Omnium Contra Omnes — a Multiplayer Modification

**silktrader** · 13-04-2012 21:00

Forcible Conversions

This new decision's description reads:

"Divine Supremacy", which grants +0.5 missionaries a year, enables "Forcible Conversions" which increase local missionary chances. These are the decision's details:

While the "Forcible Conversion" modifier includes several negative effects, which mostly depend on how long it will linger, it is also the most determining decision affecting conversion chances. As a reminder, minimum revolt risk can't be decreased by other modifiers such as troops presence or "Bill of Rights". Population growth figures are decennial.

There are two additional and significant costs to enacting "Forcible Conversions":

the one country boasting the "Defender of the Faith" title and sharing the province's religion will gain a "casus belli" against the converting country
the player will gain +3 infamy every time he or she enacts the decision

This list may seem daunting, the decision though allows some provinces, like Kiev, Rome, Paris, etc. to be converted, whilst under most scenarios that would be impossible, or very hard. Since "forcible conversions" noticeably shorten conversion times, and given that each active missionary decreases yearly missionaries by 0.15, the decision actually allows one to utilise more missionaries.

The infamy increase is certainly the greatest deterrent to enabling the decision, it suggests moderation. Infamy gains can be easily reversed with the "Cabinet" idea, embassies, diplomat advisors, the ruler's diplomatic rating, through Papal indulgences, etc. Expansion and conversion, with "Forcible Conversions", consume therefore the same currency, that is infamy.

Please note that it isn't possible to both "tolerate" the province's religion and coerce its inhabitants to convert. Tolerance needs to be negative (actually lower than -1), meaning "Ecumenism" and "Humanist Tolerance" will prevent the decision. The "Jizya" excludes "Forcible Conversions" and vice versa.

It goes without saying but the decision's modifier will be cleared as soon as the tolerance for the province religion reaches -1: therefore on provincial conversions, state religion conversions or when selecting "Ecumenism", "Humanist Tolerance", etc. I was uncertain whether to remove the modifier when a "tolerating" country gained control over the province (siege, assault) — for the moment this doesn't happen.

A province affected by "Forcible Conversions" is one that will sporadically witness emigration waves. People will leave the area to increase the population of a nearby foreign province, where the religion is tolerated. This mechanism is regulated by events, hopefully not intrusive.

**silktrader** · 15-04-2012 18:28

Trade Goods Changes

In "Europa Universalis" almost every aspect concerning provinces can be changed: ownership, name, capital, buildings, population, tax base, religion, etc. It goes without saying but this liberty enriches the game and contributes to its longevity with different scenarios. Trade goods are an immutable aspect though — they won't change once they are assigned. There are two minor exceptions: a) gold can be found in China when "bureaucrats" are in charge and b) tea can be cultivated in one province once the "Way of Tea" decision is enacted.

In "Omnium Contra Omnes" trade goods are meant to be slightly more dynamic without revolutionising the trade mapmode and distorting its strategic implications. There are, at present, four mechanisms changing trade goods:

sugar cane cultivations in the Mediterranean islands
wine production discontinued in Muslim provinces (in the making)
wool and grain provinces "upgrading" to cloth manufacture
cloth producing provinces "downgrading" to either wool or grain

Mining and (de|re)forestation events are also planned, but will be tied to specific regions.

**silktrader** · 15-04-2012 23:54

Burgeoning Textile Industry

This chain of events allows a province to change its trade good from either "grain" or "wool" to "cloth". This upgrade is desirable because "cloth" prices are naturally higher than either "grain" or "wool" — much more so. While in vanilla the ratio between "wool" and "cloth" prices is about 1:10, it's closer to being 1:3 in the mod. All in all, "wool" provinces aren't as desirable as "cloth", Mediterranean agricultural products ("wine") or Eastern agricultural products ("tea") but they aren't "worthless" either; which is the case in vanilla.

The intention is that of providing a dynamic economic context in which provinces thrive and decline. To achieve that purpose both directions need to be contemplated: "upgrades" to "cloth" (the manufactured, high margin product) and "downgrades" to "wool" (raw material) or "grain" (basic agricultural resource). This article discusses the "upgrade" course.

The process is articulated in two simple steps:

firstly, it is decided whether a country, as a whole, is a good candidate for a "burgeoning textile industry" — by checking some macroscopic aspects such as inflation, technology standing, production efficiency, economic sliders, etc.
secondly, there is a provincial level check, determining whether support for the "burgeoning textile industry" has been properly incentivised

The first step — the "macroscopic" check

The event providing the opportunity to change a province's trade good to cloth is precluded by any of these:

bankruptcy
belonging to a nomad, new world or sub saharan technolgy group
technological backwardness, compared to one's technology group
raw material shortages (absence of adequate wool production or trade to meet current cloth production)
higher war exhaustion than three

The "burgeoning textile industry" can otherwise materialise provided one owns at least one "grain" or "wool" province, that isn't affected by this same development. Its "mean time to happen" though is strikingly high — having 50% chances of firing within four centuries (the "grand campaign's" duration). This wait is though affected by a long series of items outlining one's economic context and performance. The random factor is therefore minimised, rewarding players who meet these arbitrary criterias:

The most determining factors are therefore policy sliders — "free subjects", "free trade" and "decentralisation" all contribute to rouse the economic situation. Technology is as important, whereas "cloth" trading is a close second.

We assume that the "free subject" slider mirrors the social vertical mobility and elasticity of a country's workforce. That is, how easily and quickly individuals can move up or down the social ladder and participate to productive activities — from being peasants to owning land and capital for instance. Vertical mobility is a prime instigator of social change, which assists economic change. It is widely argued that vertical mobility promotes free entreprise and economic progress, as well as a cultural and biological renewal of the upper classes — those which traditionally finance and manage prominent industries.

Liberal thinkers argue that "Free Trade" lowers import prices, decreasing production costs for businesses and consumers. A common argument is that firms having to adapt to foreign competition without the help of mercantilist protections (tariffs, import ratios, etc.) are ones that are more likely to develop innovative productive and administrative processes leading to a competitive advantage.

With adequate rhetoric one could argue that "serfdom" and "mercantilism" are equally good promoters of a "burgeoning textile industry". It so happens though that the overwhelming majority of countries starts as "mercantilist" and "serfdom" oriented. So, in game terms, the promotion of a non existent textile industry relies on moving policy sliders away from the starting position — a policy "change" engendering trade goods "changes". All in all, I find the historical and economical arguments, as well as balance concerns, to fully justify adopting these two sliders ends in the "burgeoning textile industry".

We consider that the import of textile products, or trading "cloth", represents the acquisition of industrial know-how and commercial distribution insight, through contact with foreign merchants.

"Decentralisation" is interpreted here as "economic decentralisation" rather than "political". Hindering the accumulation of wealth, capital and population in one area favours the blooming of peripheral regions. We are indeed assuming that the textile industry be supported by private initiative.

A "bankrupty" entails the failure of one's fiscal policy — which generally triggers a fall in purchasing power, spelling doom for transformation industries such as the "textile" one, most often relying on imports.

The event's description, for those who wish to improve it, reads:

The second step — the local check

Once the player is warned about possible opportunities in the textile market a province is selected to host the transformation process. You will be asked whether you want to ignore or subsidise the textile industry revival.

On selecting the second option a modifier named "Textile Industry Subventions" lasting 35 years, will be applied on the province: local taxes and census taxes will both be reduced by 25%. These tax exemptions represent the economic stimulus the state is asked to provide. Since the production's transition can actually fail, the significant tax loss requires one to duly consider forfeiting the possibility of a trade good change.

At this stage, the player will have 35 years to improve the local infrastructure and productive means to successfuly complete the transition. If a "Trade Good Change" event won't trigger during the modifier's duration, the transition will be considered a failure. The event has 50% chances of happening within 50 years — so it's unlikely to fire during the "subvention" phase unless some measures are undertaken. These items increase the event's likelihood:

Among these the most determining factors are population levels (which determine production units), tolerance, the presence of a textile manufactory and other buildings. As stated above anything increasing the province's income will facilitate the rise of new industries.

It is assumed that an urban setup breathes new life into local firms due to the presence of agricultural surplus and local demand — hence the strong influence of population levels. The cap's set at 100,00 since there aren't additional effects on income past that level.

It goes without saying but enemy occupation rules out completely the trade good change event. Rivals have an opportunity to increase revolt risk, blockade, loot or occupy the province to hinder positive economic changes.

Cloth supply and demand

In (contemporary) economic terms, supply and demand have a tendency to meet in what is dubbed an "equilibrium" point, determined by goods price and quantity on the market. We try to reflect this principle in the mod, with the few tools at our disposal. In game terms, the higher the supply of a trade good, the lower the price. Imagine a scenario where thirty provinces have "upgraded" to cloth: supply would increase noticeably, while prices would be significantly lower, therefore diminishing the appeal of "cloth".

We keep track of how many provinces turn to "cloth", and how many "cloth" provinces turn to "wool" or "grain". When there are more than ten additional "cloth" provinces in the world, compared to the start — the "upgrade" mechanism is halted, while it is simply slowed down the more provinces start to produce "cloth". This is a way of assuring that a) cloth supply doesn't exceed the boundaries that more or less determine the current price range, and b) cloth remains an attractive good.

**silktrader** · 16-04-2012 18:05

Brigandage

Mendoza: I am a brigand. I live by robbing the rich.
Tanner: I am a gentleman. I live by robbing the poor.

G. B. Shaw — Man and Superman

New rebels wander the map in "Omnium Contra Omnes" — they are brigands, or bandits. Their features and motivations are similar to the more common "peasant" rebels, but they are better equipped, more violent and deleterious than their tame counterpart.

Their introduction is motivated by two factors:

the need to highlight "gendarmeries" effects and increase the government line's relevance
the want to limit the concentration of buildings and the exclusive focus in one line

In the unmodded game "peasant rebels" are the easiest rebels to defeat: they don't reinforce, they don't have generals, they don't assault provinces, they are defeated after one battle, they exclusively field infantry, they can't read, they can't write. In fact, in vanilla, you want to have "peasant rebels", as they provide a nifty way to move the "freedom" slider: accepting their demands equals to +1 "freedom" — that's not the case anymore, in the mod. When a province's "likely rebels" are "peasants", more dangerous revolters like "patriots" or "nationalists" will be excluded. There is a cheap way, in vanilla, to ensure that "peasants" will be the ones appearing rather than (more dangerous) pretenders — one needs to raise war taxes and accumulate but 5 war exhaustion.

"Brigands" are an evolution of sorts of "peasants". Their armies reinforce, so leaving them unchallenged after a battle will actually strengthen them. They are led by modest leaders, who provide shock and fire modifiers along with faster movement. Unlike "peasants" they cross national boundaries and seek mostly rich provinces where there is a productive infrastructure to plunder. "Brigands" will retreat and assault when they deem it necessary. Their armies are composed by an equal amount of cavalry and infantry.

Bandits will make their appearance in the middle game, generally after the first century of play. Their sudden entrance is determined by the increasing number of buildings in provinces: constables, workshops, counting houses, treasuries, etc., will all attract "brigands". In short, any infrastructure assisting the province's income also increases chances of "bandits" appearing, rather than other rebels.

It isn't possible to negotiate with "brigands", but should they enforce their demands the country would lose one stability point and witness a catastrophic "disorder", lasting twenty years: +2 global revolt risk, -18% taxes, girlfriend leaves. Now, the harshest part: every time brigands seize a province, the local infrastructure will be plundered — in practical terms, the province will lose the highest "production" building it has. "Brigands" seize Messina, which has a "mint", the "mint" is destroyed — they seize Calabria, which hosts but a "workshop", it is lost. "Rampant Banditry" is the nefarious consequence of successful "brigands", it increases stability costs and decreases provincial income for about 15 years.

It is simple to prevent "banditry"; it suffices to build "gendarmeries", the old "spy agencies" that is. The one magistrate employed erecting a "gendarmery" can therefore prevent wasting magistrates later, due to "bandits". The "government" line therefore acquires one more beneficial effect assisting the country's general administration. While it isn't necessary to accompany the "production" line with "government" buildings, it is significantly helpful doing so in dire times (war exhaustion, national crises, etc.). An exclusive focus on production buildings becomes therefore slightly less desirable, as it opens to higher risks.

**silktrader** · 17-04-2012 00:38

Gendarmeries

The third building in the "government" line has been renamed "gendarmery", substituting the "spy agency". The new connotation stems from the equally new function: to prevent crime™. Very succinctly, gendarmeries have two purposes: a) thwart spy missions and b) prevent brigands.

In vanilla, "spy agencies" used to give:

In "Omnium Contra Omnes", that's:

The stability cost discount is absolutely useless in vanilla: to keep in line with the "one effect per building" design, it was removed. Increasing spy defence by 50% would simply negate any spy mission. That's the case in vanilla, unless the target is fully geared towards "free trade", "free subjects", has high revolt risk and low tax base (not a frequent concomitance). The new defence values match new numbers concerning spy efficiency: sliders have less impact on espionage, while advisors, ideas and buildings are now more determinant. Sliders affect espionage chances globally, whereas decisions, ideas and buildings are more circumstantial — hence the preference.

Efforts were made to decentralise spy missions, so to justify the construction of gendarmeries in several provinces. In the unmodded game it is only necessary to build spy agencies in the capital, which is targeted by 12 spy missions — the most important ones. In the mod there are but 3 spy missions that are exclusive to the capital province ("Sow Discontent", "Assassinate Advisor" and "Fabricate Claims"). New and old spy missions can otherwise be undertaken in multiple provinces, which need to be protected. The country's "embassy" is a frequent target, for instance — the unique building though occasionally changes its location on the map.

Spy missions will be described in their own section, but we can bring up some examples:

to counterfeit currency one needs to target a province with a "mint" — a gendarmery would help
to frame a cardinal one needs to target a province with a temple, a country with a cardinal
to question a country's legitimacy it suffices to target a province where you have a core — a gendarmery is incredibly useful there, for monarchies
to oppose a country's missionaries it is enough to target a province being converted — it might be safer to build a gendarmery before conversion
etc.

"Brigands" were described in this long winded piece. These particular rebels destroy infrastructure, stick nasty modifiers and are tough to eradicate — gendarmeries prevent them. It is complex to analyse the return on investment associated to "gendarmeries", in magistrate and ducat terms — but it's helpful to remind that the alternative cost is the risk of sustaining the loss of a building due to brigands.

Lastly, it is relevant to remark that the next step in the "government" line, after the "gendarmery", is the "town hall", which provides a universally useful +25% taxes (the only argument that justifies building spy agencies in vanilla, in trade centres).

**Syber_sid** · 17-04-2012 05:17

This is all very nice. When are we getting a 4th autosend button for merchants?

**silktrader** · 17-04-2012 16:57

Attack Dogs

It is with great pride that I announce a new unit kind featured in the mod — the intimidating "Attack Dogs". Their addition was deemed essential on account of infantry's manifest superiority in the middle to late game.

This new unit has its own category and upgrades: to reach the "combined arms" bonus players are advised to include at least 10% ferocious canines in their armies. These new mobile troops have a maneuvre value of three, which not only allows them to flank the enemy but also leap over the first combat line and target unaware regiments in the second line, with increased morale damage.

To remain historically accurate and reflect "Attack Dogs" actual strength and aptitude a new combat phase was introduced: the bite phase, lasting three days after the initial shock stage. Although "bite modifiers" are quite modest in the initial stages of the grand campaign, they significantly pick up after land tech twenty three, with the discovery of the "canine muzzle" which allows better control over these elite regiments.

A new military building, the "Kennel", decreases "Attack Dogs" costs. It has a secondary, yet remarkable effect, it increases local spy defences by 25%. The rationale behind this welcome change is to represent dog's surprising smell and its application in covert operations.

"Attack Dogs" receive three upgrades during the entire game's time span, at land tech 16, 25 and lastly at 34: they turn to "Reformed Attack Dogs", then to "Reformed Reformed Attack Dogs" and lastly to "Reformed Reformed Reformed Attack Dogs". Further upgrades are planned, some have argued in favour of a breakthrough "Reformed Reformed Reformed Reformed Attack Dog".

**madmagnum** · 17-04-2012 17:08

Is it 1st of April today or what?

**silktrader** · 17-04-2012 17:12

Originally Posted by madmagnum

Is it 1st of April today or what?

(It's the Orthodox 1st of April, celebrated two weeks and bits after the Catholic one.)

**Luminary** · 17-04-2012 18:58

If Western tech groups get attack dogs, I demand that the Muslim tech group get War Elephants.

**Checco** · 17-04-2012 23:40

Originally Posted by silktrader

(It's the Orthodox 1st of April, celebrated two weeks and bits after the Catholic one.)

You could simply write you missed the opportunity on 1st April

.

**Kommando23** · 17-04-2012 23:48

Originally Posted by Checco

You could simply write you missed the opportunity on 1st April

.

My bet is that he was trying to find out whether people are actually following his write-ups. I do.

(On the other hand there seems to be that view-counter. Still, I like to stick to my ideas.)

**silktrader** · 18-04-2012 18:38

Originally Posted by Kommando23

My bet is that he was trying to find out whether people are actually following his write-ups. I do.

(On the other hand there seems to be that view-counter. Still, I like to stick to my ideas.)

I realised I had brought up "supply and demand's equilibrium point", among other things, a few posts above — which is a bit pedantic in a thread discussing a game's mod. As for the view count, I am afraid it doesn't really reflect the number of unique people subscribing to this thread: Sid is being paid by the hour to hit the refresh key (he's slacking).

Luminary, I am pleased to inform you that Indians actually have a "War Elephant" unit, in vanilla, at land tech 23. They are superseded by "Vindaloo Throwers" a few techs after, particularly gifted in the "fire" department.

**Syber_sid** · 18-04-2012 23:09

Originally Posted by silktrader

They are superseded by "Vindaloo Throwers" a few techs after, particularly gifted in the "fire" department.

.

Originally Posted by Syber_sid

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXILNncQwH4

**Brasem** · 12-05-2012 04:28

Is this mod still alive? (and anyone in the american time zone interested in playing?)

**silktrader** · 12-05-2012 11:32

Originally Posted by Brasem

Is this mod still alive? (and anyone in the american time zone interested in playing?)

The mod's alive, but since there aren't ongoing campaigns which require it, updates are less frequent. I'll upload a new version by the end of the weekend and describe a few changes.

**lukew** · 26-05-2012 12:36

Originally Posted by MonMarty

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.

Well I was just reading this and thought I'd let you know that SilkTrader gave me permission to use his mod a few months ago and i never really got round to doing it, but I just got round to it and was blown away by how much he's changed since then - I've spent several hours reading through all these posts and implementing what I like into the upcoming Death and Taxes release. Whilst it isn't the pure mod, I hope me putting it in D&T will allow a lot of non-multiplayer players to enjoy the extraordinary amount of work SilkTrader has put into this mod.

Originally Posted by Scion

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.

It would be nice to have some more experienced players in the next D&T game, especially to get some feedback on the balancing changes for mp - ie the stuff I've added from OCO.

PS To get more people to download this mod couldn't you create a thread in the mod forums with a link to this page?

**silktrader** · 26-05-2012 13:07

Originally Posted by lukew

PS To get more people to download this mod couldn't you create a thread in the mod forums with a link to this page?

… in a few days, I am wrapping up some things with Ming and hordes.

**lukew** · 26-05-2012 13:10

Originally Posted by silktrader

… in a few days, I am wrapping up some things with Ming and hordes.

Ooh, should I be excited?

Originally Posted by silktrader

(Wait until I let out about carrot growing and culturing yogurt probiotics.)

I am undecided about one bit: diplomatic annexations. As it is now (vanilla), diplomatically annexing even a single province state lowers stability by one. I've changed this dynamic so that for each annexed province (up to five) the overlord loses 10 legitimacy (which isn't as abundant as in vanilla). Does anybody have suggestions for republics. That is, what drawbacks could there be for diplo-annexing small states — as an alternative to stability. I've thought about removing spheres, dismissing the current (elected) ruler, forcing a national focus move, drastically reducing prestige … I've concluded the last option would be among the best, seeing as low prestige reduces chances of future annexations.

What about a period of reduced diplomatic skill?

PS One small reccomendation but your decisions to increase supply limits in a province cost 25/45d but theres no requirement to have that in your treasury - it's not a big deal but I guess it avoids you accidentally forcing yourself to take a loan and it's tidy to have that requirement there (I think).

**silktrader** · 26-05-2012 13:52

Originally Posted by lukew

Ooh, should I be excited?

Now, you can —

What about a period of reduced diplomatic skill?

That was a good and explored possibility, but it would have required a long lasting country modifier — their number is already excessive though (interface issue). A province modifier, in the capital, could have been used: the problem arises when the occupant acquires that modifier.

Right now, when a monarch diplo annexes a country, legitimacy is reduced while stability isn't: the loss depends on the number of provinces. Republics lose prestige when they diplo annex, again depending on how many provinces they acquire in one gulp. These dynamics have proved satisfactory, so far.

Thread: Omnium Contra Omnes — a Multiplayer Modification

Thread Tools

Posting Permissions