Game 86

[Kurassier]

Aah, that explains why CR would be hesitant to open the can of war-worms and attack Denmark...

 

Tim, what the beep did you do to go negative on morale while conquering stuff?

I think it is the result of being involved in so many games at one time.

 

Am I correct Tim?

Nope, had nothing to do with the number of games. I'm just a really bad general and nobody should ever be concerned with me being on their border.

 

I had a lot of expenditures at the time and Denmark is not very wealthy. I went into 'deficit' spending for several turns (a gamble) knowing it would be turned around with the conquest of the Lowlands. My moral only hit negative for two turns and would have been positive the next, except that Lowlands was fortunate (unfortunate for me) and did a FP, it worked. Then all of his friends did the same, FP, DW FP etc. (with some BPA in there but you get the idea) So the 'gaming' aspect of it put me in a position where my moral would not be positive until the last turn or two of the game (can only up moral 25 per turn without being at war) , my fault really.

At that point I had a choice, I could drop (just not me) or continue to help my TAs. Shortly after that (don't remember the exact time frame) my TAs left for real life reasons, and it was just me. Not having ever played with a negative moral, I decided to continue to see what would happen. Several people have done the DW/FP on me since then, but my moral was already at -999, so it only hurt their moral. I just chuckle when they do it. CR DW war on me, and the next turn I did an airdrop to wipe out one of his airbases, he promptly bombed my airborne, retook the city and did a FP. We have been at 'peace' ever since.

Anyway, that's about it, and I'm still here. I am prepared for anybody to DW on me, but frankly, it probably wouldn't be worth it for anybody to do so.

Cheers.

[Rogue Leader]

Aah, that explains why CR would be hesitant to open the can of war-worms and attack Denmark...

 

Tim, what the beep did you do to go negative on morale while conquering stuff?

I think it is the result of being involved in so many games at one time.

 

Am I correct Tim?

Nope, had nothing to do with the number of games. I'm just a really bad general and nobody should ever be concerned with me being on their border.

 

I had a lot of expenditures at the time and Denmark is not very wealthy. I went into 'deficit' spending for several turns (a gamble) knowing it would be turned around with the conquest of the Lowlands. My moral only hit negative for two turns and would have been positive the next, except that Lowlands was fortunate (unfortunate for me) and did a FP, it worked. Then all of his friends did the same, FP, DW FP etc. (with some BPA in there but you get the idea) So the 'gaming' aspect of it put me in a position where my moral would not be positive until the last turn or two of the game (can only up moral 25 per turn without being at war) , my fault really.

At that point I had a choice, I could drop (just not me) or continue to help my TAs. Shortly after that (don't remember the exact time frame) my TAs left for real life reasons, and it was just me. Not having ever played with a negative moral, I decided to continue to see what would happen. Several people have done the DW/FP on me since then, but my moral was already at -999, so it only hurt their moral. I just chuckle when they do it. CR DW war on me, and the next turn I did an airdrop to wipe out one of his airbases, he promptly bombed my airborne, retook the city and did a FP. We have been at 'peace' ever since.

Anyway, that's about it, and I'm still here. I am prepared for anybody to DW on me, but frankly, it probably wouldn't be worth it for anybody to do so.

Cheers.

Yes, Denmark's growth potential is limited.

 

By the way, the old Lowlands player is the current Central player. You did spank him pretty hard when he did dw on you. He just has enough wars on going that he doesn't need another at this point. What is there to gain for him? The occasional dw/fp are just to keep you on the sidelines. We figured you would be positive at this point.

[Earthling]

By the way, the old Lowlands player is the current Central player.

 

Wow - wish I'd know that earlier. I would have tried a different diplomatic approach. Plus, I didn't realize CR & SR were TA's until it was too late. I made the extreme diplomatic goof of approaching SR for help vs CR on the word or another player (who is long gone from the game at this point) that SR & CR were not friendly.

 

Boy would a SIM POL been worth it there..... ! Imagine my & when I got the response from SR!

[Kurassier]

Aah, that explains why CR would be hesitant to open the can of war-worms and attack Denmark...

 

Tim, what the beep did you do to go negative on morale while conquering stuff?

I think it is the result of being involved in so many games at one time.

 

Am I correct Tim?

Nope, had nothing to do with the number of games. I'm just a really bad general and nobody should ever be concerned with me being on their border.

 

I had a lot of expenditures at the time and Denmark is not very wealthy. I went into 'deficit' spending for several turns (a gamble) knowing it would be turned around with the conquest of the Lowlands. My moral only hit negative for two turns and would have been positive the next, except that Lowlands was fortunate (unfortunate for me) and did a FP, it worked. Then all of his friends did the same, FP, DW FP etc. (with some BPA in there but you get the idea) So the 'gaming' aspect of it put me in a position where my moral would not be positive until the last turn or two of the game (can only up moral 25 per turn without being at war) , my fault really.

At that point I had a choice, I could drop (just not me) or continue to help my TAs. Shortly after that (don't remember the exact time frame) my TAs left for real life reasons, and it was just me. Not having ever played with a negative moral, I decided to continue to see what would happen. Several people have done the DW/FP on me since then, but my moral was already at -999, so it only hurt their moral. I just chuckle when they do it. CR DW war on me, and the next turn I did an airdrop to wipe out one of his airbases, he promptly bombed my airborne, retook the city and did a FP. We have been at 'peace' ever since.

Anyway, that's about it, and I'm still here. I am prepared for anybody to DW on me, but frankly, it probably wouldn't be worth it for anybody to do so.

Cheers.

Yes, Denmark's growth potential is limited.

 

By the way, the old Lowlands player is the current Central player. You did spank him pretty hard when he did dw on you. He just has enough wars on going that he doesn't need another at this point. What is there to gain for him? The occasional dw/fp are just to keep you on the sidelines. We figured you would be positive at this point.

Nope, once I knew I would not be positive in moral, I threw caution to the wind and spent like a drunken sailor, or a greek government, or a US congress ( you pick the metaphor)

That (the DW/FP) is one of those tactics that probably should be modified in Vic2 (note I'm not complaining, it's part of the rules, so ok). It's one thing when you are fighting someone and there are moral consequences, but when someone you aren't even next to does a DW/FP, why should that affect your moral. That would be like the Spain's moral plummeting because UAE DW and then quit the war 2 weeks later? Anyway, the rule should be revisited in Vic 2.

[Earthling]

Nope, once I knew I would not be positive in moral, I threw caution to the wind and spent like a drunken sailor, or a greek government, or a US congress ( you pick the metaphor)

That (the DW/FP) is one of those tactics that probably should be modified in Vic2 (note I'm not complaining, it's part of the rules, so ok). It's one thing when you are fighting someone and there are moral consequences, but when someone you aren't even next to does a DW/FP, why should that affect your moral. That would be like the Spain's moral plummeting because UAE DW and then quit the war 2 weeks later? Anyway, the rule should be revisited in Vic 2.

 

I have to admit, the neg treasury amount that you have is impressive in itself. I am not sure how you were able to spend that much money, I figured you would have run out of building supplies.

 

I agree about the neg morale. You should be able to recover it quicker. It is too easy to lose morale fast and no good way to recover it in the same manner (or at least nearly as fast). I am not sure what the answer is, but it definitely needs to be assessed for the new game.

[Rogue Leader]

Nope, once I knew I would not be positive in moral, I threw caution to the wind and spent like a drunken sailor, or a greek government, or a US congress ( you pick the metaphor)

That (the DW/FP) is one of those tactics that probably should be modified in Vic2 (note I'm not complaining, it's part of the rules, so ok). It's one thing when you are fighting someone and there are moral consequences, but when someone you aren't even next to does a DW/FP, why should that affect your moral. That would be like the Spain's moral plummeting because UAE DW and then quit the war 2 weeks later? Anyway, the rule should be revisited in Vic 2.

 

I have to admit, the neg treasury amount that you have is impressive in itself. I am not sure how you were able to spend that much money, I figured you would have run out of building supplies.

 

I agree about the neg morale. You should be able to recover it quicker. It is too easy to lose morale quickly. I am not sure what the answer is, but it definitely needs to be assessed for the new game.

 

Being on the short end of that stick right now I disagree to a point. If there is no consequence to spending like the Greeks (I'll pick that one), then there is no reason not to spend like crazy. It would get to a point where someone could win a game and be negative cash and morale. How about a compromise that having someone dw on you hurt you much less and loss of territory took a bigger bite out of your morale? Definely something that needs to be debated.

 

Speaking of that, it sure seems like Vic II is dead in the water.

[Kurassier]

Nope, once I knew I would not be positive in moral, I threw caution to the wind and spent like a drunken sailor, or a greek government, or a US congress ( you pick the metaphor)

That (the DW/FP) is one of those tactics that probably should be modified in Vic2 (note I'm not complaining, it's part of the rules, so ok). It's one thing when you are fighting someone and there are moral consequences, but when someone you aren't even next to does a DW/FP, why should that affect your moral. That would be like the Spain's moral plummeting because UAE DW and then quit the war 2 weeks later? Anyway, the rule should be revisited in Vic 2.

 

I have to admit, the neg treasury amount that you have is impressive in itself. I am not sure how you were able to spend that much money, I figured you would have run out of building supplies.

 

I agree about the neg morale. You should be able to recover it quicker. It is too easy to lose morale quickly. I am not sure what the answer is, but it definitely needs to be assessed for the new game.

 

Being on the short end of that stick right now I disagree to a point. If there is no consequence to spending like the Greeks (I'll pick that one), then there is no reason not to spend like crazy. It would get to a point where someone could win a game and be negative cash and morale. How about a compromise that having someone dw on you hurt you much less and loss of territory took a bigger bite out of your morale? Definely something that needs to be debated.

The negative spending causing a low moral, I have no problem with, you spend money when you don't have it, you should suffer a moral hit. My money situation had already been fixed (by spending less) and had a positive cash flow. I chose to go negative spending when I new there was no way I could have a positive moral before the end of the game. My point was not the spending, but the fact that someone you are not even fighting, can DW on you, FP and keep doing it and THAT drives down moral so much, seems a bit odd. That is the part that should be fixed in Vic 2 (if there ever is a Vic 2). maybe it's as simple as if you DW on someone, you can't FP for X number of turns.

and again, I am not complaining about VIC 86, the rules are the rules, just think that one should be one of the many rule changes to make the game better.

[Marklen X]

An easy way to stop it is require all wars to be minimum 5 turns in duration. No SFP, FP etc. for 5 turns.

[Kurassier]

An easy way to stop it is require all wars to be minimum 5 turns in duration. No SFP, FP etc. for 5 turns.

I agree, the same should work on the other end as well, if you FP on someone, you shouldn't be able to DW on them for X turns as well.

[Earthling]

An easy way to stop it is require all wars to be minimum 5 turns in duration. No SFP, FP etc. for 5 turns.

An easy way to stop it is require all wars to be minimum 5 turns in duration. No SFP, FP etc. for 5 turns.

I agree, the same should work on the other end as well, if you FP on someone, you shouldn't be able to DW on them for X turns as well.

 

These are viable changes that I agree with. The 5 turn limit should apply in both directions. It only makes sense. One should have time to try and recover the morale. Of course this will not stop nations from all over the map from DW or FP at the same time.

[Saint Michael]

Not in this game

[Kurassier]

Not in this game

Absolutely, I have never been in favor of changing a rule/rules once a game has started. This would only be for the new Vic, whenever that is. I guess this thread was hijacked and this conversation should be under Vic 2 suggestions.

[Predator]

Props to the french..they have been attacked throughout the game from it's start by multiple countries...at the onset he was attacked by 5 countries and has persevered throughout the game against overwhelming odds...even now he continues to fight 3-4 different enemies inside of france....one of the best players I've had the privelige to play with...thanks for hanging in there with us!

 

On another front I think this last turn serves notice that UAE and Syria have lost the war for africa ...60 div killed in one turn of play...it will be a blitzkrieg through egypt now...only thing stopping us from reaching turkey now is time....

[Saint Michael]

Alright, finely---something to do in the south

[Predator]

60 div killed last turn in africa .....the front has collapsed in africa and instead of withdrawing the enemy is now totally surrounded with no hope of victory or even stopping the enemy.....retaliation has begun in defense of Africa on a different front....