That's a crying shame. Changes are primarily based on suggestions brought forth by players in the previous release threads and other threads discussing scenario set-up. If you want changes to be made, that is where you should make your stand.Biceps said:
Like your post here, for instance
Neither nor, not either or, in fact.
- All changes do no necessarily improve the historical accuracy: historical accuracy, while important, is not the prime determinant in this mod
- I do not necessarily want to unify all nations
First??? That was the tenth release, and if you think things are bad now, you should try some of the earliest releases
Is this statement concerning 1.1.1 backed up by gameplay experience or is it a projection? If the latter, it conflicts with my own projections in no small degree and will have to await empirical analysis based on gameplay. If the former, please explain.
I suggest you read the 1520 experiences thread in the MP forum to see why the description of Venice as small and weak was, in fact, a complete misnomer - and something to be corrected. Venice did not get boosted out of pity, but because several players presented credible explanations for why Venice was inaccurately depicted in the old setup.
No, let us give them bigger manpower (though still less than France, of course), not because they are weaker than France, but because they seem in MP to generally fight less than desired, often due to a lack of manpower imposed by the severe naval/quality 40-50% hit as opposed to the land/quantity 40%-50% boost so common on the mainland, and see if it leads to more British involvement in Europe in MP. If it proves too much in actual play (e.g. English armies dominating Europe or just France or England typically choosing to become land/quantity rather than naval/quality), reduce it in a future release. If it does its job, keep it as is. The only way to find out is to try it out in MP play.
Strongly disagree. Once the shit hits the fan and players start backstabbing, the BoP is determined by the best diplomat or the least discredited
D), as usual, not the start-up settings.Of course I am biased. Everybody is. And not only that, I am arrogant to boot. If I like a proposed change, the standard of evidence is lower than if I dislike it. The title of the project, "Peter's Age of Explorations" should give you the hint.
Disrespectful of history, though, is harder to evaluate.
I neglect those whom people do not make suggestions for editing in my release threads. If, for instance, nobody suggests edits for Spain and I do not think of any either, then none are made. Simple as that. Changes and suggestions mainly come as a result of bitching, moaning, and the occasionally enlightened post concerning gameplay in the last release.
Read the 1520 MP experiences thread dangling around somewhere in the MP forum.
Read the 1520 MP experiences thread dangling around somewhere in the MP forum.
If you want and/or expect particular changes made, POST THEM IN THE RELEASE THREADS. Despite my many sterling qualities, I am not a mind reader.Still, in my opinion you've made a fantastic job Peter. I admire your 1520 scenario. But you've totally surprised me. I expected completly different changes and I was afraid of giving you my own ideas and suggestions, as I found them not fully professional (I'm not a Doctor of History
can give some historical basis for them? I don't know everything, so there is a lot points where you can convince me.
If you dislike a suggestion in the release thread, say so (and feel free to disprove points). If you support a suggestion, and few others have chimed in, then chime in to increase the odds of it being considered for inclusion.
As for MY qualifications, I am not now, nor have I ever been, an historian. Rather, I have one main purpose (other than self-gratification, that is) with this mod...
Got it in one. It is primarily an MP mod. hence the 24 players. That has never been a secret.
-----
To clarify some of my earlier points, there are several approaches to scenario design, of which I will present two. One is to perform only well-researched, well-documented, and preferably minor changes, which creates a sequence of gradually changing scenario versions that approach some distant goal somewhere in the distant future, but where new releases seldom rock the boat. Tweak, tweak, tweak.
I find that approach ultimately boring and time consuming, and, given the length of MP games, have no intention of following it, and never had. I am neither going to spend scores of hours of my spare time on research or testing for a release, nor am I going to spend the time on a full scale team approach, with all the administration that entails, that is - usually - the only viable alternative.
Another approach is to perform larger, somewhat arbitrary, and less well-documented changes, based on data available and projections as to the likely outcome of changes. In this case it creates a sequence of greatly different scenario versions, where each release attempts to maintain the best of the previous edits and throws in some new ones for evaluation through play.
Given that I find such thought experiments interesting, and have not proven completely incompetent in making projections, and that, furthermore, it is something that I can do within the time I have available, that is of course the way I have chosen to manage this scenario. Basically, I throw in massive changes from release to release and watch the shit hit the fan. The things that stick are are maintained, the things that do not, do not. Ahhhh - mixed metaphors
That, of course, means that every release is likely to contain (for every player) at least something that is objectionable. That is why I monitor the level and magnitude of bitching concerning individual changes.
Last edited:
