Hey dudes, I played my Russia turn zero (0) and sent it to Ironwarrior. I will admit to not having read this thread in great detail to know all the house rules; but I'm guessing that you guys will tell me if there is anything in particular I as Russia might be prone to do which I shouldn't?
ADDIT: I'm going to take a couple minutes and read the latest incarnation of the house rules in post two of this thread.
Marshal: post one in this thread needs to be updated to reflect the new lineup of players and nations.
One other possible inclusion in that lineup: include the persons email name (though not the @ nor even necessarily the actual domain). This makes it easier to engage in diplomacy it there is a record of how a national player corresponds to a forum handle, and how that corresponds to an email address in one's address book.
ADDIT*2:
10.0 Forager Ability Abuse Prevention
Limits most nations to 2 irregular cavalry with forager status, plus 2 light infantry with forager status. Austria, Turkey, Poland, and Russia may have up to 8 irregular cavalry and 4 light infantry with the forager ability. Spain may also have 2 regular infantry units with forager ability (since they start the game with these). Other than this, forager status upgrades are disallowed.
With respect to Russia, is "light infantry" meant to be equal to Jaeger infantry?
This rule is going to have a BIG effect on the game [:D]
7.0 Peace Treaty Changes
When dictating peace terms: 1) home provinces (those with ONLY the player's flag in them) now cost twice as much to take (see 7.1 for a list of errors made in CoG:EE and reclassification of several provinces in Russia, Prussia, Austria, Poland, and Britain), 2) Leaders now cost three times as much to remove, 3) You can now force other players to liberate protectorates anywhere on the map, 4) You can force other players to create protectorates with their own lands and even force their liberation. This process is facilitated with a special treaty mechanism/procedure outlined in 7.5 and 7.6.
How exactly will this be operationalized? Does the player making up the peace treaty just need to do the math and impose fewer clauses?
8.0 Neutral Territory Violation
When surrendering to a player, you have 4 months to remove your forces from his land and then you may not enter an order to violate his neutrality for a full two months after the end of the enforced peace. Players accepting a surrender must also vacate the loser's lands within 4 months and may not enter an order to violate his neutrality for a full two months following the end of the enforced peace. The only exceptions occur if players have a peace treaty term/regular treaty term which allows for such neutrality violations. 3 months after the end of any enforced peace, neutrality violation is governed strictly by vanilla.
I see a concerning exploit to this rule. Consider the following example. Russia declares war on Austria. One month later, Russia declares war on Prussia. This provokes GB to declare war on Prussia (and/or to form an alliance with Prussia). A bit later Russia Austria surrenders to Russia. Following that Austria offers right of passage (ROP) and share depots treaty to Prussia and GB, who use this rule, combined with their new treaty with Russia to attack via "the back door." IIUC, Russia would be powerless to intervene by violating Austrian neutrality and sending in troops to interdict Prus/GB supply.
I think the spirit of the rule is perhaps fine but I think we should be prepared to make exceptions in situations like the above noted example.
Moreover, I would think that the rule should be more binding on the surrenderer (the defeated party) than on the victor?
9.0 Declarations of War on Nations Whose Lands You Occupy
Prevents you from entering a declaration of war on any player whose lands you occupy within the first three months of an enforced peace between you. However, if he has units on your lands, even the 3 month limit no longer applies. Additionally, no one may ever declare war on Britain while they have troops in England/ Scotland/ Wales/ Ireland. Any player can ignore 9.0 if he NEVER declares war on a nation while he has any forces on its lands!
I'm a bit baffled by what exactly this rule means. If you have an enforced peace, then you cannot DoW anyway right? Will read the fine print and edit this if I'm still baffled . . .
Okay, I read the fine print on 9.0, and IIUC, the intent here is that: in a situation where there is an enforced peace between two nations:
1) if neither has any troops violating neutrality of the other during the first, second, third, or fourth turns after the end of the enforced peace, they can DoW one another at any time during those four turns post Enforced peace.
2) a nation which violates the neutrality of the other during turns 1, 2, 3, or 4 after the end of the enforced peace, must wait till turn 5 to DoW
Is that right?
Since you're not supposed to violate the neutrality of someone for two additional months after the end of an enforced peace anyway, isn't this rule sort of redundant?