Cross, Quill and Swords

[unmerged(1631)]

Infra 3 was either France or the OE... I think France .

I like your VP stats, they're fun to check between sessions .

Are you going to be awarding points for CRTs too?


Some other suggestions that might make them more precise:

Manufacturies -
cots -
manpower -
monthly income-
stability -
CCs(later of course)
average fort level
ship count


None of these things I would make cumulative. If you do add a bunch of other features I think I could help take care of VP stats every other week or so, and maybe others could take turns too, so it wouldn't be so much extra work just for you.

Hey thanks John, I like having something to play for even if it's not an exact science It just takes a few minutes to do them but I don't mind sharing the workload if we're adding more

I like your ideas for more ways to gain vp's. What do you suggest vp-wise for the stats you mentioned? Here are some of mine:

Manufacturies - 10vp's/per manu
cots - 100vp's/cot
manpower - 1vp/point
monthly income- ?
stability - ?
CCs(later of course) - ?
average fort level - ?
ship count - ? - (I like this as SOL's were a source of pride for powers)

Your thoughts good sir?

 

[King John]

Hey thanks John, I like having something to play for even if it's not an exact science It just takes a few minutes to do them but I don't mind sharing the workload if we're adding more

I like your ideas for more ways to gain vp's. What do you suggest vp-wise for the stats you mentioned? Here are some of mine:

Manufacturies - 10vp's/per manu
cots - 100vp's/cot
manpower - 1vp/point
monthly income- ?
stability - ?
CCs(later of course) - ?
average fort level - ?
ship count - ? - (I like this as SOL's were a source of pride for powers)

Your thoughts good sir?

The first three look good to me. Monthly income could be 1vp/2 D, or, since monthly income's are skewed sometimes due to looting or peace resolutions, we could base it on yearly income and divide it by 10 or more.

Stability, 5 points per stab above -3 maybe. My idea in this was for it to represent general instability. Just stab costs would be better I guess but they'd require loading the save as every country.

CCs, 20 per CC
Average fort level- multiply it by 20
Ship count- 1 point for every five warships and 1 for every 10 galleys


We could work on a more complex system as we go along but that's my general suggestion for right now .

 

[K'shar]

We should institute this setup for EGA John, looks as good a form to rate players as any.

 

[admiral drake]

Er, did not England told explictly Portugal that they could not interfere in Portuguese-Burgundy wars?

i did and i won't interfere vs portugal

india is a matter between burgundy and port

i'm just scared of the scandinavians tryng to steal mine and burgs maps

 

[admiral drake]

That's nothing special. Most others won't be far behind France in infra- probably getting lvl 5 by 1530 or 1540. Ahead of time penalties will prevent further advancement in infra until the late 16th century anyway, so we'll all be about the same there in a few decades.

YOU however along with Burgundy will control all the eastern cots, which will put you in charge of most of the world's trade for the rest of the game if something isn't done. Infra 5 will allow me to mint more, but it won't give me near the income you'll soon have when you start taking cots and advancing in trade tech, which will let you quickly catch up in infra once you're finished teching trade(and inflation doesn't matter to England anyway, with all its deflation events).

england can't reach china ect till i actually get explorers

i'm not gonna bother sending troops east to capture them pre explorers unles somebody steal my maps in that case its capture them embargo you :rofl:

 

[admiral drake]

guys PM me with what reward you wanted from cookie rule don't post it here, alot easyer to chek my pm's then to chek the forums

 

[admiral drake]

just found a weird problem......

my country is ruled by duke richard of york
now according to the deathdate in both db folder and save hes suposed to be dead for 4years already

 

[King John]

Your next monarch, Richard III, who would've ascended the throne n 1485, is dormant because of the event choice you made. Monarchs remain regardless of deathdate until another valid monarch comes along, so you'll be stuck with Duke Richard until 1509.

 

[admiral drake]

Your next monarch, Richard III, who would've ascended the throne n 1485, is dormant because of the event choice you made. Monarchs remain regardless of deathdate until another valid monarch comes along, so you'll be stuck with Duke Richard until 1509.

historicalmonarch = {
id = { type = 6 id = 04037 }
name = "Henry VII"
startdate = {
day = 22
month = august
year = 1485
}
deathdate = {
day = 21
month = april
year = 1509
}
DIP = 7
ADM = 5
MIL = 7
dormant = no
}

i should have this guy actually

 

[DSYoungEsq]

KJ is saying that you made a choice on an event that resulted in Bosworth Field never happening.

So you appear stuck with waiting for Henry VIII, though he should be renumbered, since his daddy won't be on the throne.

 

[unmerged(1631)]

1489 Victory Points (Revised Edition )​

Player Wars

France vs Burgundy - Burgundian Victory +100vps
France vs England - English Victory +100vps

Ottoman Empire vs Muscowy +50 each - Ottoman Victory +100vps
Ottoman Empire vs Brandenburg +50 each - Draw(?)
______________________________________________________________

1st) France - 2858 (+550 Wars - 5 Wars, 3 wins/2 losses +100 Infr 4 +283 Infra)

2nd) Spain - 2718 (+318 Infra)
3rd) Ottoman Empire - 2647 (+150 Wars - 1 War/1 win + 472 Infra)

4) Muscowy - 2638 (+50 Wars - 1 War/1 Loss + 363 Infra)
5) Denmark - 2272 (+ 522 Infra)
6) Sweden - 1996 (+ 121 Infra)
7) England - 1772 (+200 Wars, 2 Wars, 1 win/1 loss + 222 Infra)
8) Burgundy - 1704 (+250 Wars, 3 Wars, 1 win/2 losses + 404 Infra
9) Venice - 1685 (+50 Wars, 1 War/1 Loss) - +100vp's Trade 3 + 380 Infra)
10) Austria - 1103 (+ 178 Infra)
11) Portugal - 813 (+150 Wars, 1 War/1 win + 188 Infra)
12) Brandenburg - 710 (+110 Infra)
________________________________________________________________

Bonjour O Monarchs!

Thanks to King John's sugestions I reworked the vp's. They are now given as follows:

Base VP's:

Per European City - 100vp's
Per Colonial City - 25vp's
Per Centre of Trade: +100vp's

Infrastructure Points (For Lack of a better term):

Manufactory Points: +10/manufactory
Levy Points: +1/per manpower point
Income Points: Monthly Income Divided by 2
Stability Points: +5 Every level above -3
Fortress Points: Fortification Level x20
Fleet Points: 1vp for every 5 SOL's - 1vp for every 10 Galleys

These are calculated every turn and are not cumulative.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Per Player War - +50vp's
Per Player War Won - +100 vp's

First Nation to the Next Trade/Infra Lvl - +100vp's
First Nation to the Next Naval/Land CRT Lvl - +100vp's


* Just a minor note KJ - I went with your initial suggestion about monthly income points. When I look at the stats I usually base a nations power upon it's montly income so I went with that

 

[King John]

Thanks Dave. The rankings look pretty accurate, though it seems like England should be higher. Maybe we ought to count income the same as manpower, point for point. After all, it is just as important. And perhaps add discoveries in as another factor, or just add known cots?

 

[admiral drake]

KJ is saying that you made a choice on an event that resulted in Bosworth Field never happening.

So you appear stuck with waiting for Henry VIII, though he should be renumbered, since his daddy won't be on the throne.

all 3choises result in a bosworth field event go read the events

edit from the log
name = "September 10, 1485 : Bosworth Field happened to us."

i took the historic option wich doesn't change anything to leaders/monarchs so i should have that monarch i posted on the other page

duke is suposed to die in 1485 and henry VII is the successor so he should be my current king

 

[admiral drake]

probaly a mistake on my part.......the english monarch isn't in monarchlist save

basicle means te guy got deleted when i converted the save from 1492 to 1453 o

i got to chek all monarchs of every player now bah

 

[King John]

Here's an interesting statistic from the stats page: The top three MP values are for the OE, Moscow, and Venice, the OE having 109, Moscow 100, and Venice 94. The OE has most of its historical conquests under the belt now, and Moscow is fairly under way in its expansion. Venice, OTOH, has only taken control of most of Northern Italy, perhaps half of the Italian cultured provs in total.

Now, to compare it to some other European powers. Spain, which is entirely unified apart from Aragon, has only 82 MP. France, which is also almost unified, only lacking 8 other French provs, has a mere 65 MP.


I don't know about the rest of you, but I think Venice is unified enough . If total unification means Venice gets to have 1.5- 2x the MP of most nations of Europe, I think that's quite too much. It's current borders are more than generous for the Italian republic, and I would rather not see them become any larger.

 

[King John]

Military Tradition

MT scores for 1489:

France with 3.25
Burgundy with 1.75
England with 1.25
Portugal with .75
OE with 1.25
Brand with .5
Moscow with .5



I'm going to go ahead and generate leaders using 3 as the average. I however think that from now on we should use a higher average, like 3.25 or 3.5 for MT leaders, since they'll all be capped down to whatever your MT allows anyway. If we don't do this, there's a fairly high risk that people who earn high MT scores will still get underpowered leaders, which wouldn't be fair and would defeat the purpose of MT altogether.

 

[admiral drake]

Military Tradition

MT scores for 1489:

France with 3.25
Burgundy with 1.75
England with 1.25
Portugal with .75
OE with 1.25
Brand with .5
Moscow with .5



I'm going to go ahead and generate leaders using 3 as the average. I however think that from now on we should use a higher average, like 3.25 or 3.5 for MT leaders, since they'll all be capped down to whatever your MT allows anyway. If we don't do this, there's a fairly high risk that people who earn high MT scores will still get underpowered leaders, which wouldn't be fair and would defeat the purpose of MT altogether.

so from your point of view somebody with 10mt should get 10generals with 444-555 stats

at higher mt level people got so many leaders here bound to be several very good eitherway , 3.25 will just result in people getting 444-555 and even 666 all the time if you got high enough mt for it

i for 1 don't wan't 10 666generals running arround for same country(example)

 

[unmerged(1631)]

so from your point of view somebody with 10mt should get 10generals with 444-555 stats

at higher mt level people got so many leaders here bound to be several very good eitherway , 3.25 will just result in people getting 444-555 and even 666 all the time if you got high enough mt for it

i for 1 don't wan't 10 666generals running arround for same country(example)

... This is my first game using MT and I'm a little lost. What sort of leaders will be generated? I assumed they would be a the same as the random leaders that we have already just that we would get a few extra of them.

Could you give me a quick rundown on what to expect? (444+ leaders kinda spook me )

 

[unmerged(1631)]

Thanks Dave. The rankings look pretty accurate, though it seems like England should be higher. Maybe we ought to count income the same as manpower, point for point. After all, it is just as important. And perhaps add discoveries in as another factor, or just add known cots?

... Heya John,

Would'nt the vp's for income be relative? If England has 1000/month income and BB 500/month the ratio would still be the same if it was halved. The vp's would be inflated though and would lend more weight to income over land. I'm probably missing something obvious though since I'm definately not a math wiz

How would you score exploration and cot points?
I'm not sure about exploration points now that it has been sullied by foul map trading practices

 

[King John]

It looks like the way it'll work is you get an extra general and admiral for each MT point you have, added to 1 general and admiral you get by default.

I thought before that we'd always be getting 2 of each, but have been informed just now by Drake of the actual system. It's still going to depend a lot on luck to determine what you get, but your chances of getting a better leader of course go up with the more MT you have, which equates to the higher potential stats of your leaders and more leaders in general.

Check the stats for next session's leader generation and you can see how they'll generally look at MT levels 1-3 http://www.europa2.ru/cgi-bin/leagu...ason=Valkyrie.net VIII&lang=eng&yearsave=1489