Printable View
Freedom of a slave state. America jumped forward 70 years ago in the field of "freedom" and then stagnated as the rest of the world surpassed them to the point where the "tyranny" they rebelled against became more liberated than the "land of the free".
OOC: You'd think he'd be going on at me more for giving the vote to women and coloureds who can pay the bills than percieved communism.
Polk:
I am taken by surprise by the harsh words from the UK. Although there are many issues we have different opinions the government of the United States of America would not comment the internal affairs of a foreign country.
When a man realizes he has done a wrong he must endeavor to reverse as much damage he has caused in his unenlightened state as he can. Britain as a whole accepted that slavery is wrong 30 years ago and we must endeavor to right that wrong. If in the process of righting the largest blot on our record we find ourselves unable or unwilling to use direct power and have to resort to shaming the United states with harsh words into rectifying those wrongs then so be it.
Slavery's proliferation was our sin, but its continued practice is yours, do not lecture us about freedom when you continue to deny it to your fellow countrymen.
Peel.
England is talking about freeing slaves, and while they are saying this they are using violence to increase their colonies. I wonder what the Indians say about this. Or the people in south Africa. Or the people on the Sinai. Or the people of Hong Kong. Or the people of Ireland.
We know pretty well that the the English Queen is currently trying to increase her territories in Northern America, to lead more people into slavery. We tell her, if you want to stop slavery, free the people in your colonies!
Originally Posted by Franconicus:
Presumably the same as any nation taken over by another country, "same routine different flag, at least these ones dont rape our women, put our men in chains and force us to work for no pay". African americans deserve the same.
England is talking about freeing slaves, and while they are saying this they are using violence to increase their colonies. I wonder what the Indians say about this. Or the people in south Africa. Or the people on the Sinai. Or the people of Hong Kong. Or the people of Ireland.
Originally Posted by :
The people in our colonies are paid for thier work, they aren't shackled, sold, beaten, raped, bred for physical attributes, the law doesnt allow us to kill them on a whim, if they wish to move around they can and if they commit a crime we actually allow them the protecion and judgment of the law. We can say that for every man and woman in our realm not in prison, can you say the same for yours?
We know pretty well that the the English Queen is currently trying to increase her territories in Northern America, to lead more people into slavery. We tell her, if you want to stop slavery, free the people in your colonies!
Um... hello? Please tell me that im not the only one still here
Originally Posted by Greyblades:
I am. But then again, I submitted my orders on the 11th of february, so I don't have that much to say. I don't get how some people can't even submit their orders within two weeks.
Um... hello? Please tell me that im not the only one still here
Hi lads,
I'll be honest - I'm losing interest. Having 1 month or more between turns is removing all sense of temporal continuity, or decision making. To be blunt - I feel this game is too complex to be handled by 1 person. I feel like different people should be in charge of combat, diplomacy on different continents, etc, and that level of complexity is unattainable for a forum game. Not that franc, or anyone else are not doing a good job, but i feel the game has grown too large for the level of responsiveness and information that most players are looking for.
So I will play along this turn, but it will be my last.
Originally Posted by rickinator9:
I think we were waiting for the guys who have turned out to have quit without telling us.
I am. But then again, I submitted my orders on the 11th of february, so I don't have that much to say. I don't get how some people can't even submit their orders within two weeks.
well i havent submitted my orders yet, if this is the 2nd round of orders but im still waiting for important pieces of info... and i cant seem to get a hold of anyone but greyblades :S
im sad to say but i kinda agree with swordsmaster, tho im not ready to give up on it yet.
Since major players already left and more are going to, I don't see the point in continuing...
Thank you for the ride everyone ^^
Sorry everyone I had to leave the game, because I couldn't find back into it after my pause. I told it Franconicus some time ago but missed his question to reconsider. Sorry about that, it wasn't meant to be this time from my side.
Originally Posted by Arjos:
isnt there a way to salvage? im willing to become one of the major factions in europe.
Since major players already left and more are going to, I don't see the point in continuing...
Thank you for the ride everyone ^^
Originally Posted by The Stranger:
Imo a global scenario is too large:
isnt there a way to salvage? im willing to become one of the major factions in europe.
We lost Egypt and the Ottomans, the whole Islamic World is NPC.
The US have become NPC aswell.
We'll be losing Prussia and if you replace it, Asia will be fully NPCed too.
Also the sentiment seems widespread, so probably more people will leave...
Ya, maybe it was a better solution when the game was focused on Europe.
I think the problem is that the entirety of central europe's powers were pretty much silent. When was the last time Prussia, Austria and France said anything in character in this game about... well anything? I mean Great Britain and Russia were the only Euros talking regularly and they are colonial powers with more interests in asia and america to argue with eachother over than europe. Without someone to anchor us to Europe the intended focus point of the game got sidelined. Basically, I think we need more talkative germans in this game.
As for me, I think this game is amazing and I dont want it to end here, We resurrected an awesome game and it seems undignified to end something with this much love and effort put into it this way.
Originally Posted by Greyblades:
Part of the problem is there are too many germans, and whenever I pose a question to the NPC germans it takes sometimes weeks for me to get a response, if I even get one. Which is what brings me to say that with so many majors in the game, one person is not enough to keep track of all the mini-diplomacies.
I think the problem is that the entirety of central europe's powers were pretty much silent. When was the last time Prussia, Austria and France said anything in character in this game about... well anything? I mean Great Britain and Russia were the only Euros talking regularly and they are colonial powers with more interests in asia and america to argue with eachother over than europe. Without someone to anchor us to Europe the intended focus point of the game got sidelined. Basically, I think we need more talkative germans in this game.
As for me, I think this game is amazing and I dont want it to end here, We resurrected an awesome game and it seems undignified to end something with this much love and effort put into it this way.
I agree it is a shame to let it die. I would suggest a more focused effort, however. Whether it is a Europe/Rest of the World breakdown, or something else, I believe the thing has just grown too big and complex for one person.
I agree with you all, this just does not work. So far as I can judge there were only two really active players: England and China. There had to be at least five.
If I understand you right, an interactive game should be limited to a smaller area, faster, with less diplomacy and flexible to changing number of players and time to spend. Right?
Well we had something like this before. I have to think!!
P.S.: Let's end the old game officially.
Originally Posted by Franconicus:
IMO, the problem is not so much that there is too much diplomacy between the players - not sure about others but Prussia has barely been approached diplomatically. A smaller area would definitely be better - less countries concerned both from the NPC perspective and also to force the players to interact - when you share borders you must talk to your neighbours.
I agree with you all, this just does not work. So far as I can judge there were only two really active players: England and China. There had to be at least five.
If I understand you right, an interactive game should be limited to a smaller area, faster, with less diplomacy and flexible to changing number of players and time to spend. Right?
Well we had something like this before. I have to think!!
P.S.: Let's end the old game officially.
Responsiveness is definitely a big one, both from other players and NPCs for all my clever attempts at political/economic manoeuvring, if i never get answers from minor potential allies/enemies, they never come to fruition.
Originally Posted by Franconicus:
Don't forget the Russians but despite that I don't think less diplomacy between players is the right way. A smaller Core-Area might clearly help though.
I agree with you all, this just does not work. So far as I can judge there were only two really active players: England and China. There had to be at least five.
If I understand you right, an interactive game should be limited to a smaller area, faster, with less diplomacy and flexible to changing number of players and time to spend. Right?
Well we had something like this before. I have to think!!
P.S.: Let's end the old game officially.
Currently we can expect to have three, maybe four permanent players and a maybe two or three which may like to join from time to time.
So let's discuss what we can do with it.
We could select a small, limited area with only four factions and no non player factions. Let's say we take an Ancient theatre, maybe Greek in the time of the first Persian wars. So we would have Athens, Sparta, Persia and maybe another Greek city or the Ionic Alliance at Asia Minor. Maybe limited period and goals for each player.
Pros: This would limit the game somehow, no technological developments, only limited trade effects, limited diplomacy, maximum wars.
Cons: If a major faction is passive (for example the Persians) the game collapses immediately. The game would be limited to four players.
Alternative would be a round based campaign game in the original Kraxis style. The group of players leads one factions, maybe the Greek before Marathon or one party in the American Civil War.
Pros: No diplomacy. The group could be open, so everybody could invest as much time as he wants. Even if one steps out, the game would continue.
Cons: No diplomacy. All players are only part of the team. All are playing against the host.
If we are going to do over in a new setting I have a suggestion:the game of thrones universe, it would be easy to get players for and if we ask nicely we might be able to get the guys who hosted the two gameroom versions to help cohost.
:D
...:)
:/
Please?
I would like a 'greece before Marathon' scenario. There are no real dominant states yet(except persia) and thus plenty of possibilities for the players.
I'm fine with any scenario, although I had hopes for the comeback of "De Bello Gallico" :P
As for playstyle, I'd prefer each player controlling a faction...
Also I have no problem whatsoever in being Persia, making sure I'm present and the game keeps on going ^^
The other option is to break this down to a lower level: tactical: no economic/technology advances, only single army campaign control.
Originally Posted by Greyblades:
2 of these games gone south (or north) already... it would be epic but it indeed needs atleast 1 if not 2 co-hosts.
If we are going to do over in a new setting I have a suggestion:the game of thrones universe, it would be easy to get players for and if we ask nicely we might be able to get the guys who hosted the two gameroom versions to help cohost.
:D
...:)
:/
Please?
i would prefer the games to be less complex tho because its no fun for anyone if u have to type or read huge orders. imo only diplomacy + army control with limited subterfuge. no economy and no need to be overly detailed imo crude orders and just ask for further details if needed.
personally i would like a dark ages/medieval setting. or in light of the next tw title, a RTW game :p
Originally Posted by SwordsMaster:
I think such a game for the 19th century, would be missing the point entirely for that period...
The other option is to break this down to a lower level: tactical: no economic/technology advances, only single army campaign control.
As far as I can see, most players would like to see a round based game with one player per faction and concentration on diplomacy and war. Is this correct?
So how many factions would be right? Would Ionian Revolt be the right theatre?
Basically what we were doing?
Originally Posted by :
...like Tiaexz and johnhughthom?
2 of these games gone south (or north) already... it would be epic but it indeed needs atleast 1 if not 2 co-hosts.
Originally Posted by Franconicus:
I'd also like the possibility to perform reforms, be that political, economical or military...
As far as I can see, most players would like to see a round based game with one player per faction and concentration on diplomacy and war. Is this correct?
So how many factions would be right? Would Ionian Revolt be the right theatre?
But again, what I really care for is a sustainable game, which is stress-free for the host :)
I think at least me, The Stranger, Greyblades and rickinator9 would like to play...
SwordsMaster and Kival, seem interested aswell...