Age of Revolution - Sign Up Thread

[Peanut]

So... The Dutch player selling a colony is equal to the Swedish peace?

Fact: the Swedes giving up Finland is not reasonable, when their Ottoman and Austrian allies have 250,000 troops ready. I advise a reset in Scandinavia to before the surrender, so Sweden can do what it normally would: call on its Austrian and Ottoman allies.

Yes, your deal gives precedence to mine being okay. While I recognize that the diamond boom is 100 away ATL, South Africa's strategic location makes it too farfetched to sell. There's also the fact that my treaty has historical precedence, and the Swedes made a similar peace OTL in 1808 with Britain as their ally.

You also forget that Prussia and I have a technological advantage over the Ottomans, Austria has internal unrest, and you have to conquer a hell of a lot of land to win the war against me.

As for the inaccuracy of our web of marriages, to roll back the historical inaccuracy of the web of marriages, you'd have to roll back the entire turn, and that'd be too much. Not to mention that the Ottomans literally just got out of a war with me.

In short, I would not accept a veto of the current Swedish peace. Whataboutery aside, it's against the spirit of role-playing for the GM to veto bad moves.

Yet one could argue that the GM does have the power to veto illogical moves. I can't make an order next turn calling for the Ottomans to bring aliens to the Earth, and Sweden's agreements are slightly contrarian to what one would expect could be done at this stage, if we are injecting any realism to the game.

[Kingpoleon]

Yes... It’s not against the spirit of the game to enforce a harsh crack down on the three invading forces.

[TrumanJohnson]

Like I said I'm willing to switch to a less important important nation and a reset in Scandinavia.

[Kingpoleon]

Yes... It’s not against the spirit of the game to enforce a harsh crack down on the three invading forces.

I mean that the popularity and international support of someone who attacks their brother-in-law should be severely diminished. I don’t have a stake in Scandinavia, so I don’t think I’m being very biased...

[TrumanJohnson]

I spoke to New Tennessee Politician and we’ve confirmed that I’m leaving as Sweden and switching to Naples. I do not know what’s happening with a Scandinavian reset.

[Wikipedia delenda est]

So... The Dutch player selling a colony is equal to the Swedish peace?

Fact: the Swedes giving up Finland is not reasonable, when their Ottoman and Austrian allies have 250,000 troops ready. I advise a reset in Scandinavia to before the surrender, so Sweden can do what it normally would: call on its Austrian and Ottoman allies.


Also of note: The Danish King also just attacked his brother-in-law, first cousin through George I, and cousin-in-law, Gustav III - a highly irregular move, as such marriage alliances made war almost impossible. Frederick II attacked his nephew, and Catherine the Great attacked her first cousin. Only by the late nineteenth and early twentieth century had warfare become so impersonal and royal marriages powerless enough for a war between first cousins to be considered not a major incident. The reputation of Denmark in particular would be hurt.

Not related to the current dispute, but it's not really accurate to say that royal marriages made war impossible. For example, Louis XIV's wife was the half-sister of the King of Spain, and yet that didn't stop his expansionist policies against the Spanish. And in the War of the Quadruple Alliance, the French and Spanish Bourbons fought each other even though they were members of the same dynasty.

[free my dawg]

So... The Dutch player selling a colony is equal to the Swedish peace?

Fact: the Swedes giving up Finland is not reasonable, when their Ottoman and Austrian allies have 250,000 troops ready. I advise a reset in Scandinavia to before the surrender, so Sweden can do what it normally would: call on its Austrian and Ottoman allies.

Yes, your deal gives precedence to mine being okay. While I recognize that the diamond boom is 100 away ATL, South Africa's strategic location makes it too farfetched to sell. There's also the fact that my treaty has historical precedence, and the Swedes made a similar peace OTL in 1808 with Britain as their ally.

You also forget that Prussia and I have a technological advantage over the Ottomans, Austria has internal unrest, and you have to conquer a hell of a lot of land to win the war against me.

As for the inaccuracy of our web of marriages, to roll back the historical inaccuracy of the web of marriages, you'd have to roll back the entire turn, and that'd be too much. Not to mention that the Ottomans literally just got out of a war with me.

In short, I would not accept a veto of the current Swedish peace. Whataboutery aside, it's against the spirit of role-playing for the GM to veto bad moves.

Yet one could argue that the GM does have the power to veto illogical moves. I can't make an order next turn calling for the Ottomans to bring aliens to the Earth, and Sweden's agreements are slightly contrarian to what one would expect could be done at this stage, if we are injecting any realism to the game.

That's a rather far-reaching false equivalence. Me invading a country and basing my gains off of an OTL treaty is not even close to as unrealistic as summoning aliens.

A reset of Scandinavia would mean my withdrawal from the game. I would hate to hold this game hostage, but the evidence I've provided shows that the surrender is within historical bounds.

[TrumanJohnson]

Well I ruined the game and I don’t know what to do now.

[Kingpoleon]

So... The Dutch player selling a colony is equal to the Swedish peace?

Fact: the Swedes giving up Finland is not reasonable, when their Ottoman and Austrian allies have 250,000 troops ready. I advise a reset in Scandinavia to before the surrender, so Sweden can do what it normally would: call on its Austrian and Ottoman allies.


Also of note: The Danish King also just attacked his brother-in-law, first cousin through George I, and cousin-in-law, Gustav III - a highly irregular move, as such marriage alliances made war almost impossible. Frederick II attacked his nephew, and Catherine the Great attacked her first cousin. Only by the late nineteenth and early twentieth century had warfare become so impersonal and royal marriages powerless enough for a war between first cousins to be considered not a major incident. The reputation of Denmark in particular would be hurt.

Not related to the current dispute, but it's not really accurate to say that royal marriages made war impossible. For example, Louis XIV's wife was the half-sister of the King of Spain, and yet that didn't stop his expansionist policies against the Spanish. And in the War of the Quadruple Alliance, the French and Spanish Bourbons fought each other even though they were members of the same dynasty.

Louis XIV was then made to give up his Spanish gains to an international alliance.

[Wikipedia delenda est]

So... The Dutch player selling a colony is equal to the Swedish peace?

Fact: the Swedes giving up Finland is not reasonable, when their Ottoman and Austrian allies have 250,000 troops ready. I advise a reset in Scandinavia to before the surrender, so Sweden can do what it normally would: call on its Austrian and Ottoman allies.


Also of note: The Danish King also just attacked his brother-in-law, first cousin through George I, and cousin-in-law, Gustav III - a highly irregular move, as such marriage alliances made war almost impossible. Frederick II attacked his nephew, and Catherine the Great attacked her first cousin. Only by the late nineteenth and early twentieth century had warfare become so impersonal and royal marriages powerless enough for a war between first cousins to be considered not a major incident. The reputation of Denmark in particular would be hurt.

Not related to the current dispute, but it's not really accurate to say that royal marriages made war impossible. For example, Louis XIV's wife was the half-sister of the King of Spain, and yet that didn't stop his expansionist policies against the Spanish. And in the War of the Quadruple Alliance, the French and Spanish Bourbons fought each other even though they were members of the same dynasty.

Louis XIV was then made to give up his Spanish gains to an international alliance.

But that had nothing to do with the royal marriage. The alliance forced him to give up the territory because they feared the loss of a buffer state between France and the Dutch in the form of the Spanish Netherlands. And Louis would eventually make Spanish gains after the Franco-Dutch War.

[ASPN]

Well I ruined the game and I don’t know what to do now.

You did not ruin the game. The game isn't even ruined yet. Let's all just chill and wait for the gm to comment.

[Peanut]

Well I ruined the game and I don’t know what to do now.

You didn't ruin the game.

[free my dawg]

Well I ruined the game and I don’t know what to do now.

You're good. Don't mind the saltsacks

[Huey Long is a Republican]

Honesty, some of you are taking this game way too seriously. this isn't life and death and if the behavior continues, then I might just call it quits on this game because I don't want to condone toxicity like this between players.

Now to address the issue, the war will not be reset but the peace treaty will be considered void, thus all current occupations of territories stand, but without peace. Next Turn will determine how this war will be handled by myself (seeing as I'm the GM, I'll handle NPCs).

Now then, with ASPN offering to play as France (of which, I'm very grateful), I will attempt to type up the National Crises for every nation very soon. Again, I will not tolerate such toxicity again over the decision of another player to do what they like WITH THEIR CHARACTER/NATION if it's in the bounds of reality and if it happens again, I will shut down this game.

I hope this address was good enough for you guys, Hopefully I haven't made any of you angry.

[free my dawg]

Peace the **** out. Apparently if you whine loud enough, you can get moves overturned.

[Huey Long is a Republican]

I guess we'll have to find a new russia player. Oi vey.

[windjammer]

Honesty, some of you are taking this game way too seriously. this isn't life and death and if the behavior continues, then I might just call it quits on this game because I don't want to condone toxicity like this between players.

Now to address the issue, the war will not be reset but the peace treaty will be considered void, thus all current occupations of territories stand, but without peace. Next Turn will determine how this war will be handled by myself (seeing as I'm the GM, I'll handle NPCs).

Now then, with ASPN offering to play as France (of which, I'm very grateful), I will attempt to type up the National Crises for every nation very soon. Again, I will not tolerate such toxicity again over the decision of another player to do what they like WITH THEIR CHARACTER/NATION if it's in the bounds of reality and if it happens again, I will shut down this game.

I hope this address was good enough for you guys, Hopefully I haven't made any of you angry.

Best of luck for your game.

Honestly I don't think discussions are inherently bad. I argued my point and I am glad that you took it into account.

Still, I'm really too busy IRL to continue so I wish you the best for the rest of the game, best of luck ASPN!

[free my dawg]

Alright, a more detailed version of my account, since it's caused a s***storm on the Discord:

First of all, I'd like to apologize to Windjammer for accusing him of rage-quitting - it's clear that RL was more of the reason than disdain for the GMing. Me deciding to quit wasn't a snap decision. I've actually been weighing this for days. I've decided to quit, partially because the veto feels like a cave to player complaining, and partially because I think it's bad GM-ing to veto player moves in the first place.

I've been playing these games for about 4 years, on-and-off. Some of them were building the world from scratch, while others were established historical scenarios like this game. I've seen a lot of stuff. I've seen GMs go fully hands-off, letting players tell their own stories and create their own maps. I've seen GMs shuffle inexperienced players out of Great Powers so they would provide pressure. But I've never seen a GM veto a treaty before - even in a Belle Epoque game where France inexplicably sold its empire for a year's worth of economic credits. That's about as likely of a diversion as Peanut's alien invasion proposal, but that GM went through with it because bad deals and treaties happen historically.

I had a fairly heated conversation with NTP with some things that personally concerned me. Part of his reasoning for the veto was that he wanted to see a war between the great powers of the world would look like. (normally I wouldn't dredge it here but the logs are available) I'm very much a believer that the GM shouldn't be imposing their vision of the world onto the game. As a GM, I've had some players do some wild things. For example, Louisiana violated the ITL equivalent of the Monroe Doctrine in order to expand a bit. Instead of saying "No, you can't do that because of your agreement", I let it happen, and planned consequences for it in-world (for now, and later down the road).

Putting the inconsistent enforcement of what constitutes "ahistoricality" aside, you could have done the same thing. You could have made a question of how to integrate Finland. Most importantly, the players could have created those consequences themselves. There's still time for the Austrians and Ottomans to respond. You still have situations to write, and you still could use the situation to get the war you'd like to see. In any RPG, a good GM would accept the player's actions and weave scenarios into the story, not play God and veto a treaty between four players.

The historical games were partially why I came back to Atlas. I even considered applying for reinstatement early just to play in one of Spamage's games. I'd love to see these types of games succeed. I really would. But I feel like with the rollback of our treaty, the GMing is going down a dangerous path, and it's a path that spoils the game for me.

I wish everyone luck in your future endeavors in-game, and I'd love to play or GM for you guys when this ends.

~Sawx

[Lumine]

It's been a welcome - and necessary - rest for me after D&A (for which I'm grateful), but since I do agree with most of Sawx's points - and despite not being emotional about this matter - I have decided to leave as well. I thank the GM for his efforts and the player base for their interactions, and wish you all both the best of luck and an enjoyable game.

[Orwell]

It's been a welcome - and necessary - rest for me after D&A (for which I'm grateful), but since I do agree with most of Sawx's points - and despite not being emotional about this matter - I have decided to leave as well. I thank the GM for his efforts and the player base for their interactions, and wish you all both the best of luck and an enjoyable game.

Im gonna be joining them, Im sorry NTP. I just don't want so much GM interference, it was an awful treaty, and super unlikely to happen IRL, but those sometimes happened.

[windjammer]

Seriously guys chill out it's just a game.


For the record, when I posted my post I didn't notice the update and so the war so I thought that the swedish player literally gave up half of his territories for no reason. Now I understand more the reasoning of sawx as indeed they were winning the war.

I still think it's up to the GM to determine whether it should be striken down or not but I understand all the point of view.

Best of luck

[Kingpoleon]

I advise that the treaty not be overturned, but rather allow other players to respond appropriately. If you will please not overturn the treaty, PM those who have quit and get them back.

[free my dawg]

I would sign back on to Russia if the treaty was kept in place.

[King Saul]

I also did not like the idea of treaty being undone so I understand why others want to leave the game, but I just want to have fun (which is what matters to me at Nation Games) so I'm willing to stay independent of this situation because Age of Revolution deserves more than dying shortly after Turn 1 (at least in my opinion).