Players League - Sign up for August

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • Redd Baron wrote:

      You posted as game admin in charge of making sure game rules were followed this in Newspaper:

      "To avoid hidden alliances it’s not allowed to make military plans with a NAP partner"

      Now I don't know if you had a real NAP, or just an unwritten "understanding". But it is certainly clear by your own words you did in fact make a hidden alliance beyond the 3 player limit. Soft unenforceable rule i know, and I am happy to get the chance to try and beat 7(8) players at once with my coalition mates. I consider it a high honor that you felt I was that dangerous.

      However, please don't do this again to anyone else. While common in regular games it certainly goes against the intended spirit for players league. Expected from a regular player maybe, but you were the mod for the game. Dancing that razors edge between what is allowed and what isn't. If anyone should follow both the letter and the spirit of the rules, it should be you. Or if everyone feels hidden alliances and military planning of joint ventures above the limit of 3 players, then don't post this as a rule in Newspaper, So everyone has the opportunity to be allied with 1/2 the map according to their diplomatic ability.

      PS Multiple people did actually approach me in the hopes of doing the same. I rejected them and tried to figure out a way to do it within the spirit of the rules. Silly me.

      This is exactly what I faced in the July match...an unenforceable "soft" rule that even the mods won't really follow. And, like Baron, I stared down that barrel of opposition and said "pull your trigger".

      It takes guts to take on so many opponents. In the July round, I defeated three other opponents before nearly taking down those other four. So, I can sympathize with what you are facing.

      For once, I wish they'd decide EXACTLY what the rules are PRECISELY so that there can be no question as to what is and is not allowed.

      Paramunac wrote:

      Redd Baron wrote:

      "To avoid hidden alliances it’s not allowed to make military plans with a NAP partner"
      That is not the full quote. Check this:

      Xarus wrote:

      To avoid hidden alliances it’s not allowed to make military plans with a NAP partner, i.e. NAP partners must not use your land to attack other players and vice versa.
      So, by making military plans with a NAP partner it is only considered using land for attacking third player. It is not forbidden to talk with other players about joint operaitons like mutual declaration of war against third party. That would be both impossible to enforce and stupid. After all, didn't our coalition in july match do similar things? We talked with other people, had different arrangements, sharing information about common enemies? That is all normal and expected.

      ps. miech really loves turning other people against those who he considers the threat, or at least trying to do that :D

      To be fair, the full quote includes "i.e." which stands for "in example". THAT implies that the following is ONLY an example of what might happen but what CAN happen isn't necessarily restricted to the given example. If it is meant to show exactly what may be allowed but restrictive of any other interpretation, then it should be precisely written and not as a general example but as one that is indicated otherwise.

      I brought up several of these types of questions during the early days of the match and barely got any responses by the tournament bosses. I guess you've got to make up your own rules and follow your own honor and code.

      I guess that makes this tournament to be just like the Old West, but with bigger guns.
      It seemed like such a waste to destroy an entire battle station just to eliminate one man. But Charlie knew that it was the only way to ensure the absolute and total destruction of Quasi-duck, once and for all.

      The saying, "beating them into submission until payday", is just golden...pun intended.

      R.I.P. Snickers <3
    • Diabolical wrote:

      To be fair, the full quote includes "i.e." which stands for "in example".
      To be honest, I didn't know for sure what "i.e." stands for until yesterday when this issue appeared, so I looked for it.

      i.e. definition
      An abbreviation for id est, a Latin phrase meaning “that is.” It indicates that an explanation or paraphrase is about to follow: “Many workers expect to put in a forty-hour week — i.e., to work eight hours a day.”

      So, after reading this, it is my understanding that, "i.e." actually doesn't not represent an example, but in fact, does restict the first part of the sentence with the statement from the second. You want "exactly" and "precisely", that's it.

      However, it might happen that some rule is not well written, because of language differences (this situations are resolved when they are noticed) and everyone is encouraged to report them. It is often hard to maintain order or solve some of the problems that occur during organizing PL matches, that is why player themselves are important part in making PL better. As a newest member of the PL organization team, I am trying to catch with what they do here (and maybe I missed this new "soft rules" because I still play by the old rules where the main thing was no gold and no share map with more than 2 people; good old days), but even before that I used to contribute to the PL with opinions or questions. For that, everybody else is free to contribute and ask all questions to make the PL better. After all:

      Xarus wrote:

      The PL is a series of games which is created by players for players.
    • I will say this about the downfall of Diabolical.

      2 players attacked him.

      Me and France. Dia was Germany. I started by hitting him through Austria and taking out his southern factory. Then France started attacking him in the west and had 2-3 of his Factories within 24 hours. (Dia abandoned his positions)

      Poland had, to his fault, stationed all troops along the German border, but he did not attack Dia.

      Then Dia suicided more than a quarter of his troops on the waiting Polish army, while his forces from the south and west was moving inland.

      If you think this is a good defence, then you're wrong.

      You abandoned your forts AND factories while being aggressive towards the only neighbour who were inactive and not attacking. You lost 4-5 troops in each of those attacks on Poland (I believe 3 attacks total) where Poland lost about 10 units or so, you lost about 15.

      Stating that you got jumped by 4 guys is a total lie. You were easily overpowered by two guys, suicided your troops and while that was happening Poland got smashed to bits by Ukraine from the other end and Sweden had not even taken Denmark yet. So you're definitely lying - but then again, that seems to be your modus operandi.

      Then you also claimed that my boot was empty, inviting other players to attack me... but I think I should enlighten you - only half my army was in Germany...

      Good luck in the future.
      Sincerely, wildL
      EN Mod
      Report a problem

    • Diabolical wrote:

      miech wrote:

      On a side note, I hope to one day find a similar game to this one that is even more strategic (as in: less micro stuff, more macro). This weekend I tried to find one. Took me a good few hours and I failed to find something. Either it was too complex, too simple, a poor interface or standard pay-to-win mechanics. I dont even really care what the setting is (though WW2 or Space have my preferences, Fantasy could be ok too).
      Hm...for years, I've wanted to make my own strategy game...a space setting. I've come up with an awesome game engine concept for an entirely-3D universe that would allow for both efficient and complex full-scale 3D graphical and interactive game-play. To ensure universal and easy integration with any system, the whole engine would be coded in C# with a customized internal database and implemented with a SQL storage interface. I've already a core database design from another application I built a few years back and I've also got some of the game's structure coded.

      My only big impediment is procrastination and a lack of focus (I have ADHD). But, someday, I hope to find some like-minded enthusiasts that will encourage me to continue and help me with some of the design details and graphical artwork. I was involved in another project a couple years ago, but my financial partner got disinterested and just quit attending meetings and such. So that project was lost in the weeds. Still, the potential to make a good application exists if anyone is willing to get serious about making a new game. That's how software businesses are born.

      Vote for ITP

      Ah, so a blend of a No Mans Sky that is actually not a bore and CoW? Sounds interesting:)
    • Paramunac wrote:

      Redd Baron wrote:

      "To avoid hidden alliances it’s not allowed to make military plans with a NAP partner"
      That is not the full quote. Check this:

      Xarus wrote:

      To avoid hidden alliances it’s not allowed to make military plans with a NAP partner, i.e. NAP partners must not use your land to attack other players and vice versa.
      So, by making military plans with a NAP partner it is only considered using land for attacking third player. It is not forbidden to talk with other players about joint operaitons like mutual declaration of war against third party. That would be both impossible to enforce and stupid. After all, didn't our coalition in july match do similar things? We talked with other people, had different arrangements, sharing information about common enemies? That is all normal and expected.

      ps. miech really loves turning other people against those who he considers the threat, or at least trying to do that :D
      Basically this. Diplomacy would be non existent otherwise. I understand some people find some unclarity regarding the rules a bit unsettling, but as admin team we also encourage the concept of common sense. Not everything has to be set in stone, or we would have a book of law sized rulebook again. And really, is there anyone who wants this?

      You got me there - its basically at the core of my way of doing diplomacy. Try to find common ground (read: threats now or near future) and act upon it all with the goal of selfpreservation for my allies and I. Someone told me today I rationalise emotions ánd emotionalise rationale. My answer? Yes.
    • Paramunac wrote:

      doesn't not
      yes, that defines i.e. very well....

      wildL SPQR wrote:

      You abandoned your forts AND factories while being aggressive towards the only neighbour who were inactive and not attacking. You lost 4-5 troops in each of those attacks on Poland (I believe 3 attacks total) where Poland lost about 10 units or so, you lost about 15.

      I only abandoned my forts AFTER I knew I was already lost...it was a hail mary that I knew wouldn't work but hoped that I'd draw French troops backwards to pursue me....to buy time. And the attacks on Poland...was preemptive...I didn't know he was being so offline. That was poor intel on my part....I thought he's send his units spearheading to Berlin so I was using my troops to swing AROUND his front to go after Warsaw and draw HIM back as well. That was never necessary, but I didn't know it. However my attack did enable Ukraine to take over, so I was fine with that.

      wildL SPQR wrote:

      Stating that you got jumped by 4 guys is a total lie. You were easily overpowered by two guys, suicided your troops and while that was happening Poland got smashed to bits by Ukraine from the other end and Sweden had not even taken Denmark yet. So you're definitely lying - but then again, that seems to be your modus operandi.
      Ah, I never lied. You are confusing what I said about the July match with what I said about the August match. I congratulated you and your team in August match and I meant what I said. But I was "jumped" in the July match. And it was no surprise, I anticipated their attack and intercepted several unprotected convoys at sea. It was my foresight in getting my land-locked nation to a port as soon as possible that allowed me to mount a proper defense as Kansas against most of South America.

      My "modus operandi" is nothing like the sort that you imagine. I am honorable. I have integrity. And I never lie. I'm a Christian and I proudly proclaim it. I call myself "Diabolical" only for the strategic definition. You will find me to be a very nice person that goes out of his way to help others in this game (among other things) and that stuff about the "using up allies" is only partially true. I actually do use that tactic, but mostly as a teaching tool. Each of the players that actively seek my alliance and ask to learn from my experience are given my attention as a guide. Sure, I benefit in the long run in the match, but they benefit across multiple matches from the experience I give them.

      Don't be so quick to judge me before you actually know me.

      wildL SPQR wrote:

      Then you also claimed that my boot was empty, inviting other players to attack me... but I think I should enlighten you - only half my army was in Germany...

      And this was only a guess...I knew it probably wasn't entirely true, but by proclaiming it in the paper, I was encouraging other nations to try to invade you while you might have been weak enough to be brought down...That was just a little vindictive on my part. But if any had done so, I expected you'd put them in their place like any good player would. That being said, I did it in part also to give you the challenge AND to aid myself in the hopes that you might be forced to back-pedel.

      So I was attacked by 2 (I thought it would be 3). I went on the offense to surprise your squad. I tried to get all three armies to pull back (in pursuit of me east and west and in pursuit of third-parties in the south). This was my only strategy worth doing.

      As I've stated, I could've stood my ground in my forts, but that would have been futile and you know it. France would have broken me in the east and you would have done the same in the south. My diversionary tactic was a huge gamble, but it was still the best option for my situation.
      It seemed like such a waste to destroy an entire battle station just to eliminate one man. But Charlie knew that it was the only way to ensure the absolute and total destruction of Quasi-duck, once and for all.

      The saying, "beating them into submission until payday", is just golden...pun intended.

      R.I.P. Snickers <3
    • Diabolical wrote:

      yes, that defines i.e. very well....
      Well, if typing errors are what is important to you, then a lot of time will pass before you are able to discuss really important topics. Also, better make sure you don't make any mistakes yourself to be even considered worthy mentioning those of other people.

      Diabolical wrote:

      And the attacks on Poland...was preemptive
    • Being the only one on this board that played diabolical in first PL match, I actually have to stick up for him a little. He didn't really use up his ally. He waited back till it was clear his ally would lose without his help and then attacked me. I am not sure if it was because he was trying to help his ally or saw an opportunity.

      I did offer him a trade - his ally for my avoidance of his attacking armies in South America and sea faring troops. He did stick with his ally which lead to him losing his gains in South America. Again, not sure if his motives were his desire to help his ally or his thought that the deal would be bad for him.

      On the other side, if he didn't have his other ally (the one with the largest army in game) decide to help him, he would have been in big trouble. He still presents the fight like it was him against everyone else which was not close to true.

      He didn't do anything that bad team-wise. His biggest mistakes are his posts where he claims superiority over everyone else and lays out his theories which do not come across as someone you would want to team up with. It leaves him in a very bad spot going forward in PL since no one in their right mind would want someone on their team that only cares about their own goals and gains.
    • miech wrote:

      You got me there - its basically at the core of my way of doing diplomacy. Try to find common ground (read: threats now or near future) and act upon it all with the goal of selfpreservation for my allies and I. Someone told me today I rationalise emotions ánd emotionalise rationale. My answer? Yes.
      Not the point at all. If players league wants to allow mega coalitions, I am fine with that. Just remove the limit of 3 per coalition and we just play the game. Or if they want to limit coalition size to 3, I am fine with that too. Put limits on coalition size and limits on hidden coalitions. By honor I will follow any set of players league limitations or rules made.

      Just make up your minds and be clear, so I can plan accordingly. I don't want to be limiting my game and my diplomacy options, while others are free to any number of options they desire. And no, a NAP is not the same as a coordinated mass military attack from three coalitions. Self preservation is no excuse. You get beat, then say congratz and move on. You win say the same. But interpreting the rules in certain ways while implying to others it isn't allowed is really kinda lame, sorry to say it, but you were the game mod. I expected better from you.
    • Redd Baron wrote:

      Not the point at all. If players league wants to allow mega coalitions, I am fine with that. Just remove the limit of 3 per coalition and we just play the game. Or if they want to limit coalition size to 3, I am fine with that too. Put limits on coalition size and limits on hidden coalitions. By honor I will follow any set of players league limitations or rules made.
      Coalitions are limited to three players. There is no such thing as hidden coalition. You can negotiate with players from other coalitions, make plans or whatever, but you can't share map. I hope this clears the issue.
    • ` all you can do is set 'ground rules', you/we cannot control everything.
      diplomacy is diplomacy, as well as cooperation. things in game change.
      ok, coalitions are limited to 3 players - good. we are not allowed 'RoW' or 'SHMP'
      with anyone outside of coalition, good.

      but you can't change the nature of the game, or 'real world' at that - when a real threat
      is perceived the 'world' may or may not jump it. look what happened to the Axis during WWII,
      almost the whole world declared war against it and fought it, especially towards the end of the
      war when Germany was on the ropes.

      lol, just play the game and have fun. perhaps be a lil more cunning and diplomatic? i dunno.
      or maybe do away with coalitions in PL games, an make it players vs players? but even so, some
      will always team up, just Human nature - we are 'Pack animals' ... ; )

      peaCe ~
      von
    • Paramunac wrote:

      Diabolical wrote:

      To be fair, the full quote includes "i.e." which stands for "in example".
      To be honest, I didn't know for sure what "i.e." stands for until yesterday when this issue appeared, so I looked for it.
      i.e. definition
      An abbreviation for id est, a Latin phrase meaning “that is.” It indicates that an explanation or paraphrase is about to follow: “Many workers expect to put in a forty-hour week — i.e., to work eight hours a day.”

      So, after reading this, it is my understanding that, "i.e." actually doesn't not represent an example, but in fact, does restict the first part of the sentence with the statement from the second. You want "exactly" and "precisely", that's it.

      However, it might happen that some rule is not well written, because of language differences (this situations are resolved when they are noticed) and everyone is encouraged to report them. It is often hard to maintain order or solve some of the problems that occur during organizing PL matches, that is why player themselves are important part in making PL better. As a newest member of the PL organization team, I am trying to catch with what they do here (and maybe I missed this new "soft rules" because I still play by the old rules where the main thing was no gold and no share map with more than 2 people; good old days), but even before that I used to contribute to the PL with opinions or questions. For that, everybody else is free to contribute and ask all questions to make the PL better. After all:

      Xarus wrote:

      The PL is a series of games which is created by players for players.


      So, I looked into this...you are entirely right. By technicality, "i.e." does clarify while "e.g." cites only an example.

      I pride myself in having excellent grammar. And I've literally not used "e.g." in many years. I guess I've forgotten it. I don't think I ever learned the difference but, like most English speakers, I use "i.e." to mean "in example" when it actually is "in essence" (or the Latin, "id est"). But the transliteration into English is a common mistake that I fell for.

      In reality, I will likely continue to use "i.e." in place of "e.g." when it isn't appropriate to do so, only out of sheer habit. Alas, such is my way of thinking.

      However, because you brought up the distinction, I will try to do the right thing (i.e., use "e.g." more appropriately). But, I will still use things like "i.e." inappropriately (e.g., use "anywho" in place of "anyway" incorrectly (i.e., "anywho" is an unrecognized slang word that is somewhat commonly substituted for "anyway" which is to used to redirect thoughts between statements))).

      (*See how I did that? I incorporated "i.e." and "e.g." with "anywho" and all in the appropriate and correct usage of each.)

      The reader can learn more about the distinctions between "i.e." and "e.g." here.


      Paramunac wrote:

      Diabolical wrote:

      yes, that defines i.e. very well....
      Well, if typing errors are what is important to you, then a lot of time will pass before you are able to discuss really important topics. Also, better make sure you don't make any mistakes yourself to be even considered worthy mentioning those of other people.

      Diabolical wrote:

      And the attacks on Poland...was preemptive


      Yeah, you got me. When I was re-reading those posts, I immediately realized that I screwed up my own standing with that. Then, sure enough, I see that you got me with it.

      I guess my sniping was not so perfectly constructed.

      :-p
      It seemed like such a waste to destroy an entire battle station just to eliminate one man. But Charlie knew that it was the only way to ensure the absolute and total destruction of Quasi-duck, once and for all.

      The saying, "beating them into submission until payday", is just golden...pun intended.

      R.I.P. Snickers <3
    • killemall wrote:

      I did offer him a trade - his ally for my avoidance of his attacking armies in South America and sea faring troops. He did stick with his ally which lead to him losing his gains in South America. Again, not sure if his motives were his desire to help his ally or his thought that the deal would be bad for him.

      Actually, I stood by my ally because I made a commitment and I was going to honor that. I stand by what I say regardless even if it hurts my own position.


      killemall wrote:

      On the other side, if he didn't have his other ally (the one with the largest army in game) decide to help him, he would have been in big trouble. He still presents the fight like it was him against everyone else which was not close to true.

      He didn't do anything that bad team-wise. His biggest mistakes are his posts where he claims superiority over everyone else and lays out his theories which do not come across as someone you would want to team up with. It leaves him in a very bad spot going forward in PL since no one in their right mind would want someone on their team that only cares about their own goals and gains.

      Here, you are in ignorance of the situation. My other ally (Ontario) was with me from very early on. Eventually, he was sitting there with not much to do and he didn't really seem motivated to invade European lands. I was handling the other three South American players just fine and my former ally in Cuba abandoned after attacking me and failing in the endeavor. So, his lands were gutted by South America and myself.

      Meanwhile, California, who was my first ally in that match, started getting erratic. He was not online enough and I kept sending him tactical warnings about positions I was spying and I urged him to regroup in certain places where I'd incorporate my forces with his. Eventually, he abandoned too. You were slaughtering California just as my forces were reaching the battlefield. I interceded as best I could, but it was futile.

      Before that came to a head, you offered to excange alliances with me, but I refused because California acted like he'd try harder to stay online and coordinate with me. But he didn't. Then, I declared war on you (or you on me) and you eventually got the upper hand. By the time that had occurred, I was already calling upon my other ally (Ontario) to sweep down from the north and turn that war around. He did, but slowly at first.

      While all that was going down, my responsive counter-invasion force into South America was put down by one of the other three who used a surprisingly high number of Tac Bombers and I had insufficient AA. I was using the tactic of capturing and using enemy factories to start building AA's to support my own troops, but his response was too swift for my tactic to work in that case. However, I switched to building swift units, like Armored Cars and I started zigzagging through South America causing chaos and bringing down production values in each of those three opponents. I successfully brought two of them to the death-spiral phase of owning too much land and only crappy Food provinces which I kept attacking with my scouts. So, the plan was working.

      Once Ontario came southward to my area, together, we started beating you back down through Central America. It was a cordial war....all proper like 18th. century field marshals. And it was not a bad ending. Since I lost all my gains in South America, I knew I didn't have enough time to make it into the top three so I coordinated with Ontario such that he would gain the most VP's and I'd try to soften up your forces so he could conquer all of Central America.

      I don't remember if Ontario made it into third place, but he was on his way. I seem to remember you back-stabbing your non-coalition partners in South America in the last day or so of the month. Perhaps you made top three because of this? Technically, you did the correct thing, though it wasn't exactly the most moral thing.

      As for the diplomacy stuff, I am fairly diplomatic in-game. Sure, I come off kinda ruthless in the forums, but that is a part of my strategy. When I have enemies in a game, I will use psychological warfare in the diplomatic sphere. And, more than once, I've made huge gains through careful misdirection with my enemies. These are just more tools in my strategy chest.

      However, my reputation both as a good player AND as a noble and honorable player are sound. Sure, not everyone will agree, but most people who actually play with or against me will attest to my honorable game-play.
      It seemed like such a waste to destroy an entire battle station just to eliminate one man. But Charlie knew that it was the only way to ensure the absolute and total destruction of Quasi-duck, once and for all.

      The saying, "beating them into submission until payday", is just golden...pun intended.

      R.I.P. Snickers <3
    • Nimbrel wrote:

      Well I thought this was as good a place as any to say, sorry I missed PL 7, real life through a storm at me that has finally dispersed and I wanted to say I am back. Look forward to meeting some of you newer names in a future game :)

      It seemed like such a waste to destroy an entire battle station just to eliminate one man. But Charlie knew that it was the only way to ensure the absolute and total destruction of Quasi-duck, once and for all.

      The saying, "beating them into submission until payday", is just golden...pun intended.

      R.I.P. Snickers <3