1792 No frills PBEM

[montesaurus]

So, I'll no longer be the mouth of Sauron!(hopefully).[:)]

[montesaurus]

Just talked to Barbarossa2. He is in the process of reloading his COGEE, and should be able to do his turn in about 3-4 hours. I will then discuss with him my turn to get mine done also. I'm hoping to have my computer back by Saturday.

[MorningDew]

ORIGINAL: Kingmaker
However my own personal opinion is dead set against the introduction of ‘House rules’ except where it involves a recognised Bug or involves an issue that gives clear advantage to 1 nation.

As a point of fact, I'm typically opposed to "house rules" as well, but it seems to me that the ease of insurrections is a bug. FYI, I think possibly the ease of coups is the same issue.

[montesaurus]

Actually, I always thought a "Coup" was difficult to get, plus if you fail isn't there a big hit to your glory?
One question in regards to coups: if you fail, are you able to attempt it again in the same country, or is it just a one time attempt for any individual country?

[MorningDew]

ORIGINAL: montesaurus

Actually, I always thought a "Coup" was difficult to get, plus if you fail isn't there a big hit to your glory?
One question in regards to coups: if you fail, are you able to attempt it again in the same country, or is it just a one time attempt for any individual country?

You just keep trying until it works. Only takes a few months usually with the right diplomat, which is why I think it's easy.

[and2]

[font="courier new"]Hey all[/font]
[font="courier new"] [/font]
[font="courier new"]I read your post, Peter, making the case against house rules, and although I generally agree that house rules is something to be avoided and only taken into use as a last measure to preserve game balance, I will in the following make the case why we do need a house rule against insurrections in another major powers territory, until WCS makes a patch.[/font]
[font="courier new"][/font] 

[ol][*]
[font="courier new"]Its too easy to succeed an insurrection mission.[/font]
[/align][*]
[font="courier new"]The penalty for an unsuccessful insurrection mission is near non-existent. Minus 50 influence, any decent diplomat can charm that away in a month.[/font]
[/align][*]
[font="courier new"]Only counter-measure is other diplomats. Garrisons, National Morale, Glory, Buildings (Art and Courts for example) has no preventive effect.[/font]
[/align][*]
[font="courier new"]Success on the insurrection mission isn't influenced by anything but the "roll" of dice against the diplomat's statistics, the target nation's national morale, glory, empire status, buildings, potential garrisons, or even armies. The story about the 400.000 troops being kicked out of Bavaria, by 7.000 insurrectionists springs to my mind as an extreme example of how this game feature can spin out of control in a multiplayer environment.[/font]
[/align][*]
[font="courier new"]Moreover Pandora's box is now open. Now we all know, and would be fool's not too exploit this, supposing we play the game to win, besides the other aspects of diplomacy and logistics to mention some other great reasons to play PBEM.[/font]
[/align][*]
[font="courier new"]WCS acknowledges that there is a problem and talk about "I like the idea of only one insurrection per turn per minor -- it's just a little tricky to figure out which diplomat to allow to have that chance. I suppose we could search all the diplomats in the region and only allow the one with the best stats to have a roll. Remember there is a penalty of -50 attitude with every minor power in the game for a failed insurrection attempt. We've been talking about adding a glory penalty on top of this, and possibly of giving the attempt itself a monetary cost, or perhaps a chance of one. I think there's enough precedent in the period to justify diplomatically-motivated insurrections, though they shouldn't be as common as some people are describing on this thread -- I'd originally had in mind maybe 3 or 4 successful insurrections per game." End quote.[/font]
[/align][/ol]
[font="courier new"] [/font]
[font="courier new"]All in all this feature that works ok'ish in single player mode is overpowered in a multiplayer environment and therefore potentially a gamebreaker.[/font]
[font="courier new"] [/font]
[font="courier new"]My suggestion is that we go with the house rule for now, but I have faith in that WCS will address this exploit and once WCS fixes the exploit we return to normal rules and the use of diplomats as the game allows?[/font]
[font="courier new"][/font] 
[font="courier new"]Sincerely Chindits[/font]

[Mus]

We are waiting on a resend of French turn 12 with the .rep file properly attacked before Spain can play and merge right?

[and2]

Turn 13 posted

[Kingmaker]

HiHi

Grief! The last thing I wanted was a protracted debate, lets get the game rolling [:D]
As I said, Fraid I'm the odd one out, but obviously I will go along with the majority decision.

Hey all

I read your post, Peter, making the case against house rules, and although I generally agree that house rules is something to be avoided and only taken into use as a last measure to preserve game balance, I will in the following make the case why we do need a house rule against insurrections in another major powers territory, until WCS makes a patch.

1.
Its too easy to succeed an insurrection mission. To be honest (given I may not have been paying proper attention [8|] ) in all the games I have played in ‘Insurrections’ rarely seem to succeed. As I have suggested elsewhere ‘Another PBEM’ is a pre patch game Patched up and continued, it, “may?”, therefore have scrambled codes and as such not be the best game to base Post patch games on.

2.
The penalty for an unsuccessful insurrection mission is near non-existent. Minus 50 influence, any decent diplomat can charm that away in a month. Agreed the penalty is too low, wouldn’t mind some of these super Diplos who get 50+ ‘Charm’ every turn though [:)]

3.
Only counter-measure is other diplomats. Garrisons, National Morale, Glory, Buildings (Art and Courts for example) has no preventive effect. OK, but that effects everybody

4.
Success on the insurrection mission isn't influenced by anything but the "roll" of dice against the diplomat's statistics, the target nation's national morale, glory, empire status, buildings, potential garrisons, or even armies. The story about the 400.000 troops being kicked out of Bavaria, by 7.000 insurrectionists springs to my mind as an extreme example of how this game feature can spin out of control in a multiplayer environment. Not sure about all the details here so apart from the ‘Another PBEM’ patch thing I can’t really comment other than to suggest it may be on a par with the 38,000 strong English army being captured in Gibraltar by a Spanish army of c70,000, ie a random role as was suggested by Matto.

5.
Moreover Pandora's box is now open. Now we all know, and would be fool's not too exploit this, supposing we play the game to win, besides the other aspects of diplomacy and logistics to mention some other great reasons to play PBEM.

6.
WCS acknowledges that there is a problem and talk about "I like the idea of only one insurrection per turn per minor -- it's just a little tricky to figure out which diplomat to allow to have that chance. I suppose we could search all the diplomats in the region and only allow the one with the best stats to have a roll. Remember there is a penalty of -50 attitude with every minor power in the game for a failed insurrection attempt. We've been talking about adding a glory penalty on top of this, and possibly of giving the attempt itself a monetary cost, or perhaps a chance of one. I think there's enough precedent in the period to justify diplomatically-motivated insurrections, though they shouldn't be as common as some people are describing on this thread -- I'd originally had in mind maybe 3 or 4 successful insurrections per game." End quote. Hellfire this Insurrection stuff is just 1 of many problems with PBEM. As I see it CoG is basically designed for Solo play, the PBEM side is an add on and many of the features that work OK in solo simply do not cross over to PBEM. Again as I’ve suggested elsewhere these games we are engaged in are 1st generation “Real play” games, WCS simply do not have the resources or Beta testers in sufficient numbers to test PBEM in depth, therefore to a certain extent we can maybe be seen to be doing that, the Devs can keep an eye on these MBs and correct serious anomalies in future patches.

All in all this feature that works ok'ish in single player mode is overpowered in a multiplayer environment and therefore potentially a gamebreaker. Again, is it? I may be very wrong here (it has been known [:-] ) but we seem to be basing an awful lot around a possibly faulty platform i.e. ‘’Another PBEM’, dunno

My suggestion is that we go with the house rule for now, “If?” there is any validity in my suggestions about ‘Another PBEM then I would suggest that "may" be counter-productive but I have faith in that WCS will address this exploit and once WCS fixes the exploit we return to normal rules and the use of diplomats as the game allows? OK. But one way or another let’s get the game on the road. [:)]

All the Best
Peter

[barbarossa2]

France is disappointed in the attempted acquisition of Denmark by our good neighbours in Britain. Denying Sweden these lands is not allowing them a full voice in European affairs, and France feels strongly that the move on Denmark by British troops should be reconsidered. King Louis XVI would have been totally fine with the British acquisition of the United Provinces (including their fleet) had Sweden received Denmark (including its fleet) as we have nothing against British security. Indeed, we support it and will work to forbid any invasion attempts of the inalieable lands of England, Scotland, and Ireland. Additionally, if anyone should declare total war on Britain, France will declare war on the aggressor in our effort to maintain a stable Europe.

[barbarossa2]

Concerning the "insurrection" debate. I don't care what we do, I will do whatever everyone here wants. However, vanilla is what I thought we were playing. It keeps record keeping simpler.

[Mus]

ORIGINAL: barbarossa2

France is disappointed in the attempted acquisition of Denmark by our good neighbours in Britain.

As a sign of your disappointment with Britain you immediately launched a sneak attack with Spain against Denmark and started to sink the Danish Navy.

We had to destroy the village to save it?

[:-]

ORIGINAL: barbarossa2

Denying Sweden these lands is not allowing them a full voice in European affairs, and France feels strongly that the move on Denmark by British troops should be reconsidered.

By a full voice in European affairs for Sweden dont you really mean 2 large fleets with which to threaten British security?

Also is Swedens land forces being swelled by 50,000 additional men a benefit or detriment to Prussian and Russian security?

Just curious.

[barbarossa2]

It was made clear to the king of France that several nations supported Swedish acquisition of Norway. I won't say who they are now.

Let it be noted that France was, in fact the last nation to step foot on ANY minor nation's soil. The illegal acquisition of the Danish navy (a massive massive imbalancer of the balance of oceanic power) should have been okayed with the international community.

Please explain to me how destroying something which someone illegally taking without permission and won't ever be returned is wrong?

I never got notice from anyone that they were even against Swedish acquisition of Denmark.

Again, I would have supported British acquisition of the United Provinces, Swedish acquistion of Denmark, and Spanish acquistion of Portugal. I was certainly not dictating this, but I was supporting it. I even offered Britain help in moving the United Provinces into their column solidly. I would say one fleet acquisition per nation is fair. Not all three in the hands of one. Please note that I am not even interested in expanding MY fleet with any minor nation's ships. I was happy working to give them to others. I just wanted to make sure that Sweden has a fair share and wouldn't spend the next 23 years as the Baltic whipping boy. I see nothing wrong with that.

I don't know what to say now that Sweden's ability to have an equal role in affairs has been so compromised.

The claim that "Sweden could use Danish fleets to threaten Britain" is interesting. Because I have played Sweden, and I would say that a Britain with Danish fleets is more dangerous to Sweden than a Sweden with Danish fleets is to Britain. Is Britain the only nation which is deserving of naval security?

Are you saying that 5 or 6 British fleets vs 1 Swedish fleet is "fair"? I can't see that. If the fleets needed to stay neutral, then we could have negotiated that as well. Not sieze them before discussing things with people who have an obvious interest in the matter.

I am backing Prussia against Sweden if 50,000 blood thirsty Swedes come crashing down on Berlin with their single fleet of long boats, totally exposing their rear and flank to Russian and British attack. But I won't have to. Because they won't do it. Perhaps a Sweden with fair access to enough minor provinces for its own expansion which would put it on par with other nations in its region is all it would take to turn it into a nation which doesn't feel threatened and instable. I don't recall Sweden threatening anyone. As far as I am aware, it was interested in the acquisition of Denmark. It certainly hasn't expressed an interest in invading Russia or Prussia! Or even Britain for that matter.

And I sure as hell don't want to go to Britain.

I was for a strong Sweden, a strong Prussia stretching from the Rhine to East Prussia, a strong Austria, a stable Ottoman Empire, peace in the East, and an inviolable Britain. Sue me. [:)]

[Mus]

ORIGINAL: barbarossa2

Please explain to me how destroying something which someone illegally taking without permission and won't ever be returned is wrong?

Well you claim benevolence on one hand, then when things dont go your way you help to destroy the object in dispute. If the object wasnt a threat to anybody... what reason is there to remove it as a factor?

Kinda obvious isnt it? Your actions prove the Danish Navy is a threat.

Ive been in Kingmakers shoes before (twice), and I said several turns ago, were I in the same position I would attack Denmark right now. Looks like Great Britain saw the strategic situation in the same way.

Also your choice of words is very odd. Illegal? According to what law? Without permission? Whos permission was needed for a sovereign nation to take military action against a perceived threat?

ORIGINAL: barbarossa2

I was for a strong Sweden...

Actually Sweden in control of Denmark still isnt "strong" per se, its just capable of using its fleets in combination with other countries to threaten Great Britain and still weak enough to be bullied into doing so even if they didnt want to.

It just reinforces my point that the reason why it wasnt allowed is because it was a threat.

I enjoy the spirited public debate, although I find the absence of Sweden, Turkey and Spain in any public discourse or private diplomatic negotiations very odd.

[and2]

Turn 14 posted
 

[and2]

The smelly Danish privateers that were disrupting the peace and trade have now been given a decisive blow by the Coruna fleet, lead by Admiral Don Grandebrig. The remeaning part of these maurauders were seen fleeing in their demasted rowing boats! Never again shall the waters of our beloved kings nation see the protestant heathens!
 
Our most beloved brothers, the grand Portugese people, have now come into the sanctuary of the Spanish kingdom. We welcome their wise decision and applaud the wise leadership of Maria I, House of Braganza.
 
The First Spanish army, having lead a succesfull campaign in North Africa under the now regrettiably deceased King Franck, are now under the leadership of General Don Ricardos. In memory of our lost king we have launched a surpise attack against the Moroccan pirate sanctuary, to complete his grand vision of a orderly and peacefull North Africa.
 
The new Spanish King Juan XVII has now implemented a full cabinet reshuffle and can announce that newly appointed ambassadors are traveling towards all eurpean capitals and looks forward to renewing the eternal friendship between Spain and our fellow European empires and kingdoms.
 
Concerning the matter Britain's attack on Denmark, we ourself have not been party to any negotiations on the ownership of the now sunken danish rowing boat fleet! or their lands in the protestant north. However we do not anymore regard this matter as a concern to the Spanish house of Bourbon. We are certain that our beloved and eternal friends Great Britain, France and Sweden will resolve this matter to the agreement of all concerned parties.
 
Signed King Juan XVII y sensalosa con magnifico ill fantastico

[Mus]

I dont know who this Don guy is - BUT I LIKE HIS STYLE!!!

[Kingmaker]

HiHi

Err, before this debate gets too hairy, can I remind folks that, as we all know, England DoW Denmark means they will not get the Danish fleet, minor powers Navies & Armies only come over through Protectorate status, therefore the French & Spainish attacks on Denmark should rather be seen as a way of gaining Navel experiance & GP.

Oh, and as was always intened should it become nessessery for England to attack Denmark, Sweden will (subject to certian minor conditions) recieve Norway, Trod'heim & Copenhagen at the end of Hostilities.

All the Best
Peter

[Mus]

ORIGINAL: Kingmaker

Err, before this debate gets too hairy...

Aww cmon man dont be such a buzzkill.

ORIGINAL: Kingmaker

...can I remind folks that, as we all know, England DoW Denmark means they will not get the Danish fleet, minor powers Navies & Armies only come over through Protectorate status, therefore the French & Spainish attacks on Denmark should rather be seen as a way of gaining Navel experiance & GP.

In regard to Glory and Naval Experience, thats apparent. However, in regard to the armed forces of minors, if you make a protectorate of a conquered minor all their forces still in existence flock to your banner.

I dont know if thats widely known or not.

Im still waiting on a simple explanation as to how attacking Denmark was "illegal" and also who exactly England needed "permission" from in order to be allowed to do it.

[Kingmaker]

HiHi

Well it certainly is to players in the 1st game as it was discused at some length when I quiried how I had suddenly aquired Denmark as a Russian protecterate, the bit about the Danish navy being particularly pertanent.

All the Best
Peter