This was years ago but it caused me to quit MP forever.So I was playing Denmark and I had Prussia basically beat, his country was getting sieged by rebels, he was bankrupt, 100% blockaded, high war exhaustion and moving in. At this point he sent me a DM making a pathetic peace offering of like 2 provinces and a couple ducats. I laughed at this and told him he's crazy, I'm gonna siege him down if that's how he wants it. He just ominously replied "Ok." but I was certain I had this war locked so w/e. Right as I'm moving into his country I notice Austria (who he is not even allied with!!!) starts moving soldiers into his country, killing his rebels and unsieging the provinces occupied by them. At the same time he starts handing him out ludicrous amounts of money through subsidies and he is able to hire a fuckton of mercs to defeat my army that was just about to siege Berlin and he completely turns the war around. I ask him why the fuck are they cooperating and he's like "cry about it bitch". I check and find out Austria is his steam friend and I've had enough of this shit so I pause the game and complain publicly about it. The host is like "well we're not using in game diplomacy they're allowed to work together if they want" and I'm like "but they were fucking rivals they literally fought a war against each other how are they just allowed to do this it's fucking CHEATING" and he's like "well maybe you should've accepted the first peace offer if you didn't want this to happen" and I'm like "fuck you asshole! find a new Denmark player then!" and rq the lobby on the spot.Give me a reality check /vst/, was I just being a sore loser?
>>2419470secret friends teaming is lame, but if you're losing without diplomacy and you have diplomacy to apply then that's kind of fair game.Austria didn't care when you were initially winning and about to take a few provinces from Prussia. You overreached for a victory that would make you more powerful than Austria would prefer, at that point it is within Austria's self interest to step in and crush you. I've been in a similar position.Two people in india had been fighting over and over.I reach india, I attack one, beat him and then his old rival is suddenly on his side and I get beaten back.It was bad for me, but why would he roll over and just accept death instead of just burying the hatchet with his rival? Why would his rival just let me grow even more powerful since clearly now I'm the bigger threat?
>>2419470Sounds fun. Who would have know, it takes irl people to have irl politics in the war/politics simulator. I don't think is necessary for your to fell that bad, sounds like you acted like the kid I assume you were at the time. Surely by now you know better
>>2419497No, I don't. I am still seething.>Losing?>Just dial up your Discord buttbuddy in Russia for a billion ducat handout and a no-CB war on your enemy!
>>2419499It would have been pretty fun for you to get your own friend/momentary ally (most likely an ottomans player) to attack Austria so yes, you were being a sore loser AND an annoyance because you paused the game to butch about it. I don't see an reason for you to get that mad and embarrassing yourself like that in the situation you described and I say this as someone that hates eu4/paradox MP and never played it. Everything is pretty much fair game, I remember seeing a video of some dude playing as Cuba and all the other players started pirating his trade node, that's the type of shit you see in these games.
>>2419507If you allow this sort of thing then what is there to stop cabals of IRL friends from joining in and constantly propping each other up so they can dictate the pace of the game? Then the campaign just becomes about who can stack the lobby the hardest.
>>2419512Not what you asked, but I'm an expert on sore losers because I am one myself, if I start losing in a 4v4 aoe2 game I just quit and have no issues ruining the game for the other three players, their fault for not helping me (noobs!)
>>2419470>Give me a reality check /vst/, was I just being a sore loser?No, you were in the right and the guys you played with were a bunch of very jewish nigger faggots.
>>2419512There are no friends in strategy gamesThey all want to win and crush their friends for banter, you just need to make them accept it
>>2419512>If you allow this sort of thing then what is there to stop cabals of IRL friends from joining in and constantly propping each other up so they can dictate the pace of the game? Then the campaign just becomes about who can stack the lobby the hardest.Hey, cool it with the anti-semitism, Anon.
>>2419470This is how multiplayer works and it's a good thing. You wanted to upset the balance of power too much which caused other great powers to intervene.You can't completely anally rape other players in mp, unless they have made themselves into a pariah, because other players wont allow it and that's good: it's geopolitics.
>>2419470Skill issue on your part to not get France/ottomans to intervene against austria
>>2419470The problem with this scenario is not that it mirrors geopolitics (which would be good if that were the sole case, as from a geopolitical perspective you absolutely deserved to have your teeth kicked in and put in your place for being a little greedy faggot disturbing geopolitical balance), but that the behaviour is based primarily in internet clique faggotry. You just know the entire reason that alliance formed was not because of some genuine political realism but because these two faggots are butt buddies who like to ERP on discord during their faggot game sessions. It's OOC bias and bleed and it's the biggest cancer of any kind of roleplaying environment.
