacuum.
In V2, we were not that strong initially, and really needed each other to not get bushwhacked by our other neighbours.

The only way to go was to make sure only the two of us were left. Dano and KoM both agreed to end it if our alliance won the war, with the explicit assumption that Fiv and I would be the real victors. Playing on would be pointless; it was Fiv and me who won, and duking it out between the two of us would just take an enormous time and be a micromanagement, nuke-strewn nightmare - which is not the world we were building.

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts."
-Bertrand Russell
jodokus
Posted: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 8:57:40 PM
 Generaloberst

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 10/17/2009
Posts: 2,575
Location: places...
Had Mongols been part of the africa, We had most likely sended you into South east asia and Australia...and propably japan would have been against us in such scenario. Japan we would have probaly held more important, so the trade off would have been rather evident, despite Japan IMO underperformed mostly in this game...even with migthy's ruleLOL

Irsh Faq
Posted: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 8:58:33 PM
 Primus pilus
One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 8/29/2009
Posts: 1,640
Location: Ipswich, Massachusetts
oddman wrote:
First off, we see things differently.
That said, if an opportunity to plausibly forge ahead all by myself ever presented itself, I might well have taken it.


Well, I did offer you to annex all of Germany to Catalunya in addition to all of the California that you wanted if you would only turn on him Tongue

Emperor of Ethiopia, High King of Ceylon, Pharaoh of Alexandria, Sultan of Arabia, Prince of Antioch and Damascus, Lord Protector of the Tamil Coast, Maharaja of Gujarat, Bhatara of Java and Sumatra, Archduke of Australia, Captain of the Cape of Storms, Autocrat of Carthage, Sea Lord of the East Pacific, Caliph of Baghdad, and Defender of the Ark of the Covenant.
The Professor
Posted: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 9:17:23 PM
 General of the Army

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 11/17/2007
Posts: 8,344
Location: Time
Yeah, if ever there was objective empirical evidence of the ruinous effects of a perma-alliances, especially one between the two strongest, its here. I suspect that Fivoin telling me assurances that Oddman never intended to actually annex Dano were probably false and fivoins intervention inevitable regardless of what I said or did.

Oddman should've been reduced to a second rank power with a spot reopened in SA and much of the game would've been more balanced.

Its a thing that needs to be watched out for, to the point that both powers need to be reduced in order to be convincingly assured that the two acting together doesn't make them a super blob. But most were too short sighted to carry it through.

I've certainly made my efforts, but some people were too worried about how evil and overwhelmingly powerful I turned out to be right?

Their game can only exist to be won.
Then so be it who else can see it done.
oddman
Posted: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 9:25:30 PM
 Admiral

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 3/16/2007
Posts: 2,824
Location: Netherlands
Irsh Faq wrote:
Well, I did offer you to annex all of Germany to Catalunya in addition to all of the California that you wanted if you would only turn on him Tongue


You and what army Wink?

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts."
-Bertrand Russell
Irsh Faq
Posted: Thursday, January 17, 2013 12:49:09 AM
 Primus pilus
One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 8/29/2009
Posts: 1,640
Location: Ipswich, Massachusetts
oddman wrote:
You and what army Wink?


Me and my army! Wink

Emperor of Ethiopia, High King of Ceylon, Pharaoh of Alexandria, Sultan of Arabia, Prince of Antioch and Damascus, Lord Protector of the Tamil Coast, Maharaja of Gujarat, Bhatara of Java and Sumatra, Archduke of Australia, Captain of the Cape of Storms, Autocrat of Carthage, Sea Lord of the East Pacific, Caliph of Baghdad, and Defender of the Ark of the Covenant.
von_Rundstedt
Posted: Thursday, January 17, 2013 2:12:36 AM
 General

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 11/30/2008
Posts: 2,568
Location: Germany
The Professor wrote:
Yeah, if ever there was objective empirical evidence of the ruinous effects of a perma-alliances, especially one between the two strongest, its here. I suspect that Fivoin telling me assurances that Oddman never intended to actually annex Dano were probably false and fivoins intervention inevitable regardless of what I said or did.

Oddman should've been reduced to a second rank power with a spot reopened in SA and much of the game would've been more balanced.

Its a thing that needs to be watched out for, to the point that both powers need to be reduced in order to be convincingly assured that the two acting together doesn't make them a super blob. But most were too short sighted to carry it through.

I've certainly made my efforts, but some people were too worried about how evil and overwhelmingly powerful I turned out to be right?



Hah.

Ethiopia used to rule the Waves

The Professor
Posted: Thursday, January 17, 2013 3:32:40 AM
 General of the Army

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 11/17/2007
Posts: 8,344
Location: Time
Yes, you were ultimately right regarding fivoin but you made a poor show of it; you always talked in that malevolent frankness of yours which resulted in me quickly fearing you, someone who very clearly desired to border me at some point more than I feared Fivoin whom wasn't actively gunning for me at that point. Had you stayed in Novgorod I would've eventually and inevitably swung back in your camp on more equal terms as soon as how powerful fivoin was remained self evident.

But instead you became Ethiopia who consistently decided to gun for me and I feared for my life from you more than I feared eventual domination from Fivoin; unfortunately it was a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation where once you decided to head into a different direction you couldn't now be convinced otherwise and Fivoin had no reason to gain your ire. So the strongest nations in the game found themselves inevitably eyeing asia as low hanging fruit instead of working to keep each other down in crab bucket syndrome. Because fuck, how could I ever offer someone more than you could? It's impossible, your reputation precedes you to the point even wherein you have no plan, no backup and nothing left to lose you could still manage to convince the most powerful nation to do your bidding just because YOU. ARE. VON RUNDSTEDT. It is natural law.

Ultimately I blame the baffling short sightedness of other players more than I blame your skill.

Their game can only exist to be won.
Then so be it who else can see it done.
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.0 (NET v2.0) - 10/10/2006
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.
Copyright © 2005-2007 Daniel "Lord Ederon" Scibrany. All rights reserved.