-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
BTW considering we are only 6years from 1550
i will allow people to exchange generals and admirals for conqs if they want to
they will start spawning after 1550 (i will manually edit any explorer and conq to start 5years later then the statspawndate)
you can ask 1 of each but you will loose a gen/adm for wichever you pick
[18:58:08] Aenigma drake: and you have to ask for that in your aar thread obviously at rewards
i will allow people to exchange generals and admirals for conqs if they want to
they will start spawning after 1550 (i will manually edit any explorer and conq to start 5years later then the statspawndate)
you can ask 1 of each but you will loose a gen/adm for wichever you pick
[18:58:08] Aenigma drake: and you have to ask for that in your aar thread obviously at rewards
So... how to fix Russia
it all depends if you guys want a viable Russia or not. atm Russia cant do jacksh*t.
So russia needs to get rid of all rebels, get Astraken annexed (Revolted), positiv stability, slider changes.
And also ducats, i dont remember whom, but some1 said 15k... and i didnt hear a lot of complains against it. concidering the bad state Russia is in. and 15k aint that huge amount, concidering some nations could accumulate that in some few years
it all depends if you guys want a viable Russia or not. atm Russia cant do jacksh*t.
So russia needs to get rid of all rebels, get Astraken annexed (Revolted), positiv stability, slider changes.
And also ducats, i dont remember whom, but some1 said 15k... and i didnt hear a lot of complains against it. concidering the bad state Russia is in. and 15k aint that huge amount, concidering some nations could accumulate that in some few years
All,
I've just gotten back to town and am, as promised, available for whatever's open.
And Drake, yeah, the name of this game makes me all misty.
I've just gotten back to town and am, as promised, available for whatever's open.
And Drake, yeah, the name of this game makes me all misty.
Here is the IDs for the 3provs...transfer them from Austria to Russia
465 kouban, 1690 circassia, 460 donetsk
465 kouban, 1690 circassia, 460 donetsk
I'd like to propose a change to the following rule: The land-naval slider will be reset to 5 between every session. You are allowed to make slider moves, but just be aware that you will lose them at the end of the session.
I'd like to see it changed to the following: The land-naval slider will be reset to 5 between every session. You are not allowed to make slider moves. Historical events moving the land/naval slider will be
The point of the rule is to make all nations able to compete on land and sea. I believe the reason moves are allowed during sessions is because it was considered too hard/troublesome to police midsession and considered too high a cost to move.
However, allowing it to be moved during the session (especially when we're doing 25 years/session) allows countries to gain significant advantages. Any country that needs to compete on both will be at a major disadvantage on land, sea or both. Let's take a hypothetical case of France, England and Austria. Assume Austria and England ally against France. England moves toward naval and Austria moves toward land. France now has the choice of going land to match Austria (and being at a larger disadvantage against England's navy), going naval (and being at a larger disadvantage against Austria's army) or neither and accepting disadvantages on both.
Allowing it to be moved undermines the reason we implemented the locked land slider in the first place: to allow all countries to compete evenly on both land and sea.
If we accept the logic behind the rule--even competition on sea and land--then I don't see a compelling reason to allow slider moves at all.
I'd like to see it changed to the following: The land-naval slider will be reset to 5 between every session. You are not allowed to make slider moves. Historical events moving the land/naval slider will be
The point of the rule is to make all nations able to compete on land and sea. I believe the reason moves are allowed during sessions is because it was considered too hard/troublesome to police midsession and considered too high a cost to move.
However, allowing it to be moved during the session (especially when we're doing 25 years/session) allows countries to gain significant advantages. Any country that needs to compete on both will be at a major disadvantage on land, sea or both. Let's take a hypothetical case of France, England and Austria. Assume Austria and England ally against France. England moves toward naval and Austria moves toward land. France now has the choice of going land to match Austria (and being at a larger disadvantage against England's navy), going naval (and being at a larger disadvantage against Austria's army) or neither and accepting disadvantages on both.
Allowing it to be moved undermines the reason we implemented the locked land slider in the first place: to allow all countries to compete evenly on both land and sea.
If we accept the logic behind the rule--even competition on sea and land--then I don't see a compelling reason to allow slider moves at all.
Last edited:
I'm not sure what you mean by "allowed between sessions," but the rule seems to be meant to permit midsession slider moves to allow players the tactical choice to make short-term changes to the quality of their military if they deem it useful, without disrupting any long-term equilibrium.
So it seems to me what you're describing as a problem is actually what the rule's supposed to do. Also, looking at the stats and events, it doesn't seem like anyone's actually moving sliders. I know I haven't, and with the exception of HAL's +3 Land (which was caused by an event), no one has touched it in at least 4 sessions, and I'm willing to bet every slider move before that was event-based too.
Now, the slider should be reset between sessions, but that's Drake's fault
and has nothing to do with the rules.
Last edited:
I'm not sure what you mean by "allowed between sessions," but the rule seems to be meant to permit midsession slider moves to allow players the tactical choice to make short-term changes to the quality of their military if they deem it useful, without disrupting any long-term equilibrium.
So it seems to me what you're describing as a problem is actually what the rule's supposed to do. Also, looking at the stats and events, it doesn't seem like anyone's actually moving sliders. I know I haven't, and with the exception of HAL's +3 Land (which was caused by an event), no one has touched it in at least 4 sessions, and I'm willing to bet every slider move before that was event-based too.
Now, the slider should be reset between sessions, but that's Drake's fault
Sorry that was supposed to be "allowed during sessions." HAL's +3 land was caused by him moving the slider, his event was from the previous session (1544-1564) and edited out. Obviously, it's allowed by the rules and I want to stress that I don't think HAL did anything wrong. However, I think the rule as stated undermines the purpose of locking the land slider and should be changed.
You get an extra leader of your choice for your first FAA and one more for every three after that. So if you have no other leader bonuses (quantity, decentralized etc) and one FAA you'd get five leaders. 4 FAAs and you'd get six leaders.
Last edited:
confirmed
though provinces annexed at the end of a session dont count in my opinion dane
but i wil think about that
though provinces annexed at the end of a session dont count in my opinion dane
but i wil think about that
What does this part mean? Will stab be added in-between sessions, and what relevance does +3 stab have?
And does "extra leader of your choice" include explorers and conqs?
you always have 2generals and 2admirals (you cannot exchange the base admirals for generals or oposite)
fine art leaders will be added ontop of the base leaders (+1 general then +1admiral then again repeat)
you can ask your generals to be conqs and admirals to be explorer
any extra leaders will go to by default to generals but can go anywhere you want
up to this point i kept it restricted to giving people max 1conq and 1explorer a generation but with 1600 arround i wil lift this restriction
so at this point you can do almost whatever you want with your extra leaders tc
do you want 2 conqs and 5explorers instead of 5generals and 2admirals ? go ahead
but if you dont ask for it i wil just generate default 2/2 + anything extra to generals
fine art leaders will be added ontop of the base leaders (+1 general then +1admiral then again repeat)
you can ask your generals to be conqs and admirals to be explorer
any extra leaders will go to by default to generals but can go anywhere you want
up to this point i kept it restricted to giving people max 1conq and 1explorer a generation but with 1600 arround i wil lift this restriction
so at this point you can do almost whatever you want with your extra leaders tc
do you want 2 conqs and 5explorers instead of 5generals and 2admirals ? go ahead
but if you dont ask for it i wil just generate default 2/2 + anything extra to generals
Last edited:
the rule will be
1fine art = 1 leader to the base 2/2
+ every 2 after that = 1 additional leader (not +3 as dane suggested)
this way we can encourage people to build them without going into obsene amounts of them fast)
these leaders will be added like this
1 faa = +1 general
3 faa = 1 general, 1 admiral
5 faa = 2 generals, 1 admiral
4 faa = 2 gen 2 adm
ect
and the rest is the same
Last edited:
Uhm Drake....looking at the stats I can´t help notice you haven´t yet reduced my inflation by 2%, nor added the investment in trade as per my aar request.
Could this perhaps be done ere session begin?
Could this perhaps be done ere session begin?
Sorry, I didn't see this post before. Stab will be edited in between each session. You get 30D per manufactory per year, what your stab was during the session is too hard to track and so is ignored for this rule. Example: If you had 1 luxury manufactory last session you'll get 30D x 26 years x 1 luxury manufactory = 780D edited into your stab investment.
The logic behind the rule is that luxury manufactories have counter-synergy and are incredibly weak compared to other manus. They give 60D/year into stab investment and 1% reduction in stabcost and 6D or 12D/year income. They're supposed to help you keep high stab, but the minute they succeed [+3 stab] they cease to provide 90% of their benefit [60D/year and 1% stabcost reduction]. Therefore it seemed logical to edit in some of the potentially lost stab income between sessions. 60D/year seemed too generous, since most people don't spend the entire session below +3. We settled on assuming half the session below +3 stab = 30D/year. Even with this buff luxury manufactories are still weak, so John suggested we give some extra leaders too.
Drake covered the second half pretty well.
So.... i give OE the rights to monopolise in my CoTs when im gone... keep it in mind
A few points I'd to see like discussed before the next session and my stances on them:
1) Is anyone interested in revisiting the land slider? We saw 8 moves toward land in an 18 year session. I'm not sure what forcing everyone to spend their DP clicks on land achieves other than rewarding countries with maxed sliders and low stabcost (a group of which I'm a part, for the record).
2) TC/HAL's rule-breaking vassalage. The rule is: "No vassals, vassals are banned." Nowhere has it ever been mentioned that this only applies to AI vassals. Considering how legalistic TC has been about NAPs, the land slider and map trading I'm a little surprised he went for this. It should, at the very least, be edited out and the bonus manpower removed.
3) Galleys/Warships. Now that Japan's gone should we return to the old rule: Build as many warships as you want, but they're not allowed in European waters or continue with the current rule?
4) Free slider moves when you reset, currently we allow seven. Considering the constant changes to slider bonuses (especially if we continue to allow land slider clicks) I think it might be fairer to just let people reset their sliders (central/offensive/quality, not all sliders) however they want when there's a change.
5) Polstrian leaders. This has been a travesty since it happened. It's absurd that Russia has had to fight two of the best leader pools in the game, and Delian's been incredibly sporting considering. Since HAL's already benefited from the Polish ubers, it might be fair to remove the Austrian leaders going forward. If nothing else, the remaining Polish leaders should be removed.
1) Is anyone interested in revisiting the land slider? We saw 8 moves toward land in an 18 year session. I'm not sure what forcing everyone to spend their DP clicks on land achieves other than rewarding countries with maxed sliders and low stabcost (a group of which I'm a part, for the record).
2) TC/HAL's rule-breaking vassalage. The rule is: "No vassals, vassals are banned." Nowhere has it ever been mentioned that this only applies to AI vassals. Considering how legalistic TC has been about NAPs, the land slider and map trading I'm a little surprised he went for this. It should, at the very least, be edited out and the bonus manpower removed.
3) Galleys/Warships. Now that Japan's gone should we return to the old rule: Build as many warships as you want, but they're not allowed in European waters or continue with the current rule?
4) Free slider moves when you reset, currently we allow seven. Considering the constant changes to slider bonuses (especially if we continue to allow land slider clicks) I think it might be fairer to just let people reset their sliders (central/offensive/quality, not all sliders) however they want when there's a change.
5) Polstrian leaders. This has been a travesty since it happened. It's absurd that Russia has had to fight two of the best leader pools in the game, and Delian's been incredibly sporting considering. Since HAL's already benefited from the Polish ubers, it might be fair to remove the Austrian leaders going forward. If nothing else, the remaining Polish leaders should be removed.
1 )
considering majority voted to keep it as it was i gues we keep it as it is
though personally i stil prefer to allow def/quan to move land (but get reset at 1) and ban the rest
so i can get rid of the +2mil rating bonus they got
2)
no rule is broken since that was never with players in mind, we even stil have rules in the first page about how a vassalplayer should behave.
the no vassal rule is a classic example of how rules made up on the fly was a bad idea because we forgot to think it trough and list what is allowed and isnt
you can complain all you want about this but the spirit of the rule was to end abuse from keeping a small ai arround forever to abuse it for mp
3)
i completly agree we should go back to the old rule
4)
i think its fair to keep at 7
that way you can move to 9 before end of session do a -7 and your already at 2
this way people stil spend first 2clicks during the session on going further there
5)
i agree actually
but i reckon aus deserves some compensation for it since he was promised it at the start when we merged it
considering majority voted to keep it as it was i gues we keep it as it is
though personally i stil prefer to allow def/quan to move land (but get reset at 1) and ban the rest
so i can get rid of the +2mil rating bonus they got
2)
no rule is broken since that was never with players in mind, we even stil have rules in the first page about how a vassalplayer should behave.
the no vassal rule is a classic example of how rules made up on the fly was a bad idea because we forgot to think it trough and list what is allowed and isnt
you can complain all you want about this but the spirit of the rule was to end abuse from keeping a small ai arround forever to abuse it for mp
3)
i completly agree we should go back to the old rule
4)
i think its fair to keep at 7
that way you can move to 9 before end of session do a -7 and your already at 2
this way people stil spend first 2clicks during the session on going further there
5)
i agree actually
but i reckon aus deserves some compensation for it since he was promised it at the start when we merged it
Last edited: