[PON] Conflict in Europe - General Thread

[Sir Garnet]

Spain has a new turbulent republican government that has broken or neglected prior commitments, which would make it worthy of deep mistrust on any side. It has not renounced any territorial or other benefits from the war, so must conclude that Madrid sees this as a low cost way to gain something.

Germany is ready to breach its fresh NAP, which I expect is because it will face the same prestige hit either way, though the honorable course is to stick with its NAP commitment (see the alliances thread discussion of the destabilizing effects of NAPs).

To external appearances Britain has "learned its lesson" and returned to the role of balancing force (rather than wars of acquisition) and its exercise of this to rollback the Spanish is appropriate to that role and powers interested in the balance of power should take an interest since we must expect German coalition war goals to be expansive given the successful recruitment of Belgium and Spain. France has not been roaming around the globe grabbing territory, and a relatively neutral result in this war is important for future peace.All the great powers are in the fight on one of three sides right now except Japan, who may recuperate in peace and enjoy the spectacle in Europe.

Brazilians want to avoid another overseas war. However, Brazil is on the pax Germanica speech hit list and the way to avoid being picked off piecemeal by the Germans later is to join to help balance the scales now. The scales once appeared to tip alarmingly strongly against Germany, but now have flipped the other way. Brazil at most can help to offset the impact of Spain.

[Ojodeaguila]

I think that the limit to what can be invaded and what can't must be the diplomatic pressure no the rules.

If I am USA I will grant or the American nations but I think mustNot he a rule to avoid Spain invade Colombia.

[nemethand]

I think that the limit to what can be invaded and what can't must be the diplomatic pressure no the rules.

If I am USA I will grant or the American nations but I think mustNot he a rule to avoid Spain invade Colombia.

Exactly. Solve this issue in-game.

I would say that's exactly what we see in GBR and BRA IC communication: these nations seem to be unhappy with SPA involvement and are applying IN GAME measures. Irerspective of whether RUS agrees with them or not, as a player, I definitely agree with the means.

Regarding Russia in Bulgaria, I was against that change because of the screwing of the underlying future scripted events, but this is not necessarily a problem. If Russia does not depart (or allow Bulgaria to form) by the time the Balkans erupt, we should adapt the script so the Bulgarians rise against the Russians (instead of the Ottomans who are now gone). Russia helped Bulgaria form, but did not "annex" Bulgaria as it happens in our game. This would have meant that the Bulgarian strife continued against the new oppressors.

We have already discussed this with Lukas and, in principle, agreed that most of the Treaty of Plevna will be terminated and these regions will return to Ottoman control, in particular in order not to miss the the scripted events (which are a LOT) and fun. The outbreak of the current (soon to be world?) war prevented us from finalising and applying the effects.

However, we might not need scripted wars since we have quite a lot on our own, without any scripts, in our alternative timeline.

[lukasberger]

Exactly. Solve this issue in-game.

I would say that's exactly what we see in GBR and BRA IC communication: these nations seem to be unhappy with SPA involvement and are applying IN GAME measures. Irerspective of whether RUS agrees with them or not, as a player, I definitely agree with the means.

Agree completely. You should be able to invade anywhere, but be willing to face the in game consequences.

[lukasberger]

Does anyone know who to write a script to unlock a unit?

[coolbean]

I was shocked when I read this. Coming to the aid of another country under attack is not an unjustified invasion. Are you forgetting your own in-game American history? I believe you have done this several times.

The USA has been involved in several wars that were highly unlikely for a President Lincoln or a Congress to get involved in. Even paying for two armies to sit in France would be unbelievable and impossible to get the public's support in an 1860's American Republic. Especially right after a civil war. However, you did it anyways.

I said something about it, but was forced to live with it. Now you are basically using my old complaint against Spain. You cannot have it both ways.

No, it's about his attempt to invade and annex venezuela and colombia for no reason. I'm sure if I tried to invade and annex mexico you would then have a problem.

Coming to an ally's aid is honorable, and is all the usa had ever done. How can you possibly have a problem with the lincoln honoring a da but not with the situation I describe above.

It doesn't matter anymore, the consensus seems to be let anything happen.

[Ojodeaguila]

No, it's about his attempt to invade and annex venezuela and colombia for no reason. I'm sure if I tried to invade and annex mexico you would then have a problem.

Coming to an ally's aid is honorable, and is all the usa had ever done. How can you possibly have a problem with the lincoln honoring a da but not with the situation I describe above.

It doesn't matter anymore, the consensus seems to be let anything happen.

I think the consensus seems to stop me if I try to invade Venezuela or Colombia, but no to create a rule to make this impossible.

[nemethand]

The consensus is to solve IN GAME issues by IN GAME measures.

If the USA is concerned about Spain invading Colombia, it may intervene. Like it did in the past: when the Netherlands invaded Korea, USA and FRA intervened. We even changed the rules to allow USA intervention and remedied a mistake of the engine by not granting a CB to FRA, who had local support.

I, as a player, warned back then: removing limitation on forging CB will result in an increase of the numbers of wars. The majority seemed happy with the removal.

Now, we are having a lot of wars and an increased amount of complaints on what is "just" and "reasonable" and what is not. Which, to me, is a direct (and expected) result of "liberalising" the forge CB use. We have to live with that.

[Sir Garnet]

It doesn't matter anymore, the consensus seems to be let anything happen.

Not me.

----

The US occupied a number of countries. Annexation was thought about and talked about, but not done directly. Puppetry was better (but is not represented in game), nor spheres of influence over other organized countries - dominant influence would pretty well preclude any dramatic reversal in the client country without a successful change of form of government.

I already cited Spanish efforts to regain a foothold in Peru in the 1860s - if any European country has business invading and annexing Colombia and Venezuela, it would be Spain, but it should be quite busy with internal issues. The British and later USA were compelling reasons not to try.

,

[Ojodeaguila]

Not me.

----

The US occupied a number of countries. Annexation was thought about and talked about, but not done directly. Puppetry was better (but is not represented in game), nor spheres of influence over other organized countries - dominant influence would pretty well preclude any dramatic reversal in the client country without a successful change of form of government.

I already cited Spanish efforts to regain a foothold in Peru in the 1860s - if any European country has business invading and annexing Colombia and Venezuela, it would be Spain, but it should be quite busy with internal issues. The British and later USA were compelling reasons not to try.

,

1. Puppetry can be easily simulated people can give the orders of his puppets.

2. If USA invade mexico and try to annex it you can be sure that will be a big international reaction, and there are not only military options the people can embargo nations too if anyone buy anything in USA invade Mexico will not be a good business.

3. In the Grand Strategy games like PON or EU3 the limits to the peace systems are for the single player games like the Bad Boy in the EU3 but if in a EU3 MP you try to invade all the world the other players will prepare a coalition against you to reduce your power, like in the real world when Germany become a powerful nation France, UK and Russia sign the triple entente.

I think the freedom make more fun and deeper the game specially the international relations, a good example is the UK intervention in this war, I think that is not justified but I dont tell that is unfair or illegal.

[coolbean]

The consensus is to solve IN GAME issues by IN GAME measures.

Very well. I have always been for scripting less, and solving things, like a lost crisis, in game. But you can't blame me for being frustrated at the seeming duality of judgement raining down on those who forge CB's now and have forged CB's in the past. At least we're on the same page now.

Also, I should clarify, there was only two US stacks in France once, for a short time. At the time Germany was sabre rattling towards France, and we feared an invasion.

In any regard, I should also probably clarify, the French-USA alliance only came into effect after France had been invaded by Austria and Germany, and Alsace-Lorraine was taken, and the USA's other ally, Britain, had suffered a major defeat at the hands of a German coalition. For the majority of time, there have been no US troops in France. Vezina, and anyone else who had vision of my military units can confirm this. They only returned recently, because France had expressed concern over erratic, incoherent, and inconsistent Spanish behavior, and was worried about a Spanish invasion..........

While it is fun to ponder whether or not Lincoln would conclude such alliances, who is to say. One could equally say that Bismark after unification (to the massive frustration of the Kaiser) feared any one power becoming more powerful than the rest, especially Germany. He played Russia off of Austria, Austria off of France, and France off of Britain, in order to prevent a coalition of powers or a single power rising above the rest.

As for Lincoln, you even get different answers here in the USA. People forget that he practically threw the Bill of Rights into the trash. He was indescribably close to pushing congress to declare war on Britain, over their building of ships for the South, but then was calmed down by his staff, and later said, "Only one war at a time." If you believe some, he was an abolitionist who became president and saved the Union, others say he was a power hungry dictator. In fact, to this day, the Maryland state song refers to Lincoln as a dictator. Most would say Maryland would have seceded had it not been for Lincoln's intervention. On the day the Maryland legislature was voting to secede, Lincoln sent Gen. Benjamin Butler to arrest most of the members. How very non-interventionist of him!

Code: Select all

Maryland, My Maryland
I
The despot's heel is on thy shore,
Maryland!
His torch is at thy temple door,
Maryland!
Avenge the patriotic gore
That flecked the streets of Baltimore,
And be the battle queen of yore,
Maryland! My Maryland!
II
Hark to an exiled son's appeal,
Maryland!
My Mother State! to thee I kneel,
Maryland!
For life or death, for woe or weal,
Thy peerless chivalry reveal,
And gird thy beauteous limbs with steel,
Maryland! My Maryland!
III
Thou wilt not cower in the dust,
Maryland!
Thy beaming sword shall never rust,
Maryland!
Remember Carroll's sacred trust,
Remember Howard's warlike thrust,-
And all thy slumberers with the just,
Maryland! My Maryland!
IV
Come! 'tis the red dawn of the day,
Maryland!
Come with thy panoplied array,
Maryland!
With Ringgold's spirit for the fray,
With Watson's blood at Monterey,
With fearless Lowe and dashing May,
Maryland! My Maryland!
V
Come! for thy shield is bright and strong,
Maryland!
Come! for thy dalliance does thee wrong,
Maryland!
Come to thine own anointed throng,
Stalking with Liberty along,
And sing thy dauntless slogan song,
Maryland! My Maryland!
VI
Dear Mother! burst the tyrant's chain,
Maryland!
Virginia should not call in vain,
Maryland!
She meets her sisters on the plain-
Sic semper! 'tis the proud refrain
That baffles minions back amain,
Maryland!
Arise in majesty again,
Maryland! My Maryland!
VII
I see the blush upon thy cheek,
Maryland!
For thou wast ever bravely meek,
Maryland!
But lo! there surges forth a shriek,
From hill to hill, from creek to creek,
Potomac calls to Chesapeake,
Maryland! My Maryland!
VIII
Thou wilt not yield the Vandal toll,
Maryland!
Thou wilt not crook to his control,
Maryland!
Better the fire upon thee roll, Better the shot, the blade, the bowl,
Than crucifixion of the Soul,
Maryland! My Maryland!
IX
I hear the distant thunder-hum,
Maryland!
The Old Line bugle, fife, and drum,
Maryland!
She is not dead, nor deaf, nor dumb-
Huzza! She spurns the Northern scum!
She breathes! She burns! She'll come! She'll come!
Maryland! My Maryland!

By the way I should probably clarify Lincoln is still one of my favorite presidents!

And I should probably clear up now, that no, the USA is not planning on invading Mexico, I was trying to prove a point.

[coolbean]

Not me.

----

The US occupied a number of countries. Annexation was thought about and talked about, but not done directly. Puppetry was better (but is not represented in game), nor spheres of influence over other organized countries - dominant influence would pretty well preclude any dramatic reversal in the client country without a successful change of form of government.

I already cited Spanish efforts to regain a foothold in Peru in the 1860s - if any European country has business invading and annexing Colombia and Venezuela, it would be Spain, but it should be quite busy with internal issues. The British and later USA were compelling reasons not to try.

,

Though shameful today, puppet is probably the best way to describe it. I have to recommend a book; Savage Wars of Peace: Small Wars and the Rise of American Power by Max Boot.

[Ojodeaguila]

I use mexico as an example.

[Kensai]

However, we might not need scripted wars since we have quite a lot on our own, without any scripts, in our alternative timeline.

An entire nation not forming (with armed forces, etc, potentially even playable) is a big issue to pass unnoticed especially when historical realism if not accuracy is concerned. South America and the Balkans have potentially lots of interesting events that are already or can be scripted.

You cannot blame the game for not fulfilling alternative conditions to fire when the transaction done between RUS-TUR was actually an extended claim. I think that scripts can and should be written to rectify situations... another example is Sudan. Problematic.

[unclejoe]

No, it's about his attempt to invade and annex venezuela and colombia for no reason. I'm sure if I tried to invade and annex mexico you would then have a problem.

Coming to an ally's aid is honorable, and is all the usa had ever done. How can you possibly have a problem with the lincoln honoring a da but not with the situation I describe above.

It doesn't matter anymore, the consensus seems to be let anything happen.

I'm listening to a book on the civil war, and at the time, there was talk and light consideration of sending troops to the Mexican Border when Maximilian (French) was in power - to persuade him/France....it is not far from occupying etc. And of course back in the Mex/Am War Mexico City was taken and some in the U.S. wanted to Annex the entirety of Mexico.

So, anything happening is not so far off during those times.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximilian_I_of_Mexico

[Kensai]

Early November 1873

PS. For tomorrow we need to run this tiny script:

Code: Select all

SelectFaction = $CMN
SelectRegion = $Attica
StartEvent = Orthodox Missions Bottleneck Overcome|1|1|NULL|NULL|$Attica|NULL

Actions
SelectFaction = $GRE
ChangeStrucPool = $Mission;5
EndEvent


There are no colonial missionaries structure pools set although Greece has this ability as an action. Number 5 is the same as Sweden, which was set in the Includes files. The actual bottleneck still remains in the action played (which is one).

[Sir Garnet]

Early November 1873

PS. For tomorrow we need to run this tiny script:

Code: Select all

SelectFaction = $CMN
SelectRegion = $Attica
StartEvent = Orthodox Missions Bottleneck Overcome|1|1|NULL|NULL|$Attica|NULL

Actions
SelectFaction = $GRE
ChangeStrucPool = $Mission;5
EndEvent


There are no colonial missionaries structure pools set although Greece has this ability as an action. Number 5 is the same as Sweden, which was set in the Includes files. The actual bottleneck still remains in the action played (which is one).

Maybe force pool is also why Brazil has never been able to play its missionary card in the benighted regions of the earth.

Do we need a vote to have those who run turns save the actual plugin file used to the Dropbox as a txt or sct identified by turn?

[Ojodeaguila]

Maybe force pool is also why Brazil has never been able to play its missionary card in the benighted regions of the earth.

Do we need a vote to have those who run turns save the actual plugin file used to the Dropbox as a txt or sct identified by turn?

Garnet do you have signals, medical balloons or ingeniers units?

I only the GP have this we have a big handicap.

[Kensai]

Sir Garnet, if you have the colonial action but not the mapped structure, then this is probably it. Why haven't you reported this so far?

Ojodeaguila, I don't think most minors (technical term here) have the auxiliary units at all. But it is not "a big" handicap. Let's say it abstracts lesser organization, however I think now it is possible to give it to them (it's a force pool issue after all). I need to find a CMN model or something. Otherwise I am not sure if you will be able to repair them. I am quite eager to do this, actually, as it will make all complains stop once and for all but we will have to be VEEERY conservative with these numbers. Meaning a very limited force pool, probably one-two units for each minor. Actually, I am even supportive of going to the other direction entirely, tend to limit certain structure/force pools for all nations. The game for example, does not need Japan to have the ability to build some 25 (!!) steel factories, that could probably be the production for the entire world.

It is more interesting to play in a world with limited resources, not superabundant.

[Sir Garnet]

I mentioned the Missionary problem at least four times in the General, but had no solution to the problem.

Ojo, Brazil does not have anything but vanilla regulars and militia plus an artillery arm in the force pool - no specials of any kind, or even the marine brigade, which Spain should have since Portugal has marines.

Some specialists are +CP which can be very useful on occasion, but the important ones are the engineer/pontoneer and other skills with a direct effect on the whole force.

I think a bigger Latin American issue is the garrison/fortress troops who should make up the basic forces in all the Latin American countries. Pocus said it's a matter of creating models and units (by cloning) and then activation by script - I posted my brief notes late last year.

[Ojodeaguila]

I mentioned the Missionary problem at least four times in the General, but had no solution to the problem.

Ojo, Brazil does not have anything but vanilla regulars and militia plus an artillery arm in the force pool - no specials of any kind, or even the marine brigade, which Spain should have since Portugal has marines.

Some specialists are +CP which can be very useful on occasion, but the important ones are the engineer/pontoneer and other skills with a direct effect on the whole force.

I think a bigger Latin American issue is the garrison/fortress troops who should make up the basic forces in all the Latin American countries. Pocus said it's a matter of creating models and units (by cloning) and then activation by script - I posted my brief notes late last year.

I think that all the nations must have the same force pool composition but in reduced number to the small and medium nations.

Its not fair for the minors to not have Marines, Light Infantry or Garrison units.

I see that Spain have some problems but Belgium or Brazil have real big problems here.

[Jim-NC]

One thing I know Spain should have, but doesn't is Military Police. They have a unit and a model in the database, but for some reason when I played Spain, I could not build them. I am still not sure if I missed a technology or something somewhere.

[Ojodeaguila]

Kensai plz if USA accept my proposal give me time to change the orders, and wit until I post in the forum that my orders has been changed.

[lukasberger]

Need a couple minutes to modify my turn.

Ok, done.

[Kensai]

Guys, the deadline is 21:00 CET sharp. Extensions only for emergencies. Otherwise, next turn. There is no need to update orders if a communication didn't arrive in time, happens.

Late November 1873

[Sir Garnet]

I will have to miss it then as the damnable graphics went to black with splotches and I wasted time with diplomacy. I would very much like the saves to go back to the way they were before, when a crash would not affect anything saved to that point. (burst graphics something)

Is there a hot key to save the game in progress if the application is to some degree responsive?

=================


EDIT: I also note that this forum does not support formats copied over from Word, and does not offer any avatar icons (escutcheons. flags).

[coolbean]

Kensai plz if USA accept my proposal give me time to change the orders, and wit until I post in the forum that my orders has been changed.

Sorry just got home from work. Couldn't reply until a couple of minutes ago.

[lukasberger]

Guys, the deadline is 21:00 CET sharp. Extensions only for emergencies. Otherwise, next turn. There is no need to update orders if a communication didn't arrive in time, happens.

Late November 1873

You've held off on processing a bunch of times before when people have asked.

[Jim-NC]

To the players,

As part of the peace deal between Britain and the Ottoman Empire, Britain (me) agreed to pay reparations to the Ottoman Empire. The money was to flow to Ottoman citizens (I paid in state funds, they got private funds). As part of the deal, both countries were to pay a price in diplomats. However, as the Ottoman Empire has no diplomats, do we change the rule this one time or leave it as is, with no payment as part of the peace treaty? I am submitting a proposal to the drop box that this time, as they have no diplomats no diplomats are charged. I am open to giving them 2 diplomats to pay the price for the trade. Let me know your thoughts on this matter. The script was written, and we did not run it as there are no Ottoman diplomats.

[Kensai]

You've held off on processing a bunch of times before when people have asked.

Yes, in an emergency. And I seriously dislike this practice as 23+ hours (most of the time) is more than enough time to submit orders.

To the players,

As part of the peace deal between Britain and the Ottoman Empire, Britain (me) agreed to pay reparations to the Ottoman Empire. The money was to flow to Ottoman citizens (I paid in state funds, they got private funds). As part of the deal, both countries were to pay a price in diplomats. However, as the Ottoman Empire has no diplomats, do we change the rule this one time or leave it as is, with no payment as part of the peace treaty? I am submitting a proposal to the drop box that this time, as they have no diplomats no diplomats are charged. I am open to giving them 2 diplomats to pay the price for the trade. Let me know your thoughts on this matter. The script was written, and we did not run it as there are no Ottoman diplomats.

I had the impression that they go to negative and pay the difference next semester. If so is the case, then we might need to put the evaluate diplomats condition in all scripts next time.