-
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.
the_genius said:But what!!?? damn be clear
Ok then
Hopefully by this afternoon HoG will get online then he can check his ICQ
Well, me in England can become rather uber. Maybe tho with the locked slider its more difficult to be an annoying trademonger.
That's why I offered Porto but I'm happy with any of the 3.
Casluerj said:I dont care if HG will be porto or nl or porto and then nl. I care about England. After we got an England (and I think that gaius will "voluntarily" accept it
Sorry to say it, but you would be very mistaken. I would never voluntarily (or otherwise) accept a choice other than my 1st one, except in the case that someone else posted that same choice, and before i had.
As for leaders: Since we're being given 40, i'll take 30 admirals and 10 generals
All,
I can take Sweden.
However, I would like to know what the leader generation scheme is first. Is there a cap?
I can take Sweden.
However, I would like to know what the leader generation scheme is first. Is there a cap?
I think he is right, you can not force someone to play a nation he doesn’t want to just because you need a player ...
First we should have asked Gaius if he would like to change, but not force him to do it :wacko:
Give England to Eli, let Gaius take Portugal and offer Sweden to HG.
First we should have asked Gaius if he would like to change, but not force him to do it :wacko:
Give England to Eli, let Gaius take Portugal and offer Sweden to HG.
All,
Nevermind. It looks as if leaders aren't capped, so it's not my kind of game.
For the best anyway, as I'd have to miss the first session (tomorrow) as it's Valentine's Day.
Nevermind. It looks as if leaders aren't capped, so it's not my kind of game.
For the best anyway, as I'd have to miss the first session (tomorrow) as it's Valentine's Day.
HolisticGod said:
Arghh, Russia will be crushed
Damn it, I will have to go again with the swedish diplomacy. Oh well.
And I guess should be a cap on random leaders.
arcorelli said:Arghh, Russia will be crushed
Damn it, I will have to go again with the swedish diplomacy. Oh well.
And I guess should be a cap on random leaders.
Agree.
HolisticGod said:
I need to get a sub urgently then, how could I forget such an eventful day
o ? Damn.Is there any chance we could postpone our first session?
I have no problem postponing the session again, as i still have 1 more midterm, plus lab and homework assignments that all have to be studied for/done by thursday.
I would like propose a radical idea about leaders (that none of you non-vicky players will appreciate or like).
Instead of having random leaders to balance the uber and historical ones that benefit only certain nations at certain times, lets do something to REALLY give balance. Thats right, actually do what random leaders are supposed to do. First, lets take the uber-leaders, and limit all their stats to no more than 4/4/4/1 overall in their stats. Next, lets take the random leaders, and cap their possible values at the same level. At this point, there will be whiner after whiner complaining "hey, thats not historical!" Well, go play the AGCEEP then. This is a game, not a history book. I've seen more than a few people complain before about leaders in this game, saw a quote by Casluerj in a thread just today, something abut leaders being overpowered. He is absolutely correct, to my mind. Vicky leaders don't get near the importance; certainly the historical leaders there don't guarantee victory in war near as much as here.
I hope this suggestion does get taken seriously on its merits...
I would like propose a radical idea about leaders (that none of you non-vicky players will appreciate or like).
Instead of having random leaders to balance the uber and historical ones that benefit only certain nations at certain times, lets do something to REALLY give balance. Thats right, actually do what random leaders are supposed to do. First, lets take the uber-leaders, and limit all their stats to no more than 4/4/4/1 overall in their stats. Next, lets take the random leaders, and cap their possible values at the same level. At this point, there will be whiner after whiner complaining "hey, thats not historical!" Well, go play the AGCEEP then. This is a game, not a history book. I've seen more than a few people complain before about leaders in this game, saw a quote by Casluerj in a thread just today, something abut leaders being overpowered. He is absolutely correct, to my mind. Vicky leaders don't get near the importance; certainly the historical leaders there don't guarantee victory in war near as much as here.
I hope this suggestion does get taken seriously on its merits...
Gaius,
I'm not playing this game anyway, but there's a serious flaw in your reasoning.
Leaders are part of the essential balance of the game, like tax, manpower, culture, cores, monarchs, etc., etc., etc. If you remove the ubers, you destroy that balance. Some countries-most notably Prussia and Sweden-rely to a very great degree on their ubers to play any kind of role in the game. It's also how France comes back against Spain after 1630 and it's the only reason the OE isn't completely dominant in Eastern Europe indefinitely.
If you want to equalize a game in that way, play a random. I've GMed quite of those myself. But if you remove one weight from the balance in an historical, you fuck the whole thing up.
I'm not playing this game anyway, but there's a serious flaw in your reasoning.
Leaders are part of the essential balance of the game, like tax, manpower, culture, cores, monarchs, etc., etc., etc. If you remove the ubers, you destroy that balance. Some countries-most notably Prussia and Sweden-rely to a very great degree on their ubers to play any kind of role in the game. It's also how France comes back against Spain after 1630 and it's the only reason the OE isn't completely dominant in Eastern Europe indefinitely.
If you want to equalize a game in that way, play a random. I've GMed quite of those myself. But if you remove one weight from the balance in an historical, you fuck the whole thing up.
Well, i've seen cultures, cores, and even now manpower increases, handed out by the truckfull in nearly every game around here, via claiming rules or aar rewards, so obviously people don't care if those become 'unbalanced'. Besides which, you didn't even read my post, or you'd know that nowhere did i support removing the historical leaders, just equalizing them. All i see, is that virtually every player plans their wars around leaders, and nothing else. He knows when, where, and for how long the person will have them, so the only goal is to grab as much as possible during the time of those leaders, and hope to not lose too much in between. I would get damn bored, playing that kind of game; probably why i've always played vicky, where nations have more chances to potentially win wars at any time period, based on all game factors, not just who has the most uber-leader at one time, be it Alba, Prince Eugene, Suvorov, or Suleyman, etc, etc.
Most of the problems you describe, have to do with some of the things that pop up as issues in vicky MP. some of the people in our community ask why prussia should be allowed to unify early in 1851, and the answer 'balance' comes up, because the argument runs that with large powers bordering it (france, austria, russia), germany has to be complete early, so it can compete and provide balance in europe. Lets take one of your examples: the OE running riot long after its time has passed. Why does it do that? Its of course not due to uber-leaders, but to all the manpower they get while they had those uber-leaders like Suleyman to go conquering with, to gain that MP.
Lets compare some recent developments. In the last few vicky games, austria has been intervening and taking part of south germany for itself, even forestalling early 'ahistorical' unification. Yet, germany has still gained power, and been a force, despite the rich in population territories that are lost (i still took a germany to number 1, even with much less of an advantage due to such factors). Lets look at your EU2 problem. Suppose, now just suppose, OE suddenly realized that not only was Suleyman not superior to every russian, austrian, venetian, and spanish leader of the time, but also, there was the possibility that a random leader or leaders could be just as good. Our OE becomes a bit more cautious, and perhaps his normally 'given' conquests of north africa, the mamelukes in syria/egypt, persia, etc aren't so assured, that other powers could intervene against him, where they couldn't before.
Look at what we just did: we made the majors all 'potentially' competitive in the region; we introduced a novel situation into the game, thus making it more interesting. If a nation can't just grab everything in one swoop, be it in the early, middle, or late game, its not going to be dominant for the rest of the game. I understand that other factors, such a number of state culture provs, number of core provs, and manpower aren't balanced and equal in the game, that nations like portugal, sweden, denmark, etc, are limited by these things. But thats how things go. It *should* provide a challange to the player, and it does. Perhaps, we could discuss some form of compensation to those minor powers that lose the most. but since EU2 MP seems to be built upon a core of about 7 or so nations, my suggestions mostly concern those majors that are most played, as i think i have made clear. Hopefully my elaboration and clarification help you all to understand my basis for the proposal.
GM
Most of the problems you describe, have to do with some of the things that pop up as issues in vicky MP. some of the people in our community ask why prussia should be allowed to unify early in 1851, and the answer 'balance' comes up, because the argument runs that with large powers bordering it (france, austria, russia), germany has to be complete early, so it can compete and provide balance in europe. Lets take one of your examples: the OE running riot long after its time has passed. Why does it do that? Its of course not due to uber-leaders, but to all the manpower they get while they had those uber-leaders like Suleyman to go conquering with, to gain that MP.
Lets compare some recent developments. In the last few vicky games, austria has been intervening and taking part of south germany for itself, even forestalling early 'ahistorical' unification. Yet, germany has still gained power, and been a force, despite the rich in population territories that are lost (i still took a germany to number 1, even with much less of an advantage due to such factors). Lets look at your EU2 problem. Suppose, now just suppose, OE suddenly realized that not only was Suleyman not superior to every russian, austrian, venetian, and spanish leader of the time, but also, there was the possibility that a random leader or leaders could be just as good. Our OE becomes a bit more cautious, and perhaps his normally 'given' conquests of north africa, the mamelukes in syria/egypt, persia, etc aren't so assured, that other powers could intervene against him, where they couldn't before.
Look at what we just did: we made the majors all 'potentially' competitive in the region; we introduced a novel situation into the game, thus making it more interesting. If a nation can't just grab everything in one swoop, be it in the early, middle, or late game, its not going to be dominant for the rest of the game. I understand that other factors, such a number of state culture provs, number of core provs, and manpower aren't balanced and equal in the game, that nations like portugal, sweden, denmark, etc, are limited by these things. But thats how things go. It *should* provide a challange to the player, and it does. Perhaps, we could discuss some form of compensation to those minor powers that lose the most. but since EU2 MP seems to be built upon a core of about 7 or so nations, my suggestions mostly concern those majors that are most played, as i think i have made clear. Hopefully my elaboration and clarification help you all to understand my basis for the proposal.
GM
Gaius,
Er, yes, I read and understood your post.
Evidently, you either didn't read or didn't understand mine. Equalizing uber leaders fucks game balance. Period. Countries like Brandenburg and Sweden are (generally) entirely dependent on their good files in a non-random historical game, and before you say, again, that that makes wars less predetermined or whatever, it's the same exact way the OE is dependent on Greek and Slavonic culture or Spain is dependent on its early colonization or France is dependent on its inherent wealth and manpower, etc.
If you want a random game, play a random game. But don't diddle with the leaders in an historical, any more than deciding, just for a laugh, to give France German culture.
And in fact, leaders are hardly unbeatable. Uber leaders can all be killed, countries can lose with them and they're, well, just a part of the game. If you don't like it, as I said before, start a random with or without leaders.
EDIT: More to the point, you don't seem to have a handle on the ebb and flow of EU II games. The OE is usually a monster because it expands against the AI, not Austria or Russia. All that will happen, if the OE player is mediocre, is an even greater withdrawal from Europe, which is a consistent problem with the OE in most games.
It'll avoid confrontations with Austria in particular and simply annex Persia, Africa, etc., same as usual.
And in point of fact, equalizing ubers and introducing randoms that can match them will benefit no country more than the Ottoman Empire and Spain. The OE doesn't pound Austria and Russia because it gets a whole bunch of uber leaders. It pounds Austria and Russia because it's richer, more advanced and has higher manpower.
Suleyman himself is a 4-5-3 unless he's (rightfully) boosted. Frundsberg is a 5 shock. Alba is better. Farnesse is much better. And after Suleyman, the OE's leaders, especially on land, leave quite a lot to be desired.
Spain, after 1630, can't compete with French leaders. If Spain is really good, it's by now so strong that an equally good France can't compete against it without Turenne. And that's not just the product of Farnesse and Alba, although it is to a much greater degree than the Ottomans. Spain is richer earlier. It has a starting tech lead. You led it stack up those usual advantages without a tech disadvantage...
It's bad news.
Er, yes, I read and understood your post.
Evidently, you either didn't read or didn't understand mine. Equalizing uber leaders fucks game balance. Period. Countries like Brandenburg and Sweden are (generally) entirely dependent on their good files in a non-random historical game, and before you say, again, that that makes wars less predetermined or whatever, it's the same exact way the OE is dependent on Greek and Slavonic culture or Spain is dependent on its early colonization or France is dependent on its inherent wealth and manpower, etc.
If you want a random game, play a random game. But don't diddle with the leaders in an historical, any more than deciding, just for a laugh, to give France German culture.
And in fact, leaders are hardly unbeatable. Uber leaders can all be killed, countries can lose with them and they're, well, just a part of the game. If you don't like it, as I said before, start a random with or without leaders.
EDIT: More to the point, you don't seem to have a handle on the ebb and flow of EU II games. The OE is usually a monster because it expands against the AI, not Austria or Russia. All that will happen, if the OE player is mediocre, is an even greater withdrawal from Europe, which is a consistent problem with the OE in most games.
It'll avoid confrontations with Austria in particular and simply annex Persia, Africa, etc., same as usual.
And in point of fact, equalizing ubers and introducing randoms that can match them will benefit no country more than the Ottoman Empire and Spain. The OE doesn't pound Austria and Russia because it gets a whole bunch of uber leaders. It pounds Austria and Russia because it's richer, more advanced and has higher manpower.
Suleyman himself is a 4-5-3 unless he's (rightfully) boosted. Frundsberg is a 5 shock. Alba is better. Farnesse is much better. And after Suleyman, the OE's leaders, especially on land, leave quite a lot to be desired.
Spain, after 1630, can't compete with French leaders. If Spain is really good, it's by now so strong that an equally good France can't compete against it without Turenne. And that's not just the product of Farnesse and Alba, although it is to a much greater degree than the Ottomans. Spain is richer earlier. It has a starting tech lead. You led it stack up those usual advantages without a tech disadvantage...
It's bad news.
Last edited:
I'm going to guess that you speak for the majority, and withdraw my proposal. I would make a couple salient points which i think are worth considering:
I just assumed Suleyman was superior to the other generals facing him, didn't occur to me that Paradox wouldn't have that setup (its been a long time since i played the OE in SP, so i wouldn't have remembered either). that was why i used him and the OE as a case study. i have played OE in SP before, i'm aware that their leader file leaves much to be desired sometimes. But to me, i would consider that a good strategy, for the OE to leave austria alone early and go east and south. the pickings are for the most part better, because hungary and such areas are wrong culture/wrong religion, whereas alot more of the middle east is sunni, and iirc the OE gets arabic culture. They get powerful because of areas like the levant, where the OE is able to get their manpower and riches advantage because they conquer unopposed and uncompeted with others, all that land in the middle east (or at least unopposed until the 18th century, when i've seen in game maps, and been beaten by in subbing, expanding russias such as your own HG moving into persia, the caucasus, etc lategame). Actually, i'm not certain i would even conquer as far as most OEs do, not out of newbieness or mediocrity, but for fear of killing the balance too much At least, i resist the temptation in Vicky... :rofl:
Reading this, i can almost see where it would be more profitable to look instead at new strategies of play, which could negate the advantages of leaders, perhaps strategies that no one has considered before (not that it concerns me much, being a small naval nation of portugal that can't hope to fight land wars and win, even with the MP boost from Ryo's mod). It just seemed to me, having been lurking around and subbing over the past 4 or 5 months, that i see alot of the same general results in alot of areas (depending on the number of player countries and the styles of the players)
I just assumed Suleyman was superior to the other generals facing him, didn't occur to me that Paradox wouldn't have that setup (its been a long time since i played the OE in SP, so i wouldn't have remembered either). that was why i used him and the OE as a case study. i have played OE in SP before, i'm aware that their leader file leaves much to be desired sometimes. But to me, i would consider that a good strategy, for the OE to leave austria alone early and go east and south. the pickings are for the most part better, because hungary and such areas are wrong culture/wrong religion, whereas alot more of the middle east is sunni, and iirc the OE gets arabic culture. They get powerful because of areas like the levant, where the OE is able to get their manpower and riches advantage because they conquer unopposed and uncompeted with others, all that land in the middle east (or at least unopposed until the 18th century, when i've seen in game maps, and been beaten by in subbing, expanding russias such as your own HG moving into persia, the caucasus, etc lategame). Actually, i'm not certain i would even conquer as far as most OEs do, not out of newbieness or mediocrity, but for fear of killing the balance too much
At least, i resist the temptation in Vicky... :rofl: Reading this, i can almost see where it would be more profitable to look instead at new strategies of play, which could negate the advantages of leaders, perhaps strategies that no one has considered before (not that it concerns me much, being a small naval nation of portugal that can't hope to fight land wars and win, even with the MP boost from Ryo's mod). It just seemed to me, having been lurking around and subbing over the past 4 or 5 months, that i see alot of the same general results in alot of areas (depending on the number of player countries and the styles of the players)
I hope we do play tonight... the second postpone in a row and I will seriosly consider leaving the game...
Gaius Marius I said:
Because of that i said "voluntarily" not voluntarily
Anyway, problem solved now (at the last minute
)Lets see if I can have some diplomacy with the new England.
If I could, I'd kiss you!HolisticGod said:
Hmm.. let me recheck.. Temu passed me this generator... it was written by Shigure, and among others, there's you there as an inspirationHolisticGod said:
so I you might know how it is...Anyhow, this is what the file says:
# - Generals and admirals live for 5-50 years (average 15 for generals
# and 18 for admirals).
# - A general with a siege stat of 2 or 3 gets a -1 to fire and shock.
# This penalty increases to -2 for a general with siege 4.
# - For each fire or shock stat greater than 4, the leader is promoted
# by one rank in recognition of his skills.
#
# - Conquistadors live for 4-20 years (10 average).
# - Conquistadors get +2 movement, -2 siege.
#
# - Explorers live for 3-15 years (8 average).
# - Explorers get +2 movement, -2 fire and shock.
In AtE2 it was used, and it was pretty useful for countries like OE or Spain. No huge leaders but some with 3-4 stats, better than regulars...
On the subject: I am against your opnion Gaius. Despite I think leaders are overpowered, there is a balance behind them, like HG said. I hope that in EU3 Pdox will work more on leaders. But as it is now, we cant have a reasonable EU2 game without leaders like GAII, Suleiman, Turenee, Prinz Eugene, Marly, Fred II... They are important to game balance.
However, since they are overpowered, we are giving to nations random leaders to try to avoid a 6/6/6 fight against a 2/2/2 leader, this would be bad... Also will force ppl to use leaders wisely.
Also, if HG is leaving what'll be our roster?
Also 2, I am COMPLETELY against postpone the session.
However, since they are overpowered, we are giving to nations random leaders to try to avoid a 6/6/6 fight against a 2/2/2 leader, this would be bad... Also will force ppl to use leaders wisely.
Also, if HG is leaving what'll be our roster?
Also 2, I am COMPLETELY against postpone the session.