History PBEM

[Jacobite1688]

Could we look at another History PBEM elsewhere and get some idea? That was what first tipped us off to the irregulariity.

[Cyrion]

If Scott wants to quit, ok, that's his choice!!

But I wish we could discover what really happened, because now some people might not trust him any longer (I still would, because we only had "hints" which, however strog they are, are no evidence...)...

And about the "unification" of A-H and Germany (after destruction of the extra improvements and units): sorry, but no, I don't agree!!!

OK, it would be historically coherent, BUT the player would be in a much too strong position!!

Just my opinion, of course...

[Jacobite1688]

Too strong? That was the exact feelings of the U.K., France and Russia in the early XX century. Let's do it and see if the League of Nations can maintain peace in Europe.

[Darius871]

Yes it would make the one person's position strong, but only as strong as an alliance between the two nations would be. It is just naturally confusing having it be one person, but if it helps just consider them allied.

[Jacobite1688]

Agreed

[Cyrion]

OK, you've got a point!!!

Let's say I agree, then...

[Darius871]

I played out the French turn for now BTW, so it is now the German turn for whoever will be playing them.

[The ANZAC]

Everyone: first, did anyone see the stuff under their avatars yesterday is it only me I should ave taken a screen shot and I will next time it happens...

Also I support Germany and AH being seperate players, but alliances might conflict. And also here is one thing: are we striving to recreate the Triple Entente and Alliance or have it play differently than history? Because yes we could do that, but doesn't that take some of the unexpectedness out of it?

[Jacobite1688]

We don't HAVE to follow history, but events have developed that are leading us in that direction. An alternate solution is that Germany could be declared unfit for self-government and divided among the major powers.

[Cyrion]

First to ANZAC: yes, I saw it too, it looked like the stats for a RPG, didn't it?? with H.P., exp., etc.

Weird...

And about the game: I would prefer 2 players for Germany and A-H, I agree for 1, BUT I fully disagree on a partition of Germany!

And about this, it won't be so easy for you to make me change my mind this time...


And about recreating history: I think we don't need to push in that direction: if it occurs, fine, if it doesn't, even better: more surprises...

[The ANZAC]

I am not crazy: yes!!

Also, things aren't looking completely like history. For example, I am allied with Germany, though I might cancel it now...

[The ANZAC]

Look at what I found in my profile...any ideas, this i slinked to what I saw before.

[Cyrion]

No hasty conclusion: you might still be crazy, but at least you're not the only one...

Yes, it's what I saw yesterday too!! and what I see in my profile!!

Looks like Attack, Defense, Movement and Hit Points...

Which doesn't really relate to the heading "Posts stats"...

BTW, ANZAC, my stats are a bit higher than yours !!!

It would make me prouder if I knew what they mean...

[Darius871]

The one central european civ is not in my mind made to recreate history, it's just that the AH player is the most logical person to take over. I am firmly against a partition because although it would be balanced, it would simply make the game boring to carve Germany up for the sake of completeness. It's ridiculous. I would search to the ends of the earth for a substitute player before I see that happen.

[Jacobite1688]

Fair enough! Not everyone seemed happy with a Triple Alliance-type-thing developing so I suggested an alternative. It was just an idea