Iron and Blood - Game Thread

[arya126]

OOC: Listen Joe, that was an action BY THE GM, not by Boj China. A DoW isnt an aggressive action, stealing of land, or any such bull. It is a worded statement presented by one country to another. And if you want to go IC, then the PEOPLE in those cities revolted against you to form a new state. It wasnt even that much. If you are so pissed off, try asking for repayment of those ICs, and let Boj china be alone.

No, DoWs are divided into two fricking categories. A 'new' one, where one country (YOU in this case) declares war on another whether they have a reason to or not (which you land excuse is a reason in this case, it doesnt affect the outcome), and a 'response' DoW is a DoW on the aggressor by the allies of the victim.

It wouldnt be spamming. That would imply that it is not related to the game. It is perfectly related to the game. OR, as he has said, they could have PMed confirmations of your post to him.

 

[Double A]

Siamese generals are confused as to why they cannot invade Boj China. It seems as if an invisible wall is stopping them.

Also, arya, I thank you for being a voice of reason of sorts.

 

[arya126]

Well seeing as all you guys wanted to do was scream and yell, I had to pick up the slack didnt I?

 

[hoplitejoe]

57 IC
36 IC into 18 factories in austraia
21 IC into science

 

[Double A]

Solution: Siam and Southern Han, let Xi'an do all the fighting for you, then send IC to help pay for the war later.

Southern Han - Declare war on Peru.

I can do this regardless of what happens.

Siam declares war on Peru and Colombia for declaring war on Xi'an, as well as for being communist buttmonkeys.

Well seeing as all you guys wanted to do was scream and yell, I had to pick up the slack didnt I?

But screaming and yelling are fun

 

[kiwitt]

GM: This discussion needs to have me make some points and a ruling. First of I would like to make it clear that I have tried to be consistent through out this game. Even at times get feedback from TK and other players. I try not make major changes to the rules, without first discussing it with players, in the rules discussion thread. They only become actual rules when I place them in the main rules thread. I even asked for feedback as being a GM here. So there a plenty of opportunities to involve me and me getting involved, in how best to play this game. I suspect that is much more than what other GMs do or will do, and as TK pointed out "Iron and Blood" is a complex game and we all need help to manage it, including me from time to time.

You should see my multi-layered spreadsheet I use behind the scenes, that get summarised up to the quick stats you see in each update. (see sample below).

Spoiler :

If that isn't dedication, I don't know what is.

Anyhow, here are my points;
1: I will not allow another nation to take action for another unless I receive a confirmation PM. i.e. you can not act diplomatically for others.

2: As GM, I am a member of alliance groups and I regularly remind people of point 1 as they have their discussions. Existing Alliance members can confirm that I do this. At one point in this game I once even removed myself from alliance groups as I was going to be playing Canada and wanted to be seen as unbiased and this was considered a bad idea as the mechanism involved was unwieldy, so I was reinstated to them all, as it was deemed much easy that I play Canada in an unbiased way. Group owners can confirm this as well.

3: Alliance groups contain a number of things I am privy to.
- Agreements for access rights
- Pre-DoW discussions
- War-plans discussions

4: I need confirmation PMs that these are accepted

5: As far as I am aware, there is no ATK alliance group as I have not been invited to it, so I assume all discussion occurs via PM, which are then secret to me as GM. Which is how I assumed you wanted to operate your alliance. If however, you do have an Alliance Group and I am made a member, it makes the discussions in point 3 above much easier for me, otherwise I am dependent on PMs only for interaction with the Alliance, which I encounter the problems alluded to in Point 2 above.

As to the current situation;

This stands because to change it now, would be unfair to other nations who also had wars.

e.g. The Canadian war was a case in point. The C.S.A. did not declare war, so the rest of the U.N.A. allies could not use its territory for an invasion into Quebec and the outcome could have well been a lot different.

As I see it, Xi'an declared war on Boj China on behalf of the ATK, and I was expecting confirmation PMs to this effect and I would then have shown their names on the DoW cutoff notice.

Tawantinsuyo, then declared war early on the ATK in response, assuming that the whole ATK had DoWed. This meant that its declarations of war on Southern Han and Siam are new DoWs and the one on Xi'an is really a response DoW (which I have now corrected above). Had Tawantinsuyo waited until after the first 48 hour cutoff to do a response DoW, the DoWs on Southern Han and Siam would have been disallowed, as I only would have shown Xi'An versus Boj China, because I did not get confirmations.

@Xi'an - the reason you do not get many scientific events is because you do not have much expenditure in science, in comparison to others. Texas for example has 20 times as much scientific points as you and therefore 20 times as much chance to get an event. btw: "Boj China" could also be considered an event, albeit an adverse event.

Hope this clears the matter up.

 

[Double A]

There are (or at least should be) non-scientific events.

Not gonna dispute (or agree with) the rest of it right now because I'm writing two things for 2 other games and should probably get that map for my game done as well.

 

[kiwitt]

GM: There are cultural events as well from time to time. "Boj China" could be considered one, albeit an adverse one. But you could get the bonus of 40 factories if they are defeated. It all depends as how you play the event.

 

[BSmith1068]

The Kingdom of Swaziland would like to remind the members of the UNA (Including Gran Colombia) that the Treaty of London is still in effect and aiding any combatant that is in arms against a member of The Accord is a violation of this treaty.

 

[momo1000]

Xi'An (a partial member of the Accord) never signed the treaty. I actually only DoW on S. Han, who is not a member of the Accord or a signer of the treaty.

 

[BSmith1068]

Xi’an is a partial member of the Accord but is still bound by this agreement even though he didn’t sign it (it is an alliance wide agreement). Any aid to Boj China or Tawantinsuyo (including coordinated war plans) would be considered a violation and you need to be really careful about how you act with regard to any Accord members.

Of course you could just leave the UNA and then the point would be moot.

 

[Tecknojock]

Nope, actually it would be you who is acting in aggression towards Gran Columbia by DOW them when they did not DOW any alliance members. I suppose though, if Gran Columbia were to station troops in Boj China, Xian's involvement in the war would be moot since they could not attack Boj without violating the treaty. *hint hint* Grand Columbia.

 

[momo1000]

What is the point of partial membership if it's the same as regular membership? Also, Siam, a signer of the treaty, declared on me. This is all very confusing.

 

[DroopyTofu]

What if we just resolve it by canceling all hostilities and come over to Richmon to all sit down and have some grits and home-made biscuits?

 

[choxorn]

One day, Librul President Thomas Franklin had a dream that diplomacy made sense. Then he woke up, saw the unfolding mess, and reportedly yelled several obscenities.

 

[Double A]

GM: There are cultural events as well from time to time. "Boj China" could be considered one, albeit an adverse one. But you could get the bonus of 40 factories if they are defeated. It all depends as how you play the event.

I mean purely random events, influenced by neither science nor culture, like the stuff tk did. "Quick, Siam, choose between not expanding for 2 turns, +1 stability, and +5% culture, or get 3 armies and -1 stability! PS, next time, expand into Malaya with more than 1IC."

What is the point of partial membership if it's the same as regular membership? Also, Siam, a signer of the treaty, declared on me. This is all very confusing.

Thou hast declared war on my ally, bubba.

 

[kiwitt]

I mean purely random events, influenced by neither science nor culture, like the stuff tk did. "Quick, Siam, choose between not expanding for 2 turns, +1 stability, and +5% culture, or get 3 armies and -1 stability! PS, next time, expand into Malaya with more than 1IC."

GM: I have given other nations events, like France and Swaziland with rebellions

Thou hast declared war on my ally, bubba.

Your DoW is a response on a response and will in all likelihood be disallowed this turn and will take effect next turn. As is this

In response to Southern Han declaring war on our comrade Tawantisuyo, the People's Republic of Gran Colombia declares war on Southern Han.

As it is not a response on one of the initial aggressors.

 

[BSmith1068]

Nope, actually it would be you who is acting in aggression towards Gran Columbia by DOW them when they did not DOW any alliance members. I suppose though, if Gran Columbia were to station troops in Boj China, Xian's involvement in the war would be moot since they could not attack Boj without violating the treaty. *hint hint* Grand Columbia.

I have not declared on them. And stationing troops in Boj would be a blatant and direct violation of the treaty.

 

[Double A]

Siam is declaring war upon the GM for overcomplicating war.

 

[DroopyTofu]

Siam is declaring war upon the GM for overcomplicating war.

This brings Siam (and the rest of the Accord) into violation of the Treaty of London. Canada was supposed to be left alone! I demand stability hits for all of the Accord for this blatant violation of the Treaty. Think of the poor Canadians!!!!!!!1!11!!!1!!!!1!!!!