Badboy value

[unmerged(548)]

I imagine playing as, for example, Baden, would get pretty dull if you don't try to expand.

The focus obviously have to be to make a NON tampered with game balanced.
If you start editing the game on your own and want to play Baden, why don't just set your initial BB to say -40 ?

It seems like the countries attacking the BB will fairly easy make peace as well...

wait until the 1.08 patch ...

 

[BiB]

Originally posted by Huszics
No, it's not the same and that is why Frances BB would rise alot more also, which it does.

That'd be nice. Only I don't see it in my game. I did the annexing of the 3 Khanatas as Russia and was at 27. France annexed Milan and was at 6.

 

[BiB]

And there's also the regional, geopolitical importance. France anexes Milan should have a deeper impact on Spain than Russia getting the Khanates while if ur Poland I'd be more worried by an ever expanding Russia then some far away Italian merchant state disappearing.

The best thing would be to replace the bb value with a geopolitical sense for the AI. But that sounds quite impossibel to me, sadly. IRL countries who hated each otehr at times worked together against a common threat or to achieve similar objectives. They should localise serious threats better and not jump head first in any war even if they have nothing to do there or are bound to lose.

 

[Berkut]

I think Steerpike had by far the post post out of this thread.

There is no 'simple' solution, because this was not a simple issue.

My relatively uninformed opinion is that the problem is that the BB value is much too simple. Russia has a single BB value, when in fact its relationships with other countries are NOT the same. Russia annexing Astrakhan is going to mean something very different for Sibir and for Portugal, but that is not reflected in the BB value, since Russia just has the singular variable to describe the BB relationship.

I fully understand the need for the BB value metric. I am unsure how exactly it interacts with the dimplomacy rating (which is on a country by country basis). It would seem the best long term solution would be to somehow eith fold the BB value into the diplomatic ratings, or expand the diplomatic ratings so that their are more than one variable descrbing the realtionship between different countries.

Berkut

 

[unmerged(859)]

Originally posted by Huszics

Ehmm, please think through your reasoning again will you
1) as Russia I needed to find way to the east, so I have to annex Astrakhan, Gold Horde and Kazan.
2)Now Poland, Crimeria and Sweden regularly declare war at me. I do not see reason why they do it!
3)If I started to attack them, they should respond, but if I would like to have peaceful future they should not attack me any more than other countries!


Well, mayby they are also using the same moronic reason as you just did '...needed to find way to the east, so I have to annex ...'

Well your reasoning has some points but I think a few parts warrant a reply.
First: Sweden isn't attacking me because they want to go east, but because of my BB. You know that, I know that and Sweden knows that too. if they would colonize they could much easier build up in america and thats where they would go.

And why should Sweden et al let you alone? You attacked Atrakan, GH & Kazan just the same way, now didn't you?
Think about it for awhile and mayby you will realize it too.
Nope they what K+GH+A should have done was allying and stand me off as soon as I come. They didn't know that I was a powermonger so they didn't but thats what they should do if they knew.
And maybe sweden should attack me, but not just out of spite, but within an alliance that could beat me. Although if you look at the austrians vs. Napoleon you may have a point here.

Personlly i'm just playing Russia with 1.07c (research for my FAQ ...), and I have never had it so easy untill now. You can take basicly everything you want, and your cheep troops can keep the enemys of your back so your points are totaly moot anyway.

Thats not the point, I don't want to win, I want to play the game. And I can't because everybody hates me. And I am quite sure in 1550 Spain didn't hate Russia they didn't care it existed. Even so Russia has been a powermonger. And also in 1550 Sweden was not constantly declaring war on Russia. (man am I happy that I played only on weak aggressiveness mode. its boring enough as it is, but at least I can just speed up time and build up my colonies).

That BB value may keep players in check who want to conquer the world as France but it has also drawbacks when you play small starters as Russia or Austria who were Powermongers in history for some while.

Ciao
Kulko

 

[Hartmann]

Most people hurry ahead while playing Russia conquering Sibir as early as 1512 or so. Historically, Astrachan was annexed in 1552 and Sibir in 1581. If You go a bit more slow, then the other countries will build up a nice BB, too. If You manage to keep Your BB not too big in comparison to the BB of others, everything will stay o.k.

Hartmann

 

[JScott991]

Patch 1.08

I certainly hope that 1.08 doesn't make these BB-induced wars HARDER to get out of. That would be ridiculous and lead to even more powermongering. In my game right now, Venice keeps declaring war on me every time I go to war with France. So do the Papal States and Tuscany. If they didn't make peace immediately, I'd be forced to occupy them (and trust me, it would be easy to do).

I have come to believe that something like the badboy value is necessary to keep this game from degenerating into a Civ-like conquest fest. But I also believe that the badboy value as implemented too closely approximates the 'contrived' challenge in Civ produced by an irrational computer hatred. If the BB could be based on geopolitical reality, that would be great. What I really think should happen is the BB should be tracked on a country by country basis (as has been mentioned, in one particularly brilliant post as well as other places) and therefore subsidizing a nation or paying money to someone would reduce their 'badboy' perception of you as well as increase your relations. That way, the rest of Europe might hate you, but you could always keep a few allies and maybe even a few powerful nations neutral.

I think this whole badboy problem is a poor solution to the problem it is supposed to be fixing. If we want to eliminate rampant annexations, then we should focus on the alliance diplomatic model and the AI's ability to run its country. My game is in 1703, on hard/aggressive, and France, Netherlands, England, Poland and Turkey are still using the halberd bearing army icon, meaning their land tech is below 14. That is ridiculous, though I'm not suggesting it is by any means commonplace. If we want it to be harder to conquer Europe, then Europe really needs to be competently run.

Addendum: I think that their tech might be low, now that I think about it, because they are at war so much with each other. Which could be BB related. Spain has been completely destroyed and prior to my editing, her BB value was at 25. France, England, and the Dutch fought them constantly in the 1500's and early 1600's so that could have retarded their economic progress. This value really is starting to have wide ranging consequences.

On the whole though, this is a serious, but not a critical issue to the game. The game is a wonderful experience and if you play it historically, it usually isn't so bad as Civ or Medieval Lords. Its harder to conquer people than other games because of attrition and war exhaustion. The diplomatic model is extremely interesting (easily the most entertaining part of the game is watching what alliances pop up and the computer's hatred of being alone in the world is very realistic, which leads to strange coalitions). They should adjust the badboy value, but I also think this issue should be put on the secondary list behind the crashes.

Jeremy Scott

 

[unmerged(827)]

Oh, go play C&C or Civ will you, or any other of 100+ clones. Please don't try to destroy the ONLY game that even tries to be somewhat realistic in this.
It's obvious that you think the only way to winning is through conquest, EU is so much more.

First of all, your attitute is shitty. I'm suggesting something, and all you can do is try to insult. Wonderful. You should be soo pround you can be juvenille.

Second, I hate C&C and love Civ, and how you can say they are clones of each other are beside me. What are you, like 15?

Yes, I think the only way is through conquest . Funny that except for one province I've taken (Courtland) EVERY SINGLE PROVINCE TAKEN WAS A RESULT OF A DEFENSIVE WAR! Yes, I tried to sooo hard to conquer the rest of Europe that I let other nations declare war on me!

And yes, getting attacked by basically all my neighbors when one country (usually Astrakhan) attacks me is annoying. I don't see WHY Sweden would race to attack me to basically back Astrakhan and the Golden Horde. It makes the game that much less fun.

So, why don't you shut up and take your self-righteousness to a place where people care what you think?

 

[Altuar]

Originally posted by Huszics
Oh, go play C&C or Civ will you, or any other of 100+ clones. Please don't try to destroy the ONLY game that even tries to be somewhat realistic in this.

I think Civ deserves to be regarded much higher than this. The design is brilliant and is based on the entire history of civilized human life. The design requires not only a very solid grasp on history but also a certain philosophical reflection of that history. This is Hegellian but the brilliance of Sid and Brian Reynolds is in converting that to a game. Please dont compare it to C&C.

And when comparing it to EU, please keep in mind EU is much more focused and different take on history. Both are very enjoyable but one does it for history's sake and other does it for gameplay's sake. I do not think it is a coincedence that the general notion about how enjoyable EU is felt to be tied to the player's knowledge of history.

 

[unmerged(548)]

I think Civ deserves to be regarded much higher than this.

I mentioned it as a game where the ONLY way to victory is an ultimate conquest of every other nation.
Other then that, Civ and C&C doesn't belong in the same universe.

 

[unmerged(548)]

That'd be nice. Only I don't see it in my game. I did the annexing of the 3 Khanatas as Russia and was at 27. France annexed Milan and was at 6.

You MUST have done something else too !

Doing the BB math for Russia

DOW with CB 3 x 1 = 3 points
Annexing provinces with CB shields
4 + 5 + 6 = 15 points

Total = 18 (NOT 27!!, your making that up)
for 15 provinces ie average 1,2 / province
(not counting dropps for time passed)

Doing the BB math for France

DOW with CB (I guess ?) = 1 point
Annexing province without CB & same religion = 5 points

Total = 6 ie average 6 / province


And you somehow in your game don't see that France annexing 1 single province in Europe have much more inpact on BB then for Russia against the Kahanates ?!?

Come on, even you must understand the differens between 1 and 15 provinces ...

 

[unmerged(548)]

First of all, your attitute is shitty. I'm suggesting something, and all you can do is try to insult. Wonderful. You should be soo pround you can be juvenille.

My attitude may be shitty and juvenile IYO, but the fact still remains that the only game that even tries to be realistic/historical, is Eu.
You however want to try to change it into just another C&C or Civ clone. Why ? Just play the other games instead, there are certainly plent of them around, and the rest of us can enjoy EU as it was intended.

Second, I hate C&C and love Civ, and how you can say they are clones of each other are beside me.

I don't, read it again if you missread it the first time.

What are you, like 15?
26, but what it has to do with YOU not liking EU as it is, I can't figure out.

EVERY SINGLE PROVINCE TAKEN WAS A RESULT OF A DEFENSIVE WAR!

Annexation can NEVER be considered defensive (Curland & Pskov was it ?).
You should get your as kicked by the AI IMO.


So, why don't you shut up and take your self-righteousness to a place where people care what you think?

So now your entitle to an opinion, but I'm not ?
That really makes sence & I'm the one with juvenile tendencies.

 

[unmerged(827)]

My attitude may be shitty and juvenile IYO, but the fact still remains that the only game that even tries to be realistic/historical, is Eu.
You however want to try to change it into just another C&C or Civ clone. Why ? Just play the other games instead, there are certainly plent of them around, and the rest of us can enjoy EU as it was intended.

There is only ONE game that tries to be realistic and historical? My, my... you've never played a good wargame I can gather.

How the **** is trying to reduce the effects of the badboy value (which has had plenty of support on this board) turn it into C&C and Civ? Have you even played those games?

And by the way, in case your thick skull can't get it, EU was first made WITHOUT the badboy value, so as EU was intended is without the badboy . I'M asking to be more like what EU originally intended.

Did I say to get rid of it entirely? No. Is it right for nations, 100 years after your last war to attack you when someone else declares war against you? That doesn't seem 'realistic' to me.

Annexation can NEVER be considered defensive (Curland & Pskov was it ?).
You should get your as kicked by the AI IMO.

Let's see.. someone declares war against you and you kick them to take their provinces. The peace they ask offers provinces. Am I supposed to turn them away?

So now your entitle to an opinion, but I'm not ?
That really makes sence & I'm the one with juvenile tendencies.

My opinion doesn't say I should go play another game, because I wish to reform it. Do you say the same thing to the IGC people? They want to reform the game.

I wonder about you. A person says that they don't like one part of the game, so they should go to C&C and Civ because they don't 'deserve' to play EU, because they agree with a small part of it.

As Sid Meier said, 'Where there is a conflict between realism and fun, fun should win out'. I'm just looking for a bit more fun. You wish to stonewall, and in the process make the game less fun AND less realistic.

And you somehow in your game don't see that France annexing 1 single province in Europe have much more inpact on BB then for Russia against the Kahanates ?!?

Come on, even you must understand the differens between 1 and 15 provinces ...

And you are talking about realism?!! What are you daft? Annexing 'heathen' Khanates vs. Annexing a nation of the true faith. I'd bet that Europe would be more outraged at France rather than Russia in this issue. You do realize the Russia made allies after annexing the Khanates. The game, as it stands now, makes it extremely hard to do so!

I mentioned it as a game where the ONLY way to victory is an ultimate conquest of every other nation.

I saw staying alive for 6000 years to be a victory and the Alpha Centauri probe as well. I always played Civ peacefully (for the most part), and never conquered the world. Of course, now I'm a warmongering C&C fan, who wants to turn EU into conquer the world.

 

[State Machine]

I hesitate to enter such a heated topic. It seems the whole BB factor is a device to counter (mostly) the human ability to conquer 'at will' against AI opponents. I'll certainly agree, based on the posts, that BB is a noble, but flawed approach.

Consider the grandaddy of political games, Diplomacy. The BB factor is represented by players reacting to especially bad behaivor by a player, or a player exploiting a situation and threatening to become overpowering. The beauty of Diplomacy, or Junta, is that they are games of real-politic. The individuals do whatever they can to counter the BB, within their own political constraints.

These games are abstract, but, I think, represent the kind of thinking any ruler would go through. An historically based simulation should integrate the AI to behave apropriately. In the main, based on what I've read in this tread, the BB factor is not quite working out.

That said, as a software developer, this kind of situation is a nightmare. The very essence of the product (EU) works well, but has (to a significant number of users) a major flaw. What to do... Something, but not an optimal solution since it was not anticipated.

 

[unmerged(859)]

Originally posted by Hartmann
Most people hurry ahead while playing Russia conquering Sibir as early as 1512 or so. Historically, Astrachan was annexed in 1552 and Sibir in 1581. If You go a bit more slow, then the other countries will build up a nice BB, too. If You manage to keep Your BB not too big in comparison to the BB of others, everything will stay o.k.

Hartmann

Well Hartmann the strategy tips say, go as fast as possible, so I did, but you may be right. On the other hand once I waited a bit longer only to find Astrakhan allied with turkey and I was not able to beat them anymore.
Second Are you really sure about this comparision thing? or is it not that if me and France have BB of 40 they will just attack both of us?

And Last but not Least I still believe, that you should loose BBpoints too for loosing provinces, but maybe thats also incorporated. After all if you loose provinces, you can't be such a powermonger anymore.

Ciao
Kulko

 

[unmerged(1057)]

It looks to me that your BB value increases with every new colony you put up as well. You can pe peaceful in Europe but still get higher BB value because of your colonialefforts, am I right?

 

[Yasko]

Originally posted by Wasa
It looks to me that your BB value increases with every new colony you put up as well. You can pe peaceful in Europe but still get higher BB value because of your colonialefforts, am I right?

I dont think so, with england, i colonized the whole North America and annekted scottland and i still have badboy value of 1. Thats maybe i lost Calais to France.

 

[unmerged(859)]

First of all please come down both of you again.
if you want to have a flamewar exchange email addresses.

There is only ONE game that tries to be realistic and historical? My, my... you've never played a good wargame I can gather.

Well I have played a lot and have not seen on a computer a game which does as complete as EU does. But if you could suggest some others I would like to look at them.

How the **** is trying to reduce the effects of the badboy value (which has had plenty of support on this board) turn it into C&C and Civ? Have you even played those games?

Well if the game makes powermongring to easy, it can be played like Civ was, what is not the intend of the game.

And by the way, in case your thick skull can't get it, EU was first made WITHOUT the badboy value, so as EU was intended is without the badboy . I'M asking to be more like what EU originally intended.

EU was originally intended to be a multiplayer Boardgame played by 7 people. As a very good post just pointed out, that powrrmongring can then be much easier be indentified by the other players and worked against. As Computers aren't as smart yet, Paradox tries to find ways to adjust. And has probably shut a bit over the top.

Did I say to get rid of it entirely? No. Is it right for nations, 100 years after your last war to attack you when someone else declares war against you? That doesn't seem 'realistic' to me.

Can't deny that one, as I said it myself

Let's see.. someone declares war against you and you kick them to take their provinces. The peace they ask offers provinces. Am I supposed to turn them away?

Probably not, but in the long run you are a powermonger anyway. I as France do not care who started the war that gave half of poland to austria, Austria is a danger anyway.

As Sid Meier said, 'Where there is a conflict between realism and fun, fun should win out'. I'm just looking for a bit more fun. You wish to stonewall, and in the process make the game less fun AND less realistic.

Well I think its not much fun both ways. Not being able to make diplomacy as Russia sucks and it being to easy to conquer the world sucks too. So we have to find a middle way.

And you are talking about realism?!! What are you daft? Annexing 'heathen' Khanates vs. Annexing a nation of the true faith. I'd bet that Europe would be more outraged at France rather than Russia in this issue. You do realize the Russia made allies after annexing the Khanates. The game, as it stands now, makes it extremely hard to do so!

Well thats depends on your standpoint. Russia was powermongring in the early 1500s so if I would be poland I would be very suspicious of these annexation, while France taking milan is just another one trying to conquer Italy and failing in the long run. As Spain of course thats a completely different matter. And thats were the weaknesses of a single value for all system lies.

I saw staying alive for 6000 years to be a victory and the Alpha Centauri probe as well. I always played Civ peacefully (for the most part), and never conquered the world. Of course, now I'm a warmongering C&C fan, who wants to turn EU into conquer the world.

Well however you played AC or civ you started your first post with a statement that I understood as:
'I am always playing EU as a warmongring C&C fan.' And so did probably Husczics(thats wrong spelled, isn't it).
That was a misunderstanding, so lets just return to the task at hnd which is making the BB-value work better.

Ciao
Kulko

 

[grumbold]

One thing that might help the badboy approach would be to guide the nearby nations into making an alliance against the badboy. However when one military alliance expires the countries seem to rush to reassemble another with the available countries rather than joining into whichever current alliance involves nearby powers. This is probably a difficulty introduced by permitting only one military alliance. You naturally make that with countries you like. A defensive alliance is more a case of agreeing to work with your enemies to protect against a threat. If Sweden, Poland-Lithuania, Persia and Crimea had a mutual Defense Pact then Russia would be on its best behaviour and no wars would have to be fought just because the BB rating was too high.

 

[Altuar]

Originally posted by Huszics
I think Civ deserves to be regarded much higher than this.

I mentioned it as a game where the ONLY way to victory is an ultimate conquest of every other nation.
Other then that, Civ and C&C doesn't belong in the same universe.

This Civ vs EU debate doesnt really have a significance in the BB value argument, but I feel obliged in any case to defend what I consider to be the best game I've ever played.

In Civ, the only way to win is not through conquest: it is, rather, a way to win. You can opt to send a spaceship to Alpha Centauri, which requires an excellent economy to support all the resources spent on spaceship building. There is a hidden cost behind research and industrial power to make it though, you also have to protect your investment by making sure that the AI, when it senses its losing the space race, wont run you over. This requires a strong military, requiring a even stronger economy.

Anyway, returning to the badboy issue, I find Grumbold's and others argument that the badboy should be tried to be balanced off through an alliance system. Here, as Grumbold pointed out, participating in only one alliance shows its limitations.

I have made this suggestion elsewhere, but here it goes again. The states as unitary actors in international politics did not really emerge until the Treaty of Westphalia, 1648. Before then, a state could find itself in more than one alliance system, owing to the hierarchical feudal relationships. State A could owe allegiance (partly vassalised) to both state B and C. If B and C fought against each other, state A would send troops to aid both.

In the case of EU, this is hard to implement, but if you could be a part of more than one alliance system, it wouldnt be unrealistic. This way, the badboy could be more easily countered through alliance systems.

I did also suggest that a faster declining badboy could be the simplest solution. Given the complexity of the issue and other bugs/improvements that the small team is making, simple means fast. Keep in mind that Paradox has to keep earning money after EU in order to survive. If the general feeling is that the badboy effect is overdone, a faster declining badboy value would lessen the effect of it. So this could easily be implemented for the next patch while a more complex and less artificial and thus realistic solution could be found for EU2.

-alt.