It's beginning to feel like I'm arguing with a tea partier, John.
Oh yeah? That's funny, because it's beginning to feel like
I'm talking to Herman Cain, "10,10,10".
This is meaningless. You cannot possibly argue that making everything 20% more expensive does not contribute to the probability of bankruptcy. That it did not happen in the first session, and that it would not have happened to Spain had it not been my second session in several years (which I've conceded over and over, although it probably also would not have happened without the inflation penalty), does not matter terribly much to this argument. It does matter to the more basic argument that the 20% penalty was not significantly harmful in this area.
However, as you yourself told me after the session, you'd hardly seen three bankruptcies in the entire time you'd played EU II, let alone three in one game, let alone three in one session (so France/Muscowy probably did go in the second session). My guess is that we got lucky in session one-France conceded to England quickly, Muscowy was building up the loans that would doom it, Spain wasn't being stupid-and not in session two, and by sessions three and four we were out of the danger zone.
I think you would have. You were not, even at that time, ready to concede peace. It was only after the bankruptcy, it took the end of the session, when we had time to calmly work it out, that you settled for 3 provinces and an alliance peace, which was a thing you were lucky to get, at that point. Perhaps you could've pushed the envelope further without 20 percent inflation, but your mentality is what brought you down, though you may tell yourself that it was probably a result of the 20 inflation if that makes it feel better.
My point has remained the same. Why you call it sophistry or suggest I'm just twisting rhetoric is, I don't know, probably a matter of impatience. The inflation did, yes, make it easier to suffer bankruptcy. Less wealth, as I stated, opens the condition for this thing happen, but the crucial condition is always how players react when things start to go awry. Accept and make a sacrifice, or deny and risk total meltdown? What I am telling you is that this is the crucial thing in a bankruptcy, always, and 20 percent is no more relevant than the difference between being Brandenburg or Russia, or having a little lag or not.
You're still missing the point. Incredibly, you're missing the point while acknowledging the facts that support it below, so I can only assume it's willful.
No, I just think that in your point, you're operating along the fringe of anything important. Minute differences between the effect on rich and poor. I acknowledge your logic, but dismiss the ramifications you give it.
In your example, where the person with twice the tech speed(and this doesn't exist until trade income begins to take off, BTW) and the person with half the other persons tech speed both have their costs increased, you're not taking into consideration that before costs are increased, the first person is reaching trade 3 before he would otherwise, and is beginning to capitalize earlier. He has less of a window before the 2nd one arrives at this point, but he will also reach the following tech before the 2nd person, and so on and so forth. Everything happens quicker, including every succeeding progression of development, until you arrive at the ahead of time penalty.
So how much is the poorer one really gaining by having all techs develop more quickly? Initially, he does better. The player field remains even for a few extra years. Then he has to wait longer to get even again, and then he appreciates another longer than usual period of parity.
But again, your point in which you reference somebody having twice the tech speed of another is bogus. Looking at the stats of countries in the first century, all are hanging out in the 200s and early 300s, (the exceptions being Sweden, which is a special case, and Persia, which was in Muslim tech initially). Basically, the playing field is very even to begin with, and actual teching speeds are determined primarily by how players use their resources. The effect of starting inflation on individual advantages is, if at all, too insignificant.
Some countries are richer than they would be in vanilla, namely Spain, the OE and arguably Brandenburg and Holland. England will probably join them next session. But that's compared to vanilla 1492. Compared to the GC? I'm not even sure I would concede that the OE and Spain are unusually wealthy, or countries unusually ahead of time. In any 1419, certain countries have a much longer window to consolidate, invest in tech and expand overseas. This leads to much earlier teching/wealth, which in turn leads to more teching/wealth. Yet another reason 1419s are seldom played.
This is just wrong. You haven't looked at any GC stats before saying this. Techwise, some countries are ahead of where vanilla counterparts tend to be(because of the inflation), but incomes are almost universally higher here. Were it not for the inflation, it would only be worse. In the first few sessions, income was kept in check by low populations all across Europe, but now they've grown and income is swelling. In vanilla, surpassing 100D would not be possible without trade until late in the game, unless your country is the OE, Spain, or huge. Here, you're a minority if you're not past 100 MI.
But let's say that, for whatever reason (and I think the map is playing a fairly significant role, if only insofar as more countries are capable of premature wealth), some countries are wealthier than they would otherwise be and that's something we want to control. I've never disputed this, so I don't know why you keep beating your head into it. The problem is not the problem, it's your solution, because only some countries are significant wealthier and yet all countries pay the same price. Sweden, Persia, Muscowy and Poland are all poorer and further behind in tech than they should be after one hundred and fifty years of play. Yes, Poland was unplayed, yes Muscowy had a bankruptcy (but who knows whether it would have but for the 20% inflation), yes Sweden lost Denmark, but countries go astray in vanilla, too, and rarely get insurmountably behind so early. And come on, Sorelus never had a chance and you know it.
To how much of an extent can we even know that based on one game? Should we also assume that Spain is vastly overpowered now that you've come into your own(after you have whined about the opposite time and again as we've moved along)? You can't make assumptions based on one players performance. For a long time, on vanilla, people thought that Denmark was a dead end country, incapable of amounting to anything, and then along came a few superstars who demonstrated that wasn't the case. When considering balance, anecdotal evidence is not a very reliable thing to measure by.
So maybe these countries are inherently poorer than they should be. I'm certainly in agreement in regards to Sweden's tech speed. I would hesitate to say the same about Russia and Poland, but acknowledge that it may be so. Poland, certainly, has a better start than Brandenburg, and if played, would have had many opportunities to pave a road to success. Ditto Russia, but my impression is that its wars with the AI were one disaster after another, something that happens but is not typical.
If someone played one of these in a more successful way, we surely wouldn't be including them in a context of inherently weaker countries. Whenever we take a close look at the map for to fix things, we have to be very careful about using this kind of evidence. More reliable are static things like base tax and MP(and they don't appear to be askew).
But I'm glad to be reminded that you're in favor of keeping things at a pace similar(if not slower) than vanilla. However, since we can't know without more information and analysis, and certainly could not have known it early on in the game, how closely the balance here resembles vanilla(if a GC vanilla is even all that sacred to begin with), we can't possibly apply a solution that slows down progress without risking, by your logic, some drastic unfairness. I would say there's a chance for minute disruption of balance, just as with any change(the land 5 rule, for example, could easily be argued as changing the balance, and was, until people realized how great that idea(my idea) was, and that the adverse effects were much more minute than expected, and on the whole beneficial).
This argument may well apply to more countries that have been more successful as the traders really begin to blossom. You never should have applied 20% in the first session, never should have applied it at all, really, and never should have presumed the wealth problem to be equally distributed, but now the only fair solution is TC's.
But you do believe that we should have dropped everyone back two tech groups, right? His solution might be acceptable if we also bumped back the tech group by one. It would make the things people buy cheaper, but not rev forward our tech speeds and risk us hitting the ATP en masse.
I'm not concerned about balance at all. I was very concerned about it before the game started when you said everything would be fine and nothing needed to be changed. Now that the game has started, I actually agree with Mats and stick by what I've said about Spain and the OE. Edits cannot be used to restore it in the way you're suggesting, because that arbitrarily punishes successful countries after game start to the benefit of not just those who suffered most for the setup and inflation rule (Sweden, Persia, Poland, etc.) but countries that lost on the merits (i.e., France).
Oh, you're not concerned about balance at all? What!? What is this all about? The whole point is fixing the balance. If that's not the whole idea here, then what the fuck? We can go on as we have gone on, without any changes, or make a change that actually accomplishes something righting the balance a little bit. This 10 percent rollback will affect little, if anything. It's the kind of solution that may make a few think that we're doing something to fix things, but which will actually change nothing. If you don't give a shit about fixing the balance at this juncture, then it's certainly the best way to go.
The trade inflation rule is the best thing we have for maintaining balance. Everybody knows that trade is what differentiates the poor and impoverished from the wealthy. What we have is a good rule, but if we wanted to effect change, we would strengthen it. I've already suggested, not an immediate application, but a delay of one session. But hell, I would delay it two, or more, if needed, just to make it happen. You don't know who will get stuck with it by then. It might be primarily England and the Netherlands. I've also suggested applying the extra trade inflations through deflations to the tradeless rather than inflations for the rich. And I will take the same inflation as Spain for the first two rounds(beyond what would already happen), if that makes you feel better. I'm not going to have anybody say that I want to do this for my own gain.
So let me turn it around. If you think an across the board 10% deflation is a bad idea, shouldn't be done after start, isn't necessary, etc., why are you pushing for something much more radical and much less fair? Increasing the penalties on some countries (and let's be honest-look at the stats-for now only on Spain) by changing the rules after game start?
I'm pushing for something that will improve the balance automatically, not something that will solve nothing except to propel us to the ATP faster.
What I am really concerned about is losing up to four player countries, possibly even more, as relevant forces in the game because you chose, despite being told precisely what would and did happen, to impose 20% inflation on everybody with no consideration to what the map actually does or who actually benefits. The only fair way to address this after game start is TC's suggestion. The across the board deflation will lessen the extra tech burdens described above, but, more importantly, will give them a better shot at remaining militarily competitive, so that, with subsidies from foreign powers, they can stay in the game.
At most, I would providing arbitrary deflation to some of these countries as an acceptable solution. Sweden, more than the rest, makes some sense.
But fairness is not the only ground on which I oppose what you're suggesting. It might help "balance"-the only one you seem to care about, which is the one that involves Spain and France-but it would not help Russia, Poland, Sweden and Persia. Indeed, by reducing Spain's effective buying capacity, it would arguably leave them even worse off, as they would lose their likeliest source of subsidies, but at the very least it would not help. Are you seriously suggesting their prime competitor is Spain? Are you seriously suggesting that slowing down Spain is what they really need, when they will end up two CRTs behind all their neighbors (except each other, of course-there is another solution here, which is they they're allowed to play a side game of their own)?
What about the OE? What about Brandenburg, and Burgundy? Spain has the most trade, but it's not the only one with it. Sweden and Poland are primarily threatened by Brandenburg, which has a great advantage because of its trade. Russia is primarily threatened by the OE, which also outstrips it in tech because of trade. This is not a selfish argument on my part. France has good enough tech speed. I don't give a shit, on my own behalf. I would be willing to take the same extra inflation as Spain if that were necessary, because I hate more than anything feeling that I am being unfair to somebody else for my own gain. But this is the sensible solution, and the only one that will, on its own account, maintain the balance as the game goes on. We won't have to have more of these ridiculous arguments. We just process the numbers and add them into the save.
Yes, as with everything else, insisting nothing needed to be changed because you couldn't be bothered turned out poorly. However, this is not something you can just impose after game start, as I explicitly warned you before the first session.
This is no worse than lobbying for a change to the gold inflation rule to help yourself, except that I am thinking of the game, and you were thinking only of Spain, a country which already, by that time, had shot far into the lead.
Now, I personally have no objection to setting a floor in a session or two, but, as with increasing the trade or gold inflation penalties, this disproportionately harms specific countries, which (to clarify in light of yet more sophistry) is what I've generally understood to be off-limits without consent after game start. It should not be done if even one player objects to it. I imagine England might and rightfully so (at 8.3% inflation). Holland, too, should get a bunch of deflations and it looks like Aladar was deliberately avoiding inflation in order to get below the cap.
That's great to hear.
I agree, about delaying the process. I didn't realize that England was already at 8.3, but this is, like the trade thing, a good rule that would help the game along, even if only applied down the road.
