>>2419470
secret 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?

>>2419470
Sounds 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

>>2419497
No, 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!

>>2419499
It 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.

>>2419507
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.

>>2419512
Not 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.

>>2419512
There are no friends in strategy games
They 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.

>>2419470
This 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.

>>2419470
Skill issue on your part to not get France/ottomans to intervene against austria

>>2419470
The 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.

>>2419713
>>2419728
>>2421025
Would it make sense to argue that Austria player should've made public declaration:
>I want Denmark to accept Prussia's peace offer, or I will intervene
France/Ottoman player(s) could've threatened to counter-intervene or just straight-up declared war on Austria, seeing that said country is now risking a multi-front war.

>>2422102
>Would it make sense to argue that Austria player should've made public declaration:
Would be very stupid of the Austria player to do so

>>2422102
I think the core issue here is two extra-game friends being in a lobby together with strangers, and not only that but playing nations right next to each other.

It's similar to thise toxic situations like organising a DnD session through a message board with some strangers, meeting up in some coffee shop to play only for you to bring along your GF who you give preferential treatment during the roleplay. It's disgusting and no amount of "wrll narratively it kinda makes sense..." makes it any less shitty.

>>2419507
>Everything is pretty much fair game
That's absurd. Imagine if something like real money trading was allowed: "I buy the emperorship for 200€, and will give the Russia player 50€ for not attacking Poland." Sounds extremely lame.

>>2422234
The core issue is OP ragequitted like a little baby instead of asking other players to intervene
Actually he should have approached other players before going to war with no backup plan like a retard

>>2419470
I used to watch a lot of Warcraft 3 Risk games, where they had explicit rules against teaming.
Teaming in this case means for someone to partner up with someone for out of the game reasons, like secretly prearranging a team before game start or forming a team with someone just because you're in a voice call with them.

The problem with that kind of teaming is that it's unfair.
It's generally unfair because it deprives information for the other parties, so even if you make the right calls in the game, you lose because the teamers have access to information that the others don't have access to.

Teaming is especially frustrating if it's secret, because when it gets revealed, it most of the time comes really out of the blue and without you having possibly been able to guess it until it's already too late.

It's cheating much in the same way that having an omniscient observer in the game stream the whole map without fog of war to a player he's in a discord call with is, because both that and teaming creates an unfair imbalance of information.

>>2422271
>Actually he should have approached other players before going to war with no backup plan like a retard
No one should have to calculate with the possibility that at the game start a Maharaja of India might go to a death war with Sweden over their dispute with Norway over a Norwegian border town because the India-Norway players are secretly best friends in real life.
At that point, you're basically playing a different game.

>>2422279
You're right.
Who intervened in OPs scenario?

>>2422283
I don't give a fuck.

>>2422284
t. the raped

>>2422279
>Maharaja of India might go to a death war with Sweden over their dispute with Norway over a Norwegian border town
complete false equivalence to fucking austria helping prussia indirectly against denmark
>>2422271
this
multiplayer is about geopolitics
it's great

>>2422279
Why are you talking about India? The Denmark player should definitely consider the other European players.

>>2422284
And that's why your example makes you look like a faggot.

>>2422294
There is no false equivalence when real life faggotry spills over into a game. Either play with your friend group or leave that shit at the door.

(�/�c�9)M�Ä ��~�l��ͣ����n����R�`��{��)k_9%�֫�f��[)~�L�+�D#���L�`�m>j�m���w�b�5�"�n�+��ҳi�$ �Ha���)���S\L�"!0����0���+�O��#?^�#��1�3f~v2�5