Omnium Contra Omnes — a Multiplayer Modification

[silktrader]

I hadn't noticed Mac1's edits until MonMarty posted: I thought you had built yourself a MineCraft cave where to hibernate during winter, MM!

[…] it become a bit too difficult to gain cultural tradition now, especially at start of a game. Patron of art idea is almost a must. But maybe it's not a problem, only kills fun a bit
And artist is a must. The nation who will get lucky with random advisors and get nice artist will eventually have all nice advisors.

I will list changes pertaining to cultural tradition once revolt risk, legitimacy and war exhaustion have been detailed. For the moment this is an incomplete summary from my earlier notes (which need to be updated):

Cultural Gains: All: Patron of the Arts (+3) Artist, 5 Stars (+2.5) Prestige, 100 (+1) Thriving Trade Exchanges (+1) [55 placed merchants across the world] Pluralism (+1) [tolerance for every religious group] National Epic (+2) [monarchies, one per cultural group and lasting thirty years] Medieval Tapestry (-2% cultural decay) [<1450] Western: All: Jousting Tournament (+2) [exclusive to first taker, lasts fifteen years] Byzantine Refugees (+2) [exclusive to first taker, lasts thirty five years] Florentine School (+1) [<1550, Lombard cores] Humanist Renaissance (+1) [<1600, Patron of the Arts] Dutch Masters (+1) [>1550, Dutch cores] Commedia dell'Arte (+1) [>1550, <1700, freedom, lasts eight years] Baroque Music (+1) [>1600, <1750, Patron of the Arts] Enlightenment (+1) [>1650, revolt risk] Fictional Narrative (+1) [>1725, not narrowminded] One concert (+1) Education Act (-2% decay) [>1450, Bill of Rights, not narrowminded] Christian: Catholic, Orthodox: Gilded Iconography (+1) [Church Attendance Duty] Eastern: All: Jousting Tournament (+2) [exclusive to first taker, lasts fifteen years] Byzantine Refugees (+2) [exclusive to first taker, lasting thirty five years] Gilded Iconography (+2) [Church Attendance Duty] Education Act (-2% decay) [Bill of Rights, not narrowminded] HRE Emperor: Hofgericht (+1) Korea: Hall of Worthies (+1) Buddhists: Monastic System (+1) [temples, theologian] Japanese: Way of Tea (+1) Karensansui Garden (+1) [one per Daimyo] Nomads: Tuluui (+3) [consumes and requires high land tradition] Cultural losses: All: War Exhaustion (+1% decay for 5 WE, +4% for max WE) Expanded Bureaucracy (-1) {increases officials} Hofgericht Member (-1) {HRE member with reform enacted} Action and Reaction (-3) {late triggered modifier} Western: Decadence (+3% decay) Christians: Blasphemy Act (-1) {decreases stability costs} Dissolution Monasteries (-1) {increases taxes} [protestant, reformed or Papal emancipation] Iconoclasm (-1) {increases taxes} [catholic, orthodox] Muslims: Blasphemy Act (-1) {decreases stability costs}

To address your points:

"Patron of the Arts" is the most determinant factor in gaining cultural tradition. It's a design decision that is consistent with how other national ideas relate to their effects: "Church Attendance Duty", for example, provides the single most important decrease to stability costs — "Espionage" represents the main source of spies, etc. The mod wishes to restore "national ideas" and "policy sliders" as pivotal and central choices.

You are therefore right: cultural tradition is certainly harder to come by now. You may feel it's boring, because it limits possibilities you previously had. My understanding is that cultural tradition was so easy to acquire in vanilla that it made no big change if you had +6 a year or +10 — you were still able to keep a steady supply of five star advisors. I am loading an old multiplayer save I keep: as Prussia, I earnt +5 tradition from the "Guild of St. Luke", +5 from "Baroque Music", +1 from the "Glorious Monument", +0.7 from peace and being in the HRE. I didn't build any "Fine Art Academy" — but these would raise cultural tradition by +1 each! As you see there's no reason to waste an idea slot for the cultural tradition benefits of "Patron of the Arts". There also is no difference between my Prussia and the guy next door who decided to take "South German Organ Tradition" for 4000 ducats: +11.7 or +12.7 is exactly the same, you still can recruit as many advisors as you like.

Bla bla bla, in the mod there are three states: given advisors average life expectancy of twenty five years, a) full turnover of five stars advisors is only permitted by "Patron of the Arts" (associated with other decisions), without it b) you can maintain at best two five stars advisors at the same time (so westernisation is possible without "Patron of the Arts"). The third option, c), is to ignore cultural tradition from decisions, artists, etc. but work against it, by selecting "Blasphemy Laws", "Expanded Bureaucracy", etc. which all decrease cultural tradition — striving to obtain advisors exclusively from high tax base provinces, conquests, events and auctions.

[silktrader]

I am commenting on this:

Played a bit with Ottomans. The game is very annoying at start. Almost impossible to improve stability, only with lucky advisors event (but first you must have lucky to get 5star ones ).
I had few random stability hits and ended with -3 stability for 10 years. The game isnt fun this way. I don't even lose a stability with my own decision, just a bad luck.

There's a section about stability costs, it is indexed in the thread's third post. Let's consider an investment choice, for the Ottomans, in the 1492 bookmark:

Production Technology Level 12 (5481): +2% production efficiency
Stability Level 1 (4230): +10% taxes (income and census), +1 merchant, -1 revolt risk, +0.2 magistrates, -1% interests

The most obvious decision, in this case, is to invest in stability — I am hoping you agree. The situation obviously changes once you reach stability level one, the second level is more expensive: 5216 ducats, in lieu of the previous 4230 — yet it still makes sense to prioritise stability.

In some cases you may have to delay stability investments: such as when your infamy or war exhaustion are high. I otherwise don't understand why it is impossible to improve stability: you're surely able to raise production technology by one level. A savegame would be telling in this case.

As for "a few random stability events": effort was put into removing these. Could you name which events you witnessed. I calculated fewer than 0.15 stability hits per year, for non westernising nations — the largest portion of these derives from slider moves (six to seven a century). Running around with a monarch leading your armies is a dangerous option that raises that average.

[Mac1]

Ofcourse you are right that in vanilia cultural tradition is too easy. But now its maybe a lttle to difficult, especially at start. Event with patron of arts its very difficult to get 5lvl advisors.
But what i dont like the most is that once you get to high tradition is easier too keep it. Beacuse you can hire better artist, who gives you more tradition etc and you can take another cultural tradition (once you have 65).
Ofcourse in that case you must usually "waste" a slot for artist, but the possibilty to make 5star advisors is worth it ( later about it, why ).

While i played OE, i had 2 stability hits by dying monarch, 1-2 random events. Ofcourse i did some anexation of vassal and some DP change. It's a bit hard to play completely without it. But with my bad luck i got event in wrong moment, giving me -3 stability. In 1400-1450 you usually need 10 years to get 1 stability point for OE and its still without any serious conquest. If i would conquest balkans, or georgia or all greece, it would be even harder to make 1 stab.
Ofcourse i can tech only in stability (actually i did it for almost entire game), but how can OE survives later when it will be so down in research ?.
This way it comes to a situation when only reasonable chance to improve stability is event "great men" for 5 star advisors and it gives 2 stability at once , wow that's cool .

So:
I like the entire idea about stability, but it makes eastern (and multireligious) countries even harder to play and in MP they will be much weaker then west. My sugestions would be:
- make -2, -1 stability levels to be much much cheaper than 0 stab (like you did with +2 , +3).
- Lower a little bit stability costs (its a bit too high IMO)
- You should improve more ottoman tolerance. Without it they will be very hard to play in MP
- decrease effects of "greartmen" event. +2 free stability is now VEEEERY NICE. It means that in first 50 years, the nation that luckily randomed 5 star advisors will have much easier game. I suggest make it "+1 stab" , or even a "-50% stabcost for 10 years or so)

I played with Ottomans twice on very hard (i usually dont take other difficulties in SP) and twice i had to give up before 1450. Was killed mostly by revolts, or by Timur or by Hungary.
Then i played on hard, was all going good, had nice country, but a little down in techs. Then in 1500 Bohemia and Austria were declaring wars and i had no chance. So i become to shrink much
And trust me i can play this game, i'm a kind of player that annexes europe with Tibet on vanilia. But playing Ottomans on this mod become a bit hard ... I cant see it on MP campaign ....


And another thing:
I really dont like integrating as core, especially for missions.
Maybe its good solution for Burgundy, but its bad for Ottomans.
I made all conqest by misions and i never gained a core before 50 years passed. I only lose magistrates fot this. It was much better to just annex all with holy war CB and DON'T make the missions !.

[silktrader]

Event with patron of arts its very difficult to get 5lvl advisors.

At the start advisor stars will be assigned randomly, based on provincial tax bases. I toyed with the idea of scripting a few advisors to fill some initial blanks — but that's a refinement for later. Regardless, level five advisors are meant to be hard to reach — their worth is 80% that of national ideas. We are now used to hiring level five advisors, so much so that advisors pools abound with them. Before cultural tradition was introduced one rarely expected his advisors to be five stars. So, we either a) agree to balance everything knowing that five stars advisors will be common or b) we review things starting from the assumption that they should be a bit more exceptional. Balance can be achieved with both premises, although with point a) differences among country advisors will be less distinct, and I adopted point b).

This is but a trivial remark, it has absolutely no numerical ground but stems from common sense: Copernicus is considered a five stars advisor in history files, one of two for the Polish nation, during the entire span of the game. Italy, a land most often associated with great men, features ten five star advisors and six level six, distributed over 400 years.

But what i dont like the most is that once you get to high tradition is easier too keep it. Beacuse you can hire better artist, who gives you more tradition etc and you can take another cultural tradition (once you have 65).
Ofcourse in that case you must usually "waste" a slot for artist, but the possibilty to make 5star advisors is worth it ( later about it, why ).

You're not just wasting a slot, you're also consuming cultural tradition to hire a new artist. The newly hired artist will provide a net increase (considering cultural expenses), but with increasingly diminishing returns: at 80% cultural tradition it stops making sense to hire artists. I will post a spreadsheet showing these dynamics, which consider cultural tradition decay. I should mention that "Fine Art Academies" increase chances of attracting skilled artists (thus without requiring a cultural tradition expenditure).

While i played OE, i had 2 stability hits by dying monarch, 1-2 random events.

Which random events did you get exactly.

Ofcourse i did some anexation of vassal and some DP change. It's a bit hard to play completely without it. But with my bad luck i got event in wrong moment, giving me -3 stability. In 1400-1450 you usually need 10 years to get 1 stability point for OE and its still without any serious conquest. If i would conquest balkans, or georgia or all greece, it would be even harder to make 1 stab.
Ofcourse i can tech only in stability (actually i did it for almost entire game), but how can OE survives later when it will be so down in research ?

I'll share my experience with the Ottomans: I was able to westernise within the first century, I went "Humanist Tolerance" to decrease stability costs and avoid conversions, used a great man event to switch out of "National Conscripts", after the Timurids were beaten. I only test at "normal", that's the default multiplayer setup and I would like to check what the AI does (wrong).

- make -2, -1 stability levels to be much much cheaper than 0 stab (like you did with +2 , +3).
- Lower a little bit stability costs (its a bit too high IMO)

We can't do that: if we were to decrease costs linearly we would reach a point where stability could instantly increase (negative stability costs, as in vanilla). There's no more room for additional negative stability cost modifiers, the way I see it. So, when you suggest to lower stability costs I assume it is the base costs you imply: which ones did you have in mind (I had reviewed "Local Customs" to actually lower stability costs for non accepted cultures).

- You should improve more ottoman tolerance. Without it they will be very hard to play in MP

If "Ottoman Tolerance" increased heathen tolerance by one additional point there would be instances where heathen tolerance is higher than own tolerance.

Republic + Ibadat Khana + Ottoman Tolerance + Humanist Tolerance - Muslim Base = +3 tolerance
Republic + Muslim Base - war vs Sharifate controller (Mecca controller) = +2 tolerance

Regardless, I agree with your conclusion: "Ottoman Tolerance", as it is, makes little sense in the mod and needs to be changed. Muslims now get a +1 own tolerance for owning Mecca (or when a vassal does); the idea was to avoid a systematic Mecca sell out to Christians. A -1 tolerance modifier for being at war with the Mecca controller was also added, to make the Hedjaz an area of contention among Muslims. There also is a decision to go on a "Haj" when Mecca is in friendly hands … but that's for later.

- decrease effects of "greartmen" event. +2 free stability is now VEEEERY NICE. It means that in first 50 years, the nation that luckily randomed 5 star advisors will have much easier game. I suggest make it "+1 stab" , or even a "-50% stabcost for 10 years or so)

Since there are fewer "great men" compared to vanilla's hordes, I feel the rarity of the event compensates for its great effects. The mean time to happen for these "great men" events match exactly the average lifespan of advisors (25 years): there though are certainly far fewer five star advisors, as you commented.

Thanks for the feedback, Mac1.

[Mac1]

I'll share my experience with the Ottomans: I was able to westernise within the first century, I went "Humanist Tolerance" to decrease stability costs and avoid conversions, used a great man event to switch out of "National Conscripts", after the Timurids were beaten. I only test at "normal", that's the default multiplayer setup and I would like to check what the AI does (wrong).

Well i did the same. Maybe just playing on hard is much harder than normal, i must check this. Or i had bad luck and AI GBR,Hab,BOH made too good countried (they all killed my later)
Not that:
Humanist tolerance seems to be really needed for early Ottomans, that means you probably will have to change from national_conscripts (-3 stab hit, damn) and you got a slot filled. You will probably need also church_attendance. It will be hard to keep "WAR IDEAS" with OE. It is all fine, until you have to face habsburgs who will have only war ideas

What's your experience fighting OE vs hordes ? I must say that i had big problems with Timur. He was very strong, all AI nations facing it had to pay tribute or were annexed. So finally in all 3 my games i had to pay tribute as well, or i would start to lose provinces. Timur forces had little atrition even on my scorched earth, i could fight having 20-25k army. Eveyrtime when i won few battle, Timur comes back with 30-50k and its no chance
It was even difficult to "concede defeat" so all 3 my games i started paying 5,5/month tribbute to it . Maybe that killed me, on normal can be easier.

Which random events did you get exactly.

Sorry have no logs anymore, next time i will write down. I only remember that twice my king died with stability hit.

We can't do that: if we were to decrease costs linearly we would reach a point where stability could instantly increase (negative stability costs, as in vanilla). There's no more room for additional negative stability cost modifiers, the way I see it. So, when you suggest to lower stability costs I assume it is the base costs you imply: which ones did you have in mind (I had reviewed "Local Customs" to actually lower stability costs for non accepted cultures).

In my mod i did :

positive_stability = {
	global_tax_modifier = 0.1		#10% for each positive stab
	stability_cost_modifier = 0.1
	global_spy_defence = 0.02
	officials = 0.2
}

negative_stability = {
	global_revolt_risk = -1			#-1% EXTRA revolt risk each step
	legitimacy = 0.01
	stability_cost_modifier = 0.1 
}

It's close to what you have here (you have 25%), but works on the both ends of stability bar. Makes lvl2-3 harder to reach, but easier to recover from -2, -3 stability. I would suggest to you that you did the same.


And i was speaking about reducing a bit base stability costs for eveyrthing. In my opinion there are too big.
I agree with what you say earlier, that it can be cheaper than prod tech, giving same income increase. But in this game a country must be able to do both stability and techs, not only one of this.
I would suggest at least 25% reduction of all base stability costs.

Since there are fewer "great men" compared to vanilla's hordes, I feel the rarity of the event compensates for its great effects. The mean time to happen for these "great men" events match exactly the average lifespan of advisors (25 years): there though are certainly far fewer five star advisors, as you commented.

Well, when i had advisors lvl5 i had feeeling that event comes as often as in vanilia, maybe was my luck this time. Anyway i would still change it to "+1 stability"
A +1 stab in OCO is much more worth than +2 stab in vanilia

At the start advisor stars will be assigned randomly, based on provincial tax bases. I toyed with the idea of scripting a few advisors to fill some initial blanks — but that's a refinement for later. Regardless, level five advisors are meant to be hard to reach — their worth is 80% that of national ideas. We are now used to hiring level five advisors, so much so that advisors pools abound with them. Before cultural tradition was introduced one rarely expected his advisors to be five stars. So, we either a) agree to balance everything knowing that five stars advisors will be common or b) we review things starting from the assumption that they should be a bit more exceptional. Balance can be achieved with both premises, although with point a) differences among country advisors will be less distinct, and I adopted point b).

I agree with b)
But i just wanted to say that in start the chance of gaining any cultural tradition mostly is based on luck. If you get lucky random artist, you have more chance.
And later when i once go to 80+ tradition i had no problem to keep it. Ofcourse had to waste sometimes slot on artist, but i dont call it waste. I prefer to have 2 good advisors + artist, then 3 average or bad.


Anyway i like what you did with starting advisors, every country has more. And if i noticed right, when advisor dies, a new one appears. It's really nice chance.

[MonMarty]

I thought you had built yourself a MineCraft cave where to hibernate during winter, MM!

Minecraft got old, all the cool kids play Garry's mod now. I am technically not hibernating but technically not away from the Eu3 community either, just see it as an undetermined lengthy vacation from all the dramalama, butthurt and other such things.

It is good to see that you are still as zealous as you were when you first introduced this mod in the amount of effort you put into it.

I hope I am not being too pessimistic of a partycrasher in saying that I think this mod will not really be played by any other then yourself and a very very select group of people, which is in my eyes a shame in comparison to the effort you put into the making and explaining of the mod.

[silktrader]

I hope I am not being too pessimistic of a partycrasher in saying that I think this mod will not really be played by any other then yourself and a very very select group of people.

Yes, it's a very realistic assumption. There are two reasons I started this endeavour:

Firstly, I've stopped enjoying the bare game. I would do the same things, over and over again, in the campaigns I participated to — because I felt I had "figured out" the game and learnt its flaws, which became apparent. It's an immodest claim, but I know it's a feeling that is shared by at least a few people who have kept playing for some time.

Secondly, I noticed that, on Paradox side, time was devoted to other deserving projects and beta suggestions couldn't be heeded with the same attention as in the past. I may as well put some ideas to test, in a mod, waiting for interest in Europa Universalis to be renewed.

… so, the time I previously spent playing in multiplayer campaigns is now dedicated to modding the game. You've started toying with "Gary's Mod", which — Wikipedia suggests — is a 2006 game (so much for "MineCraft got old, all the cool kids…"). I am far more avant-garde than you are, as I am tackling a 2007 blockbuster!

[silktrader]

Suffragan Bishop Act

The vanilla decision presents usual problems: its effects are diminutive and its conditions are readily satisfied. It almost never makes sense to enact the "Suffragan Bishop Act" in vanilla — unless you count more than 28 stability hits during a century. These are the vanilla requirements and modifiers:

Requirements: at least one centralisation christian Effects: -4% taxes (census and income) -8% stability costs

In the mod the same modifiers would actually be significant, and in many cases beneficial since base stability costs were increased. Effects were nonetheless changed to stress the importance of missionaries and cathedrals, even when conversions aren't needed — so that narrow-mindedness, as a long term strategy, isn't tied merely to conversions.

Requirements: christian three cathedrals and missionaries restraint of appeals OR high papal influence OR no papacy Effects: -0.25 missionaries -12.5% stability costs

Considerations:

The "Suffragan Bishop Act" is meant to "improve administration by authorising Suffragan Bishops to be appointed for Episcopal responsibilities". In practice, since it doesn't require narrowmindedness, it is particularly useful for innovative nations wanting to decrease their majorated stability costs.

The "Suffragan Bishop Act" (Catholic, Protestant, Reformed) can't be taken while "Superintendents" (Protestant, Reformed) are used — conceptually they perform the same function, albeit with different results.

The decision is particularly useful to Protestants and Reformed states: their base stability costs are higher, the percentage decrease is thus more important.

The historical Anglican way would be to first go for "Restraint of Appeals", then "Suffragan Bishop Act" and finally conversion.

[silktrader]

Superintendents

In vanilla "Superintendents" and "Suffragan Bishops" aren't exclusive, although historical evidence would suggest they are. In the mod one is the alternative of the other — it's a convenient device which eases game balance (avoiding modifiers duplication). Their scope, in historical terms, was exactly the same: to reorganise ecclesiastical polity.

These were the old triggers and bonuses:

Requirements: Protestant or Reformed a theologian (whatever his level) Effects: -1 revolt risk +6% stability costs

The decision was so good and so easy to trigger its effects could have simply been part of the default Protestant and Reformed traits. While reviewing the decision to actually present a compromise, its effects were altered so to match its description: "[…] instead of being appointed by the archbishop the superintendent will be appointed by the monarch and therefore be more likely to be loyal to the crown".

Requirements: Protestant or Reformed the "Divine Supremacy" idea three cathedrals and missionaries the state's religion is the dominant religion Effects: +1.5% legitimacy -0.25 missionaries

"Superintendents" are therefore quite handy in dealing with low legitimacy — an aspect that has been reviewed in the mod. War exhaustion and espionage pose a danger to one's legitimacy: "superintendents" allow one to reap the revolt risks reductions associated with legitimacy even during lengthy wars — a result that isn't too distant from the original -1 revolt risk. Once again, the revolt risk decrease proved to be redundant and needed to be substituted.

Please note that the decision is only available to monarchies.

[Scion]

Yes, it's a very realistic assumption. There are two reasons I started this endeavour:

Firstly, I've stopped enjoying the bare game. I would do the same things, over and over again, in the campaigns I participated to — because I felt I had "figured out" the game and learnt its flaws, which became apparent. It's an immodest claim, but I know it's a feeling that is shared by at least a few people who have kept playing for some time.

Secondly, I noticed that, on Paradox side, time was devoted to other deserving projects and beta suggestions couldn't be heeded with the same attention as in the past. I may as well put some ideas to test, in a mod, waiting for interest in Europa Universalis to be renewed.

… so, the time I previously spent playing in multiplayer campaigns is now dedicated to modding the game. You've started toying with "Gary's Mod", which — Wikipedia suggests — is a 2006 game (so much for "MineCraft got old, all the cool kids…"). I am far more avant-garde than you are, as I am tackling a 2007 blockbuster!

My look on this isnt quite as gloomy as MM's, i think that with the many new and fairly competent players, more will be seeking to try out various mods, me and Sid have debated joining the(or a) death & taxes game, and i'm keeping my eye on this mod as well.

[saharez]

My look on this isnt quite as gloomy as MM's, i think that with the many new and fairly competent players, more will be seeking to try out various mods, me and Sid have debated joining the(or a) death & taxes game, and i'm keeping my eye on this mod as well.

That is fairly good news, there have been some talk about a campaign showcasing and testing this mod.

[Scion]

That is fairly good news, there have been some talk about a campaign showcasing and testing this mod.

Once we're done with Vespere Jovis and IM, then i'd be up for a weekday game with a mod.

[saharez]

Once we're done with Vespere Jovis and IM, then i'd be up for a weekday game with a mod.

I am waiting for the very same thing

[MonMarty]

If you are going to play a mod, take this one.

At least you can take a rested heart that this mod is at least balanced for MP purposes, Death and taxes is full with unbalances that benefit certain nations and you do not want to get into a frenzy of bitchslapping players about how the mod is making it easier on some and not others.

[sharpcat]

Still very keen to try this mod in a MP environment.

[Scion]

Silk, i'm at work right now, so i can't actually check the mod.
Have you made any changes to Prussian Military Reforms in this mod?

[silktrader]

The effects were changed in the very first version, as it's the most unbalanced decision in the game, but I didn't review the decision yet. I remember I wanted to switch the Berlin requirement for something more relevant, like "Military Drill" or the quality slider…
Vanilla was 20% discipline and 10% less attrition rate — mod's 10% discipline, no attrition rate decrease (and still an exaggeration, hence the need for a review of either effects or triggers).

[Scion]

The effects were changed in the very first version, as it's the most unbalanced decision in the game, but I didn't review the decision yet. I remember I wanted to switch the Berlin requirement for something more relevant, like "Military Drill" or the quality slider…
Vanilla was 20% discipline and 10% less attrition rate — mod's 10% discipline, no attrition rate decrease.

me likes.

[silktrader]

War Exhaustion and Attrition

Bear with me — what is described here is a complex issue and I am a boring fellow: therefore this is a long post, addressing attrition and its relation with war exhaustion.

The game's largest issues stem from the large number of military forces that can be fielded. Since players can field more regiments than in previous versions, they will do so, as regiment numbers remains a determinant factor in times of war. Consequently, war exhaustion from attrition has increased so much as to make the maximum level a given at the start of any war against a human opponent. In vanilla, players do not attempt to avoid war exhaustion — they combat its effects by easily reducing global revolt risk, asking friends and family to take care of rebels or doing so themselves.

It isn't uncommon for war exhaustion to increase by more than +3 per month in multiplayer campaigns — this is largely due to attrition, rather than occupation or even battle casualties.

Let's review how attrition dictates monthly war exhaustion increases — the formula is among the simplest in the game:

ΔWE_month = regiments incurring attrition * attrition rate

The leftmost item refers to the number of regiments in armies which are over supply limits — the rightmost operand is (usually, but not necessarily) the maximum attrition rate one can suffer in provinces (starting from 5%). We suppose you have two armies: a 30 regiments one, safe from attrition and a 50 regiments one, taking 5% attrition due to it being over its hosting province's supply limits. You will gain 0.25 war exhaustion per month. War exhaustion increases will be calculated according to armies' regiments — not men. The attrition rate though can actually depend on whether regiments are made of 1000 men or fewer. Army "weight" is compared to the province's supply limits to infer what attrition rate should be applied:

An army of 50 full strength regiments weighs 50 (case a). Assign a level six manoeuvre leader and it will weigh 44 (case b). When it's sitting in a province with 40 supply limits, it will take 5% attrition rate in case a) or 4% attrition in case b) — that's 44 (weight) - 40 (supply limits).

Three observations are obvious:

• War exhaustion from attrition will increase as more regiments can be fielded and are required to overcome adversaries — the longer the game runs, the more regiments become available, the more sizeable war exhaustion from attrition will be.
• The base attrition rate, for land provinces, is 5% — that's usually the minimum amount of attrition one will suffer in foreign lands and — quite often — in one's own provinces. This rate is either present in its full or absent — it seldom floats between 0% and 5%.
• War exhaustion gains from attrition don't scale according to countries. Nepal will gain as much war exhaustion as Russia when they are stationing excess regiments in foreign provinces. More precisely, 25 regiments over supply limits will give the same war exhaustion to a nation fielding hundreds as they do to a nation fielding just this many.

"Omnium Contra Omnes" aims to alter war exhaustion so that its maximum levels are not an inevitable consequence of any war between players.

Three approaches were undertaken:

1) tie war exhaustion gains from attrition to a land force limits — or in layman's terms: the more regiments one can field the lesser the effects of one regiment taking attrition

2) decrease available force limits to a) diminish the overall attrition gains to win a war and b) increase relevance of war time recruitment

3) increase specific supply limits to restore the value of logistics

Force limits

The second and third point will be discussed in other sections. As for the first point, the optimal solution would be to divide war exhaustion gains (due to attrition) by land force limits. That is, rather than gaining +3 WE per year for 50 regiments taking 5% attrition at any level, one would gain +1.5 WE per year with 100 land force limits — or +0.5 WE per year with 300 force limits.

For technical reasons, this dynamic cannot be modded in. What can be done, on the other hand, is to decrease war exhaustion on a variable basis, according to force limits — regardless of gains. To do that we need to settle on an acceptable assumption, one that represents how much attrition one can be expected to incur according to variable levels of force limits.

In simple terms, I've assumed that at the very start, when force limits are relatively low, one should be able to field x% of his force limits in enemy lands without suffering war exhaustion from their attrition. As force limits increase the same player is expected to project fewer regiments in percentage of his maximum force limits. In other terms — force limits are a positive factor in decreasing war exhaustion but provide diminishing returns.

Manpower losses from attrition are not affected.

For those who are curious, the formula that was employed to determine monthly war exhaustion decreases (ΔWE) according to force limits (x) is:

ΔWE_month = 0.15*ln(x)-0.4

The logarithmic increase flattens out gracefully as x approaches triple digit numbers: its ceiling is -0.55 WE for 550 force limits (a rare occurrence in the mod).

The war exhaustion discount is only active while at war and when maintenance isn't a concern to armed forces (over 50%) so to avoid those cases when a war will be protracted to burn off WE (other measures were also taken).

As France, at the beginning of the grand campaign, fielding thirty regiments, the concession is that one can project two thirds of his maximum force and sustain the inevitable attrition (a minimum of 5%) due to siegeing, moving into enemy provinces and either winning or retreating from a province where a battle has unfurled. As times change and armies increase in size, the assumption is that a lower percentage of them will be subject to attrition due offensive or defensive movements: front lines are only as wide as thirty and there is a finite number of provinces to move from and to.

Considerations:

Technically, the war exhaustion reduction is provided by means of a country modifier, updated monthly. Unlike "triggered" modifiers there isn't a pop up notifying players when they receive it: the idea was to make it as discreet as possible. Figures can be checked in the military panel, where other war exhaustion modifiers show up.

The "land" slider effectively contributes to decreasing war exhaustion for large nations, as it increases land force limits. The same goes for "Grand Army" — which can make a rather substantial difference when the national force limits base is high enough.

The "Holy Roman Empire" crown grants significant war exhaustion decreases while at war — the more countries coexist within the Empire, the larger the Emperor's force limits and thus his war exhaustion decrease. The same goes for vassals — their force limits will contribute to the player's war exhaustion reduction.

Since war exhaustion is predominantly decreased by force limits now — other elements, which previously decreased it as well, needed to reviewed.

The "Defender of the Faith" title doesn't grant a war exhaustion decrease anymore. Its effects were changed and will be discussed elsewhere, events are being added to reward a country boasting such title and actively fighting religious enemies (war exhaustion decreases).

Blockaded Home Ports:

While blockades effects on war exhaustion were increased compared to vanilla, these aren't as dramatic as those determined by occupation. A one province minor being blockaded will witness its war exhaustion increasing by +0.65 every month. It's likely the same minor won't benefit from force limits war exhaustion reductions — thus quickly topping maximum war exhaustion (about three years). Full occupation of the one province minor, on the other hand, would net +1.6 WE monthly.

Blockades consequences depend on the ratio between core coastal tax base and total core tax base. Therefore the +0.65 WE is a remote possibility for all but those states which only feature coastal provinces.

In practical terms, a blockaded France in the 19th century will suffer from +0.18 WE every month — easily shrugged off with the new force limit modifiers. A blockaded Great Britain, on the other hand, would suffer from about +0.5 WE a month, being fully blockaded — that's little more than three years and a handful of months before war exhaustion can reach its maximum.

War exhaustion from blockades was, in conclusion, increased — it still isn't a particularly worrying threat to land nations. Blockades impact on economy was instead increased: a state whose access to seas is negated will lose tariff income and a yearly merchants. The rate, once again, is highly variable on one's reliance on coastal tax base. Tariff income can be halved, in cases like Great Britain — and up to three merchants per year can be lost.

A fully blockaded Great Britain in the 19th century would lose 50% of its tariff income and 2.5 merchants a year. A fully blockaded France would lose about 20% of its tariff income and little less than one merchant.

Please remark that the reduced tariffs income is global — it remains possible to blockade coastal overseas provinces to reduce local tariffs by 100%, as in vanilla.

Occupied Home Provinces:

To make up for the WE decrease due to force limits, occupation's effects were revamped. For the moment I will simply post a table which correlates occupation percentage (cores, not overseas) to monthly war exhaustion gains. Since these increases are linear they can be added.

5% . . . . 0.08 WE
15% . . . 0.24 WE
30% . . . 0.48 WE
50% . . . 0.80 WE

Warscore:

Negative warscore now gives WE. It's necessary with the new force limits system and it speeds up the want for peace in terminal situations. Table follows:

-20 WS . . . 0.10 WE
-35 WS . . . 0.15 WE
-50 WS . . . 0.20 WE
-75 WS . . . 0.25 WE

Looting:

TK

[silktrader]

The Militia Act

It remains a mystery why the "militia act", also named "military act", used to provide additional discipline. Given its bonus it was among the very first decisions one rushed towards: its advantage when the middle game opened up became obvious (+6% discipline), while stability has never been a concern in vanilla (let alone 5%). To put the discipline bonus into perspective it's useful to remember that it doesn't just increase damage dealt to the enemy by 6%, it also decreases damage inflicted on the player by x%, the day after the first. In short, there was absolutely no reason not to aim for the "Militia Act" as soon as possible, in vanilla. Those wishing to convert to republics would first select the decision, then convert and retain the modifier.

There are differences in the mod: the decision remains a prerogative of monarchies, as its (updated) description informs. Whenever a monarchy turns into a republic the modifier is lost. These are the new effects:

-0.15 war exhaustion +15% global defensiveness -12% land force limits

This is one definition of militia: "a civilian fighting force used to supplement a regular army in emergencies". The "discipline" advantage provided in vanilla frankly felt out of context. The decision's new description attempts to justify its reviewed effects:

The sole right of the militia, in all regards whether it be ordering or disposing, shall lay in the hands of the King. A certain number of common citizens, officered by local nobility and landholders, are to be drawn in military service: they will be tasked with protecting the realm against foreign or domestic violence. Militia men won't be compellable to march out of their counties of origin, unless in case of invasions or rebellions — they categorically won't march out of the Kingdom.

The "war exhaustion" reduction may seem high, but is actually in line with other factors increasing war exhaustion, in the mod. It's the equivalent of thirty regiments taking 5% attrition per month — or 9% of home soil occupied. Unlike war exhaustion reductions pertaining to land force limits, the "militia act" decreases WE while at peace as well.

I felt the WE bonus was required to even out the situation between republics and monarchies: legitimacy is a concern but for the latter. As war exhaustion increases, legitimacy drops — sometimes alarmingly so. The "militia act" is a measure that restores some confidence in monarchies fighting in protracted wars.

The defensiveness bonus will be of help against both foreign invades and rebels. While the land force limits decrease, representing temporary conscription of able bodied men, is a tangible drawback to reflect on (if funds allow one to surpass land force limits by a good percentage).