Battlefront IV - Lords of War

[Tem_Probe]

can we make you have to be at war for 1 year to stab hit bliyz wars are so gay

perhaps something about reputation stating demmands before war etc just a thought..

In IER, I made a rule where the stabhit rule only applies if defender has WE 5. That's easy to check, and prevents a blitzkrieg tactic unless the opponent is already exhausted from a war.

 

[arcorelli]

can we make you have to be at war for 1 year to stab hit bliyz wars are so gay

perhaps something about reputation stating demmands before war etc just a thought..

Not my game, but I will say my opinion anyway: the -3 stab should be relaxed anyway (it is not the same that if you started war at +3 stab that if you started at -1 stab after all).

 

[unmerged(18425)]

* (EGA5 rule) If at -3 stab and -99WS, you have to accept next stabhitting offer immediately. Only an alliance leader can send a stab hitting peace offer.

Well, I am not part of the game, but I advice strongly against this rule in it's current form. Blitzing someone to -99 WS is quite easy with superior leadership. It is also easy to do when an alliance attacks a single country.

Adding a minimum amount of WE is a good idea, but not perfect either, since you can still backstab someone which already is in a war for a long time and blitz him to -99 WS.

The better option, in my opinion, is to add a minimum of 3 years of warfare before you can force someone to peace. If you can't come back after 3 years of warfare, you won't come back and then a forced peace is perhaps justified.

 

[unmerged(7276)]

i repeat blitz wars suck. I have used them i will admit but i aint proud

 

[HolisticGod]

Tem,

Exactly.

And as for the stabhit rule, I think a 3 year min. is the best solution. Although at -99 warscore, -3 stab and 5 WE you should peace anyway.

 

[unmerged(18425)]

In Diplomacy Universalis 1.5 we also had the rule that the traditional trading countries aren't allowed to sign TA's with other human played trading nations. This to break the traditional trade blocks and promote trade wars.

Worked quite well. We had a lot more embargoes and wars because of this. Perhaps an idea?

And my list with controversial things is here:
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?p=4507805#post4507805

 

[Fredrik82]

Although at -99 warscore, -3 stab and 5 WE you should peace anyway.

That is not a matter of course for everyone, unfortunately.
And that's why a rule like this might be necessary.

I've always been sceptical towards a rule like this, and i still dont like it.
As the situation ingame are never ever the same.

So, the question is. Do we need such a rule, or is it perhaps enough to add it under the "guidelines" of the game and encourage people to peace when it's in the best interest of your country.?

 

[Fredrik82]

In Diplomacy Universalis 1.5 we also had the rule that the traditional trading countries aren't allowed to sign TA's with other human played trading nations. This to break the traditional trade blocks and promote trade wars.

Worked quite well. We had a lot more embargoes and wars because of this. Perhaps an idea?

Yes, a very interesting idea even.
I will add this one to the discussion list.

Edit: Post1 and 2 updated
Edit2: HG has been promoted to Co/GM and Editor of the game. He will be the boss ingame. As it's likely that i will be the host.

 

[unmerged(10915)]

My thoughts.

Other ideas for this game.
I dont love all of them myself, but i think they might add stuff to the game.
Please post what you think.

Thanks for all the interesting ideas, Europes Golden Age 5 crew

* Perm CB on all human played nations for everyone. (this worked out very well in BF3, it totally rocks. And it means alot more conflicts and it actually also minimize the amount of alliances.)

I agree!

* (EGA5 rule) If at -3 stab and -99WS, you have to accept next stabhitting offer immediately. Only an alliance leader can send a stab hitting peace offer.

In principle, i agree that a player should be forced to accept a peace and not drag it out Tonio style. There are no rules that are perfect for this however, but this one works.

* (EGA5 rule) Maximum 3 provinces taken from a human in a war per alliance. Non-european provs count as 1/2, TPs count as 1/5, and CoTs as 2 provinces. After 1650 maximum of 5 provinces can be taken. After 1700, 7 provs and after 1800 no peace restriction. This only takes effect between humans. No rule between humans and AI.

An amazingly bad rule that hampers gameplay, wars and players' ability to weaken the strongest player. Leave it out for heaven's sake...

* (EGA5) A nation that controls a province that it isnt his core for 60 years and it has a state culture, will get a core on it. This doesnt have a limit like culture, ie, you can gain a core as much as you be able to claim it. Further the core prov MUST have the same religion of the country unless the country has Innovativiness >=9. Provinces with COLONIAL culture cannot be claimed.

No opinion, but it might get a little cluttered.

* (EGA5) If you chose to become a Counter-reform country, you cannot switch back to Catholicism until the Edict of Tolerance.

A good rule. CRC offers huge bonuses and the tech malus is not often felt for a land warmachine that doesnt economize like hell.

* (EGA5) Cultural Rule: Any nation that control 75% of a culture for 30 years may claim that culture as state culture, but a nation can only claim ONE(1) culture. So plan it carefully as a culture gained by this way will not be removed in any case; Japanese, Han, Mongol, and Cantonese can't be claimed and Persian can only be claimed by OE or Mughals after 1700. The burden of proof in this matter lies on the players.

This idea just got alot better when you could only claim one culture . Before it was amazingly twisted, with Russia and OE gaining extreme advantages.

* (EGA5) This one will replace the current one we're using in this game.
If a human is forced-vassalized he must remain this way for at least 20 years. Unless his liege frees him peacefully after those 20 years he must fight for independence (if he wants it). Vassals cannot declare war on the Overlord's allies or vassals without his permission.

I agree!

* Map sharing with the AI forbidden

I agree!

* Extra cores to Brandenburg, and Venice if played.

Maybe to Brandenburg, but not to Venice. That nation is just a filler that hampers fun interaction between Frenchies and Habsburgs since Austria will have no great reason to go for Italy due to the risk of a Venetian backstab.

Discuss!

 

[unmerged(7276)]

* (EGA5 rule) Maximum 3 provinces taken from a human in a war per alliance. Non-european provs count as 1/2, TPs count as 1/5, and CoTs as 2 provinces. After 1650 maximum of 5 provinces can be taken. After 1700, 7 provs and after 1800 no peace restriction. This only takes effect between humans. No rule between humans and AI.

Another problem with this rule is the point i made about Ai bashing at the start. Everyone already has the tendancy to annex as much as quick as possible. This will make it worse as it will be even harder to wrench off humans once they hold it.

Noone especially jumped in support of limiting expansion in europe at all so ill assume people arnt too keen. I agree retricting gameplay isnt a good thing in general but consider just how much bigger this map is.

 

[Norrefeldt]

I wonder what rules you will apply to editing. Last time I were in the same game as HG I remember it being unrestricted, or just limited by the GM in certain circumstances. I'm not very fond of that. What's the plan here?

I found this

- Editing will be kept to a minimum

That can be a very vague statement to me, since we had the same rule in the other game. For example, will editing of provinces between player nations be allowed if they have agreed on a deal?

 

[Fredrik82]

What's the plan here?

The purpose with this Disussion thread is that we will discuss importent issues, and decied what to use and not to use.
If a certain thing is strongly opposed by enough players in this game, it'll not be used. Also, if even one player oppose something. I will take that under consideration before implanting it. And perhaps make certain changes that might be more acceptable. But we cant please everyone, we will have to accept the power of what the majority thinks.

I found this
That can be a very vague statement to me, since we had the same rule in the other game. For example, will editing of provinces between player nations be allowed if they have agreed on a deal?

That's exactly what it means,
i've never allowed that kind of edits in my game. Especially not those agreed by a deal etc.
Everything can be done ingame, and i have seen examples in other games were this kind of editation actually hurt the gameplay itself. Because in the end people rather prefer to edit it then to possibly loose it to the enemy etc.

Flaws, bugs and other edits that got a certain relevance will always be edited if that is necessary.

 

[Norrefeldt]

That's exactly what it means,
i've never allowed that kind of edits in my game. Especially not those agreed by a deal etc.
Everything can be done ingame, and i have seen examples in other games were this kind of editation actually hurt the gameplay itself. Because in the end people rather prefer to edit it then to possibly loose it to the enemy etc.

Flaws, bugs and other edits that got a certain relevance will always be edited if that is necessary.

That is very close to my interpretation as well. I had just learnt that it's something completely different to others (for example HG at the time), and therefore wanted a clarification

Sounds good to me, since I also think the gameplay is hurt from editing deals.

 

[Waldzwerg]

(EGA5 rule) Maximum 3 provinces taken from a human in a war per alliance. Non-european provs count as 1/2, TPs count as 1/5, and CoTs as 2 provinces. After 1650 maximum of 5 provinces can be taken. After 1700, 7 provs and after 1800 no peace restriction. This only takes effect between humans. No rule between humans and AI.

I agree with Mulli, that's a pretty bad rule. Makes wars between humans even less appealing. My proposal for limits would be something else: Loss of max. 1 CoT in each war and a set limit for losing own cores (maybe 1 for very small countries, 2 for medium and 3 for large ones). Otherwise no limits at all. We want many wars between humans, especially colonial, not the usual ai bashing.

 

[unmerged(32886)]

(EGA5 rule) Maximum 3 provinces taken from a human in a war per alliance. Non-european provs count as 1/2, TPs count as 1/5, and CoTs as 2 provinces. After 1650 maximum of 5 provinces can be taken. After 1700, 7 provs and after 1800 no peace restriction. This only takes effect between humans. No rule between humans and AI.

Hmmm... I know I'm out of place here, since I'm not in your campaign, but I would like to say the following: *I can hear all you going buhhhhhh... *
I think the rule is good. *Wow, the buhhhhh just got louder *
It prevents human players from expanding like mad at the start, caring not for stab, economy... It requires players to think more instead of just AI bashing and human wars all the time.
*hello... is this mike still open?... Oh well, I'll just continue anyway.*
It also means that humans can't cripple other humans in just one war.
HOWEVER, this rule has one flaw. It should be applied in all wars in which humans participate. Either versus AI or versus other humans. Makes the game much more interesting instead just mindless army throwing at each other.
Right. Well, that's it. Please refrain fom throwing rotten tomatoes or eggs or bottles.

 

[unmerged(10915)]

It requires players to think more instead of just AI bashing and human wars all the time.

Human wars are exactly what is strived for in this campaign. Even though i agree with cheech that rampant AI annexation is a little dull, if that is the price that is recquired for conflict to arise, then at least i am glad to pay it.

It prevents human players from expanding like mad at the start, caring not for stab, economy...

AI expansion is the least economy wrecking form of warfare in eu2. All players can handle it without any considerable damage to their nations (except me when it concerns Persia *grumble grumble*).

It also means that humans can't cripple other humans in just one war.
HOWEVER, this rule has one flaw. It should be applied in all wars in which humans participate.

If human players cant cripple each other in wars, the minor nations lose their only ability to get back at the overpowered ones. Even though practically everyone balks at gangbangs and go rabid when they are subjected to it, this occurence should NOT be outlawed through rules. Gangbangs keep games fresh and give nations the ability to change the balance of power.

Either versus AI or versus other humans.

In Europe, which is what matters at start and which is of the most importance, there are rarely AI nations of a greater size than three province. This rule is useless for such instances.

Makes the game much more interesting instead just mindless army throwing at each other.

Au contraire, it makes it more static, less amount of action and useless wars with small gain. Europe might experience short periods of conflict, but it will mostly remain peaceful. Your rule gives economizers and hypertechers an unfair advantage, as they wont suffer the risk of being attacked by aggressive players, or them not being able to make any meaningful damage.
I dont oppose hypertechers as such, but they should at least be forced to submit themselves to some danger by their actions.

 

[Norrefeldt]

Gangbangs keep games fresh...

Who doesn't agree with this obvious statement!?

 

[HolisticGod]

Nor and Fred,

Blaming editing for a lack of wars or whatever is lazy. It's not the problem. And even if it were, you can't solve it by simply requiring deals to be made in game. That's less realistic but just as likely to enable players to avoid conflict (which, you know, they ought to be able to do...)

In BoP, which has my usual liberal editing policy, we've seen France alone fight fifteen human-human wars in a century and a half-and that's in the early game. Austria has fought ten. And other games that were edit heavy, like ToT III or TfG, have been among the bloodiest I've ever seen.

It really comes down to the players and factors in the scenario. Restricting province editing, something that ought to be in the game and that's necessary for simultaneous diplomacy, will have absolutely zero effect except to irritate the players.

 

[unmerged(18425)]

It really comes down to the players and factors in the scenario. Restricting province editing, something that ought to be in the game and that's necessary for simultaneous diplomacy, will have absolutely zero effect except to irritate the players.

Agreed.

I have said it a thousand times: If players want to make a deal, they will do so. Edits or no edits.

 

[PJL]

Agreed.

I have said it a thousand times: If players want to make a deal, they will do so. Edits or no edits.

Then the solution is to restrict deals. Personally I wouldn't mnid a 1 province (or maybe 2 province limit with the AOD map) purchase or sell limit per person in Europe (no COTs) and a one COT limit overseas (unlimited normal provinces though). A max of one deal per person per session as well. This game should be about war, not Monopoly (unless it's merchant trading of course! ).

Going back to the land-naval lock, it loooks like no-one else seems to be against this rule. Well I will play with it, just don't expect me to choose the countries I've mentioned. If cheech, HG, and Fredrik are so keen on it, why not put their money where their mouths are, and actually play those countries, just to prove me wrong.

Finally, I broadly agree with what Mulli said re the rules mentioned.