Omnium Contra Omnes — a Multiplayer Modification

[silktrader]

"Consolidate Acquisitions"

This provincial decision, which hastens core gain on a recently conquered province, was introduced to address two aspects:

a) Census taxes remain the main source of sustenance for infrastructure, the army and navy, well into the sixteenth century, until incomes raise and inflation fighting possibilities open up. For this very reason, those nations which start with a plethora of cores have a tangible advantage over their neighbours. A mean to gain quicker cores, at the cost of magistrates — which are meant to sustain an already large realm — fuels minor countries expansion, compared to their larger counterparts.

b) As was remarked by Checco, given the average length of multiplayer campaigns and the aggressive nature of the context, it'd be an interesting option to speed up conquest dynamics and assimilation. The consequences are many: a core that is being "integrated" is an urgent target for whoever wishes to regain it, a province which features cores by two played nations won't see its buildings (tier 4) erased at every conquest when it switches ownership (thus inviting "revanchism"), etc.

c) There are, in vanilla, several missions which reward countries with cores: the most blatant case is Burgundy. The purple ones can gain eight cores within the first two decades. I won't go to long lengths to prove that this dynamic is deleterious to the game, as it 1) it invites the same routing at every start and 2) it increases incomes drastically, leading to a complete lack of inflation in the beginning. A new modifier, plainly dubbed "Integrating Core" has been introduced along the "Consolidate Acquisitions" decision.

The decision can be performed in any province, that obviously isn't a core, provided that:

• The owner has a neighbouring core province — to prevent fast integration outside the national heartland (such as Spain in England, or France integrating two provinces away from a newly gained Roussillon).
• One year has passed since conquest — to give the one losing the province time to counter act.
• The province is not being the target of "Foreign Support for Rebels" — which can be a precious option for the nation wanting to prevent fast integration.
• The owner does not have higher infamy then half its limit.
• The owner has full legitimacy — which is irrelevant for republics and theocracies.
• The province doesn't have an active missionary at the time of the decision — since they prevent nationalists from popping up in many cases.
• Most importantly, the owner has over 55 prestige while no other country having a core on the province has more than 50 prestige.

The last point deserves a bit of explanation. In game terms, "prestige" is a measure to the international recognition of a country. A core represents the validity of a claim the owner has over the province. Therefore I deem the relationship between the two to be relevant. Every decision needs to be marginally challenging and the prestige portion of "Consolidate Acquisitions" provides that. It also grants other claimants the possibility to safeguard against one of their core's integration, by keeping high prestige or lowering their enemy's. In case of war between two players, the one planning to "integrate" would need to ascertain that his foe ends up with lower prestige than his during their conflict. The mod stresses prestige effects of certain peace options, like "remove from sphere".

The ideal requirement would be to compare prestige levels (the "integrating" one higher than all other claimants), rather than using absolute values (55 prestige and 50 prestige). I am not aware, though, of an elegant way to achieve that with a provincial decision.

The decision's effects are the following:

• -1 magistrate upfront and -0.15 magistrates during 25 years. The first magistrate spent represents a "risk", the overall expenditure (in magistrates) is barely below 5 — proving that, in many circumstances, the decision isn't convenient for somebody who has the room and funds to build infrastructure.
  
• +10 nationalism: increases revolt risk over a long period, as well as determining higher chances to spawn "nationalist" rebels during the "consolidating" process.
  
• -10% spy defence during the time: which invites spy actions on the province.
  
• After 25 years of "integration", an event will bestow the player with a core on the province and decrease other claimants' prestige by five. Please note that the usual time to integrate is fifty years — "Consolidate Acquisition" cuts that down to, at best, 26 years.

There are a few points to add:

• There is one special condition, which considers "HRE" provinces: the Emperor's authority must be lower than thirty five. It's useful to remind that the Emperor can decrease his authority at will, by "Bestowing Imperial Grace".
  
• Should any claimant (that is, a country with a core on the province to integrate) be able to momentarily capture the province, there are good chances the process will stop and will have to be renewed (magistrate lost).
  
• At any time a player can renounce the "consolidation", a decision allows that. The purpose is to save magistrates in dire circumstances, such as when a threatening attack is immediate.

Every old mission which granted cores on provinces, with the notable exclusion of "Italian Ambition" (Iberian, French and Austrians) and few others, now gives an automatic and magistrate-free "Integrating as Core" modifier: one lasting twenty five years — half the standard time to gain a core. These missions thus don't grant free cores anymore, but drastically diminish the time to acquire them.

The AI has been instructed to never integrate cores when:

• The tax base is below five
• The tax base is below eight and it doesn't have neutral tolerance
• A province is overseas, doesn't have a centre of trade and general trade efficiency isn't at its maximum
• The country is at war, has high war exhaustion or is unstable
• The country is large and it doesn't have an excess of magistrates

[silktrader]

"Rebel Control Measures"

A sometimes exasperating practice is common in multiplayer campaigns: a losing player, featuring maxed out war exhaustion, is unable to face both rebels and his enemy — he therefore asks his cosy neighbour to assist with rebel control. In fact, the possibility is so convenient that one is enticed to ask for support even when rebels aren't particularly threatening but full attention is required by the war (I admit to having asked for such assistance, for instance).

Starting from the sixteenth century, full maintenance becomes hardly a requirement for players to help others in need: which explains why the request is seldom refused.

There is a mechanism, in the mod, whose purpose is to discourage foreign rebel control: whenever a player successfully regains control over a rebel held province he doesn't own (and belongs to another human player), he will suffer a prestige loss of one — whereas the helped one, his needy friend, will lose five prestige.

The event will only take place after sieges or assaults, rather than battles won — as the latter would imply too many intrusive pop ups. Moreover, the event won't be triggered when two players share a union, or one is a vassal of the other. Additionally, no prestige loss will be incurred when peace is in place and war exhaustion is below three: so to avoid a "braindead" (disconnected) player losing prestige due to "legitimate" help.

[Checco]

Consolidate Acquisition

I'm eager to test this decision, even if we ended being only the 2 of us in MP.

I think you have graciously pointed out everything that explained the scope, the balance and the aim of the decision, but I think the requirements should be easier, let me explain:

Comparing Prestige values would definitely have been the best and easiest way to determine if there are the 'grounds' for this kind of national expansion (I still think cores are more significant to a nation than the owned provinces), unfortunately it's not possible.

The problem is that (just watch MP stats of a lot of games) having 65 Prestige is not easy, common or often aimed to, especially with 1399 starts where most modifiers raising prestige are not yet available, so I think chances to use the decision could end being slim.

Also, even nations winning a war are often around 40-50 Prestige, thus I think meeting the requirements could lead to some gamey actions.

Therefore, I suggest this: why not allow a nation -that has of course low BB, high Legitimacy, good Prestige- to proceed with the peaceful consolidation as long as all the others are scumbags?

Basically, I'd switch the '65 Prestige' requirement with one the following (must however be true for any other nation with a core):

-Other nation has 0.75 BB (who supports scumbags?)
-Other nation has less than 20 Prestige (as long as you have a certain prestige, support could be low against you)
-Other nation has less than 0.33 Legitimacy (no support for those illegitimate)
-Other nation has the 'Bankruptcy' modifier (is anyone gonna trust them?)

It is a way like another to circumvent the fact we cannot compare the prestige...I can do it if I'm Holy and Pure...or if you are a total Scumbag.

It would probably become as follows (did not write the Bankruptcy for now), bolded the changes:

allow = {
			owner = {
				legitimacy = 1
				prestige = 0.25		# a decent prestige is still required
				officials = 1
			}
			not = {
				nationalism = 25	# can't be performed right away to give the losing party some time to prepare
				any_core = {
					culture_group = this
					or = {
                                               prestige = 0.2
                                               not = { badboy = 0.75 }
				               not = { legitimacy = 0.33 }
                                        }
                                 }
			}
		}

I think that vassal nations, as well as bankruptcied nations, should be added to the list of 'no one cares about you, either call your overlord or shut up', adding a "is subject=yes" to the list of requirements that allow another to consolidate.

[silktrader]

Basically, I'd switch the '65 Prestige' requirement with one the following (must however be true for any other nation with a core):

-Other nation has 0.75 BB (who supports scumbags?)
-Other nation has less than 20 Prestige (as long as you have a certain prestige, support could be low against you)
-Other nation has less than 0.33 Legitimacy (no support for those illegitimate)
-Other nation has the 'Bankruptcy' modifier (is anyone gonna trust them?)

I agree with every argument you've made and every item listed above, on principle: prestige, legitimacy and infamy are all relevant variables when "cores" are considered. One could throw in 'bankruptcy' as well, although it seems to be a weaker element.

The problem with adding many possible requirements, to this or other decisions, is that one moves away from transparency, plainness. I chose one variable which I thought would be relevant and relinquished the others for different game aspects. Prestige, in this case, was picked over legitimacy because it's more general ('republics' or 'theocracies' don't have legitimacy), whereas infamy already triggers a fair share of consequences to deal with (overextension, relations, casus belli, etc.).

I started as Aragon, picked "Glorious Arms", crusaded to get prestige and eventually acquired cores in France via "Consolidate Acquisitions". It's not a stretch to reach and maintain high prestige with frequent wars, while having a modest collection of influenced countries. The treshold of "65" was chosen since it's slightly above what a modest (level three) philosopher will allow one to slowly gravitate towards (exactly 50).

I'll change the requirements to include claimants infamy and legitimacy as possible triggers.

[lukew]

Are you still working on this, there hasn't been an update in a while and this mod looked really promising (subtle bump )

[Dotto1979]

I'd like to hear from it too!

[Kommando23]

I guess the main problem was the lack of devoted players (including myself *cough*) for the test campaign.

[Dotto1979]

Did you tried alternate times? I remember I didn't get into the test campaign because time didn't fit for me.

[silktrader]

I stubbornly keep working on the mod, in my spare time. Since there isn't an ongoing test campaign though, I am not rushed to release updates every week, I am therefore taking my time so that I may describe every introduced change.

[silktrader]

Stability Costs

Stability hits are numerous in the unmodded game, although they almost exclusively derive from random events. It is common to witness a stability loss one has little control over, open the budget panel to change investments and reverse the action once stability has reached the optimal level. I found the repetitiveness to be uninteresting.

The topmost "+3" position is in fact the norm, as it is a) easy to achieve, b) essential to trade and tax income and c) helpful when dealing with revolt risk. The ease with which stability can be recouped is evident from the start, but becomes flagrant as the game moves past the first century: income per province increases while stability costs remain the same. It can take as little as three months to move up one stability level. As a consequence, the following critical actions become largely irrelevant:

• declarations of war without "Casus Belli"
• stab hitting peace offers
• slider moves
• national idea changes
• truce breaks

The mod's design is to reduce the number of stability drops throughout the game, while increasing the general relevance attributed to stability. This is chiefly achieved through:

• increased base provincial stability costs
• increased variable stability costs
  a) stemming from player actions (conversions, trade centres activity, etc.)
  b) through linear increments tied to current stability ("+2" costlier than "+1)
• decreased number of random events lowering stability
• tied every slider move to a stability drop
• introduced inflationary effects (costlier investments, maintenance, etc.)

Each owned and controlled province requires stability investments, as detailed:

Base provincial cost: 50 Religious cost (max, Reformed): 60 Religious cost (Catholic): 50 Religious cost (min, Confucianism): 35 Non accepted culture: 50 Overseas: 25 Owned by a Republic: 15 Foreign support for rebels: 45 Starting nationalism: 30 Active missionary: 25 Per intolerance point: 20 Per centre of trade level: 10 Temples: -16

Considerations:

The difference among religions, in absolute terms, are bigger than in vanilla. A large Orthodox empire will require significantly less stability investment than an equally large Protestant realm.

In the short and medium term tolerating proves to be a more convenient alternative to converting: intolerance and active missionaries are dangerous options in times of instability, as they hinder progress in that field.

Two espionage actions are aimed at decreasing other players stability. "Sow Discontent" is the hard, rare and expensive alternative to "Support Foreign Rebels", which costs 25 ducats, is available mostly everywhere and increases stability costs by 45 over five years (on top of possible revolts).

Unlike vanilla, global and local modifiers won't allow negative stability costs (after stab one). A full revision of stability costs modifiers was thus needed, the result is summed up by this list:

Superintendent Office (Protestant, Reformed): +15% Declaration Indulgence: +15% Godly Inspiration (Pagans): +10% Rite of Passage (Pagans): +5% Cult of Reason: +35% Eight Banners (Manchu): +10% Federal Courts: +12% Printing Industry (Venice): +5% Rise of the Novel (Western): +5% Tribal Federation (Government): +50% Positive Stability (Max): +50% Max War Exhaustion (20): +50% Max Infamy (25): +50% Licensing Press Act (Western, Eastern with Serfdom and Narrow): -12.5% Suffragan Bishop Act (Christians): -12.5% Sheikh ul Islam (Muslims): -12.5% Haridasa (Hinduists): -12.5% Hangul Writing System (Korean): -5% Condemn Western Influences (Chinese): -15% United Japan (Japanese): -25% Tribal Democracy (Government): -25% Maximum possible decrease (decisions): -25% Church Attendance Duty (Idea): -0.35% Narrowmindedness (Max Policy): -0.25% Serfdom (Max Policy): -0.25% Maximum possible decrease (sliders, idea): -85%

Considerations:

As a result of increased base stability costs, "narrowminded" and "serfdom" policy positions are more determinant. The same goes with "Church Attendance Duty".

An important change stems from how stability costs vary depending on the current level. Investing from zero to one stability will cost 25% less than from one to two. This isn't a novelty — previous version of the game featured the same dynamic.

Temples are meant to be a valid alternative to other buildings of the same level, depending on circumstances. Their positive effects on stability have increased due to: a) higher base discount — 16, rather than the old 4 and b) generally higher cost modifiers. It must be said though that the minor number of stability hits has a negative effect on their usefulness. The building will be discussed in other sections (provincial decisions are tied to it).

As a consequence of higher stability costs, the prospect of a stab hitting peace is much more dreadful — especially when coupled to high war exhaustion. So is the breaking of a truce, as is hunting for a "Casus Belli". National ideas changes are equally expensive to undertake. Just as with capital changes, these are more easily enacted in association with "Great Men" events or a national decision allowing a free national idea swap.

Every slider move will automatically lower stability by one. Random effects will also occur, be they positive or negative. "Public Concern" or "Public Approval" are two likely possibilities: they either spur one to immediately invest in stability or wait until better times (forgoing trade and taxes income). The goal is to present the player with three choices, considering sliders: a) what slider should I prioritise, b) when should I move it — but, just as interestingly, c) should the sliders be moved at all.

For reasons illustrated in other sections, events won't allow slider moves (there are three exceptions — social, state and military reforms). A decision, named "Encourage Satire Revival", allows a one time free slider move (social sliders).

While the AI manages to float around zero stability, it currently has problems seeking perfect stability when circumstances demand it, on accounts of its frantic belligerence.

[silktrader]

Temples

The most widespread use for temples, in vanilla, is to allow the construction of successive buildings ("town halls", above all others). Magistrates limitations imply temples receive little attention. Other buildings, which boost income, allow stability to be as easily improved as temples, while remaining useful during "stable" times. The mod aims to restore temple's importance, compared to other buildings.

There are two kinds of effects bestowed by the first religious building: a) a stability discount and b) the possibility to enable exclusive provincial decisions.

The nature of the most evident bonus granted by temples hasn't changed: while in vanilla they decreased provincial stability costs by 4, it's now 16. The new figure is determined by the average number of stability points generally required per decade compared to the average increase in income provided by marketplaces.

In income terms a temple's future value is worth 16 ducats for every stability level below three. Stability drops are now scarcer, although figures deviate drastically from player to player: in vanilla there used to be, on average, 25 stability hits every century — that number is now drastically lower, 8. So, while a temple used to provide 4*25, or 100 ducats of discount each century (generally multiplied by stability cost modifiers), it is now closer to 16*8, or about 128 ducats.

Since the mod generally invites players to cope with about 0.8 stability drops per decade, temples will thus provide about 12.8 income-ducats over a decade, multiplied by stability cost modifiers. These can greatly vary but — for most nations, in the beginning — will amount to +35% stability costs. Temples can thus spare the player from about 17.28 income-ducats every decade.

Let's consider an initial choice of whether to build a marketplace (reference building) or a temple. We therefore assume a low 20% production efficiency. Let us then arbitrarily decide on average provincial tax and population (1.5 units produced), featuring a medium priced good (wine @ 13 ducats).

A marketplace will increase annual income by about 0.4 ducats, or 4 ducats every decade — well below temples expected return of 12.8 ducats. Marginal trade income increments may also be added, provided the owner has merchants placed.

Fast forward to the middle game, when production efficiency reaches 60%. A marketplace, under the same premises (price, good, production units), will increase annual income by exactly 12 ducats every decade — comparable to temples' 12.8 ducats (unmodified).

The trend is obvious: the higher production efficiency, goods prices and population (among other things), the more advantageous marketplaces are, compared to temples. The fewer stability drops one incurs, the more interesting marketplaces become, in comparison.

In vanilla, temples' 4 ducats every stab hit were distinctively inferior to 4 ducats every decade for marketplaces (without counting increased trade income from larger trade centres). It paradoxically always made more sense to invest in marketplaces to recoup stability — especially given the magistrate expenditure.

Let us review some non numerical aspects. These also need to be taken into consideration to fully compare the two buildings:

A marketplace can determine whether a centre of trade will burst through the next level, providing additional taxes. Likewise, marketplaces increase compete chances for mercantilist nations.

Old temples provided a slim advantage tax wise: they sped up stability increases and thus indirectly granted an additional month worth of taxes — sometimes even census. Temples now also feature a distinctive provincial decision: "Institute Charitable Organisations". It is discussed in its own section.

Lastly, we shall end with this thought:

The most acute players will invest in temples once they can anticipate stability investments. Given the limited number of random events, it will be easier to do so in the mod. It is quite obvious: a temple will be of little use during those "stable" spells, whereas marketplaces, constables will continuously contribute to one's wealth.

[silktrader]

Institute Charitable Organisations

This provincial decision decreases revolt risk by one, for thirty five years. It requires a temple, neutral tolerance, low infamy and a missionary. The thirty five years timeout implies that a steady flow of missionaries will be needed — thus rewarding a strategy constantly increasing their numbers.

The decision is justified by several needs:

a) increasing temples worth
b) discriminating between temples locations
c) assisting strategies that revolve around missionaries (narrowmindedness, holy cities, etc.)

The first point is illustrated in a previous analysis. Given temples fickle use during times of stability, I felt an additional incentive was required.

Temples locations:

Since stability costs tend to be similar from province to province, I wished to differentiate between a temple built on an island, a mountain or a far off province. In order to rip stability discounts, the natural tendency would be to erect temples around the national focus (saving magistrates). The intention is to rationalise temples for non central provinces. "Charities" lower revolt risk by one, which is certainly more enticing for far off, hardly reachable or assailable provinces.

As Russia it makes little sense to build a temple in Orthodox Siberia, when it can be built around Moscow. The stability decrease will be equivalent, but fewer magistrates will be spent around Moscow, where building supervision will also be easier. On the other hand, the -1 revolt risk is certainly more useful in Siberia, where the player may not want to face rebels (diverting forces, acquiring attrition).

Missionaries:

In the very early stages, missionaries prove to be near useless for every religion but for some Catholics. The latter can "Send Delegates" to increase Papal influence — but Muslims, Hindus and Eastern have no use for missionaries, unless they need to convert. Likewise, those who are aiming at low interests or a "restraint of appeals" do not require missionaries. As a consequence, holy cities, narrowmindedness and "Divine Supremacy" initially hold little importance for a large number of states. The situation doesn't necessarily change as years go by.

Each missionary can now be used to decrease revolt risk by one, in a province featuring neutral religious tolerance and a temple. It's not a revolutionary change but it can be effective, economically (higher taxes) and logistically (fewer rebels to face).

[silktrader]

Updated donwload link to yesterday's version, to be found in the first post. Added a few descriptions, indexed in the third post.

[Mac1]

I like what you did with stability and temples, must test it out in game when i have time.
It's actually very close to the idea i had to change it. So i have to ask , Can I Use your changes in my mod ?

But I don't like your changes with charitable organisations. Mostly beacuse it enforces much more province micro management, to use it well. And that's thing I found out to be very bad in strategic game like eu3.
Once i made some cool events about plague spreading randomly from province to province and there were provincional decisions like quarantine, to stop this. It looked cool, but when playing people wanted to kill me for this, cause it was killing much of the fun .

Sorry for this little digression. I agree with that in vanilla temples are build only as a "pre-building" for let's say town hall. (actually same is usually with courthouses). My idea to change it was to give some local missionary chance effect. Or maybe even better, a local tolerance to other religion ? (if it's possible).

[silktrader]

So i have to ask , Can I Use your changes in my mod ?

You can do whatever pleases you with the mod's contents, as can anybody else.

I don't like your changes with charitable organisations. Mostly beacuse it enforces much more province micro management, to use it well.

Missionaries are the least common "agent" in Europa Universalis; the mod further exacerbates this aspect by decreasing their numbers. Their uses are not restricted to conversions or even "charities", there also are "church taxes" and "religious countermovement" (spy action which hinders foreign proselytism) along with other decisions. In short, I believe that a) missionaries scarce numbers and b) their diverse uses won't increase micro management but open to new strategical choices.

My idea to change it was to give some local missionary chance effect. Or maybe even better, a local tolerance to other religion ? (if it's possible).

You can increase local "missionary chance" — I've done so with the "Jizhya", for instance. There isn't such a thing as "local" tolerance, though. You can only mimic its effects (revolt risk, population growth, etc.).

[silktrader]

Agents Returns

There are two costs to using spies: a) monetary and b) the spy itself. The second item bears certainly more importance than the first, as spies are scarcer than ducats. Four elments increase spy numbers, they are:

• Mercantilism
• Plutocracy
• Espionage
• Masonic Lodges

Given that most combinations will hardly ever net more than one spy a year and missions difficulty imply frequent spy losses without results, it is obvious that spies need to be employed with great care.

Missions difficulty ultimately determines how detrimental effects will be for the enemy. A spy will always be consumed by a mission though, regardless of difficulty (this aspect can't be modified). Easy spy missions therefore have an unattractive ratio between costs and effects — due to consumed spies. In practical terms: a local revolt can certainly justify a minor expense like thirty ducats but its "one spy" cost is off-putting when one considers other espionage opportunities.

The most evident way to fix this flaw is by increasing missions difficulty and associated consequences. The problem with doing so is that it incites one to attribute global effects to spy missions, at the expense of local ones — for instance, using a "global" revolt risk in lieu of a "local" one, or decreased "defensiveness" rather than a siege progress in a given province. Removing local spy actions would decrease the relevance of "agencies" (building), as high end missions concentrate on the capital or other trigger provinces. Moreover, increasing general difficulty and effects would also rule out espionage for a large number of players and during a long period of the game.

The mod attempts to mend this situation by introducing variable spy expenditures. Every mission, at or below difficulty three, will now feature tangible chances of recovering the sent out spy. To be more specific, these missions will cost, on average, 0.65 spies rather than 1.

This is a list of affected spy missions — where spies have 35% chances of returning unharmed:

• Commission Privateer
• Spy Ring Infiltration
• Sabotage Supply Routes
• Incite Troop Desertions
• Incite Natives
• Support Revolt
• Bribe Defenders

[silktrader]

Strategic & Economic Resources

In the unmodded game three goods are priced distinctively and consistently lower than others: grain, wool and naval supplies. The mod hasn't changed this ranking — wool remains definitely cheaper than cloth — but price evolutions have been reviewed.

Some new elements were introduced to a) stress geographical differences, b) increase interdependency or competition among players and c) raise basic trade goods to a strategical level.

Grain shortages

The "trading in grain" bonus bestows the player with +15% force limits. The mod introduces a penalty for not owning or trading sufficient grain to sustain one's armed forces.

We can start by noting that this handicap won't affect any state whose army is either:

• below thirty regiments
• below force limits

It goes without saying but, in multiplayer, force limits often need to be surpassed to grasp a definitive victory over foes.

Grain production leaders, trade leaders, those who have a grain "trading in" bonus or own twelve grain provinces are excluded from nefarious consequences. All others are at risk of suffering from "Grain Shortages" — the higher they are over their force limits the more stringent grain supply requirements are.

Moreover, armies mostly composed of cavalry (higher than 70% mounted troops) will also require at least a modest supply of grain to avoid shortages.

"Grain Shortages" bear three effects on a country:

• land maintenance is increased by 20%
• population growth is reduced by 2%
• grain producing provinces are affected by "Grain Requisitions", which increase revolt risk

Scenario:

The Ottoman Empire faces tough competition from the North — as the Russians field numerous regiments. The mercantilist policy of the Turks doesn't allow them to acquire enough grain through trade. It so happens that Egypt and the Levant are among the richest grain producing provinces in the world. Conquering the area would allow the Ottoman Empire to burst through its force limits without suffering "grain shortages" and the associated additional costs.

Dearth of Naval Supplies

As the naval equivalent of "Grain Shortages", "Dearth of Naval Supplies" presents the same problem: acquiring or trading enough naval supplies to maintain a large navy at sea.

Again, any nation below naval force limits is immune to the handicapping modifier. Nations with small navies, regardless of their force limits, are also excluded from the checks (fewer than 35 big ships or 55 galleys).

One needs at least three provinces producing naval supplies to reach past one's naval force limits. For every ten percentage points over force limits the ownership of three additional provinces is needed.

There are three effects associated to "Dearth of Naval Supplies":

• naval maintenance is increased by 20%
• naval recruitment is slowed down by 30%
• iron producing provinces witness "Iron Working Costs", which decrease production efficiency

Before the discovery and use of more efficient fuels, charcoal was an essential power source for the mining of metals.

Scenario:

England and Spain own the largest navies in the world. The English though need a far larger navy to counter Spanish allies. England must thus either trade enough wood in Lubeck or Novgorod — or they must conquer an adequate number of wood producing provinces. The Baltic is a rich area, as is modern day Canada — where colonies should be sought.

Raw Materials Shortage

"Cloth" represents a large portion of manufactured goods in the game. The assumption is that these require raw materials to be processed: we are arbitrarily considering "wool", "cotton" and "silk" as such.

Any country producing large quantities of "cloth" is required to trade or produce adequate amounts of raw materials. The alternative is to incur a lower production efficiency and thus diminished income.

"Raw Materials Shortage" will only fall on countries whose global production efficiency is higher than thirty five percent. It thus can't be triggered at the start of the grand campaign. Moreover, any country owning three or fewer cloth provinces is shielded from the shortage.

Unless the number of provinces producing cloth trails wool provinces by one or there is adequate wool, cotton or silk trade, a "shortage" is bound to happen. In practical terms, owning six cloth provinces, one needs to either own five wool provinces or trade 18% wool.

Failure to attain those results would curse every cloth producing province with -30% local production efficiency — a tangible income decrease. What's more: wool prices would soar due to increased demand.

Scenario:

England is the largest wool producer in Europe and trades through Antwerp. The Brits decide to open their own trade centre and embargo the largest cloth producers: Burgundy and Milan. The two states will be inflicted a worrying -30% production efficiency in their key provinces (Lombardia, Flanders, etc.) while soaring wool prices will be profitable to the English.

[silktrader]

I have two concerns over the preceding items (strategical resources):

• they may be too elaborate to be enjoyable and easily understood
• naval supplies shortages should be based on the number of big ships and galleys, rather than relative force limits

[sharpcat]

I've been reading through this, its all excellent. Let's get a test campaign happening.

[Dotto1979]

I have two concerns over the preceding items (strategical resources):

• they may be too elaborate to be enjoyable and easily understood
• naval supplies shortages should be based on the number of big ships and galleys, rather than relative force limits

I liked the idea a lot, but I'm wondering if it's possible to combine trade, production and number of provinces. In a scenario where you have a large access (almost sufficient) on either production, trade and number of raw material provinces you'd still have a shortage.
Anyway, this may be a little difficult to balance. Have you already considered the starting position of trade goods? Some countries might have a big advantage over others. Besides, cloth and naval supplies would be the only goods affected by shortage? This could lead to a general lack of interest on these goods on some cases.