The Third Languish Sunday EU3 MP Game Thread

[Tamas]

Yeah I can live with no selling but would prefer no house rules at all.

And its not like diplomacy is the devil's work. If Kleves managed to convince everyone that is fine and dandy to have him conquer the middle of europe uninterrupted, thats the fault of the players and not the system. Same goes for katmai paving the way for the French into the Far East.

[katmai]

I wanna see Habbu powergame a 1 province Brandenburg, cmon tamas you know you want to too.

[katmai]

Yeah I can live with no selling but would prefer no house rules at all.

And its not like diplomacy is the devil's work. If Kleves managed to convince everyone that is fine and dandy to have him conquer the middle of europe uninterrupted, thats the fault of the players and not the system. Same goes for katmai paving the way for the French into the Far East.

motherfucker!
I'll have you know I paved way for UK too!
Give me my due recognition!

[Tamas]

Yeah I can live with no selling but would prefer no house rules at all.

And its not like diplomacy is the devil's work. If Kleves managed to convince everyone that is fine and dandy to have him conquer the middle of europe uninterrupted, thats the fault of the players and not the system. Same goes for katmai paving the way for the French into the Far East.

motherfucker!
I'll have you know I paved way for UK too!
Give me my due recognition!

fine, you let in the UK too.


So I was saying, guns dont kill people, and such.

To fuck with house rules. You can get a pop-up about province sales like I do. If you see country A selling a province to country B, knowing that sale will fuck you up in the long run, you either do something about it or it's on you.

Now of course, it is sensible to expect that someone won't go all katmai and hand over free lunches like it was Christmas. But you cant stop that with house rules.

[katmai]

One guy sells a whole continent and is marked for life, fuck you all I'm slargosing then!

[DGuller]

The more I think about it, the more I'm thinking that Berkut is right.  Why stop someone from expanding when you can just match his expansion yourself?  The world is big, probably way too big, for everyone.  Why fight to the death for a piece of bread, when you can just walk over to the side and take as much cake as you want unopposed?

If we declare everything except Europe and Mediterranean off-limits, then we'll see some fur fly.  Of course, it won't be a EU3 game anymore, and it wouldn't be a fair game for everyone.

[Solmyr]

Considering we have what, 9 players? I don't think the world is big enough.

[DGuller]

Considering we have what, 9 players? I don't think the world is big enough.

That's only what, 140 provinces per player?

[Agelastus]

I actually think we look at a game like this too rationally. What we need is a little irrational roleplaying. Like the Brits trying to stay on the Continent, or squabbles over religion.

I couldn't imagine playing any other way as England/Britain; which of course is why I only play against AI and not human opponents. I do, however, read these Languish game threads with enormous pleasure. Please keep up the good work.

[Kleves]

The more I think about it, the more I'm thinking that Berkut is right.  Why stop someone from expanding when you can just match his expansion yourself?  The world is big, probably way too big, for everyone.  Why fight to the death for a piece of bread, when you can just walk over to the side and take as much cake as you want unopposed?

We could set up some sort of "victory conditions" for each power, and the one that comes closest to fulfilling them wins at the end. Something like "control Antwerp, Milan, Quebec, Strasbourg, and Navarre." That would cause ensure conflict between players, and help to ensure that there are no iron-clad alliances. Plus, it would let us pick a winner in the end.

[Solmyr]

We could set up some sort of "victory conditions" for each power, and the one that comes closest to fulfilling them wins at the end. Something like "control Antwerp, Milan, Quebec, Strasbourg, and Navarre." That would cause ensure conflict between players, and help to ensure that there are no iron-clad alliances. Plus, it would let us pick a winner in the end.

This assumes people actually attempt to win by those conditions. I know I set my own goals depending on my country, and consider the game "won" if I fulfill them.

[katmai]

Yep I agree with Sol as that is pretty much same approach I take.
I know I was content with where Portugal stood when game was called.
My France though...

[JonasSalk]

If I didn't always work Sundays when you guys were playing, I'd consider joining.

[Jaron]

The more I think about it, the more I'm thinking that Berkut is right.  Why stop someone from expanding when you can just match his expansion yourself?  The world is big, probably way too big, for everyone.  Why fight to the death for a piece of bread, when you can just walk over to the side and take as much cake as you want unopposed?

We could set up some sort of "victory conditions" for each power, and the one that comes closest to fulfilling them wins at the end. Something like "control Antwerp, Milan, Quebec, Strasbourg, and Navarre." That would cause ensure conflict between players, and help to ensure that there are no iron-clad alliances. Plus, it would let us pick a winner in the end.

This is not Here I Stand 

[Kleves]

I know I set my own goals depending on my country, and consider the game "won" if I fulfill them.

That's kind of the problem, isn't it?