Badboy wars and MP

[unmerged(3158)]

I disagree with implementing it. I am not for limiting a player's options. Especially when you want to DoW a nation but you don't have a cassus beli on them. Eating 4 badboy so you can prevent a nation from being overrun by another player would be hard to take.

With the dynamics of an MP game, wars can start for simple reasons, and can escalate into larger conflcts as nations with informal alliances with another nation are forced to DoW other nations to aid them in their time of need.

Say we are looking at Russia who's badboy was over 20, and austria under heavy attack by the French and the Turks asked for aid from Russia. Russia could DoW the Turks and relieve alot of pressure, but he would have to suffer a 4 bb hit. 4 BB's could in the end derail carefully laid plans by the Russian player.

If there was easier ways to gain a CB on another nation, then I think a true badboy war in MP could be managable. But if wars do flare up between player nations and expand into global conflicts. There needs to be an easier way to manage BB then suffering 4 BB without a CB.

Just my opinion

Duma

 

[N Katsyev]

Adding BB as a possible consideration for "political crisis" and such events is really a good idea. BB's should definitely be punished, and its like smoking, no matter how unpractical and from a 3rd party view, silly and wasteful it is, people will still do it... but then, maybe some will start to quit. I see no reason to decrease the amount of time it takes to lose BB, people should just start trying to do things in a more sensible manner other than annex, annex, I think i'll diplo-ann... nah, Annex! Even Poland intheriting a beefy Lithuania won't get pushed above the BB limit if he has been somewhat of a goodboy before hand... However, Poland is kinda reemed by this, makes attacking the Baltic states an iffy situation when you first inherit Lithuania after you get your Baltic cores. Anyway, I would really like to see this implemented somehow in MP, i'm tired of hearing "BB doesen't matter in MP", it should.

 

[N Katsyev]

Originally posted by Eradius
I disagree with implementing it. I am not for limiting a player's options. Especially when you want to DoW a nation but you don't have a cassus beli on them. Eating 4 badboy so you can prevent a nation from being overrun by another player would be hard to take.

With the dynamics of an MP game, wars can start for simple reasons, and can escalate into larger conflcts as nations with informal alliances with another nation are forced to DoW other nations to aid them in their time of need.

Say we are looking at Russia who's badboy was over 20, and austria under heavy attack by the French and the Turks asked for aid from Russia. Russia could DoW the Turks and relieve alot of pressure, but he would have to suffer a 4 bb hit. 4 BB's could in the end derail carefully laid plans by the Russian player.

If there was easier ways to gain a CB on another nation, then I think a true badboy war in MP could be managable. But if wars do flare up between player nations and expand into global conflicts. There needs to be an easier way to manage BB then suffering 4 BB without a CB.

Just my opinion

Duma

I definitely do understand what you are saying here Duma, and it could turn out to be a problem in such a situation. However, I think one possible way around would be to make "Guaruntee Inedependance" and "Warnings" more effective. Maybe make it so that the Guaruntee Independance will come into effect whenever the nation you are "protecting" enters into a war where he is the defensive party, whether or not he was the actual one war was declared upon. Players tend to end up with bag fat treasuries anyway, this would be a good place to see some of those funds go.

 

[unmerged(14784)]

Perhaps, but how Ahistorical would that be?

They raised the costs for soldiers over support limit already, they made it so that the AI can't get over 4 badboy, now penalizing people by having 20 people dow them the minute their BB is over 35?

The only time in the EU timeframe where the entire world was against one country was during the Napoleonic era, and that was BARELY in the EU timeframe.

countries like Austria and Russia would be crushed by this.

France declines to accept peace with Austria in 1492 for just Comte and Artois, but demands Flanders as well.

Austria is left without a CoT so they make a deal with the Turks to partition Venice.

Austria takes Mantua from venice (90% of the time, venice annexes mantua) and Istria

Turks take the islands/dalmatia

Austria then has to DOW venice w/o a CB and annex them.

If the BB limit - AI dows were to be implemented, french aggression could easily force Austria to annex Venice, plus inheriting Milan/Hungary/Bohemia.

Such a thing would limit one's expansion significantly, would it not?

 

[L G]

I am definiately against this! (as those who play with me would know ) It really does limit the players actions so that its hard to even expand other than slowly, in which case and austria around a france and Oe had no chance in the AOE. Again im firmly against this, even though you others cant see the light.......

 

[unmerged(3158)]

That's fine Kat, if Johan and Paradox do put something in that can allow nations as easier way to gain a CB on a nation, then that is doable.

But I will say this, if this rule comes in for 1.07 without an easier way to get a CB, we will be dropping the difficulty down to normal for our games. I refuse to allow our players be limited in their actions.

I want the players to decide how they influence the course of the game, not the game mechanics. If a player warmongers in Europe, then its up to the players to fight this and create a coalition to stop the player. Interplayer conflicts will be diffinetely hurt by this BB rule change.

We have our own share of warmongers in our play group, but we also have players who will do something about it.

Duma

 

[unmerged(14784)]

I would have no problem with the proposal if it weren't that the AI WE limit of 4 is only in VH.

AI WE limit should be in Hard, too, so people could keep the WE limit but bypass the BB limit of 35...

I don't want AI govs crashing, but I also don't want the Humans to get partitioned by über AI's.

 

[N Katsyev]

Originally posted by KaiZer

Such a thing would limit one's expansion significantly, would it not?

Hopefully.

As for it limiting Russia severely... how? Russia gets cores on her entire Empire, which means no BB per province, and only 1 BB to declare war... Now, until Steppes event, there isn't all that much war to be declared anyway, so you should have minimal BB. Unless of course you find it imperative to go annexing Pskov and Ryazan for whatever reaon, thereby giving yourself 10 BB, in which case by the time Steppes come around, you still have burnt quite a bit of that off through time anyway. Someone who force-vassalizes, then diplo-annexes will only get 4 BB for the same thing. And finally, for the truly enlightened player, you can get both provinces for 2 BB, or if you're lucky, maybe 1 or none if another country annexes them. So unless you plan on gorging yourself on the AI at very unhistorical rates, Russia shouldn't really even notice a change.

 

[unmerged(3158)]

Russia was an example of what could happen Kat. You know what I meant. The badboy issue has always been a stumbling block to making interplayer wars. Its why we don't follow it in our games.

Duma

 

[N Katsyev]

Originally posted by Eradius
Russia was an example of what could happen Kat. You know what I meant. The badboy issue has always been a stumbling block to making interplayer wars. Its why we don't follow it in our games.

Duma

Actually, I was replying to what Kaizer said. I do know what you mean.

 

[unmerged(11323)]

which case and austria around a france and Oe had no chance in the AOE

Austria may have to actually use diplomacy instead of annexing all of germany to match manpower with France and OE.

 

[N Katsyev]

Originally posted by Roi Soleil
Austria may have to actually use diplomacy instead of annexing all of germany to match manpower with France and OE.

And fighting a defensive war, I think she'd do fine by herself, even if under a manpower disadvantage, Austria is pretty defendable terrain for the most part. As far as the OE goes, the tech difference in itself can be a decisive factor.

 

[unmerged(11323)]

Originally posted by N Katsyev
And fighting a defensive war, I think she'd do fine by herself, even if under a manpower disadvantage, Austria is pretty defendable terrain for the most part. As far as the OE goes, the tech difference in itself can be a decisive factor.

Not early on though, after time this would hurt the OE badly, they wouldn't be able to expand to much beyond thier cores and would probably lag too far in techs by 1600 or so.

 

[unmerged(14784)]

Forget OE.. think of Mother Russia!

Think of the Children, too! the Children who will be bored under Bavarian rule because Austria is afraid of BB

 

[N Katsyev]

Originally posted by KaiZer
Forget OE.. think of Mother Russia!

Think of the Children, too! the Children who will be bored under Bavarian rule because Austria is afraid of BB

If I remember correctly, Bavaria never was under direct Ausrian rule, so what's the problem here?

 

[Johan]

Originally posted by KaiZer
if this were to happen all the games would be borked...

Could you picture it?

Austria inherits Hungary and Bohemia and suddenly, all of the Holy Roman Empire dow them?

Jeez, the patches just get worse and worse

Ehh?? It would work the same way as in SP... or do you still play EU1 1.00?

 

[RedPhoenix]

I think the point, people who voted no, are trying to make. Is that the idea it self is nice, however with directly implementing without any changes from SP is bad (bit too extreme), with small alterations it would be a great thing.

And as I voted yes, I would vote a even stronger yes if it could be changed to be even better balanced for MP.

 

[Hive]

Originally posted by Eradius
That's fine Kat, if Johan and Paradox do put something in that can allow nations as easier way to gain a CB on a nation, then that is doable.

But I will say this, if this rule comes in for 1.07 without an easier way to get a CB, we will be dropping the difficulty down to normal for our games. I refuse to allow our players be limited in their actions.

I want the players to decide how they influence the course of the game, not the game mechanics. If a player warmongers in Europe, then its up to the players to fight this and create a coalition to stop the player. Interplayer conflicts will be diffinetely hurt by this BB rule change.

We have our own share of warmongers in our play group, but we also have players who will do something about it.

Duma

I totally agrees with this. Instead of making all countries automatically dow a badboy in mp, can't you just limit it to give other countries a CB on the badboy? That way, you still get the opportunity to punish a badboy - but you also have the choice not to interfere.

 

[unmerged(6788)]

I really don't know how this could be a problem if it would be tied just to VH....

 

[Peter Ebbesen]

Finally came down on the "no" side, due to the many issues that can crop up if implemented strictly as in SP*. A weak "no", though, as nobody could force me to play on very hard in MP (unless it became the established standard )


* Apart from the issues I have already mentioned, there is the nightmare scenario: The WE/religion killer combination from a losing nation, that can easily trigger a government collapse, and punch the invader across the 35BB border and into no-man's land. This is also, of course, the case when players have decided on a 35BB limit, but in that case it merely involves creative editing at the end of session following some sort of agreement. In this case, the game would have to stop immediately and the file saved. Then the same modifications would have to be made, potentially dozens of wars stopped, and (lag being what it is, perhaps a month passed before the host chose to save anyhow) ravaging AI armies returned.