Proposal for Rules Changes
(Unheard of, I know. I hope I'm not excommunicated or banned from the game.
)
NOTE: These all require eachother to be implimented to be affective.
1)
Turns equal 6 months - some of the events, in real life, would last years, much to long for a one turn = three months system. (The nobles still hate me... great...
) This wouldn't change the battle system much since wars often were just a few battles instead of taking actual forts & cities one by one and, even in the game, it takes a while to gain even the lightly fortified provinces.
2)
Eco regeneration per two turns (even based on the above system) - wars could destroy a nation for decades, possibly even rendering a nation the size of Poland, France (united) or the Ottoman Empire at its height vulnerable to rebelions, smaller nations wanting a slice of territory taken from them, etc. It isn't a "wait one-and-a-half years and you're ready to go" world; war is hell and the effects are long lasting.
3)
One eco buys two armies if above systems are adopted - You lose two armies (probably a couple thousand men in real life) and you have to wait a year before you can recruit that many more - sounds about right to me, especialy for smaller nations.
4)
Stats stay the same after a war - the possibility of a player waiting until after a nation spends all of its eco to overwhelm another nation and have only one, two armies left is wrong. Those armies aren't just disappearing - at the very worst they are going home, perhaps to be hired back later if something should happen. If they keep the soldiers in the field forever though you can expect some morale penalties - the soldiers are "traded in" after the war at a 1 eco : 4 armies/navies (or portion thereof for smaller nations without that many armies), still making loans difficult to pay off but allowing armies to be "bought back" if another nation decides to declare war suddenly.
5)
Tech can be traded in after a war - Down to starting tech only! But it only makes it so the eco can re-generate; it's not instant.
6) Armies, Navies & Tech can be bought during peace time as a show of hostility or to defend yourself from a possible aggressive neighbor. (If you keep non-starting armies around too long, as mentioned above, your morale will suffer. The soldiers don't like being in the field forever without an enemy and their families don't like it either.)
7) Morale can't be bought - if the people are happy, they're happy. If they're not, they're not. Unless you want to attempt a random event that you "purchase" (with possible chance of failure) or make a speach of some sort (that you have to type... ugh
) they're not going to just be happy because you throw money out into the streets. (Well they might be, but you can only throw out so much money, so you have to say how you "throw it out" by requesting an event. It will usualy be at least 50% likely to succeed, but there is always the idea of "Who the hell do you think you are, trying to bribe us?" as a possability.
)
8) If morale is at or below 2 there is a chance of rebelion if something is going on, at 1 without provocation - if you're morale is going down you're doing something wrong. I want morale to be just that - how happy your people, nobles and army are.
9)
If two enemy armies are close enough to eachother they fight eachother automaticaly unless one of the players orders his army not to - This would make border conflicts more realistic instead of a blitzkrieg where you take one province after another while your enemy does the same - the armies would probably fight eachother some time.
I'll probably think of some other flaw to point out later just to make the mods feel bad.
But seriousaly though, I'd like your input on how you feel about these - they aren't major changes as far as the rules go (no complicated math
), just little "basic idea" changes.
