1792 No frills PBEM

[Marshal Villars]

I did put my turn in. I thought! It was in last night. About 7 hours after I received it! (I hope!)

I hope that a seven hour turn around is quick enough...though I know we have been moving more quickly these days!

(I can't reveal the bug, or it would reveal a strategic weakness!...I will be fine if no one knows about it!)

Yeah...anyway, I posted my turn to the nofrills email account last night before I went to bed.

[montesaurus]

Looks like everyone has posted![:)]

[Marshal Villars]

POSTED
"SUPER QUICK SURRENDERS WILL RUIN THE GAME"
Used as a way to completely avoid any conflict in virtually any situation someone doesn't feel good about a sure outcome, super quick surrenders reduce real conflict to virtually zero.

As many here will see, after France was chided for taking a "quick" surrender after almost two years of war with Britain, we took the opportunity to move into Saxony, knowing full well that Prussia might have its PBEM policy for France set to "aggressive" and that if it was, it would cause a war between France and Prussia. I did this to prove a point. Namely that anyone, even allies of people belittling those taking quick surrenders--after almost 2 years of conflict--might take quick surrenders. In my opinion, Prussia can do whatever they like, but at least I will know that I can take quick surrenders anytime I like then too. Honestly, I have no interest in fighting Britain, and I am not required to. There is nothing to prevent me from giving him quick surrenders for the rest of the game--wouldn't that be thilling?
[>:]

France would rather fight Britain and have a good reason to do it. But, as I have said, no one has to fight anyone just to be a nice guy. Timurlain doesn't. Kingmaker doesn't. And I don't. And I won't sit here in the forums and make fun of them for not fighting to pressure them into fighting. Either we have rules, or we don't give people a hard time for doing what this game currently makes very logical in many, many situations.

Note that I have nothing against players who take quick surrenders (especially not Timurlain, as I know him to be a fine, and nice guy)--because they are logical and rational beings . And I won't sit here and let anyone give Timurlain a hard time for taking a quick surrender if he does (there were some lengthy, rather angry posts written about French surrender to Britain after almost 2 years of conflict, so I don't know what people will think about a super quick Prussian surrender). I also won't keep fighting for more than four months just to be a nice guy when others surrender immediately (my war with Britain ran almost two years against my better judgement). No one in this game has to do anything to stick their neck out on the line just to be a nice guy and keep things interesting. What we need is a minimum standard everyone adheres to and creates some semblance of historical accuracy.

Please note that in this case, another marvel of instant surrenders will be revealed when a quick surrender can turn a losing situation into an actual winner!!! The minor nation I declared war on--Saxony--will have gone to Prussia, but Prussia can declare an instant surrender, and there won't be anything the attacking nation can do about it. Wow. Cool game.

So, people, which road do we go down? Instant surrender-O-Rama for 23 years? Or 4 months minimum before surrender? An interesting, powerful game? Or a weak one with little interest.

I know what I would like to do until there is a better in-game solution.

*Please note that I am interested in starting a PBEM with house rules along the lines of the ones I have proposed in the SQSNPT and elsewhere. They are designed to give a maximum amount of historical feel using CoG:EE as its base. But only those with board gaming experience and capable of doing some math on their own need apply. The thread is the "AltHist-A" thread at: tm.asp?m=2233001[/size]

[Marshal Villars]

SQSNPT
Super Quick Surrender Non-Proliferation Treaty
a.k.a The "making marching to your enemy worthwhile" treaty
(NOTE: If there is interest, we can extend this to six months instead of the four I have proposed, but of course there would have to be unanimous agreement on that)

SECTION I - Pertaining to the rule itself
Intended to prevent SUPER QUICK surrenders (defined as those being under four months) from destroying the game.
1.1 No signatory nation shall surrender to a nation declaring war on it in a manner preventing a state of war to exist for at least four full calendar months.
Example: Austria declares war on Russia with their March orders. In April, turn results indicate a state of war has been initiated and currently exists between the two nations. Since four months of war must elapse, Russia must fight in April, May, June, and July. In the July turn, Russia may enter a surrender order so that in August he will be in a state of peace.
1.2 A nation allied to the nation accepting a legal surrender after four months of a state of war is also forced to accept a surrender. (Note: this both makes sense and is how CoG:EE currently functions). Note: if not allied at the time of surrender to the initially declaring nation, a "late declaring" nation may continue to fight for their full four months (or, expressed differently, a defending nation must give the non-allied late declaring nation their full four months of war). Thus, a nation entering a war late can break an alliance with another player to be guaranteed of their full four months of war. Or they can stay allied and be forced to accept a single surrender which applies to all allies if one of those allies can be legally surrendered to according to the SQSNPT.
Example: France declares war on Austria in their June orders. A state of war exists in July (first month of war). In July, Russia enters order to join France in alliance and declares war on Austria. In August (second month of war) the alliance materializes and border battles have begun. In September (third month of war) fighting rages along the front. In October (fourth month of war), Austria may enter a surrender so that by November a state of peace will exist--having allowed four full calendar months of a state of war. Both France and Russia must accept the peace. Note that in this example, Russia was only at war with Austria for three months. The moral of this story is, in this case if you are Russia and want to fight longer than three months do not ally with France.
Example: France is allied to Prussia, in March's orders, France declares war on Austria. In April a state of war exists between France and Austria (first month of Fr-Au war). In May the conflict between France and Austria continues (second month of Fr-Au war) and Prussia decides to declare war on Austria AND dissolves its alliance with France. In June (third month of Fr-Au war and first month of Pr-Au war) fighting rages along the frontiers. In July (the fourth month of Fr-Au war / second month of Pr-Au war) Austria puts in her surrender to France in order to end the war by August. However, since France and Prussia are not allies when Austria surrenders to France, Prussia still has claim to four full months of war.
1.4 Nations declaring war on others are bound by the same rules. That is, if you declare war on another nation, you must allow four months of conflict to exist before surrendering to the nation you declared war on.
1.5 CoG:EE mechanics forcing a surrender earlier than 4 months (for instance if a nation is forced to surrender before the four months of war due to low national morale), are final and must (of course) be accepted.
1.3 Except as called out in 1.2 and 1.5, wars may not be ended before four full months of hostilities in any case. Not even by arrangement (as this could screw things up for your allies on a side which is winning even if you would accept it). Of course, it is up to the players how hard they fight their war.
1.6 Note that even though this agreement indicates that a state of war must exist between the nations for four months, there is (and can be no) requirement for actual fighting during this time. These rules explicitly require ONLY that an official "state" of war exist in the four months called out. They in are in no way intended to regulate the intensity of the fighting (or lack of it) which takes place.

SECTION II - Pertaining to the administration of this rule
1.7 If someone enters a surrender which is too early according to this agreement, any player noticing this on the IMMEDIATELY following turn may call this out and instantly demand a redo of the turn's orders. This must be demanded after the turn results with the illegal surrender are received and inspected. Once the next turn is merged and sent out, it is too late and the game play continues (it is assumed a historical anomaly occurred). This takes precedent over other players' desire to continue--even if secret plans were revealed in the process (we will simply assume that spies have discovered planned moves). Note that ANY player may demand an adherence to the SQSNPT, not just directly involved parties. If no one notices the problem and no one demands a replay, then play continues without interruption.
1.8 For the "nofrills" game, Timurlain will be appointed as the judge of these SQSNPT rules in case any official decisions are needed in cases which are not 100% clear on their face. Timurlain's decisions will be as quick as possible and final. Timurlain also has the ability to overrule any player proceeding believing to know what he is doing, but Timurlain disagrees with--calling for a turn redo if necessary.

SECTION III - STRONGLY RECOMMENDED ADDITION
1.9 As a result of the greater amounts of points won in treaties, the following change is required: A nation taking provinces from a losing nation in a war, MUST take a conquered minor province (a province with the nation's flag behind another flag) BEFORE taking a homeland province (with only the nation's flag). This will result in dramatically more realistic annexation of lands and will prevent nations from easily carving deeply into other nations, when in fact, homeland provinces were usually the last to be touched. Players must determine this as they select a province to take in their treaty (believe me, everyone will benefit from this and it will avoid bizarre formations of land partition).

We, the signatory nations feel that any other option provide a suboptimal gaming experience.



SIGNATORY NATIONS
(no parties currently)
France will sign if all other powers sign. If there is no signing, France will always take quick surrender option against Britain and allies--because in effect, the Super Quick Surrender prevents ANY damage from being done and is the only way to go. Unfortunately, this would all result in an incredibly boring game. We would rather be forced to fight. But we won't do it unless everyone else does.


ADVANTAGES:
[&o]+Eliminates declaring war on a neighbor and surrendering to him the very next turn just to keep him out of a war you are planning (I actually encourage the adoption of a 6 month rule because of this). For instance: Prussia wants to go to war with Austria, but knows that Russia supports Austria. Prussia can quickly declare war on Russia, then IMMEDIATELY take a surrender on the following turn, preventing Russia from helping Austria for 18 months--even if they had been allies if Russia had not immediately declared war in return! NOTE: Increasing the length of the rule to 6 months would actually allow nations like Russia some time to strike back at a nation like Prussia and in conjunction with Austria in this example...so I recommend consideration of a 6 month rule.)
[&o]+Results in nations having to move to their frontiers and defending them to prevent provinces from falling to the enemy, since each region captured gives the invader 1000 extra treaty points.
+Results in occassional war between Britain and France--with consequences. At the moment, France could adopt an "I would rather pay protection money than fight for the next 10 years and get off relatively unscathed." In my opinion, the rule should be extended to 6 months. Then, once they are in to the war, they may not be able to get out for fear of a massive treaty penalty--resulting in a tendency for HISTORICAL CONFLICT! (imagine that)
[&o]+Results in occasional frontier wars (instead of instant surrender madness). [&o]
[&o]+Prevents France from taking Super Quick Surrender option against Britain for the rest of the game. [&o]
[&o]+Eliminates the problem of 2/3 of all wars being resolved with instant surrenders. Honestly, in my 3500+ pages of reading on conflict in the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries, I didn't encounter a SINGLE "Super Fast Surrender". I suppose Prussia and Austria could have taken instant surrenders in 1805 and 1806 as well--I know I would have! Actually, if France would have surrendered to Britain instantly as we had wanted to, we might be verging on 3/3 wars in this game being settled with the "Super Quick Surrender". [8|]
[&o]+Closes the "I want to declare war on the protectorate next to that guy--but the protectorate declares for him, and he takes the instant surrender--and suddenly HE has the protectorate and 18 months of peace" loophole. My friends, this is not how war worked. [:'(]
[&o]+Gives Kingmaker the ability to force France to fight, which even France is a fan of. But who wants to fight when there is a disincentive to do it!?!? Nobody in this game needs to be a nice guy to help other people win.
[&o]+Gives us all real wars and conflict with consequences -- like we deserve! No more of this pansy bull hooey!

DISADVANTAGES
-It is a house rule and people have to know how many calendar months they have been in a state of war. But I think we are all over 13 years old and can handle that.

I can tell you, if we don't play with these rules I certainly won't hold it against anyone who wants to take advantage of the currently heavily incentivized quick surrenders! I have a feeling we will see at least 60% of wars end in quick surrenders! In all of my reading of conflict from 1618 to 1815, I found not ONE real example of a "super quick surrender". Leaders had a bad habit of fighting on after they should have thrown in the towel. And in CoG:EE we players know too many things about our armies and our enemy's armies making the calculation more mathematical and certain than ever in history. In addition, the inverted incentive system makes real conflict highly unlikely.

We will simply assume that the four month minimum state of war represents the fact that your militarized nobility who has trained their whole lives for their moment of glory will have your head on the chopping block if you rob them of their chance to prove their manhood for the test of honor and the hand of fair maidens. Poor, landless aristocracy will have nothing to do with a king who runs and hides his head in the sand. The internal pressure to preserve the nation's honor and the desire of men new to their posts to prove that they know what they are doing, and those who came before them did not, is too strong for your crown to overcome in the first four months--just as it was historically.

[Marshal Villars]

I will not send in my turn, or even plan it, until I know what is decided on this SQSNPT issue. I will continue playing whatever is decided. But I would like to know now so that I can know what options I have the next time Britain declares war on me.

[Kingmaker]

HiHi

Right folks fraid that’s the final straw, please find a new England player, I’ve put up with as much as I’m prepared to stand.

This game was set up as its name “No Frills” implies way back then as an attempt to just have fun playing the game over a long enough period, i.e. 23yrs to give the smaller nations a chance of making a mark in the game, rather than just being cannon fodder for the big boy’s. The idea being to play the Game warts and all as is, and I at least hoped that that would include that too often forgotten, and admittedly largely English ‘Old school’ sentiment, of ‘the Spirit of the Game’, sadly from my perspective that doesn’t now stand a cats chance in Hell of being realised, and with threats to hold up the game unless certain demands are met then, fuck it I’m off

B2, I am pig sick of every time I open my email folder finding some spurious longwinded communication from you there, I have therefore put a block on any PM or email communications from the Matrix site. If for any reason you should wish to have any future communications with me re game matters, do so via the Matrix MB’s i.e. and “I say this 3 times” as regrettably (from previous experience from both the 2 games we have been in and on the MBs in general), you have great difficulty in listening to what others say if it doesn’t suit your purpose, so I repeat, “I say this 3 times”, Do NOT bombard me with messages from your various email sites, as mentioned I’m pig sick of them.

To the rest of the team “Good Luck & Good Hunting”, you should have no problem finding a replacement as my stewardship of England has left it in a fairly healthy state, suggest you advertise on the ‘Reserve list’ and maybe the Westphalia MB as that game sadly looks to have collapsed.

All the Best
Peter

[montesaurus]

Hmmm. Pr and TU in. Anybody have any suggestions in regards to an English player?

[Marshal Villars]

See below.

[Mus]

I have to agree with Kingmaker that a PBEM not initiated for the express purpose of finding and exploiting bugs is a bad place to engage in said activity.

At least that is how I interpreted his "spirit of the game" comments.

If an effort towards testing for the purpose of finding and exploitings bugs in the game rules wants to be made I think this game should be canned and another started.

[Marshal Villars]

RESPONSE TO KINGMAKER'S DEPARTURE

Well, I am glad Kingmaker got to say what he said and how he felt. There are two sides to every story. Now, it is my turn.

NOTE: In the following statement concerning Kingmaker's departure from the game, every single word and every single statement about Kingmaker made by me are purely my opinion. The following are provided only because of what I feel to be unfounded personal attacks made by Kingmaker. Because of the nature of his statements, I feel compelled to respond. Otherwise, I would have very happily kept my mouth shut and kept on pretending that Kingmaker is the greatest friend a man can have. But I can't stay quiet anymore. People need to know about my actions and why I took them now. Anyone reading this statement agrees not to read any further without acknowledging that the following is ALL opinion.


0) When invited to play this game, I told two players that I did not want really want to play here because of Kingmaker. I am glad this is over.
1) We were not playing vanilla if people do things allowed in the game get criticism from Kingmaker for doing it. That is Kingmaker Vanilla.
2) I have bent over backwards for months to post polite comment after polite comment about Kingmaker and his play. Sending several nice emails complimenting him on his play and understanding of COG:EE and telling him I appreciate learning from him. There are probably 5 or more of these types of comments in this "nofrillls" thread alone. After his comments about my "disingenuous nature" in the PBEM secret treaty situation, I held my breath and just hit him with two more compliments.
3) I predicted Kingmaker would quit when I played vanilla and not some kind of game in which I held myself back just so Britain could soak up glory points for France playing stupid. Another player in here knows I have feared Kingmaker quitting as soon as I had the upper hand.
4) I know Kingmaker won't pull his punches in vanilla. And I certainly don't expect him to. Why should I?
5) I had discovered serious problems in vanilla, and wanted to protect Kingmaker from them. But Kingmaker doesn't want house rules. But he doesn't like true vanilla play. But he doesn't want house rules. But he doesn't want vanilla play. But he doesn't want house rules. But he doesn't want vanilla play. And on and on. Early surrenders bother him, but he doesn't want house rules. Moving your troops across his territory after you surrender to him bothers him, but he doesn't like house rules and so on and so forth.
6) Several ridiculous vanilla strategies had become apparent to me, which I would have preferred playing without. So ridiculous I called one of them, "Vanilla Epic Ultra". But I had been told we were playing vanilla and wouldn't do house rules. Other players whom I told my vanilla "Epic Ultra" plan to encouraged me to deploy them in our war against Britain. However, we were concerned that when playing undefined vanilla and being shown these strategies, that Kingmaker would quit. I have never had a player, who I discovered new uses of vanilla on, quit. Usually, because I do a pretty good job of keeping the compliments and respect rolling, things go pretty well. And Kingmaker got more compliments from me than I believe anyone else I have EVER played has!
7) When playing vanilla, players cannot be expected to know the difference between "vanilla" and "disallowed bug" instinctively. See: Houserules to keep games from coming to this when players don't know what to do in such a situation and are seeking guidance without tipping their hand.
8) Many of my emails to Kingmaker which he complains about were specifically marked as diplomatic email from France and were part of a misinformation campaign I was running. Napoleon used misinformation in his campaigns against his enemies. Am I not allowed to send diplomatic emails doing the same thing? Or is that Kingmaker Vanilla again?
9) I do not like exploitation fests. And if one is playing vanilla without ANY house rules, how is one to know the difference between vanilla and an exploitation?
10) I did not want to play in this game with Kingmaker from the beginning, because I knew that no matter how many times I was nice to him and complimented him by email and throughout the forums, it was a lose/lose situation. No one should have to kiss someone's hiney for fear that they will quit a game when you have outmaneuvered him. Thank God this is over.
11) PAVNPT and QSQNPT were specific attempts for me to define the realm I am supposed to operate in if I did not want to be criticized for my actions or lead to Kingmaker's quitting. I believe that anyone looking especially at QSQNPT now will see that.
12) I have no problem with playing vanilla. But I won't play Kingmaker Vanilla which keeps you guessing as to how long you will be banished from civil communication if you should ever gain a true upper hand on him.
13) Kingmaker's criticism of my surrender the other day was NOT what upset me. It was the fact that for six months I have grovelled at his feet, posting one nice comment after another, emailing him compliments, praising him and his contribution, so that one day, if I ever got the upper hand over him in a game he would not quit. After being incapable of even once posting a truly positive statement about me, and often criticizing me, his statement upon quitting was what upset me.
14) Of course, if you don't want to piss someone off, and don't want them to know you think they might have a heart attack when you pull out REAL vanilla, you don't say, I think we need this treaty in here to keep you from blowing your stack when I do X or Y. Why should I give my plans away? You say, you need it for "realism" or you need it to test some design thoughts out (and at the same time think in your head--"but it is here to protect your butt from my plan which will PISS YOU OFF." But you also know you're walking on egg shells because the guy will have a cow if he doesn't play vanilla.) Oh my.
14) zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz... I am bored now.

[Mus]

ORIGINAL: Marshal Villars

Fine. I have no problem with it. My problem was the fact that Kingmaker posted a lambasting of my surrender. And I wanted to make sure I wouldn't get it again if I surrendered quickly. Because it is easy to get people not to surrender quickly if you make them feel stupid for it. And I won't have Kingmaker make fun of anyone else, like he did me for doing it (PURE OPINION).

I don't really care about personal issues between players. Some people are not going to get along, that is the way the world works.

I don't see the issue being quick surrender at all. A rule in gunfighting is "you can't miss fast enough to win" and this kind of logic applies to quick surrender as well as you can't surrender fast enough to win either. A quick surrender is not an effective strategy to winning the game, it's a way to minimize the damage done to you in an unwinnable war. Nothing more, nothing less. People are making a mountain out of a molehill when it comes to quick surrenders. Your Glory is halved and then another subtraction of glory applied. Austria went from 2nd Place in the standings to nearly last place from our quick surrender. France did nearly the same and from the terms imposed by the surrender I doubt it even qualifies as a quick surrender as it appears England got plenty of VPs. Hardly a game winning exploit, the fuedal reforms alone will be hurting France longterm.

The references to quick surrender as some kind of "strategy" that can be repeatedly utilized is very humorous. The result of course would be coming in last place in the Glory standings.

The concern for me is in the seeming exploitation of a game bug to side step an enforced peace dictated as part of a surrender. That is why I requested that you inform everybody of the "bug" you had found rather than exploit it privately. Either the game should have forced France to back off from the Prussian ultimatum when Saxony sought Protectorate Status or France should be getting hit with Glory penalties every turn it stays at war with Prussia. This doesn't seem to be the case.

Again, I would propose that this kind of activity be refrained from in a game not particularly started for the purposes of finding these kinds of bugs (and this is definetely a bug), and I would also suggest a testbed PBEM be started immediately (rather than waiting for a patch) so that this kind of work can continue because the game is rife with these kinds of issues that need to be found, then exposed (rather than exploited privately) and FIXED.

So I don't know if this game is dying or what, but if the majority doesn't have a problem with this becoming an exploit festival I will just bow out now as well.

[timurlain]

One thing. I have never declared or planned any surrender against the French. Not in this turn. Where did that rumour come from ? I have stated that as an option in one of my email and later in the email said I wouldn't do it. That rumour is false.

To Marshal Villars - if you surrender you kind of can expect your martial prowess to be doubted. I haven't really felt that KM was all that offensive (on this forum at least) to that.

I think he was much more angry about the exploit of marching through his lands, though that was not the last straw. I can see how that is way more important than any protectorate splitting or even quick surrender treaty. You are right you have fought England for long time, so you shouldn't have been scorned for the quick surrender - which wasn't that quick. As Mus pointed out the quick surrender tactic isn't all that great in the long run.

What was worse was that you made it appear that you surrender only to sort of break the game and show KM a lesson, that attitude was unnecessary in my eyes, as was KM attitude towards your surrender, which agai n was mainly influenced by your reasoning for the surrender.

Anyways, will we play a new game or find someone for England ?

[timurlain]

I have read Marshall Villars long post again and I will again clarify I did not think too much of surrendering. I didn't want France to create some strange condition in the treaty that would harm me in a big way. I felt that France was exploiting movement across your rival land, but did I complain here or not ?

If Russia wouldn't have joined in and other bugs / exploits were presented I think I still stand a chance against France.

[Marshal Villars]

(All statements above about Kingmaker below are my PURE opinion)

@Mus and Timurlain...no Kingmaker wasn't overly rude to me in just his comments criticizing my playing style. What brought 6 months of my one way boot kissing all to an end was his outrageous posting when he quit with its implication (in my opinion) that I was bombarding him with tons of worthless emails and traumatizing letters. And the fact that for the last six months I have worked my butt off to say nothing but good things about him in these forums again and again and again and again...and again, calling him, "great", "smart", "diplomatic", "eloquent", thanking him for his help, telling him what an asset he was to the CoG:EE community, telling him about his "great finds", sending him an occassional email telling him I found learning CoG:EE from him during play rewarding.

And on and on and on and on. I don't think it would be exaggerating to say I could find 30 such compliments scattered around these forums not to mention the emails I sent him. And I felt all he could do in that time was criticize me (with an occasional neutral return email)--in the forum and by email. Can anyone find a SINGLE decent comment about me posted by Kingmaker in here? I am offering the next matrix release to anyone (my treat!) if they can find just ONE clearly positive statement posted by Kingmaker about me. I was busting my butt to be nice to him.

So, having done ALL of this boot kissing, HOW can he think I am interested in hurting HIM or teaching HIM a lesson? HOW could he take it personally? I THOUGHT we were all here to teach each other VANILLA. Crossing into people's neutral territory is VANILLA. If Kingmaker doesn't want people crossing his territory, then MAKE HOUSE RULES SO IT DOESN'T COME TO THIS WHEN PEOPLE DO CROSS INTO YOUR TERRITORY. BUT DON'T PRETEND YOU WANT TO PLAY VANILLA THEN. Do not complain when people play vanilla. Do not think that people playing vanilla should know the difference between a "bug" and "vanilla". Playing vanilla to me means allowing everything doable in the game and not magically expecting people to know what is allowed and what isn't "because it is a bug". Or publish a "code of honor" so people know what the guidelines are. Make a neutral party a quick and efficient judge. And my code of honor says, "You NEVER, EVER get upset with anything anyone does when playing vanilla--or ANY game--because you knew anything could happen walking in." Please ask Timurlain about my letters reassuring him that I held NOTHING against him personally for cooperating with Kingmaker or making secret treaties with him! From the looks of Kingmaker's farewell post such an email (one of which I sent) would have pissed him off! Apparently like all of my other nice emails (when sending personal mail) were.


****MORE DETAIL FOR THOSE INTERESTED BELOW:****
For those with shopping to do, I suggest you go do it instead of reading further. You have better things to be doing with your time.

@Timurlain. I have absolutely NO problem with what you have done/said/planned or anything. You are probably one of the nicest guys on the planet. You can take quick surrender. See if I care. Mus is cool too. He knows how to separate the game from OOC and human interaction.

I was sick of paying Kingmaker 100 compliments throughout these forums and in emails (heck what did I NOT compliment him on???), when I felt all he could ever do about me in this forum was criticize me, refused to communicate, and could call me disingenuous about my discovery of the "secret treaty problem". I just got sick of it. Anyway, I think Kingmaker is a nice [8|], eloquent [8|], diplomatic [8|] guy. And I wish him the best. [:)]

Where I did not bulls**t him was when I said he was a great CoG:EE player and I liked learning from playing against him and that I considered him a valuable asset to the CoG:EE community. I even invited him to my play-testing group.

@Mus and Timurlain: How am I to know what a "bug" is and what is Vanilla? People declaring war on you with their PBEM settings is VANILLA. There was no enforced peace between Prussia and France. Also, marching across neutral lands can hardly be described as a bug. Because it is done all of the time. I just used my knowledge of vanilla to help me achieve my goals. I don't think Kingmaker was caught in the act of surrendering advantages to me in here. I didn't know about some of the vanilla stuff he was handing me my butt in. And I certainly would have never complained about anything he would have come up with. He didn't know about some of the vanilla stuff I was doing--but when I do true vanilla, apparently Kingmaker got upset (which Timurlain's post above leads me to believe). The fact that Britain would go to war with France was obvious to me and perhaps to everyone. But isn't it funny that it was the FIRST war that broke out? And is it coincidence who did the declaring?

I can deal with Mus and Timurlain because with guys like you I know that personal is personal and game is game. Two different things. But with Kingmaker, it is my opinion that personal was personal and game was personal. That was the feeling I got after posting dozens of positive comments about KM and stroking his ego without EVER getting a decent comment back. And two days ago, he went so far as to accuse my not bringing up the secret treaty problem in advance as being "disingenuous". ????? Excuse me? Like I KNEW about this problem? And even IF I did, it IS vanilla--isn't it? CoG:EE with any and all warts? In my opinion, Kingmaker has never done much more than disagree with me in every post. And all I ever did was come back and kiss his boot for fear that IF I ever got any kind of advantage over him in a game he would quit.

LOL. I did not surrender to Kingmaker to show HIM a lesson. Timurlain, you of all people probably know that I do not take losing, or in-game backstabbing personally, or anything. I am not a vindictive person. I think I have sent you 3 or 4 personal emails trying to make clear to you that personally, the "secret treaty" thing was a hill of beans to our friendship and the fact that I think you are a nice guy. I send you these notes because I don't want you to have to worry that I DO hold it personally against you like I worried every day that if I do anything to outmaneuver Kingmaker in vanilla that HE would take it personally (and apparently he did). Before I met Kingmaker, I didn't think those kinds of notes had to be sent when obviously playing a GAME. Now I do.

The GAME is the GAME. And Kingmaker's inability ever ONCE pay any compliment to me in here after ALL of my b**t kissing made me feel that with Kingmaker everything I did in the game was personal to him. I surrendered to Britain to accomplish the first steps in my long term goals in Germany by playing vanilla. Not to piss Kingmaker off. Those IN GAME goals were to hold Prussia responsible for British actions (though how often did I apologize to you by email for having to do that Timurlain?). And if Kingmaker doesn't like people marching over his lands after a surrender, then he should make a house rule for it--not HOPE people won't march over his lands to be nice when playing vanilla. Kingmaker didn't take it easy on my supply lines. And I wouldn't have expected him to. Was it vanilla? Or was it not vanilla?

The PAVNPT and the QSQNPT were my way of saying, LOOK, I will not be criticized for playing VANILLA. And I will not keep paving you a street of compliments just so I don't have to worry about you quitting when I play VANILLA. I just wanted to know where the line was that Kingmaker would let me play in without getting crud for it or having to fear being exiled by him for another eight months! Or hating me even more. I thought you could march over people's lands when they surrendered. That is pure vanilla. As far as I know it isn't a bug. And even if it was a bug, who draws the lines between bugs and WAD in vanilla? And if Timurlain says that Kingmaker didn't like it and didn't like my doing it and that is what bugged him, it is precisely another reason I wanted to know what Kingmaker Vanilla was and get it defined. And I can guarantee you that "Vanilla Epic Ultra" would have caused all of this as well.

The problem with real vanilla, is that it needs house rules. As Vanilla Epic Ultra would have demonstrated. But Vanilla Epic Ultra isn't any more unrealistic than any British 100,000 man amphibious landing in enemy held territory is. And I doubt very little that Britain would voluntarily give that up to be nice to the French! And you know what??? I wouldn't expect him to.

Perhaps IF Kingmaker could have spared ONE inking of an IOTA of "niceness" to me in these forums over the last eight months, then I wouldn't have had to worry so much about more "Kingmaker Fallout" for playing vanilla.

Oh. And one of the primary reasons I didn't take a quick surrender against Britain when he initially declared on me, was because I feared Kingmaker's response to that. And that it would all start to slowly add up and end up in him quitting if I ever actually had any advantage over him. I guess I was right.

(All statements above about Kingmaker above are PURE opinion--I still think Kingmaker is a great, nice, eloquent guy and that his quitting the game has no reflection on his character. And that other players should obviously continue any correspondence and game play with him normally)

[Marshal Villars]

So, are we playing real VANILLA (fine with me). OR are we playing with house rules to prevent some pretty silly things from happening.

I don't care which we play. But I want to KNOW which we are playing before I go on.

But NO ONE should get crap for playing pure vanilla IF we are playing vanilla. No human being is required to be a nice guy just to "make the game work" or help someone else out with their glory score.

[montesaurus]

Hi Guys,
In regards to quick surrenders I agree with Mus. Those 300 initial experience points are nice but they are'nt equal to what you will lose! The province Krajina which I took from Austria was generating some good Glory points for Turkey! AS far as surrendering on a regular basis I feel one would find your country's economy and power would be pounded back into the Dark Ages. Instead of one Turkey in the game there would be several!!

I oppose house rules, but after communicating with Marshall Villars there is one house rule that I would consider. If you are at peace with another nation then one should'nt be able to enter that nation's core provinces, or protectorates, unless you've selected that as a victory condition that allows that option! Otherwise, you could theoretically move a significant force onto another's nations capital, right before an enforced peace ended! Just imagine France being able to transport an army to London right before peace ended, and the British Fleet could do nothing to stop them! Granted that army more and likely would be destroyed, but if the british army was occupied elsewhere, thinking the fleet would protect him, then things could become very complicated for the British!

Best Regards to all!
Montesaurus

[Marshal Villars]

NOTE: All statements pertaining to Kingmaker are PURELY opinion and that I consider him to be a nice guy and that it is too bad it came to this.

WAR PLAN VANILLA EPIC ULTRA:
The plan to create three corps of crack engineers who are forage free and land them on the shores of Britain one month before the enforced peace ends, marching on London and conquering Britain--while the British fleet stands by and does nothing to stop it.

Yes. Montesaurus. You hit it on the head. Montesaurus has revealed my "Vanilla Epic Ultra" plan. Which is fine with me, because I hope to God I NEVER play in a game which would allow such a thing to happen. Please note that I was even being encouraged to TRY "Vanilla Epic Ultra" by one other CoG:EE veteran (NOT Montesaurus). We both thought there was a chance that Kingmaker might quit over this demonstration of vanilla. So. I decided enough of the madness. How was I to know what was legal and wasn't anymore--especially since in vanilla, by definition EVERY move is legal. How was I to know anymore which move which would eject Kingmaker from the game cussing and what wouldn't?

Why should someone have to reveal their surprise plans to anyone to see if it conforms to Kingmaker Vanilla standards of acceptability before deploying it? No one should have to do this for fear of a player quitting about it all. Not if we have been told we are playing vanilla by a player whom I have been told goes nuts if anyone suggests not playing vanilla. I do not like playing vanilla games with loopholes like this and wondering where the limits of acceptable behavior lie.

As ridiculous or gamey as war plan Vanilla Epic Ultra sounds, to someone at all familiar with 17th and 18th century naval issues, the ability to land 80,000 British troops on a whim with no advance planning any where in Europe is EQUALLY ridiculous. Yet, I am sure Kingmaker would have done it if he could have (And you know what? I wouldn't have minded. And I wouldn't have quit the game cussing and slamming the door behind me. No. I would have probably bent over backwards trying to be nice and telling him what a great guy he was and I appreciated having him show me how the game is played!)

I simply was NOT going to sit here wondering what I CAN do or CAN'T do without Kingmaker's approval anymore. Not after six months of dealing with this.

Anyway. I am glad that "Kingmaker Vanilla Guessing Game " is over, where every in-game move you make could be taken personally. And one had to worry about possibly beating him in a battle or taking the quick surrender option for fear of never being talked to again. I am sure that due to the fact that Timurlain received three personal messages from me guaranteeing the fact that I would NEVER take the "secret treaty" issue which came up personally and it would not affect what I thought about him, he knows I DO NOT and WILL NOT take any in game actions of another player personally. And I do not take any moves to inflict personal anguish ON A PLAYER. Duh.

Please note that when I communicated with Montesaurus and revealed War Plan Vanilla Epic Ultra, I did not say we needed a house rule. I said I hoped I would never have to play in a game that allowed something like that. But if it is allowed, then why not use it? This may have convinced Montesaurus that for the first time in his life he may like the idea of a house rule.

NOTE: All statements pertaining to Kingmaker are purely opinion and that I consider him to be a nice guy and that it is too bad that it came to this.

[Marshal Villars]

...

[Mus]

ORIGINAL: Marshal Villars

@Mus and Timurlain: How am I to know what a "bug" is and what is Vanilla? People declaring war on you with their PBEM settings is VANILLA. There was no enforced peace between Prussia and France.

When you say you discovered a bug, I ask you several times to reveal what it is so it can be discussed, you refuse to reveal it, saying it could endanger you strategically, and then you exploit it I can hardly see how you can be claiming to have been confused whether it was a bug or not.

[;)]

Why should someone have to reveal their surprise plans to anyone to see if it conforms to Kingmaker Vanilla standards of acceptability before deploying it?

Not Kingmaker's standards, any questionable situation involving a bug or exploit should be brought up so the GROUP can decide on adopting or not adopting a house rule regarding it.

I wasn't aware of Kingmaker being elected dictator of the game. Have disagreed in every instance be it your or Ironwarrior deciding that any one player would have veto power in the adoption of house rules when the majority of players think a rule needs to be adopted to prevent the game coming off the tracks.

ORIGINAL: Marshal Villars

Oh. And one of the primary reasons I didn't take a quick surrender against Britain when he initially declared on me, was because I feared Kingmaker's response to that. And that it would all start to slowly add up and end up in him quitting if I ever actually had any advantage over him. I guess I was right.

You could hardly have used a tactic you weren't aware of, so I don't understand making this claim as some kind of rhetorical device.

Regardless, none of this stuff really matters. The bottom line is this game appears to be damaged beyond repair, if I am wrong point it out to me how so.

Contrary to other stated opinions, I think the British position is rather weak to expect to be able to find a replacement. Britain pursued a very unusual strategy of focusing on getting lands on the Rhine that can't possibly be held in the longterm at the expense of forming real relationships with major powers. The power dynamic is screwed up beyond belief as a result, IMO.

I have zero interest participating in a game where France/Russia/Turkey run the board for the entire game while a bunch of the smaller countries sit and eat French table scraps and that is the way things were set to go with nobody willing to form a coalition to stop French hegemony.

[montesaurus]

I have zero interest participating in a game where France/Russia/Turkey run the board for the entire game while a bunch of the smaller countries sit and eat French table scraps and that is the way things were set to go with nobody willing to form a coalition to stop French hegemony.
 
Hi Mus,
I just noticed your above posting.  The thing about any multiplayer diplomatic game, even when historically based, is that to expect it to run historically is inaccurate! I feel the fascination with COGEE, as well as with EIA are the diplomatic aspects. The abiltiy to use your skills,  interacting with people, to effect a response!  If this was a pure historical simulation where one is expected to follow the dictates of history then there would be no point of diplomacy. It's the free nature of running one's country, and the deals you make, that make it so interesting! If the French player knew that he would be at war with a massive coalition every single time he played because thats how history happened, it would become very boring.
But I think it is inaccurate to assume that a coalition against AU would last the entire game. Especially if the other players desire to be the winner!
I've played other games of EIA in the past as France, where I have been facing coalitions. But there was always a weak link that could be expolited. One game it occured   when I persuaded the Austrian player to leave the coaition, because I pointed out to him the other players were getting the lion share of the spoils and victory points. When I showed how much better he would fare by joining the French he left the coalition and became the French ally! It's those type of human interactions/diplomacy that make this period so fascinating!
Regards,

Montesaurus