[PON] Conflict in Europe - Diplomacy & News Thread

[Citizen X]

Technical explanation: if Russia was on defensive and your forces on defensive but without enough MC, a fight could automatically happen even as you moved them out. Unless you commanded you troops in Passive, a battle could have ensued, as it happened. Of course, you could not have expected the Russian troops to be in Passive...

I knew that, so I actually wondered, if he would put them on passive or not, as for my understanding the "avoid encounter" feature only works while moving. Putting my own troops in Passive wouldn't have helped here, they would have been pushed back into the city, not to the adjacent region, maybe even with the same result. Passive is only a secure thing if both put it on. Suits me on the roleplay front, where much to my surprise, I found me on the bad boy side.

[Boernes]

Kensai, no one else thinks the Brazilian force pool is "broken" or even an issue. You're outvoted 15 to 1 on this. Let it go.

For the record, silence is not a declaration of intent, let alone consent.

[lukasberger]

For the record, silence is not a declaration of intent, let alone consent.

Fair enough.

But plenty of people have spoken that don't feel this is an issue. Kensai is the only person who has come out and stated that it is one, but he seems to be claiming to speak for everyone on this, when that's clearly not the case. Why not just put it to a vote? Or more to the point, perhaps we should respect the vote that already happened.

I barely have the time and energy to play the game right now, much less get caught up in the drama of the week that seems to go on around here like clockwork.

All this arguing and counter arguing over something relatively minor is really irritating. Honestly, who cares about Brazil's max force pools, when they haven't even built half their quotas? What difference does it make?

I'm getting to the point where I'm likely to quit, partly from time and energy constraints, but also from irritation with all the drama. I don't want to quit, but since I'm on the edge of staying or quitting right now, this kind of stuff is pushing me toward quitting. If there's an issue, let's just vote and be done with it.

[lukasberger]

The problem in this game is that people fear players, not nations. It happened to sagji, now it happens to me. No problem, I can play along as long as you make a viable story. To me, the American-French insistence to interfere in this war does not make any sense given Japan's and China's ranking and its regional nature. However, let's just say for the moment that they know (possibly only in hindsight, unfortunately) that a strong Japan might challenge them in the future. Let's say ok. But Germany? Germany should be partying behind the scenes actually for this war, as it makes its direct rivals weaker, instead we see Germany finding Japan "a menace to the world", which is quite anticlimatic for the historical prose of the game.

I don't think it's so much a matter of fearing players as such. Or fearing a strong Japan in the future.

You've played Japan as an aggressive, expansionist nation. That hasn't gone unnoticed by the world powers. You've made a lot of enemies, more than you may have realized. For someone who always preaches patience in this long game, your Japan hasn't been all that patient.

You're also forgetting that you "Pearl Harbored" the Germans. They were only forced to disengage with you because of Russian withdrawal from the war with Japan at the start of our second world war. So in fact, German animosity toward Japan fits in very well with our alternate history, due to the previous actions of Japan. Did you really expect Germany just to let the attack on Okinawa go? Brian's Germany has a long memory, we've all seen that.

That's the thing about this game being "historical". If a player takes even one major a-historical action, it causes a ripple effect that completely changes history. The butterfly effect, if you will. At this point we've essentially trampled every butterfly in the world. The butterflies are all extinct! So there's not much history left in the game.

[Soulstrider]

I have already taken my decision, I will be cloning the game from tomorrow, starting from Early January 1878. I think it is the best course of action so people can decide on which game to hop in: the Hardcore or the Arcade one as both will be available in close sync.

I must say this is a pretty terrible idea, having two games like this will end up splitting the players in two nearly identical games which overly complicates things besides other problems. It would be much easier just to put this to vote.

[lukasberger]

I must say this is a pretty terrible idea, having two games like this will end up splitting the players in two nearly identical games which overly complicates things besides other problems. It would be much easier just to put this to vote.

Yeah. If it actually happens, it'll kill the game. CIE just lost the players of two major nations this week due to time constraints and other circumstances. Creating a third game will simply kill both games and probably CIE too.

[Sir Garnet]

Again: the other force pools are not broken. There are no problems with the other force pools, except for those nations that do not sport certain models, but that's a design flow.

Will quote you on that. Then Brazil's broken pool fixed by an extensively noted review based on Spain, Netherlands, Portugal is not broken either. Other than implying that the BRZ pool is the largest by saying "It is not normal that a 'minor' nation has a bigger force pool than the protagonists of the era (including GBR, GER, etc)." what evidence do you have.

I'm sure we would like to see the actual force pools. Spain and Netherlands - already mentioned Portugal's above.

Will take the rest of the recycled farrago to the other thread for the record.

[Jonathan Pollard]

時事月報 (Current Affairs Monthly) December 1878

JAP SABOTAGE RING SMASHED

The Directorate of Naval Intelligence has reported that a Jap sabotage ring was responsible for the explosions that sank four Chinese ships recently purchased from Sweden in Zhanjiang harbor on July 30.

After midnight, a series of small fires were discovered on the pier. Some guards fled, fearing an explosion. Others attempted to fight the fires and eventually called the Zhanjiang Fire Department. At 2:08 a.m. the first and largest of the explosions took place. Fragments from the explosion traveled long distances, some lodging in the in the clock tower of Zhanjiang City Hall, over a mile away, stopping the clock at 2:12 a.m. The explosion was felt as far away as Canton. During the next two hours smaller explosions destroyed the other three ships. Reports vary, but as many as seven people may have been killed, and injuries numbered in the hundreds.

Two of the watchmen who had lit smudge pots to keep away mosquitoes on their watch were immediately arrested. It soon became clear that the fires of the smudge pots had not caused the fire and that the blast had not been an accident. It was traced to a Korean immigrant, Lee Wan-Yong who who had served in the Chinese Army, but admitted to carrying suitcases for the Japs before the Jap invasion of Korea. According to him, four of the guards were Jap agents and he had also received instructions to sabotage the ships of the USA as well as those of Sweden, Holland, Germany, France, and Brazil should they enter the war or turn over their ships to the Chinese navy.


Zhanjiang Pier after the explosions that sank four ships.

[OOC - I used as a template a real-life sabotage incident that took place in the USA on July 30, 1916]

[Jonathan Pollard]

時事月報 (Current Affairs Monthly) December 1878

JAP SABOTAGE RING SMASHED

The Directorate of Naval Intelligence has reported that a Jap sabotage ring was responsible for the explosions that sank four Chinese ships recently purchased from Sweden in Zhanjiang harbor on July 30.

After midnight, a series of small fires were discovered on the pier. Some guards fled, fearing an explosion. Others attempted to fight the fires and eventually called the Zhanjiang Fire Department. At 2:08 a.m. the first and largest of the explosions took place. Fragments from the explosion traveled long distances, some lodging in the in the clock tower of Zhanjiang City Hall, over a mile away, stopping the clock at 2:12 a.m. The explosion was felt as far away as Canton. During the next two hours smaller explosions destroyed the other three ships. Reports vary, but as many as seven people may have been killed, and injuries numbered in the hundreds.

Two of the watchmen who had lit smudge pots to keep away mosquitoes on their watch were immediately arrested. It soon became clear that the fires of the smudge pots had not caused the fire and that the blast had not been an accident. It was traced to a Korean immigrant, Gwon Ken-sai who who had served in the Chinese Army, but admitted to carrying suitcases for the Japs before the Jap invasion of Korea. According to him, four of the guards were Jap agents and he had also received instructions to sabotage the ships of the USA as well as those of Sweden, Holland, Germany, France, and Brazil should they enter the war or turn over their ships to the Chinese navy.

[ATTACH]22973[/ATTACH]
Zhanjiang pier after the explosions that sank four ships.

[OOC - I used as a template a real-life sabotage incident that took place in the USA on July 30, 1916]

[bjfagan]

Fair enough.

But plenty of people have spoken that don't feel this is an issue. Kensai is the only person who has come out and stated that it is one, but he seems to be claiming to speak for everyone on this, when that's clearly not the case. Why not just put it to a vote? Or more to the point, perhaps we should respect the vote that already happened.

I barely have the time and energy to play the game right now, much less get caught up in the drama of the week that seems to go on around here like clockwork.

All this arguing and counter arguing over something relatively minor is really irritating. Honestly, who cares about Brazil's max force pools, when they haven't even built half their quotas? What difference does it make?

I'm getting to the point where I'm likely to quit, partly from time and energy constraints, but also from irritation with all the drama. I don't want to quit, but since I'm on the edge of staying or quitting right now, this kind of stuff is pushing me toward quitting. If there's an issue, let's just vote and be done with it.

Here, here... I agree entirely with Lukasberger. If this is really a serious issue then put it to a vote.

I don't understand why this Brazil force pool issue is such a big deal anyways. The real issue is not the number of allowable builds, but the number that can be maintained. Brazil has the same number of allowable builds as Germany, which may seem improbable at first, but if you consider that these are only what COULD be built then there is no concern. Any nation could build as many battleships as they wish, more than the Royal Navy even. However, it is in paying for these battleships and maintaining them that becomes the real issue. If Brazil built all of their allowable builds of 16 steel battleship squadrons, then my concern would be how in the hell could their economy afford all of these ships? The game breaking issue is not that they had a large number to build in the first, but that these squadrons are not expensive enough in maintenance costs that Brazil can afford to have so many ships. The solution is to make these squadrons more expensive to build and maintain. So much so, that a few squadrons of steel battleships would wreck the Brazilian economy. Problem solved. This would even limit the number maintained by the big countries too.

[Kensai]

I don't think it's so much a matter of fearing players as such. Or fearing a strong Japan in the future.

You've played Japan as an aggressive, expansionist nation. That hasn't gone unnoticed by the world powers. You've made a lot of enemies, more than you may have realized. For someone who always preaches patience in this long game, your Japan hasn't been all that patient.

I have probably been the only player in this game that 'glided' over the historical scripted events. It was not one, it was four. And you continue to paint Japan as the "aggressor" using 21st century paradigms for a 19th century game. You don't even try to get into the role or read the rankings. Do you know how to win this game? Do you understand that to win this game you have to BEAT the nations above you in Prestige, not below?

It really makes no sense that Japan provokes so much animosity so low in the rankings. It is inexplicable, people just want to have fun by attacking the weaker nation in game. It could be ok, but it is not ok if I cannot make diplomacy with anyone.

For example, Ojodeaguila was silent, made a diplomatic call and disappeared. He has not responded for days now my PMs and in game has made me consume some 10 diplos without responding. You, yourself, had said that you cannot commit A-H to any possible cause as you are thinking to abandon the game. The other players are not even responding. It seems to me that we are fighting between players using our avatars, not between nations in game. This is a game of checks and balances, this war is quite unrealistic because in real life USA would not send so many forces (I have counted some 5-6K worth of American troops in Korea, considering F10 this must be almost all of its forces). Who is playing Mexico? Does Gimpli even read the forums (he does not respond to PMs), he could almost march to Washington if he was aware of the situation. If I was playing Mexico I could simply march to Washington before the American forces could get back and claim half the American colonies for my nation. This is why people need to get into the role and play, not stall. The USA use their entire fleet combined to assault the Far East, unrealistic if Spain was actually interacting and could threaten an empty Atlantic. This is not a historical game anymore, it's a sandbox. I really understand sagji's loneliness now.

And this is only part of the problem.

The other half is the continuous strife over scripts. I have already gone to great lengths in finding ways to make this game fun for everyone, including helping my direct avatar rival China (which without me would have been stuck with 2-2-2 rulers until 1909). But the back of the camel can make as much before breaking, I am not willing to negotiate the obvious. There are things that are not abstracted correctly and you downvote them (just because I propose them: see for example the bad abstraction of the alliances in the Balkan war) and others that you upvote although they break the historical realism and balance in game (see proposals for unlimited coal, the BRZ force pools, or sale of ships that appear battle-worthy the same turn). Apologies, but this is frankly bull. This is not the game I am willing to contribute actively, this is an arcade. I am not in the mood to invest my time in active content for a game people stretch all the time.

You're also forgetting that you "Pearl Harbored" the Germans. They were only forced to disengage with you because of Russian withdrawal from the war with Japan at the start of our second world war. So in fact, German animosity toward Japan fits in very well with our alternate history, due to the previous actions of Japan. Did you really expect Germany just to let the attack on Okinawa go? Brian's Germany has a long memory, we've all seen that.

This is the most hilarious part, sorry. The problem is that bjfagan cannot accept that I beat him fair and square THRICE. That he made huge mistakes of strategy and tactical judgment and he can't get over it. As a player. A historical Germany would not be interested in a war with Japan as these two nations do NOT have conflicting SOIs and actually, in this very instance, he is helping his direct rivals who are much higher in the rankings become stronger. The most astonishing fact is that I didn't do anything to antagonize him, he was the one to bring his own troops against the wall making elementary mistakes such as landing on the home islands or doing island hopping without marines. The only reason bj wants this war is to feel "he got back at me" as a player, it has nothing to do with Germany punishing Japan. It makes completely no sense.

There is really no way you can convince me the trailing nation in the rankings is the major villain of this alternate reality. Do you even know what the nation you play has done in the past to its neighbors?!

That's the thing about this game being "historical". If a player takes even one major a-historical action, it causes a ripple effect that completely changes history. The butterfly effect, if you will. At this point we've essentially trampled every butterfly in the world. The butterflies are all extinct! So there's not much history left in the game.

There is much history in the game and you can immensely enjoy it if you play along the historical lines which according to the game designers themselves allow for most scripted events to make sense and give a better overall abstraction of the reality. You simply want to play a sandbox game where everyone has unlimited coal, ships, armies, and can effectively paint the map his own color.

PON has settings for both kinds of games. I just happen to prefer the historical one, that's all.

[De_Spinoza]

It really makes no sense that Japan provokes so much animosity so low in the rankings. It is inexplicable, people just want to have fun by attacking the weaker nation in game. It could be ok, but it is not ok if I cannot make diplomacy with anyone.

As said before, France has IC warned you that this would happen. You could have made diplomacy but you failed. I faced a similar fate playing the Netherlands twice, against the U.S./France and later against Brazil. In the end I failed to ensure that friendly nations would come to my aid in the event of a counter-intervention. It appears you made similar mistakes! But as you said before, this game spans many, many turns. Try again in a few years, but then do ensure that you either have powerful allies or at least no powerful enemies.

For example, Ojodeaguila was silent, made a diplomatic call and disappeared. He has not responded for days now my PMs and in game has made me consume some 10 diplos without responding. You, yourself, had said that you cannot commit A-H to any possible cause as you are thinking to abandon the game. The other players are not even responding. It seems to me that we are fighting between players using our avatars, not between nations in game. This is a game of checks and balances, this war is quite unrealistic because in real life USA would not send so many forces (I have counted some 5-6K worth of American troops in Korea, considering F10 this must be almost all of its forces). Who is playing Mexico? Does Gimpli even read the forums (he does not respond to PMs), he could almost march to Washington if he was aware of the situation. If I was playing Mexico I could simply march to Washington before the American forces could get back and claim half the American colonies for my nation. This is why people need to get into the role and play, not stall. The USA use their entire fleet combined to assault the Far East, unrealistic if Spain was actually interacting and could threaten an empty Atlantic. This is not a historical game anymore, it's a sandbox. I really understand sagji's loneliness now.

Sorry Kensai, I like you, but these are rather bizarre statements;
- Blaming coolbean for sending 'too many troops' to fight you in his only war? Really? Focusing your firepower when you are only waging one war appears like a very sound strategy to me.
- Both Mexico and Spain would not have intervened when played by AI either, so it makes no sense for blaming the players of said nations for not responding to your pleas for help. Nevertheless such an opportunistic attack on the U.S. would be madness. It is likely Britain would launch a swift counter-intervention if it was faced by a Mexican/Spanish invasion of the U.S. And I am certain France would not allow any such thing to happen either .

This is the most hilarious part, sorry. The problem is that bjfagan cannot accept that I beat him fair and square THRICE. That he made huge mistakes of strategy and tactical judgment and he can't get over it. As a player. A historical Germany would not be interested in a war with Japan as these two nations do NOT have conflicting SOIs and actually, in this very instance, he is helping his direct rivals who are much higher in the rankings become stronger. The most astonishing fact is that I didn't do anything to antagonize him, he was the one to bring his own troops against the wall making elementary mistakes such as landing on the home islands or doing island hopping without marines. The only reason bj wants this war is to feel "he got back at me" as a player, it has nothing to do with Germany punishing Japan. It makes completely no sense.

Many statesmen of the 19th century have made larger blunders than you describe. But Germany wanting to get back on Japan is actually very sensible after the previous wars. Germany clearly has colonial ambitions in Asia and you barred them previously. You could have expected the U.S. intervention, and I gave you ample warning about French involvement. And just bashing Brian for 'elementary mistakes' completely defeats your point. Any overly-self-confident western nation in the 19th century could well have made the same 'elementary mistakes' against Japan in a colonial conflict, and the associated revanchism is no stranger to history either as you will know.

Regarding the Brazilian ship-quotas: I completely agree with the other players, on just doing a vote if you want this to be changed.

[Kensai]

As said before, France has IC warned you that this would happen. You could have made diplomacy but you failed. I faced a similar fate playing the Netherlands twice, against the U.S./France and later against Brazil. In the end I failed to ensure that friendly nations would come to my aid in the event of a counter-intervention. It appears you made similar mistakes! But as you said before, this game spans many, many turns. Try again in a few years, but then do ensure that you either have powerful allies or at least no powerful enemies.

France did not warn me about anything, at least not in time. France did not even stay on its initial course (proposal) regarding Korea. I made diplomacy but the players were not responding because of RL issues. A good game demands all players responding, I take my share of responsibility here because I was not asking how much time these players were willing to invest.

Sorry Kensai, I like you, but these are rather bizarre statements;
- Blaming coolbean for sending 'too many troops' to fight you in his only war? Really? Focusing your firepower when you are only waging one war appears like a very sound strategy to me.
- Both Mexico and Spain would not have intervened when played by AI either, so it makes no sense for blaming the players of said nations for not responding to your pleas for help. Nevertheless such an opportunistic attack on the U.S. would be madness. It is likely Britain would launch a swift counter-intervention if it was faced by a Mexican/Spanish invasion of the U.S. And I am certain France would not allow any such thing to happen either .

The game is all about checks and balances. If players do not commit even with 1-turn-per-day then there is nothing we can do. The reason the last time around (just out of the Shogunal civil war) I committed Japan against the two most powerful nations of the game (Germany and Russia had a combined 5x power against Japan) there was Vezina who had a simple historical goal in mind, get vengeance for lost Alsace-Lorraine. This alone was keeping Germany at check. Austria-Hungary used to do the same thing, but lukas said (rightly imo) but he wouldn't commit as he was thinking to abandon game.

Without these checks, nations can do stuff they wouldn't be able to do in real life.

There is nothing bizarre in what I say: Spain (per Ojo's words) did not recognize the sale of old territories and could have threatened USA. However, if players do not commit adequately then there are these strange situations were huge blobs of armies range unhindered. If I was to be playing Mexico the first thing I would do is annex Texas in case USA was warmongering around the world so early in the game (before becoming a superpower). Gimpli does not even respond though, what can one do? The cool thing about a human-played game is that you are always on guard, but this wasn't the case.

I do not bitch about USA and France actually changing their in game policy, I bitch about the rest of the players not adapting to the new situation to keep the balance at check.

Many statesmen of the 19th century have made larger blunders than you describe. But Germany wanting to get back on Japan is actually very sensible after the previous wars. Germany clearly has colonial ambitions in Asia and you barred them previously. You could have expected the U.S. intervention, and I gave you ample warning about French involvement. And just bashing Brian for 'elementary mistakes' completely defeats your point. Any overly-self-confident western nation in the 19th century could well have made the same 'elementary mistakes' against Japan in a colonial conflict, and the associated revanchism is no stranger to history either as you will know.

Do not be silly, I offered Germany reparations and commercial agreements, they did not accept. Germany, Austria-Hungary, etc should be the prime partners in the Far East given that we do not have conflicting SOIs. They did not care. Which does not make any sense cause the combination of weaker nations is the ONLY way to have any possibility to reach and/or stay on top in the Prestige score.

Regarding the Brazilian ship-quotas: I completely agree with the other players, on just doing a vote if you want this to be changed.

There is no reason to put on a vote something so fundamental. This is not negotiable, this is changing the basic rules of a historical game. That's why it is better to have two games (one arcade: this one, where all things are possible) and one historical (where we stick to the designer basics with only few if any adjustments). I think it's the best course of action so everyone can be pleased.

[lukasberger]

I have probably been the only player in this game that 'glided' over the historical scripted events. It was not one, it was four. And you continue to paint Japan as the "aggressor" using 21st century paradigms for a 19th century game. You don't even try to get into the role or read the rankings. Do you know how to win this game? Do you understand that to win this game you have to BEAT the nations above you in Prestige, not below?

It really makes no sense that Japan provokes so much animosity so low in the rankings. It is inexplicable, people just want to have fun by attacking the weaker nation in game. It could be ok, but it is not ok if I cannot make diplomacy with anyone.

I suspect this is a big part of the issue. You're greatly concerned with the rankings. So you're expecting everyone else to play this like a game, as you do, and try only to beat other nations above them in the rankings. Many other players aren't. From what I've seen, myself and most others are simply playing their nations as if we were real 19th century nations trying to reach our own self assigned goals. We don't really care about the rankings. So when you attack Germany like you did, Brian/Germany remembers and holds a grudge. Just like people and nations do in reality. That's the reality of the game, that's what I was trying to explain to you above. We're not the ai, we're not only concerned with the rankings. It seems you've gotten yourself in trouble by not realizing this.

As a player. A historical Germany would not be interested in a war with Japan as these two nations do NOT have conflicting SOIs and actually, in this very instance, he is helping his direct rivals who are much higher in the rankings become stronger. The most astonishing fact is that I didn't do anything to antagonize him, he was the one to bring his own troops against the wall making elementary mistakes such as landing on the home islands or doing island hopping without marines. The only reason bj wants this war is to feel "he got back at me" as a player, it has nothing to do with Germany punishing Japan. It makes completely no sense.

You attacked him without warning, when he wasn't prepared for a war. You changed the history of the game. You created history by doing what you did, a history where Germany and Japan are enemies. So yes it makes sense. Believe me, it has everything to do with punishing Japan and nothing to do with being afraid of you as a player.

I even told you that this would happen, and that Germany was gunning for you. In fact I also told you that's why I wouldn't help you, not only cause I was considering quitting, but because I wasn't going to ally with Japan and put myself on Germany's hitlist too.

You must've thought I was joking about Germany or something. I wasn't. Germany really is out to get you, due to the war you initiated with them before. You ignored that fact, in spite of being warned about it because it didn't fit in with your preconceived notions of how to play the game so you figured it couldn't happen. It did, and you knew it would well ahead of time, since I'd told you so. So I'm not sure it's Brian that's making the major strategic errors here.

You don't seem to realize that you're playing with other humans here. Like all humans we're quirky, somewhat illogical at times, have different goals and motivations and go about reaching those in different ways. We form friendships, hold grudges and have long memories at times, short memories at others. Sometimes we act on narrow self interest, sometimes we're benevolent.

If you don't take all of this into account, you're doomed to fail. Learn the psychology of the other players. Then act based on what you know of it. If you'd done that you would have know that Brian would never let your attack on Okinawa go, and that he'd remember it for a long time and wait to get back at you. You didn't bother with that, and assumed he'd simply act like the ai. That was a major mistake.

You also ignored the fact that many players don't like to see a friend losing a defensive war, one that they didn't start. France and the USA have been friends with China for some time and you were beating China pretty badly. You've also misread cooolbean's USA. He's very big on assisting the underdog and is generally opposed to expansionist wars. So the actions of the players in this situation do make sense if you actually understand who's playing and how they react. If you ignore that and simply assume you're playing with a sentient ai, then you're going to be confused and make some mistakes. Which seems to be what happened here.

[Savoyard]

How much drama queening does it take to stop the game for everyone?

[lukasberger]

How much drama queening does it take to stop the game for everyone?

I'd say we're going to find out really quickly. I think we might be at critical mass right now.

[Citizen X]

So glad I just arrived in time.

[lukasberger]

There is nothing bizarre in what I say: Spain (per Ojo's words) did not recognize the sale of old territories and could have threatened USA. However, if players do not commit adequately then there are these strange situations were huge blobs of armies range unhindered. If I was to be playing Mexico the first thing I would do is annex Texas in case USA was warmongering around the world so early in the game (before becoming a superpower). Gimpli does not even respond though, what can one do? The cool thing about a human-played game is that you are always on guard, but this wasn't the case.

I do not bitch about USA and France actually changing their in game policy, I bitch about the rest of the players not adapting to the new situation to keep the balance at check.

Are you serious? Mexico would be completely wiped out in ten turns if they tried to invade the US, even with the US occupied in Asia. Rather than annexing Texas, they'd end up being annexed. GB, France and Austria (since we're allied with the US) would all dow Mexico.

You're not actually looking at what's best for other nations and forming your own plans based on that. You're looking at what's best for you and assuming other nations will make poor choices that will help you while hurting them. How's that been working for you so far?

[De_Spinoza]

How much drama queening does it take to stop the game for everyone?

Ha, this is nothing compared to Whollaborg's episodes. I also vaguely remember an immensely large amount of drama over one of the France-German-Austrian wars, with players accusing each other of breaking the peace treaty and I think we even had to rerun some turns.

I don't see the problem. If Kensai has stopped playing - which would be very regrettable - someone can take over Japan and we continue, simple as that.

[Kensai]

I suspect this is a big part of the issue. You're greatly concerned with the rankings. So you're expecting everyone else to play this like a game, as you do, and try only to beat other nations above them in the rankings. Many other players aren't. From what I've seen, myself and most others are simply playing their nations as if we were real 19th century nations trying to reach our own self assigned goals. We don't really care about the rankings. So when you attack Germany like you did, Brian/Germany remembers and holds a grudge. Just like people and nations do in reality. That's the reality of the game, that's what I was trying to explain to you above. We're not the ai, we're not only concerned with the rankings. It seems you've gotten yourself in trouble by not realizing this.

I am not concerned with the rankings, I am concerned with historical accuracy which is destroyed by such actions. "Germany holding a grudge" is funny. No, nations in reality would look at the "rankings".

You attacked him without warning, when he wasn't prepared for a war. You changed the history of the game. You created history by doing what you did, a history where Germany and Japan are enemies. So yes it makes sense. Believe me, it has everything to do with punishing Japan and nothing to do with being afraid of you as a player.

Listen, you arrived late at this game, it is understandable. But now you're talking about things you don't know. Germany has been warned thoroughly before any action, publicly and privately. Publicly you can still see the warnings in the old forum.

I even told you that this would happen, and that Germany was gunning for you. In fact I also told you that's why I wouldn't help you, not only cause I was considering quitting, but because I wasn't going to ally with Japan and put myself on Germany's hitlist too.

Austria-Hungary being afraid of Germany given the current military rankings is funny to say the least. Considering that A-H has no reason to "fear" for its colonies (it does not need them truly). If you didn't ally with Japan or any other nation because you were afraid of your avatar nation, then I kind of feel sorry for our pixel abstracted A-H...

You must've thought I was joking about Germany or something. I wasn't. Germany really is out to get you, due to the war you initiated with them before. You ignored that fact, in spite of being warned about it because it didn't fit in with your preconceived notions of how to play the game so you figured it couldn't happen. It did, and you knew it would well ahead of time, since I'd told you so. So I'm not sure it's Brian that's making the major strategic errors here.

Did I ever say I was joking? You were simply not giving me explanations of why not allying with me. You were vaguely saying because you were thinking to abandon the game and this "serious decision" must be done by the next player.

You don't seem to realize that you're playing with other humans here. Like all humans we're quirky, somewhat illogical at times, have different goals and motivations and go about reaching those in different ways. We form friendships, hold grudges and have long memories at times, short memories at others. Sometimes we act on narrow self interest, sometimes we're benevolent.

Then we're doing it wrong. It's not about grudges. When I say here to Sir Garnet NO to a script, I don't mean to hurt his nation(s), it's not something I do as Japan. This has been discussed extensively in the old forums as well, people keep confusing player discussion with avatar nations. You need to learn to keep these things apart.

If you don't take all of this into account, you're doomed to fail. Learn the psychology of the other players. Then act based on what you know of it. If you'd done that you would have know that Brian would never let your attack on Okinawa go, and that he'd remember it for a long time and wait to get back at you. You didn't bother with that, and assumed he'd simply act like the ai. That was a major mistake.

I don't think there was any mistake by my part long term. This war will only weaken the nations taking part, it will not offer to them anything in the long term other than letting GBR further get away on Prestige. Unfortunately, it might be too late when the others get this. Japan is decades ahead of actually getting Formosa (1895) or Korea (1905), it's not a big deal if it does not succeed now.

But in game terms, it will be disastrous for the others.

You also ignored the fact that many players don't like to see a friend losing a defensive war, one that they didn't start. France and the USA have been friends with China for some time and you were beating China pretty badly. You've also misread cooolbean's USA. He's very big on assisting the underdog and is generally opposed to expansionist wars. So the actions of the players in this situation do make sense if you actually understand who's playing and how they react. If you ignore that and simply assume you're playing with a sentient ai, then you're going to be confused and make some mistakes. Which seems to be what happened here.

This is the reason I consider the game transmuted to an arcade. You're playing it as if it was Iraq that invaded Kuwait. Let me elucidate the situation a bit for you:

1) the reason I invaded mainland China was to raise my warscore. Because I wanted to do all by the book. Otherwise my wargoals had been achieved (Formosa, Korea, and Hainan).
2) there is a limit in the game engine, you cannot take advantage of conquered land if you don't own it 'de jure', that was the reason I had to do (1), not out of aggression
3) there is no such thing as underdog in this case, if we were really roleplaying, the underdog was actually Japan that had endured 4 counts of serious (historically scripted) provocations, all publicly declared and thoroughly documented

The problem with the game is HINDSIGHT. It is rather the problem in this kind of games. Both Spinoza and coolbean perhaps guess that a strong Japan might come and challenge them later. This is ok. What is not ok is that the rest of players are not responding (for whatever reason) and not adapting accordingly. As I said, I don't find this realistic.

Are you serious? Mexico would be completely wiped out in ten turns if they tried to invade the US, even with the US occupied in Asia. Rather than annexing Texas, they'd end up being annexed. GB, France and Austria (since we're allied with the US) would all dow Mexico.

You're not actually looking at what's best for other nations and forming your own plans based on that. You're looking at what's best for you and assuming other nations will make poor choices that will help you while hurting them. How's that been working for you so far?

lukas, as I said earlier: you came LATE in the game. Very late. All these things you are saying we have endured them in the past with the equally unrealistic triple unbreakable alliance of Germany-Austria-Russia in the late 50s.

And you seem to fail to understand how diplomacy is done. It is not actual aggression that acts as a deterrent. It is the fear that is the deterrent... just the idea and possibility of being invaded and losing the capital in a jiffy would have force the USA keep an army and a fleet on the East States. Same for Germany if France did the same.

The only easy thing in the game is two-three big nations combining and assaulting a minor own, as it happens now. But we will see long term how this ends.

[lukasberger]

I am not concerned with the rankings, I am concerned with historical accuracy which is destroyed by such actions. "Germany holding a grudge" is funny. No, nations in reality would look at the "rankings".
...

Look, you can argue with what I'm saying all you want. But the fact is, I'm telling you how others, not just me/Austria, view the situation and play the game. You can keep arguing and not believing me, as if what's in your own head somehow invalidates it all. But it doesn't since nothing you say will change how the rest of us play. All that's happening here is that you're limiting your own ability to play the game effectively by trying to pretend that things are how you think they are, rather than how they really are.

Regarding Austria-Hungary, not wanting to hurl my nation into yet another war with Germany and doubtless provoke WWIII is hardly the same thing as being afraid of Germany. Prudence and fear are different things. But if I was afraid of Germany, wouldn't that be understandable, considering that they've kicked Austria's butts twice now and have successfully met every challenge that's been thrown at them so far.

Again, as I asked you before, WHY would I attack Germany, France and the US all at the same time? For the sake of a CA with Japan? How would that benefit Austria?

[Kensai]

Look, you can argue with what I'm saying all you want. But the fact is, I'm telling you how others, not just me/Austria, view the situation and play the game. You can keep arguing and not believing me, as if what's in your own head somehow invalidates it all. But it doesn't since nothing you say will change how the rest of us play. All that's happening here is that you're limiting your own ability to play the game effectively by trying to pretend that things are how you think they are, rather than how they really are.

This is the reason we now have two games so all aspects are satisfied, the arcade and the most historical one. I am actually happy about it cause I can now 'sandbox' a little bit more as well.

[lukasberger]

And you seem to fail to understand how diplomacy is done. It is not actual aggression that acts as a deterrent. It is the fear that is the deterrent... just the idea and possibility of being invaded and losing the capital in a jiffy would have force the USA keep an army and a fleet on the East States. Same for Germany if France did the same.

But for there to be fear of aggression there also has to be actual aggression to back that up if the fear fails.

Regarding diplomacy. As the OE I was able to convince 5 nations to come to my assistance when attacked by GB. How many have you convinced to help Japan? Is Austria currently being ganged up on by two sworn enemies working together in Germany and France? I'd say that I might understand diplomacy a bit better than you do, given how things have shaken out so far.

[Kensai]

But for there to be fear of aggression there also has to be actual aggression to back that up if the fear fails.

It is funny to have these advices by you, playing the most powerful nation in the game, military-wise, yet chickening to do anything.

Regarding diplomacy. As the OE I was able to convince 5 nations to come to my assistance when attacked by GB. How many have you convinced to help Japan? Is Austria currently being ganged up on by two sworn enemies, working together in Germany and France? I'd say that I might understand diplomacy a bit better than you do, given how things have shaken out so far.

You were able to convince them because glennbob was erratic to say the least. It was the perfect opportunity to score hits to the leader of the Prestige rankings. That war actually made a huge more sense, both in the alternate reality history and game-wise. This one, it's about "grudges" and "human feelings".

Anyway, enough said. See you in game.

[lukasberger]

This is the reason we now have two games so all aspects are satisfied, the arcade and the most historical one. I am actually happy about it cause I can now 'sandbox' a little bit more as well.

I don't think you understand even now. If you were actually playing a historical game, you'd have waited until the events gave you Okinawa. Instead you took on the biggest bully on the block to get it 30 years early. Now you're surprised that the bully isn't playing "historically" and is instead attacking Japan. You changed history, you created an a-historical situation and created an enemy that you wouldn't have had historically. It makes no sense to turn around and blame Germany for reacting to that stimuli and not playing historically. It was Japan that created a new history here.

[lukasberger]

It is funny to have these advices by you, playing the most powerful nation in the game, military-wise, yet chickening to do anything.

Yes, absolutely. I'm chicken because I don't want to fight Germany, France, the USA, likely Russia and possibly GB all at the same time with no eventual benefit to Austria. You figured me out, my cover's blown

[Kensai]

What you say here does not make any sense. Please get your facts together before stating things for facts. Japan does not take Ryukyu by event. The event is only for the annexation. Japan can get Ryukyu whenever it wants, I conquered it even back as the Shogunate, but did not keep it.

Germany created the a-historic incident by assaulting Ryukyu in the 60s, in a region of negative SOI (for Germany). Unfortunately, it seems that the engine does not punish enough nations for getting regions with negative SOIs as the manual says. I warned the Germans in diplomacy that Ryukyu should be Japanese and assaulted it when the time was due, together with its ally Russia that was doing the same thing in the Kuriles.

The problem is that back then no one even considered Kensai who had been playing the game for a year or so (real time) and was patiently sitting with the Shogunal regime.

(please, if we are to discuss seriously learn how this game works and what is rewarded in score, prestige, etc.)

Yes, absolutely. I'm chicken because I don't want to fight Germany, France, the USA, likely Russia and possibly GB all at the same time with no eventual benefit to Austria. You figured me out, my cover's blown

This is the a-historicity I am talking about. That these nations historically would NOT all get together to fight Japan in an all-Asian war that makes no sense. Unfortunately, we have reached the point in CiE where we make our avatars fight wars because of player choices, grudges, etc.

Great Britain was actually a Japanese ally under glennbob and Jim-NC acknowledged this British-Japanese friendship these past days. He even mediated. But if there are no other nations expressing themselves (let's say A-H that is about to abandon the game and have a new player...) it is a problem.

[lukasberger]

This is the a-historicity I am talking about. That these nations historically would NOT all get together to fight Japan in an all-Asian war that makes no sense. Unfortunately, we have reached the point in CiE where we make our avatars fight wars because of player choices, grudges, etc.

Great Britain was actually a Japanese ally under glennbob and Jim-NC acknowledged this British-Japanese friendship these past days. He even mediated. But if there are no other nations expressing themselves (let's say A-H that is about to abandon the game and have a new player...) it is a problem.

About Okinawa, whatever. So I got the event for Korea mixed up with Okinawa. That doesn't invalidate the point of what I'm trying to tell you about your jumping the gun on historical events creating a-historical situations. My argument would still apply to your current war for Korea. You do get that by event in the future.

Did Japan actually attack Germany for Okinawa in history? Did they actually invade Korea and mainland China in 1877? Again, who's actually creating the a-historical situations? You just don't seem to understand that your in-game actions have consequences.

EDIT: That's what's creating the grudges. I don't think anyone holds a grudge against you regarding anything that's gone on on the forums, out of game. Most of us actually like you. Even though I argue with you at times, I like you. The grudges are based on Japan's in game actions, like assaulting Okinawa.

And stop with the A-H not being involved because I'm about to quit. That wasn't the main reason I didn't get involved. And I'm not that likely to quit. Again, why would I fight 3 of the main world powers just to protect Japan? What's in it for me?

[bjfagan]

As Lukasberger stated, different people have different ways of playing and different ways of reading the tea leaves. This should replicate the changing national policies of our countries pretty closely, except for a few instances of unreasonable playing. I made a couple tactical mistakes here and there, but I don't believe I have made any strategic mistakes. What ended the war between Germany and Japan was not any actions on Japan's part, but the war that was started against Germany (I forgot who attacked) back in Europe that forced Germany's hand in ending the far away war quickly. By getting New Guinea as a replacement for Ryukyu was actually putting Germany in a better position. Germany has a positive SOI in New Guinea as opposed to a negative one in Ryukyu, plus when Rabaul gets discovered it goes to the colony of New Guinea and Rabaul is a German objective of 5. So, actually it was very smart forward planning I must say on Germany's part. Also, Germany started to thaw the relations with Japan, for the very reason you stated, it would provide a counter-balance to the powers in Asia. But, Japan (you) refused the commercial agreement proposal or some other offer I made, so I decided to drop Japan as a potential ally. Now Germany is getting paid with the province of Tsingtao and Samoa to join the war against Japan. Germany is gaining two objectives for merely fighting against an old enemy and a chance to get revenge. Anyone who knows history would know that the Germans of this time period would not suffer a lost war for very long and would be chomping at the bit to get back and score a victory.

Kensai, as for your arguments on this being an arcade-like game, you continue to defeat your own points by your actions. You state that you want to follow a realistic historical path, but then you want to work within the limitations of the game engine... that may not be realistic or historical. Case in point, you just stated that as Japan you had to invade the Chinese mainland in order to get enough warscore to make a peace that will allow Japan to demand its spoils. That is a game, arcade-like, limitation. Realistically, and historically, Japan could have ended the war just by taking Formosa and Korea. But you want Japan to be beholden to a game engine design feature and not plausible historical reality. Another case in point, is the fact that we cannot force a peace on another country. I had to occupy Denmark for a very long time, which was unrealistic. The people of this time period would have risen up against the Danish king for attacking Germany and losing their entire country, then made peace with Germany most likely under a German prince of some kind as the new Danish monarch. But in our game engine limitation that you love so much, we could not follow what would be logical and plausible in reality.

We have the current example of Germany occupying all of Egypt and putting down every single revolt, yet cannot give Egypt their country back except for the small Suez province because of some game engine limitation. Yet the same game engine just hands over Cyprus to Britain without any compensation or plausibility within our alternate reality.

Except for a few aberrations I believe this game has followed a plausible historical path quite well. What has been suggested so far for scripts hasn't really altered that direction, so I do not see any real problems.

[Sir Garnet]

Where nations end up in prestige depends a lot on where they start and what their objectives are (if any) and how many points that and military and economic activity can generate. The point about going after nations ahead in the rankings is a good one.

Japan is ahead of Brazil in the rankings. Brazil has no official objective locations to go after, so logically must seek to keep Japan from gaining its objectives in order to overtake Japan in prestige, correct? Indeed, it is almost a duty!

Besides the clear mandate of the rankings, there is also the major matter of Japan invading Qing China, a friend of Brazil, of doing so where Brazilian structures are present without the least prior notice or consideration, of Japan ravaging the area and causing loss of life and structural destruction both by combat methods careless of civilians and their assets and use of deliberate scorched earth tactics, of Japan failing to do more than make a general statement as to restitution and that to be deferred until after the war, which Japan prolonged beyond necessity and wisdom, of Japanese agents being caught red-handed sabotaging Brazilian shipping (as proven by Qing investigators), and of Japan over the years terminating commercial relations and maintaining a staunch indifference to improving diplomatic relations.

Doesn't this all make it almost imperative for the Empire of Brazil to declare war on Japan with the firm war aim of permanently depriving Japan of its objectives abroad (can someone tell me what they are?). So compelling that it might warrant a free scripted CB.