General Player to Player Comments

[bjfagan]

Early July 1882

[bjfagan]

Late July 1882

[bjfagan]

Early August 1882. Someone will need to process tomorrow.

[Jonathan Pollard]

I think it's time to consider turning the USA over to the AI. It's been over 2 weeks since coolbean submitted any orders.

[lukasberger]

I think it's time to consider turning the USA over to the AI. It's been over 2 weeks since coolbean submitted any orders.

Seems like the game is dying a slow death...

[bjfagan]

Seems like the game is dying a slow death...

Maybe those from the other game could move over to here and takeover some of the countries.

Late August 1882

[Citizen X]

Maybe those from the other game could move over to here and takeover some of the countries.

Why not. We have four good countries up for grabs.

[lukasberger]

Yep. Doesn't make sense to have two games going, each at half strength. This game's more interesting than the other anyway. Let's hope it happens.

[Citizen X]

Please run the following scripts:

The usual biannual diplomats for the Ottomans. Here.
Giving back wool ranches to Colombia. Here.
Giving back gold mines to the Ottomans. Here.

The scripts are tested, no issues encountered.

As Colombia has seized the Ottoman goldmines in Cali during the weekend, I am not so sure any more that with positive relations this can't happen. Never did though in singleplayer. Anyway, it reminded me that Colombia needed to get back their ranches, too. So I have written two scripts, to swap ownership of the ranches and the mines again. Its two scripts for future convinience.

[Jonathan Pollard]

As Colombia has seized the Ottoman goldmines in Cali during the weekend, I am not so sure any more that with positive relations this can't happen.

The manual says you can lose structures even if you have relations as high as +24 if there is a Crisis. If there was a Crisis between Turkey and Colombia, would the whole world be notified of that Crisis, or is it possible for a Crisis to be displayed in the results of only the countries involved?

[bjfagan]

Early September 1882... with the diplomat script. Let the others sit for a day or two for player comment.

[nemethand]

Maybe those from the other game could move over to here and takeover some of the countries.

Second that.

[Citizen X]

Early September 1882... with the diplomat script. Let the others sit for a day or two for player comment.

Thanks.



Italy:
I would like to drop that burden. If there is no player from the other game or someone else that takes it till next week, it can be turned to AI. There are two issues that need be adressed before either is happening.

1. Coal mines. As Italy has no coal (almost) they had built mines in other countries, among them France. After a sudden drop of relation they seized all Italian mines (2). Does Italy get compensation? Or do we even script good relations and give them back to Italy? They need be deleted if Italy don't get them back, as I believe they excede France's building pool.

2. Lybia. You were all oh so right. Colonial regions defect to the colonial capitals owner. Now there is three ways to handle it.
a)We make a file for a new colony and alter the file of present Lybia.
b) Ottomans buy back Tripolis. This would be a purchase-now-pay-later deal, as I lack the money now. Based on the original price, a refound sum might be specified by the moderator.
c) Italy buys Benghazi, The moderator might specify a price, based on the price for Tripolis.

As there is no negotiating counterpart and I can't make this decision out of the blue alone, I bring this in front of the community.

[Jim-NC]

I believe that the easiest would be to have the entire region as 1 colonial area.

My thoughts as a player are that the owner of the capital should get the whole colony (this is not as the moderator). This would require a refund of all purchase prices, and the return of the status quo ante.

As to the coal mines, I don't believe that Italy would get them back (as relations dropped), however, as France was unoccupied for almost 1 year, there was no way for Italy to keep relations up. I don't believe they should be deleted either, as since they were seized (not sold or bought), they can exceed the pool. In the same way that a victor gets the loser's spoils, even if places them above their force pool (an existing game mechanic).

I am open to other people's thoughts on the Italian mines.

[bjfagan]

Late September 1882

[Citizen X]

I believe that the easiest would be to have the entire region as 1 colonial area.

My thoughts as a player are that the owner of the capital should get the whole colony (this is not as the moderator). This would require a refund of all purchase prices, and the return of the status quo ante.

As to the coal mines, I don't believe that Italy would get them back (as relations dropped), however, as France was unoccupied for almost 1 year, there was no way for Italy to keep relations up. I don't believe they should be deleted either, as since they were seized (not sold or bought), they can exceed the pool. In the same way that a victor gets the loser's spoils, even if places them above their force pool (an existing game mechanic).

I am open to other people's thoughts on the Italian mines.

Lybia: Italy is the legal owner of Tripolis, the colonial capital. Benghazi and surrounding areas weren't included in the purchase back then. For an increase of the price I would let the Ottomans claims drop and it would stay with Italy.

Coal mines: For reasons of game balance I am strictly against exceding the building pool in the case of coal (and oil). It is the main key commodity. The countries that are rich in coal could trick or contract themselves into an unsurmountable advantage. But maybe a closer look would reveal that their pool isn't exceded. Can their trn be opened?

[Jim-NC]

Libya - (my opinion - not moderator pronouncement). We should have Italy pay for the rest then. If they bought part of the colony, but are getting it all, then they should pay for the rest.

Coal mines, yes, bjfagan can look at France and see if they have too many coal mines.

[Jonathan Pollard]

I was under the impression that exceeding the force pool for economic structures was allowed based on the attempt by Jim-NC, bjfagan, and lukasberger to exceed their coal mine limits by having other people build coal mines for them which they would then purchase. See posts #386-#388 in the following thread:
http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?28299-PON-Conflict-in-Europe-Diplomacy-amp-News-Thread/page13

Admittedly this was in pre-Redux CiE, but I don't recall any rules made subsequently that would prohibit something like this. That's why I exceeded my silk forcepool by trading a goldmine for an OE-built silk farm. So if we're suddenly going to have a rule prohibiting force pool excess then we'll need to decide what to do about my extra silk farm. I also made an agreement with Brazil to get an extra silk farm in exchange for my economic structures in S. America but that agreement has yet to be implemented due to the apparent difficulty that Sir Garnet has in scripting the terms of the peace treaty between Brazil and Holland.

[bjfagan]

If the forcepool limits can be exceeded by capturing territory or through seizures, as is the case now, then there should be no reason why a country could not increase their structures in this manner. If we were to implement a rule now, then it should apply going forward, but then we would need to override the game engine every time it allows an increase over the limit.

[lukasberger]

If the forcepool limits can be exceeded by capturing territory or through seizures, as is the case now, then there should be no reason why a country could not increase their structures in this manner. If we were to implement a rule now, then it should apply going forward, but then we would need to override the game engine every time it allows an increase over the limit.

If exceeding the force pools by seizure is allowed by the game engine then I really don't see why we'd prohibit it. I guess purchasing structures over the limit would be a different issue. I don't see the problem with that either but am willing to bow to majority opinion.

[lukasberger]

The countries that are rich in coal could trick or contract themselves into an unsurmountable advantage.

Playing devil's advocate here. But wouldn't that actually be a greater benefit to nations like the Oe who have limited building pools and even more limited resource spots available?

[Citizen X]

I am not against overcoming pools per se. If you have excessive (:w00t silk farms, thats ok, or if someone gets a goldmine too many or anything like that. It could even put some flavour into the game and in the case of China hepl them stay in touch with the Western nations. But in the case of coal/oil (maybe rubber, too) it is something different. If the coalrich countries manage somehow to exploit every spot they have they could dominate world economy and afford to field larger armies and navies and replenish them faster and supply them better and could come to a stateincome that allowed them to advsnce quicker in science etc etc. It would allow them an advantage in productivity that made it pointless for others to keep going. This discussion has been held before and the idea of excessing the coalmine limit had always have strong opposition. I myself had mentioned it here on some occasions that I am quite strongly against weakening build pool limits in the case of coal and it will stay that way.
Now if the majority of you decides else or the moderator decides else I will back down. But only under strong protest, because it will lead into trouble in the future, mark my words.

Yes, countries like the Ottoman Empire and others have limited spots. That's why it is cool, that there are some limits for other nations, too, naturally. That's why those nations have to find a policy to get to the needed coal, get to make friends with at least one country rich in coal, keep relations at least at 25 as I just learned. On the other hand, that coal is of great political weight for the countries that are rich of it, the fuel to forge alliances. Making up for a great interactive game. But if this political fuel can only work, if it could be sure that this political fuel can not be turned into real economical fuel, making an ally marginal.

To close the specific case of silk and China I agree that they be allowed to excede their build pool for the silk spots of their own territory.

[lukasberger]

But in the case of coal/oil (maybe rubber, too) it is something different. If the coalrich countries manage somehow to exploit every spot they have they could dominate world economy and afford to field larger armies and navies and replenish them faster and supply them better and could come to a stateincome that allowed them to advsnce quicker in science etc etc.

I don't necessarily disagree with your overall sentiments but I think since you're playing a smaller nation, you might not be entirely aware of what bottlenecks lack of coal actually creates.

As Austria, I've hit a point where I'm strapped enough for coal that I can't run my full economy each turn and there isn't really a lot of point building more factories that use a good deal of coal since that just means I'll have to shut others down. I've been expanding the economy only by building stuff that uses little to no coal per turn.

But that has no effect whatsoever on my ability to maintain, supply, reinforce or expand what is by far the largest army in the world. Realistically, I'm not even remotely close to hitting my military limits yet. So a lack of coal isn't creating any kind of a military bottleneck at all.

I also typically have enough state income to put $100 per turn bonuses on nearly all techs. Austria's behind on technology only because of the time after glennbob abandoned them that they weren't under ai control either and weren't spending on tech. So I don't think more coal would really result in much more tech spending either, the big nations can pretty much max this out as is.

I've also been able to keep my contentment at 95-99%, so lack of goods isn't really an issue now for big nations either.

So far as I can see, coal shortages only create economic/factory/PC bottlenecks. It appears not to have a major effect on military or tech spending.

What that really means is less goods being created and sold by the big nations since we hoard more of what we do make for our internal use. So for smaller nations who can't create enough of many goods to fill their own needs, that means you just don't have the needed goods available on the world market. So the coal caps are only really hurting smaller nations like the OE, Brazil and likely most of the ai controlled minnows. They don't have that much effect on the giants except in so far as it prevents us from creating enough goods to sell to small nations.

[Jonathan Pollard]

Please run my script for the transfer of Austrian merchant ships to China here.

[Citizen X]

I don't necessarily disagree with your overall sentiments but I think since you're playing a smaller nation, you might not be entirely aware of what bottlenecks lack of coal actually creates.

As Austria, I've hit a point where I'm strapped enough for coal that I can't run my full economy each turn and there isn't really a lot of point building more factories that use a good deal of coal since that just means I'll have to shut others down. I've been expanding the economy only by building stuff that uses little to no coal per turn.

But that has no effect whatsoever on my ability to maintain, supply, reinforce or expand what is by far the largest army in the world. Realistically, I'm not even remotely close to hitting my military limits yet. So a lack of coal isn't creating any kind of a military bottleneck at all.

I also typically have enough state income to put $100 per turn bonuses on nearly all techs. Austria's behind on technology only because of the time after glennbob abandoned them that they weren't under ai control either and weren't spending on tech. So I don't think more coal would really result in much more tech spending either, the big nations can pretty much max this out as is.

I've also been able to keep my contentment at 95-99%, so lack of goods isn't really an issue now for big nations either.

So far as I can see, coal shortages only create economic/factory/PC bottlenecks. It appears not to have a major effect on military or tech spending.

What that really means is less goods being created and sold by the big nations since we hoard more of what we do make for our internal use. So for smaller nations who can't create enough of many goods to fill their own needs, that means you just don't have the needed goods available on the world market. So the coal caps are only really hurting smaller nations like the OE, Brazil and likely most of the ai controlled minnows. They don't have that much effect on the giants except in so far as it prevents us from creating enough goods to sell to small nations.

I see your meaning, still I am not convinced and feel that it might lead into the majors not needing the minors for anything anymore or something like that. But as I said. I not gonna make an endless argument out of it. Let's just vote or even have the moderator rule it. It is the first time this game has been played as multiplayer for such a long time and nobody can say for sure which decisions lead to which results.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But one thing I want to make clear. The Ottoman Empire has more potential than has been pulled out of it, even with their limited resources. I oh so much wish I had ruled it from day 0. Don't call it a small country .

[Citizen X]

Please run my script for the transfer of Austrian merchant ships to China here.

Didn't look over the script itsself but no objections against the purchase.

[bjfagan]

Early October 1882... with the 3 outstanding scripts.

[bjfagan]

Late October 1882

[Jim-NC]

I believe that the rules have been, no purchasing over your force pool (for anything). This would also apply to ships. I would say that anything captured stays the capturing nations. Thus, if you build a coal mine in France, and relations go south, and they capture it, then they keep it. The same if you were to build a mine in say Portugal, the AI could capture it and exceed it's force pool.

Let the builder beware.

Do you want a decision from the moderator on this? It'll be the same as above, or we can discuss and vote.

[lukasberger]

Do you want a decision from the moderator on this? It'll be the same as above, or we can discuss and vote.

For my part neither is needed. I'm just talking really. I don't think this a big deal at this juncture.