1419: New Order II

[Slargos]

Slragos, please, please, reconsider. None of your neighbours are hyperteching, and none of those that are have enough manpower to damage you. Most of those who are still below land 14 are there because they have fought big wars. It may become a problem, but it isn't going to become a problem for Russia for quite some time.

I've been enjoying playing with you in Russia, and I think you're doing a good job of it. Maybe you could think about it again before next week?

In ROTS, everyone but France, Austria and Spain was hyperteching and it became downright silly rather quickly with only Franco-Habsburg wars and the odd intervention from the sidelines.

Yes, I know that Austria, OE and Russia will see a lot of action but the situation in the west will most likely remain the same for the rest of the game.

Seeing Burgundy with trade 8 in 1620 when I'm pretty much going to *finish* ROTS with trade 8 as Spain 200 years later really takes my interest out of the game.

 

[devil]

In ROTS, everyone but France, Austria and Spain was hyperteching and it became downright silly rather quickly with only Franco-Habsburg wars and the odd intervention from the sidelines.

Yes, I know that Austria, OE and Russia will see a lot of action but the situation in the west will most likely remain the same for the rest of the game.

Seeing Burgundy with trade 8 in 1620 when I'm pretty much going to *finish* ROTS with trade 8 as Spain 200 years later really takes my interest out of the game.

Quite understandable, I can only agree.

 

[Slargos]

Next game, I'm obviously going to have to put the techers in nations like Austria and France.

The great problem is that any nation that's not smack dab in the middle of the action can hypertech.

OE can hypertech, Russia can hypertech, given that their neighbours are equally intent on hyperteching.

Obviously, some sort of tech rule needs to be implemented for those players that can't help themselves but would rather not engage in player on player wars for several sessions in a row in favour of teching and trading.

 

[unmerged(18425)]

Next game, I'm obviously going to have to put the techers in nations like Austria and France.

Now, am I a techer?

Obviously, some sort of tech rule needs to be implemented for those players that can't help themselves but would rather not engage in player on player wars for several sessions in a row in favour of teching and trading.

It's not only that. Some players love wars, but still tech, like for example Robertus as England in RotS. It depends on the countries. Some countries are far too easy to tech with, like England, if there is no active war in the rest of the world.
Also, since we now have a hard badboy limit, this also influences it.

IF you ask me, hyperteching is married with a lack of colonial warfare.

By the way, what are the naval and land techs of burgundy?

 

[Slargos]

Now, am I a techer?

You were reaching Mullimanic levels as OE before you decided to join the rest of the world.

It's not only that. Some players love wars, but still tech, like for example Robertus as England in RotS. It depends on the countries. Some countries are far too easy to tech with, like England, if there is no active war in the rest of the world.

As England, it's your goddamned duty to get involved not only while other people are fighting, but to start your own wars.

I think this is very much a problem of player mentality.

Many players think that "to start a war I must be 95% sure of success and it must be 'worth' it in that I have to be guaranteed to earn more money from the spoils than what I lost from the war."

If I and Peter had thought like that in ROTS, there would *hardly* have been any of the grueling and costly wars of the Pyrennées and where THEN would the game have been?

 

[unmerged(18425)]

You were reaching Mullimanic levels as OE before you decided to join the rest of the world.

Because I wanted to eliminate Persia and get the Songhai mines before doing anything else

Many players think that "to start a war I must be 95% sure of success and it must be 'worth' it in that I have to be guaranteed to earn more money from the spoils than what I lost from the war."

If I and Peter had thought like that in ROTS, there would *hardly* have been any of the grueling and costly wars of the Pyrennées and where THEN would the game have been?

But you and Peter did make a sort of rule as in : only wage wars for one province. I know you have broken that one in the last session, but still: it was a way to eliminate the risk of waging wars.
If you did not had that agreement, would there still be that much of wars?

Also: Wyvern waged a lot of wars as Austria in ROTS, but he also made many times sure it was a one on one, again to elimate part of the risk. Others have done the same.

 

[Slargos]

But you and Peter did make a sort of rule as in : only wage wars for one province. I know you have broken that one in the last session, but still: it was a way to eliminate the risk of waging wars.
If you did not had that agreement, would there still be that much of wars?

We made an arrangement where every war was fought over specific gains. For instance, once Peter had claimed Roussillon and I wanted it back, it was a war over the ownership of Gerona and Roussillon.

This was not to eliminate risk, but to engage in more gentlemanly conduct.

Of course, I broke it when I found it sufficiently reasonable to do so.

Also: Wyvern waged a lot of wars as Austria in ROTS, but he also made many times sure it was a one on one, again to elimate part of the risk. Others have done the same.

We like to do one-on-one to not make them too onesided. In some games wars are about who can amass the biggest coalition and thus win by default. Some players prefer a different approach.

 

[unmerged(18425)]

I know the reasons for it, but the fact those deals meant a lesser risk in the end approved for waging more wars.

So, in short: such deals should be made more.

 

[unmerged(11216)]

Good that I asked Tonio to sub first if I wouldnt be here next week, I can smell the war...

 

[ForzaA]

Many players think that "to start a war I must be 95% sure of success and it must be 'worth' it in that I have to be guaranteed to earn more money from the spoils than what I lost from the war."

hurray.. either I'm not one of many... or I'm very unlucky and bad at maths

 

[Hive]

I totally agree with everything Slargos have posted in this thread today, and I understand his frustration. I especially find this part to be right on spot:

I think this is very much a problem of player mentality.

Many players think that "to start a war I must be 95% sure of success and it must be 'worth' it in that I have to be guaranteed to earn more money from the spoils than what I lost from the war."

And this is exactly what happend in SfS:

In some games wars are about who can amass the biggest coalition and thus win by default. Some players prefer a different approach.

Like Slargos says, it's a question of player mentality. And like Slargos, I will take measures to prevent this sick powerteching in the next game I GM.

And although I don't agree with FAL that the lack of a possibility for colonial wars is a main reason for this, I do agree that such a function could help greatly.

Anyway, I'm sad to see Slargos leave - and hope that he'll reconsider.

 

[Rezag]

Back from tour around europe and watching football in Portugal so have to read the many pages to get up what has happened.

 

[Fredrik82]

Ok ok, i do not normaly hypertech when i play, the thing is that when i took over England at 1545? already had over 150D monthly income, mostly because that they owned Azteks. And if England is played correctly from a GC start then they can be this uber, even without the American gold.
It tooked me about 5-10 years to increase Trade/Infra one step up, so going a CRT up land/naval and then one trade up and then one infra up improved my techs alot.
It's hard to not hypertech with that England
Even if i would put all the sliders at the middle it would be researched very quickly anyway.
England got the tech 18/18/8/7 (Land/Naval/Trade/Infra), it's alot indeed but England have managed to get this despite heavily minting during the 1500s, i minted to about 20% inflation to the end of the 1500s.

And in this case a part of the problem is the random leader generator, the main reason why England could get that wealthy and powerful was because that they was lucky with Explorers, they disscovered America first and tooked Aztek, they entered Asia first and grabbed one COT and giving Burgundy maps who took two COTs.
My point is that it is very risky to use random leaders like this in a game, the one with the most luck will be the one creating the most powerful nation.
Just look at Portugal in this game, not one singel explorer and only a very few colonies make them very weak.

And besides, i have been restraining myself alot in this game to not create a more superuber England, trust me...

 

[Fredrik82]

My intentions is not to create a uber peaceful England, i may have been very peaceful the latest decades, but what England isn't at that time? It's very importent to mint during those time and to improve economy with the -15 percent deflation events you get in 1500s. You avoid wars at all means if possible.

the main reason why i bitch about Gibraltar is to get England into the war zone


One more thing, i think a boost on Portugal would be very wise in this game.
They are needed for the balance, at this stage no-one can threaten England on the seas.
Boost there techs, give them English maps, reduce inflation and give them one or two explorers. I really think that this is needed, Portugal is the one who have lost on the random leader generator, and if we wanna improve the balance something like this would be the best alternetive.

 

[Hive]

I'm not in favour of boosting Portugal out of the blue...

 

[Rezag]

After the rule of regents Sweden has finally returned to the hands of true blood monarch and after looking the swedish situation king can only say there will be change in the policy of Sweden as there is unhappiness to current situation of Sweden.......

 

[Owen]

After the rule of regents Sweden has finally returned to the hands of true blood monarch and after looking the swedish situation king can only say there will be change in the policy of Sweden as there is unhappiness to current situation of Sweden.......

Well, we had to put Sweden AI last session, which might explain it. It was subbed before that though.

The Sublime Porte will be more than happy to receive Swedish ambassadors.

 

[Rezag]

In ROTS, everyone but France, Austria and Spain was hyperteching and it became downright silly rather quickly with only Franco-Habsburg wars and the odd intervention from the sidelines.

Yes, I know that Austria, OE and Russia will see a lot of action but the situation in the west will most likely remain the same for the rest of the game.

hmmm somehow this brings the Spanish protection of Portugal in ROTS and Russian protection of England in this game to my mind .

But fully I agree with you its question of player mentality and what they think is the way to play and aim to and the only peacefull I need all the tech before I can do something is quit boring and annoying.

I still remember all the feedback I got as Russia for not going to full potential but instead fighting wars against Sweden to prevent it from eating Denmark, Ottomans in their hights with crt dissadvantage (now that was real misstake cost me Astrakhan), then Persia only to help Ottomans and many others when I should have just hyperteched and looked opportunies and weaker opponets to make as big and powerfull Russia as possible.

 

[Rezag]

Well, we had to put Sweden AI last session, which might explain it. It was subbed before that though.

The Sublime Porte will be more than happy to receive Swedish ambassadors.

Swedens ambassadors wait to be authoriced to meet The Sublime Porte .

Dont worry Iam not unhappy to the ai thought it has sent over 100 ships to the bottom of sea in last session ai just never stops amazing me and I noticed Sweden was played two sessions. Juts that there are areas of interest that has been necleted and it will change the swedish policy its to be seen whats the way after clean up ai mess.....

 

[Hive]

Swedens ambassadors wait to be authoriced to meet The Sublime Porte .

Dont worry Iam not unhappy to the ai thought it has sent over 100 ships to the bottom of sea in last session ai just never stops amazing me and I noticed Sweden was played two sessions. Juts that there are areas of interest that has been necleted and it will change the swedish policy its to be seen whats the way after clean up ai mess.....

Those 100 ships will be restored.