Omnium Contra Omnes — a Multiplayer Modification

[silktrader]

Conquering Nomad Provinces

In vanilla, provinces belonging to steppe hordes are conquered by sending colonists. This approach has merits, it fits Divine Wind's hordes design for a start — where one can't undertake diplomatic talks with nomads. There are though important drawbacks:

• settlement of horde provinces is incredibly fast — a province can change ownership within five months of being occupied, which is exploitable and frustrating for horde players
• colonisation costs are invariable and initially high — favouring large countries, such as the Ottomans, over smaller ones, such as Muscowy
• bugs plague hordes colonisation (badboy when burning, settlements stolen by the AI, remaining settlements after peace, etc.) — although the latest beta drastically improve the outlook
• there is a nasty synchronisation issue attributed to hordes colonisation
• it's quite hard to facilitate some countries settling attempts without granting them lasting benefits with regards to colonisation

This last point deserves a bit more elaboration. In vanilla, one gains 0.33 colonists per neighbouring nomad province, meaning one can milk these additional colonists to turn provinces in the New World or elsewhere into colonies. The bonus is obviously gone in the mod, it was lowered in the beta. For balance reasons it was decided to differentiate the process of settling horde provinces from normal colonisation. The two common variables, colonists and colonial growth, aren't relevant anymore in horde territories.

To be faithful to Divine Wind's hordes design, the acquisition of horde provinces was reviewed — it now simply requires military occupation. The new system mirrors how hordes, themselves, acquire their neighbours provinces, by occupying them and defending them until the province defects. This is a simple sequence leading to changes of ownership:

1. Muscovite armies reach Kazan and occupy it
2. the province is secured from any neighbouring threat
3. an event asks the player whether she wants to acquire Kazan
4. after about seven years the province defects, provided it wasn't taken back by hordes or rebels

Step (2) refers to securing a province. In practical terms these criteria need to be met:

• the province must be garrisoned by at least 1000 men, provided there is a fort
• there mustn't be enemy horde armies in any neighbouring province (wipeouts, patrols and occupation of neighbouring provinces help)
• the province is obviously siege free

Step (3) mentions an event, which reads like:

Just as there can't be pacts between lions and men, there can't be reasoning with the Hordes. We must either conquer their lands or fight for their inhabitants freedom. We have garrisoned forts, manned outposts and established a firm military presence in Kazan. Our generals and administrators are confident that, with adequate preparations and support, the province will slip out of the Golden Horde's tenacious grip. It is our choice whether to begin Kazan's appropriation attempts now, or retard the decision in anticipation of further military developments.

The player can choose to start a countdown after which the province will defect (seven years). A modifier, named "Military Takeover", will be applied: it increases local defensiveness and supply, facilitating the task of defending the province from possible counterattacks. The costs of settling provinces depends on how many provinces are being occupied at the same time, so that the first ones are very accessible cost wise. Here's a table listing the cost per province, according to how many provinces are being taken over at the same time:

first province — 35 ducats second province — 80 ducats third province — 135 ducats fourth province — 185 ducats fifth province and more — 200 ducats

Basically, snatching one province at a time will always cost 35 ducats and seven years of occupation. Two provinces at the same time will cost 115 ducats, etc. The growing costs are there to assure that the settlement process is (a) slow, as it invites moderation to reduce costs and (b) initially accessible to economically weak countries. The focus is on military operations, rather than economic aspects. In vanilla rich countries can either spend 150 per province, immediately wasting five stocked colonists, or keep up colonial maintenance for about three years, with but one colonist consumed per province.

In the mod, provinces occupation doesn't increase revolt risk as much as in vanilla, there are several reasons for that, explained in other sections. Now, on occupying a province, should the player refuse to annex it, he will lose three prestige points. This adjustment was worked in so to discourage two mechanisms:

• fully occupying hordes for decades, without needing to face a threat
• preventing other players from acquiring provinces by endlessly occupying them

This article has grown longer than needed, the process is in fact rather simple. I will conclude with a few remarks:

• when you refuse to annex a horde province, after having occupied and secured it, you will have a new opportunity to acquire it after five years.
• there's an ulterior device to breathe new life in succumbing nomads — the "Warlord Rises!" event.
• whenever the last province of a steppe horde is acquired, the country will be annexed.
• the countdown to a province's annexation is always visible among the province's modifiers.
• whenever a province is secured and occupied, the horde owner will lose two legitimacy points — he will regain one on taking the province back
• the average time for hordes to acquire provinces is more or less the same for their sedentary enemies — about seven years
• while the player can decide to gain provinces which do not border his country (as in peace settlements), the AI won't
• the AI will attempt to gain the richest horde provinces first, and possibly discard the others

[lukew]

Interesting ideas. Will these fix the OOS errors caused by horde players or are those still there?

[silktrader]

Interesting ideas. Will these fix the OOS errors caused by horde players or are those still there?

It's hard to say before a large long lasting test is conducted. I could only check things in a LAN setup, with two boxes: I didn't witness any synchronisation error. When we featured a horde player, he would go out of synchronisation twice every hour or so, sometimes less frequently.

Johan mentioned a possible source of desynchronisation, tied to events, being fixed in the beta.

[birdike12]

I wonder if anyone made AARs using this mod? I'd be really interested in reading some, especially from playing a Horde, as it seems quite difficult for me.

[birdike12]

And I have a question: how can I get CB after 1650 as a muslim country against non-muslims, since I can't seem to be able to fabricate claims, i can't claim their throne, holy war is not anymore active and I don't seem to have any other CB except the occasional trade-dispute and violated sphere together with random events?

[birdike12]

Also I keep getting the 'Persuasion of force' after as the OE conquered Rome, I don't know if this is intentional or not and what it does exactly but it is quite annoying when I'm being spammed by this event and there is only on 'OK' to click with no tooltip what really happens...

[silktrader]

I am sorry, nobody wrote AARs. I've started describing changes to nomads, I will continue doing so hoping these pieces will help. A few weeks ago I tested both the Golden Horde and the Mongol Khanate on speed five. While playing as the Golden Horde I could unite the so called Great Mongolian Nation and sedentarise by 1540, which isn't exactly an exceptional result. Here's a screenshot:


As for casus belli, the mod features fewer than vanilla — they abound and relegate some national ideas or aspects to an accessory role. While you can't fabricate claims on countries whose religion differs from yours, you can stir up a border dispute: it's a new spy action that provides a claim, without a core, on the target province. It requires higher legitimacy than the opponent and substitutes the casus belli provided by the national focus, which is now gone (it was too easily exploitable as the AI would move it mindlessly).

You nonetheless have many casus belli to choose from, depending on your goals. The first that come to mind, in your situation:

• "Unam Sanctam" idea — Holy war
• Defender of the Faith — Holy war
• "Bill of Rights" idea — Liberation war
• Warnings, Guarantees — Defensive war
• Spheres of Influence — Intervention war
• Absolute Monarchy — Imperial war

The last in this list needs to be reviewed in the mod. You may already know how to take advantage of spheres, but this post explains what's new. Provided you have enough prestige and range allows it, you can add a country to your sphere while it is at war with a third party, and gain a casus belli against the latter.

Now, concerning the "Persuasion of Force", I made a mistake when I forgot to update a modifier's name: thanks for spotting the issue. I will update the mod tomorrow with a fix and other changes.

[birdike12]

Thanks for your replies!

I can't find this 'stir up border dispute' spy mission, it just does not show up for me...

And yeah, this is a really nice mod, so thank you again and keep up the good work, I like it very much!

[lukew]

This might be a stupid question, but...

If buildings get destroyed once they no longer meet the build requirements then surely, if you place an "overseas = no" requirement on land buildings and a nation, say oe for example connected India to its capital and built conscription centres there. If rebels took over his capital would all his CCs be instantly wiped? Or am I wrong?

[silktrader]

If buildings get destroyed once they no longer meet the build requirements then surely, if you place an "overseas = no" requirement on land buildings and a nation, say oe for example connected India to its capital and built conscription centres there. If rebels took over his capital would all his CCs be instantly wiped? Or am I wrong?

Not only would overseas conscription centres be lost if rebels took over the Ottoman Empire's capital, but the same would happen if supply lines to the capital were temporarily interrupted. An example: provided Istanbul is the Ottomans' capital, rebels stationing across the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles would turn distant land connected provinces into overseas ones.

I am suspecting you disagree, but the current behaviour is desired. There's a symmetry between the top three buildings (government, army, navy) and bottom three ones (trade, production, defense) — the first three are exclusive to one's home base (continent) and provide the means to expand (buildings, conquests), the bottom three increase income and facilitate defence.

In practical terms, the Ottoman Empire is encouraged to expand into the Balkans to conscript men — that's a strongly desired goal in multiplayer, so to avoid isolation. Religion and a relatively steady land connection otherwise suggest that expansion be sought in Asia or Africa. The same goes for Russia: pushing East will increase income, but not necessarily provide a solid and lasting manpower base. I remember playing as Russia and building conscription centres in land connected Delhi and neighbouring provinces — I'd like to discourage that, as the land connection stimulates isolation and strongly assists corner countries.

Now, since you're actually wondering whether the overseas catch is a good thing™, perhaps a warning tooltip should be included next to the building's requirements, so to avoid doubts and inform players. In case you were wondering whether it's possible to keep the buildings when rebels or blockades hinder supply lines, it can be done: one would need to assign flags on construction. This is how seminaries work in the mod. Since we can't check whether a culture is accepted or primary without changing scope (crash), the mod relies on events and flags triggered by the construction of town halls.

[silktrader]

A new version was uploaded.

(changes include the new "Stir Up Border Dispute" spy mission, Birdlike12)

[Brasem]

Not only would overseas conscription centres be lost if rebels took over the Ottoman Empire's capital, but the same would happen if supply lines to the capital were temporarily interrupted. An example: provided Istanbul is the Ottomans' capital, rebels stationing across the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles would turn distant land connected provinces into overseas ones.

I am suspecting you disagree, but the current behaviour is desired. There's a symmetry between the top three buildings (government, army, navy) and bottom three ones (trade, production, defense) — the first three are exclusive to one's home base (continent) and provide the means to expand (buildings, conquests), the bottom three increase income and facilitate defence.

With losing the conscription centers, do you mean that they are permanently lost (destroyed)? Or will you temporarily stop having benefits from them? And about the Bosphorus example, will territory be overseas as soon as rebels pop up or as soon as as the territory is occupied by rebels?


In practical terms, the Ottoman Empire is encouraged to expand into the Balkans to conscript men — that's a strongly desired goal in multiplayer, so to avoid isolation. Religion and a relatively steady land connection otherwise suggest that expansion be sought in Asia or Africa. The same goes for Russia: pushing East will increase income, but not necessarily provide a solid and lasting manpower base. I remember playing as Russia and building conscription centres in land connected Delhi and neighbouring provinces — I'd like to discourage that, as the land connection stimulates isolation and strongly assists corner countries.

Now, since you're actually wondering whether the overseas catch is a good thing™, perhaps a warning tooltip should be included next to the building's requirements, so to avoid doubts and inform players. In case you were wondering whether it's possible to keep the buildings when rebels or blockades hinder supply lines, it can be done: one would need to assign flags on construction. This is how seminaries work in the mod. Since we can't check whether a culture is accepted or primary without changing scope (crash), the mod relies on events and flags triggered by the construction of town halls.

With losing the conscription centers, do you mean that they are lost forever? Or just temporarily disabled? And about the bosphorus example, would the conscription centers be lost as soon as the rebels pop up, or as soon as the rebels capture the territory?

[silktrader]

With losing the conscription centers, do you mean that they are lost forever? Or just temporarily disabled? And about the bosphorus example, would the conscription centers be lost as soon as the rebels pop up, or as soon as the rebels capture the territory?

Two situations would trigger the overseas change: (a) rebels capture Istanbul, (b) rebels pop up in both Istanbul and Edirne, or Bursa and Bithynia. Pirates would have no effect on the overseas status. The Ottoman Empire would lose every conscription centre, in every continent that isn't Europe, forever.

The rationale — conscription centres, naval arsenals and colleges are meant to be constructed on the same continent as the capital.

For balance reasons I believe that Russia shouldn't be able to build conscription centres in China, or the Ottoman Empire in India, even more so in multiplayer. If you disagree with this conclusion, I am attaching another version of "buildings.txt", which makes these buildings sticky: once they are built, they stay, regardless of whether the overseas state changes.

Edit: removed attachment, it's now part of the mod.

[stnikolauswagne]

But what about the poor mamlucks? They start with their capital in Africa and most of their powerbase in Asia, arent they basically forced to move their capital to some place in Persia/Arabia due to this? Also, purely out of interest: How does this really hinder Russia from conscripting their chinese Population? If I understand the system they can still BUILD those buildings. Disconnecting Russia from its chinese possesions seems a lot harder than doing it to the OE or the Mamlucks.

[silktrader]

But what about the poor mamlucks? They start with their capital in Africa and most of their powerbase in Asia, arent they basically forced to move their capital to some place in Persia/Arabia due to this? Also, purely out of interest: How does this really hinder Russia from conscripting their chinese Population? If I understand the system they can still BUILD those buildings. Disconnecting Russia from its chinese possesions seems a lot harder than doing it to the OE or the Mamlucks.

The Russians can still build the conscription centres in central Asia or China, but the risk of losing them is great. It's greater for the Ottoman Empire and the Mamluks. The Golden Horde may have the same issue, as their capital is in Asia. While the Mamluks start with their capital in Africa, due to the short distance from Cairo, Asian provinces like Judea, Tabouk, Mecca, Beirut, etc. won't be considered overseas, no matter what. Damascus and Baghdad (Jalayirids), on the other hand, would be overseas if the land connection was interrupted.

[stnikolauswagne]

Oh, and another thing I meant to ask all along: Why the change from 2 connected ports to 3 connected ports for the EITC? The only country that is really affected by this (and has a reasonable chance of holding the "title") that I can think of is Venice. Was it done to specifically nerf them or is there another reason?

[silktrader]

Oh, and another thing I meant to ask all along: Why the change from 2 connected ports to 3 connected ports for the EITC? The only country that is really affected by this (and has a reasonable chance of holding the "title") that I can think of is Venice. Was it done to specifically nerf them or is there another reason?

The extra required port is a leftover from previous tweaks, I toyed with the value so to (a) increase the reliance of EITC countries on naval operations and (b) invite control over more than one seazone.

Premise:

The "East India Trade Co." is meant to imply the exchange of goods over naval routes, which assumes that the navy (military) covers commercial needs.

Here's two scenarios:

England has the EITC, Portugal wants it and needs to out England from East Asian ports. Portugal wages war on England, wins the naval conflict and blockades England. Albion is in a tough spot as WE from blockades is dangerous, warscore is a marginal factor. The English may decide to relinquish control over one or few overseas provinces, which enables Portugal's EITC.

Portugal wants Austria's EITC. They control the seas and blockade Austria's port — but they can't achieve anything, as WE from blockades is determined by the ratio of core coastal provinces blockade in relation to total core provinces. What are they going to do, throw fish at the Austrians from the Adriatic?

I had increased the number of ports required to stress the dependency on naval defenses, coasts. I reached the conclusion that the number needed to be so high as to be an excessively limiting factor for many countries. I think there's better ways to account for the enemy's naval superiority. I don't know whether you're familiar with the "Province Defects!" event in vanilla, but there could be a faster alternative for overseas provinces. Basically when the enemy is fully blockaded, has low tariff efficiency (few ships per overseas province), war score is positive, your war exhaustion is low, there would be chances to gain occupied overseas provinces outside normal peace agreements (option).

There was another reason I had increased the number of required ports. I wanted to avoid the possibility that EITC countries be subject to a full blockade by one simple stack of privateers (spy) occupying one seazone. There are many seazones in Europe which comprise more than three ports, so it was a moot point.

The additional required port is an insignificant change, as you remarked. We can get rid of it.

[silktrader]

Legitimacy

Legitimacy:

There are two large issues with legitimacy in the unmodded game:

a) abundance

Legitimacy is so readily available as to never cause a concern. The most obvious way to gain it is by setting up royal marriages, which cost but a diplomat and grant +0.5 legitimacy a year. There's no risk associated with marrying vassals daughters, if we ignore the risk of bearing ugly children. Personal unions won't derive from marriages with vassals, that is. Maximum war exhaustion (around 20) determines a loss of 6 legitimacy per year — it's not impossible, nor hard, to conclude twelve royal marriages.

The latest beta changes to attrition further increase legitimacy — less attrition leads to less war exhaustion and thus more legitimacy. Regencies remain a temporary threat to legitimacy (4), but having established that war exhaustion is easily offset with royal marriages, it's easily demonstrated that the "Royal Palace", prestige, trading in Chinaware and Grand Marshal all can void the 15 years or so of regency.

This first point deserves an observation: I've never seen a player use up cultural tradition to hire a "Grand Marshal".

b) effects

This is what maximum legitimacy entails in vanilla, the values are reversed when legitimacy is zero:

-10% stability costs -3 revolt risk +1 own, heathen and heretic tolerance +5 badboy limit

The many decreases to revolt risk, in vanilla, were discussed elsewhere. It suffices to note that maximum legitimacy results in -4 revolt risk (-4.25 in provinces where tolerance is negative). Tolerance (+1) increases population growth, diplomatic relations, tax income, decreases stability cost (mod) and revolt risk. Since legitimacy will inevitably remain high all these positive modifiers set monarchies apart from republics.

To balance the dynamics revolving around legitimacy it was decided to keep the positive effects it bestows, with but a few tweaks, but increase the sources of concern according to circumstances (regencies, dynastic change, espionage, offensive war lost, high war exhaustion). Over the entire grand campaign one should expect his legitimacy to drop below 100 and even 50 in dire times.

This is what legitimacy affects, in "Omnium Contra Omnes":

+/- 12 stability investment +/-3 revolt risk +5 badboy limit

Several new decisions consider legitimacy as a requirement, old ones were reviewed to include legitimacy. Here's a list:

British, Italian, Russian, Scandinavian, Spanish, Mughal, Mongol Nations Earliest westernisation Tribal reforms Forbidden City Court of Ward and Liveries Integrate Core (province) Leave the HRE (province) Ottoman Tolerance Afonsine Ordinances Call a Khuruldai (Hordes) Slave Ban (Hordes) Perform the Hajj Exact Tithes Conversion to Christian religions Dissolution of Monasteries Militia Act Proclaim Empire

Now, these are aspects which increase or decrease legitimacy, modifiers and occasional occurrences:

+5 Marshal (five stars) unavailable to Steppe Hordes +3 for 100 prestige +2 Medieval Tapestry (15 years) +2 Restraint of Appeals (Catholics, prevents Excom. effects on legitimacy and RR ) +2 Superintendents (Protestant, Reformed) +1 trading in fur +1 Royal Palace +1 Forbidden City (Chinese) +1 5 royal marriages +1 Muslim Mecca (Muslim) +1 Diwani Script (Muslim) +1 Curia Controller (Catholics, not Restraint of Appeals) +1 HR Emperor -5 regency -3 per 10 WE points -3 for -100 prestige -3 Steppe Horde -3 The Mandate of Heaven Lost -3 Excommunicated -3 Times of Trouble -1 negative stability -1 each occupied Imperial province if HRE -50 Peasant or Rebel Negotiation -50 nobles demands accepted or enforced -20 defeat conceded in offensive war (nomads start theirs) -13 legitimacy questioned (spy) -3 border dispute (spy) -3 Pretenders siege -2 Nomads settlement +2 Nomads sack cities +3 Nomads sack large cities +1 Nomads clear settlement

And this is what I ate for breakfast:

150 grams of St. Felicien cheese one banana 200 ml of orange juice a pink pony

Royal marriages effects were scaled down, they now actually consume diplomats when active: 0.1 per marriage. One can actually experience diplomats shortages in the mod (spheres, marriages, low DIP ruler). While still considerable, marriages appeal has therefore diminished. These changes benefit Muslim and Pagans who had very few candidates for royal marriages.

The Medieval Tapestery decision is available early on, until 1450 — it's a good first option to increase legitimacy before other options (decision, prestige) become available.

Prestige, positive or negative, has a greater impact on legitimacy. While maximum prestige is an awe inspiring goal to reach in the mod, it's the second most determining factor increasing legitimacy. It must be remembered that negative prestige has a natural tendency to increase back to zero. The same is true for positive prestige which decays to zero. Uncontested claims decrease legitimacy in the long run, as they remain tied to prestige.

Cultural tradition (Grand Marshal) and military proclivity (prestige) are the most determinant factors influencing legitimacy.

Each religious group is meant to have one decision affecting legitimacy, with varying effects. While it's possible to excommunicate countries which have the "Statute in Restraint of Appeals", these won't be affected by the negative revolt risk and legitimacy associated with excommunication — on the contrary they will reinforce their position.

All things equal, unless there are exceptional circumstances, a regency council will last at most 15 years: that's 75 prestige lost during that duration unless it is countered.

Legitimacy doesn't decrease stability cost modifiers anymore, as it could, in a few cases, lead to negative stability costs. Since the underlying concept is though sound, legitimacy increases stability investment: the higher and longer lasting, the more beneficial it is on stability. Small countries are obviously advantaged from the change.

Every time a pretender rebel stack gains control of a province, legitimacy is decreased by three.

Legitimacy is essential for Hordes survival, this aspect will be discussed in other sections.

[wazzul]

Is there an added benifit to royal marriages then or just a minor amount of legitimacy every year for less diplomats?

[Mach1av3ll1]

Burgundy: The two-headed monster