EUM Map Proposal and Rules - Discussion

[Avernite]

Novogrod – up – damn, it was the center of Russian trade, and with Pskov-Novograd union it definitely didn’t decline.
QUOTE]
Offcourse, it would then be richer than for example Bremen, the heart of the Hansa. It would be on a level with Sjaelland and richer than Skane, which supposedly are pretty rich from the Sund trade. It would be on a level with Holland and Gent, areas that were urbanised areas rich from trade, and richer than the capital of England. It'd be as rich as Alexandria, from whence much of the Oriental trade reached Europe.

And while I am no expert, I don't think it deserves that high a comparative value, allthough I may be wrong. Offcourse, that may mean others are valued too low, or that I'm an idiot, but since cccino asked for other opinions

 

[Mettermrck]

Just wanted to express my support for cccino's map. It looks gorgeous, and I appreciate all the hard work you put into this. I do hope the game adopts this map, with hopefully a minimum of rancor and discussion. I think it opens up more possibilities for players shifting borders, concepts like Trier, the Avignon region, etc. Thanks ccc!

 

[unmerged(23474)]

Aw. come on. No Monferrato? Pretty please? It was a very important town.. Doesn't even have to be independent, can be ruled by Aragon or Sicily.

 

[N Katsyev]

3c, I just wanted to say, bloody good work mate!!!

I fully support what is already in the above "rules thread".

As per some provincial values...

Sorry Long, I have to disagree with you here. Narva was basically a fortress with a few port facilities and the province it belongs to is both poor agriculturally and very sparsely populated. Whereas Pskov has a few significant towns and cities, not to mention Pskov itself and relatively densely populated. I have no problems with Pskov's 3, but I don't think Narva should match it, I think her current value as 2 is more than fair and if anything more represents the game's situation than the historical situation where she'd probably be more poor - which I have no problem with, I more like the idea of the values representing our in-game histories than the the textbooks.

Kaffa and Kerch should both be 2's at most, certainly not 4's. While maybe fifty years ago I could have seen 3 in one of these for trade coming in from the east, that's long since dried up and what we are left with is rather drab and sparsely populated Taman peninsula.

Cyrnaica and Quattara should both be 0's. While there were a couple sheep herds wandering around, they are even less populated and suited to habitation than similiar provinces in Ireland and around the White Sea that have 0's. - Possibly Tripoli and Benghazi as well, though both of these had towns that make them less of a case for me.

Those are really the only specific cases that really came out and struck me. I think on the whole Germany is probably a bit too valuable when compared to France, the population levels at this time weren't even close. Or maybe we should simply make some French provinces more valuable... Either way.

Finally, i'd also like to suggest something...

That capital provinces recieve a +1 to their value, up to the maximum of 6 to represent the centralization of wealth and influence. Should be pretty easy to keep track of in Nat Stats, just having the province with a (+1 capital) next to it or something.

And yeah, that's about it for now, great work and I really hope we can implement this. The battle system especially is exciting, should make wars far more interesting. Its really only a shame we didn't have this sooner.

 

[N Katsyev]

Novogrod – up – damn, it was the center of Russian trade, and with Pskov-Novograd union it definitely didn’t decline.

Offcourse, it would then be richer than for example Bremen, the heart of the Hansa. It would be on a level with Sjaelland and richer than Skane, which supposedly are pretty rich from the Sund trade. It would be on a level with Holland and Gent, areas that were urbanised areas rich from trade, and richer than the capital of England. It'd be as rich as Alexandria, from whence much of the Oriental trade reached Europe.

And while I am no expert, I don't think it deserves that high a comparative value, allthough I may be wrong. Offcourse, that may mean others are valued too low, or that I'm an idiot, but since cccino asked for other opinions

EEP! And to think I almost let this one get by me.

To start, i'm comfortable with Novgorod's having a 4. I'd like to see a 5 and really can't help feeling that it should probably be a 5, however obviously not enough to make a case for it like I did with others above. Now however that other people have brought it up, I can't help but put in my two cents cause i'm just a dork that way.

Why it should be higher than 4 - As Long has said, Novgorod is the centre of Russian trade, its perfectly situated to command that trade (astride many east-west, north-south river routes and has access to the Baltic as well as ultimately both the Caspian and Black Seas). Its an ancient and relatively populated city. The climate is poor for agriculture, yet the soil (part of a belt that runs north of the Valdai hills, including Pskov) is actually remarkably fertile which ultimately means that some years there are great harvests, some years there are poor ones - so we can call it average at best agriculturally. Its also a cultural and religious centre, and a significantly populated regions with other major cities such as Staraya Russa. Historically, Novgorod had been in something of a decline from the beginning of the 15th century with the rise of Moscow. However in EU:M things are markedly different, Moscow is for all intents and purposes on the decline and ascension of Pskov-Novgorod would only make Novgorod that much more valuable. One can also point to everything from the fur trade to the great amout of gold working that went on in the city for its value.

Why it should be 4 - While the largest Russian city, i'd estimate Novgorod's in game population at between 30 - 50k, there are other 5's on the map that have double this (though it should also be noted that Kobenhavn probably has half this and its a 5). As said above, ultimately agriculturally its mediocre at best.

So yeah, i'll probably be dismissed as a terribly biased and insane russophile, but you must understand that i'm under the (self-created?) illusion that what I have written above is factual, unbiased and sensible. Either way, I hope its considered in the decision making process. And finally I don't mind if it stays a 4, but I figured since the topic was already opened, I do consider myself as knowing something about the region and I wanted to comment.

 

[unmerged(9770)]

First - great job cccino, I just can`t stop watching those maps .

I have a lot of notices and questions, I`ll post them on weekend. I hope that the discussion won`t be closed to this time.


But quickly about tech - ( to N Katsyev, and others) -

For example:

- Parma with it`s famous university, neighbouring Firenze... - has 5 tech

- Bologna - ruled by Pope I admit , but also - centre of medic studies - has tech 4


When I compare it to the fur trade centre...

Don`t lose proportions guys



EDIT: I set tech map as my screen background.

EDIT: I`ll post nice graphic-chronological table of art-architecture development in some regions of Europe ( Italy, Germany, France, "Iberia", England), hmmm it`s loosely bound with tech but maybe it make some players think twice before they decide to build a renaissance palace in , let`s say...Munster .

 

[Longinus]

ohhh finally I have the opportunity to paste what I wrote yesterday

about the provs, I would really consider merging some more provs around here (especially English, they are just so,,, small in comparison to the east)

Now, time for the rules themselves.

I must say, that I rather like them, they are definitely a huge improvement and still do not are too complicated. However, I don’t really like the stats and the way they are generated, I mean there should be larger gaps between majors and minors, but again, I might be wrong and would like to hear the rationale behind it. I would like to have the wealth to be generated directly from the provs’ values rather than simple ladder. The current provinces’ tech seems more like a fluffy add-onn, not really vital to the course of the game (all right, the sieges, but still… btw, as for the sieges, I would make them easier with larger number of besieging armies as well ) Generally I would like the provs values to have a greater impact on the stats.

Thanks to that, I would like to have the starting eco thing removed, in my belief it should be based more on the value of all provinces. I think the combination of ladder system and prov’s values in Icarus system was pretty neat, and that would rather be my idea how it should work.

This is how we could have less powerful Lithuania and even more powerful Lotharingia (and let’s face it, even with possible minuses coming from decentralization etc. Loth, with possessions such as Genua, the Netherlands and the richest part of France, should be able to tackle anybody ) isn’t it like,,, realistic?

RE: Movement – I think Hamilcar’s general idea is neat (even though one should take into account the size of some provinces hehe, generally the ones in the East are far bigger), it’s definitely worth checking out.

I think we should not be prisoners of the old system guys, I am personally ready to loose as Pommern (stats wise) if only it will be realistic .

Oh, one further note - if you want to argue for more provinces to your nation, note that you will *not* benefit stats-wise (nations with "too few" provinces are already boosted). So I know your desire for change will be purely for more accurate historical/RP representation

For the record, giving provinces to France is an incentive to take provinces away from them elsewhere. As I said, if a nation gains provinces their stats will be adjusted so they will not profit from the gain. This can be done by moving provinces around or removing eco bonuses.

I don’t quite get what you mean 3c, you mean that some realms are artificially boosted so that they can be more similar to old EU:M stats? I am totally lost now and personally, I don’t like it hehe. Would like to hear some other ppl opinions on the matter.

I gotta say a firm NO to this. Firstly, I don't think it adds anything to the game worthy of the extra complication. Secondly and more importantly, I don't think culture had anything like the consequences you imply. The nobles are happy if their overlord is the legal and correct; the peasants are happy if they're not *too* oppressed. Neither cares what language anyone speaks or what kinds of clothes they wear. How heavily taxed they were was FAR more important than language/culture could ever be. At this time in history, people from northern and southern England couldn't understand each others regional dialects, and the nobility spoke French anyway. The Flemish and the Swiss were proud and rebellious but that had nothing to do with their overlords being the wrong culture: French or Austrian. They would have been proud and rebellious under a Flemish or Swiss feudal overlord.

*Religion* is the only thing that should have any affect, and again I'd say the complication isn't worth the payoff.

"Stretched Empire" sounds reasonable. The only think I can think of to suggest is that every week we have a bunch of EU2-style random events (plague, rebellion, etc), triggered for the owner of a province (random number generator to pick 1 of 562 provinces). Thus larger nations are more likely to get the event. I suppose there could be some sort of decentralisation, morale penalty based on size...

That's my opinion

You definitely misunderstood me. I want to put all above mentioned stuff into one big pot called "Stretched Empire Syndrome". Anyway, we are in accordance here

Could I hear some other opinions on these two separate issues, before I comment, please?

I am waiting for them as well

Novogrod – up – damn, it was the center of Russian trade, and with Pskov-Novograd union it definitely didn’t decline.
QUOTE]
Offcourse, it would then be richer than for example Bremen, the heart of the Hansa. It would be on a level with Sjaelland and richer than Skane, which supposedly are pretty rich from the Sund trade. It would be on a level with Holland and Gent, areas that were urbanised areas rich from trade, and richer than the capital of England. It'd be as rich as Alexandria, from whence much of the Oriental trade reached Europe.

And while I am no expert, I don't think it deserves that high a comparative value, allthough I may be wrong. Offcourse, that may mean others are valued too low, or that I'm an idiot, but since cccino asked for other opinions

Than by all means give Bremen level up, and I challenge Sjaelland, Holland and Gent to be on par with Novograd, I also believe that it was more important and significant than Skane.

Btw, I personally believe that western sources are always considered more about the west, and whereas I do not want to underestimate the wealth and significance of the Netherlands and Italy around that time, I do feel that center Europe and East is a bit underestimated

PS. I kindly ask OE to be included into Latin tech group

_______________________

now, about Narva/Pskov - whereas I could agree that Pskovite region might have been more populated, the importance of the city of Narva as the local trade center (and the wealth of it) was by far greater than Pskov, it was the only Russian window to Baltic and historically it's peak should be beginning just now.

and I of course forgot another area of Importance to the Baltic trade, it is of/c Memel - yet another local CoT and as I have mentioned before, the whole area was becoming more and more populated (again German settlers) at that time. The Baltic coast under TO&Livonian Knights (now Bremen, Pommern, LK) was developing rapidly.

EDIT: few more nitpicks, should the Med isles be that valuable? I would say 1-2 of Sicillian provs should be (2) Crete merged into one prov or both prov. downgraded to (2), Rohodes (2) or even (1) (we could always give it a bonus by default like foreign grants and posessions + 2LM +2 eco whatever) Azores (0)

and yes, I agree with NK that some German provs seem to be a bit too valuable

 

[N Katsyev]

Just a few things...

I mean there should be larger gaps between majors and minors, but again, I might be wrong and would like to hear the rationale behind it

I hold the opposite view, I like anything that bridges the gap between the majors and minors. Up through the 18th century a country like Saxony could be a major player in European wars involving countries many times its size. In my mind even the smallest countries should have the chance to stand up against larger powers, and when in confederations even be a serious threat to those larger powers. It was confederations like these the largely kept Protestantism alive in Germany against the Habsburgs, at the time by far the most powerful force in Europe. Large countries should be more potent than smaller ones, but not to the extent currently where a smaller country really doesen't have a chance in hell. Its not until much later in history that the ability for large states to centralize and concentrate resources got to the point where they could really flex their muscles to make small countries irrelevant.

I don’t quite get what you mean 3c, you mean that some realms are artificially boosted so that they can be more similar to old EU:M stats? I am totally lost now and personally, I don’t like it hehe. Would like to hear some other ppl opinions on the matter.

I'm not entirely sure this is his goal. Some countries may have recieved artificial boost to make them more accurate mabye? 3c will have to comment.

How heavily taxed they were was FAR more important than language/culture could ever be. At this time in history, people from northern and southern England couldn't understand each others regional dialects, and the nobility spoke French anyway.

There certainly was nothing like nationalism. However I do think you are underestimating basic human "us" and "them" mechanics. If people are different, in any way, its much easier to hate/dislike/mistrust. Russian peasants would call their nobles "roosiskeey" as opposed "rooskeey", a tongue and cheek way of saying "Russian, but not". If they were German, i'm sure the words would be a bit more harsh. However difference of culture alone I agree would not be a trigger for discontent, but would certainly and by a considerable degree aggrevate it. Ultimately, I agree that we shouldn't have specific mechanics to deal with this however - the event system can properly handle specific instances. I also think that religion and culture should not be seperated as issues here, at the time, religion significantly made up cultural identities - it still can and does for that matter.

Btw, I personally believe that western sources are always considered more about the west, and whereas I do not want to underestimate the wealth and significance of the Netherlands and Italy around that time, I do feel that center Europe and East is a bit underestimated

PS. I kindly ask OE to be included into Latin tech group

I certainly agree here. Parts of the Lowlands, Italy, France (especially the latter) were certainly very rich. However the average peasant in Northumbria was probably no better off, in fact probably worse off than a similiar man in the heart of Poland. I also have no objections to OE being put into Latin group.

now, about Narva/Pskov - whereas I could agree that Pskovite region might have been more populated, the importance of the city of Narva as the local trade center (and the wealth of it) was by far greater than Pskov, it was the only Russian window to Baltic and historically it's peak should be beginning just now.

As a trade centre I could possibly see a sharing of importance between Narva and Pskov, though I wouldn't say Narva was more so. Narva's importance was as a conduit of Pskov's trade, commanding the Narva river whicn controls the flow of Lakes Chudskoye and Pskova into the Gulf of Finland and hence the Baltic. Pskova (a historic Hansa member) served as a hub for goods coming in from Narva, as well as and more importantly as the landward route for the important Baltic Ports (I do agree with Long on this), most importantly, Riga bound for Novgorod and later Moskva. Pskov remained an important trading centre until the founding of St. Petersburg. The expense to which her own rulers, and later Moscow's rulers put into her defense only further attributes to this. If it weren't for the importance of Narva as a trading centre, I would give the province a 1, in my opinion the territory just wasn't all that valuable aside from its strategic location. Anywho, in the end I don't decide.

EDIT: few more nitpicks, should the Med isles be that valuable? I would say 1-2 of Sicillian provs should be (2) Crete merged into one prov or both prov. downgraded to (2), Rohodes (2) or even (1) (we could always give it a bonus by default like foreign grants and posessions + 2LM +2 eco whatever) Azores (0)

I especially agree with Rhodes, 1 or 2 at most.

For example:

- Parma with it`s famous university, neighbouring Firenze... - has 5 tech

- Bologna - ruled by Pope I admit , but also - centre of medic studies - has tech 4


When I compare it to the fur trade centre...

I think you're taking "tech" a little too literally. Tech in this case represents far more than sensitivity to new ideas or actual innovation including wealth, degree of development and culture. Just because arctic fox pelts are peddled on the streets doesen't mean the people of Novgorod wear ratty bearskins and grunt. During the failed Polish seige of Pskova in 1581-1582, a Polish chaplain remarked, "We are fascinated by the city, the city is so being just like Paris." And that's not to mention the RP side of things.

 

[unmerged(9770)]

cccino - can I ask you for some comprehensive official explanation what the "tech" is? I`m a little sonfused now.

 

[Longinus]

cccino - can I ask you for some comprehensive official explanation what the "tech" is? I`m a little sonfused now.

you should have read the rules first you lazy sod

Tech is based on the average of provincial values, and thus changes when a nation changes its territory. This reflects the fact that, generally, the nation's wealth is tied up in materiel and lifestyle and not readily converted into cash.

Regarding the attrition rules, I say, let's scrap them, they will make wars more complicated and defending will be favoured by everybody, besides attrition was affecting all armies, not only the attacker, it didn't matter that much where the campaign was taking place. However, I think that Battle Mod should be allowed to roll his own micro-battle events before the battle, for example if the enemy army travelled a huge distance or entered a frozen land.

 

[I Killed Kenny]

One question... How will this change the events? And if I want an event *now* can I do it?

 

[Longinus]

Just a few things...


I hold the opposite view, I like anything that bridges the gap between the majors and minors. Up through the 18th century a country like Saxony could be a major player in European wars involving countries many times its size. In my mind even the smallest countries should have the chance to stand up against larger powers, and when in confederations even be a serious threat to those larger powers. It was confederations like these the largely kept Protestantism alive in Germany against the Habsburgs, at the time by far the most powerful force in Europe. Large countries should be more potent than smaller ones, but not to the extent currently where a smaller country really doesen't have a chance in hell. Its not until much later in history that the ability for large states to centralize and concentrate resources got to the point where they could really flex their muscles to make small countries irrelevant.

Sure thing, I share the same views that’s why I like the ladder system as well, which is making larger realms to get less for owing more it’s called feudal decentralization. However, let’s not exaggerate here (and your Habsburg example is largely exaggerated ).

Anyway, what I mainly had in mind was to tie the resourcefulness of the provinces more to realms’ power, I don’t like it when 6 value 3 provs give the same amount of LM/eco as 6 value 1 prov, you get what I mean? The difference in Tech in not sufficient imo.

There certainly was nothing like nationalism. However I do think you are underestimating basic human "us" and "them" mechanics. If people are different, in any way, its much easier to hate/dislike/mistrust. Russian peasants would call their nobles "roosiskeey" as opposed "rooskeey", a tongue and cheek way of saying "Russian, but not". If they were German, i'm sure the words would be a bit more harsh. However difference of culture alone I agree would not be a trigger for discontent, but would certainly and by a considerable degree aggrevate it. Ultimately, I agree that we shouldn't have specific mechanics to deal with this however - the event system can properly handle specific instances. I also think that religion and culture should not be seperated as issues here, at the time, religion significantly made up cultural identities - it still can and does for that matter.

yup, nothing more to add really.

As a trade centre I could possibly see a sharing of importance between Narva and Pskov, though I wouldn't say Narva was more so. Narva's importance was as a conduit of Pskov's trade, commanding the Narva river whicn controls the flow of Lakes Chudskoye and Pskova into the Gulf of Finland and hence the Baltic. Pskova (a historic Hansa member) served as a hub for goods coming in from Narva, as well as and more importantly as the landward route for the important Baltic Ports (I do agree with Long on this), most importantly, Riga bound for Novgorod and later Moskva. Pskov remained an important trading centre until the founding of St. Petersburg. The expense to which her own rulers, and later Moscow's rulers put into her defense only further attributes to this. If it weren't for the importance of Narva as a trading centre, I would give the province a 1, in my opinion the territory just wasn't all that valuable aside from its strategic location. Anywho, in the end I don't decide.

all right, I give up with Narva, you convinced me and I couldn’t find any more info to help my claim it’s not that I am an expert in these areas hehe. Let’s say Narva should have like 2.5 Hopefully it will change after the events I was planning (and still am) to post for Narva/Ingria/Karelia

However, I sustain my claims regarding the rest of values I mentioned.

 

[Blinky]

Just wanted to give my thumbs up to what I have glanced over here.

It looks like the map has become more versatile in allowing to portray disconnected titles of land such as d'Anjou.

The new stats, from what I gather, allow for armies to always do damage to each other, instead of just gathering huge armies and soaking up overkill to have flawless victories.

I would express that the extra rules step away from the simplicity of the previous system, especially with fractions of armies running around.

Getting fresh LM once you are under your base amount is a wonderful idea that can very literally allow for a long-term and destructive war for both sides. It would no longer be a matter of always grouping your armies and allies together because that is the safest, but you can actually try to siege a larger (as in more than one province) region in attempting to subdue/pillage your opponent into submission.

Overall, I like what I see. I'll leave the further technical details to the rest of you as I still do not have great access to the internet, but I look forward to having coming back as Navarra at some future date.

 

[unmerged(9770)]

you should have read the rules first you lazy sod

You didn`t understand me. I`ve read the rules and I know how the average tech is counted, I only don`t know what it precisely represents (ie. NK said that doesn`t mean development of new ideas, technologies, crafts etc. and as I see he mostly uderstand it as population/wealth of the province ).

That`s why I asked...cccino

 

[N Katsyev]

One question... How will this change the events? And if I want an event *now* can I do it?

Sure, I actually wrote my first event last week, but events are still largely Ladislav's realm, he posts them, etc.

Sure thing, I share the same views that’s why I like the ladder system as well, which is making larger realms to get less for owing more it’s called feudal decentralization. However, let’s not exaggerate here (and your Habsburg example is largely exaggerated ).

Anyway, what I mainly had in mind was to tie the resourcefulness of the provinces more to realms’ power, I don’t like it when 6 value 3 provs give the same amount of LM/eco as 6 value 1 prov, you get what I mean? The difference in Tech in not sufficient imo.

I see what you are saying now. And my example may have been exaggerated a bit, but you were in big trouble if you had Spain's wealth and Austria's army on your ass.

all right, I give up with Narva, you convinced me and I couldn’t find any more info to help my claim it’s not that I am an expert in these areas hehe. Let’s say Narva should have like 2.5 Hopefully it will change after the events I was planning (and still am) to post for Narva/Ingria/Karelia

I'm glad we could come to an understanding, you and I have the bad habit of butting heads on certain things.

You didn`t understand me. I`ve read the rules and I know how the average tech is counted, I only don`t know what it precisely represents (ie. NK said that doesn`t mean development of new ideas, technologies, crafts etc. and as I see he mostly uderstand it as population/wealth of the province ).

I think what Longinus quoted gives a pretty good indication of even 3c's idea. Note also for instance that in the new war/battle rules 3c gives, when one occupies another's capital, you have a tech bonus. One doesen't suddenly become far more technically adept by simply occupying another's capital, let me tell you this, but one usually gets their hands on a good bit of loot.

I'm not saying that tech has nothing or little to do with actual innovation and the welcoming of new idea/practices, simply that its not based soley in this and it has other major factors. This is how tech has always been understood. The same with morale, its not simply the battle-readiness of your armies, but also an indicator of overall stability and cohesiveness.

And just as another note to go along with Blinky, I really love the new ideas regarding warfare. I don't really care to passionately either way about the attrition rules and the following though struck me: with the regeneration of a landmil up to your base, maybe it would make sense to make this not 100%? As in, the chance of you getting that landmil back is based upon a percentage in proprotion to your number of home provinces and how many you control. A country half-occupied, would only regen this 1 landmil, 50% of the time for instance. I dunno, maybe occupation is well handled through the morale losses already stated (which I like), but its an idea anyway.

 

[Hamilcar]

I also think that armies should be able to move through any province they choose. After all, nothing physically stops them from doing so.

Of course, if an army marches across your land without your permission, you get an insta-CB.

 

[unmerged(23474)]

I also think that armies should be able to move through any province they choose. After all, nothing physically stops them from doing so.

Of course, if an army marches across your land without your permission, you get an insta-CB.

But that opens the door for looting and other unsavory things. Not good for game mechanics.

 

[Hamilcar]

But that opens the door for looting and other unsavory things. Not good for game mechanics.

Ah but those were exactly the sorts of things that happened. In fact, looting and pillaging should be included as well. Economic warfare - systematically destroying an enemy's agricultural base - was a far more effective and common tactic than set-piece battles.

 

[N Katsyev]

Ah but those were exactly the sorts of things that happened. In fact, looting and pillaging should be included as well. Economic warfare - systematically destroying an enemy's agricultural base - was a far more effective and common tactic than set-piece battles.

Warfare was also much more siege and counter-siege, set-piece battles were terribly expensive and generally avoided if possible. Of course, from a game point of view, that could get rather tiresome and boring. I very much like 3c's idea as it allows more skirmishes that are less decisive, which is perfectly accurate and makes war much more interesting.

Hopefully with these new rules we will see more and less decisive wars as people try to quickly make peace while they hold some sort of advantage after a particular battle or siege instead of risking the war turning against them as it so easily could under these rules. Likewise a person having just lost a battle or seige has his stats temporarily lowered and is more likely to agree to peace terms rather than risk an even more damaging loss. I'm really very optimistic and excited about how this could really improve the game.

 

[cccino]

Hi guys - You should know I've come into a very bad patch this week; RL has suddenly kicked up a lot of crap that will keep me very busy for a while. Bad timing, I know. I am endeavouring to read everything you guys write, but I don't have time today to respond in full to everyone. I will cover as much as I can in a few days time, and I ask you all to keep track of your own comments so that if I miss anything you can bring them up again.

Just a few quick responses, which I will expand on later, when my brain comes back online.

Regarding tech, don't forget that:

Province values do not directly affect Eco or LM. Instead, they reflect wealth in terms of assets and infrastructure of that province, affecting tech and fortress size & garrison strength in sieges and assaults. In the modern era, the government is responsible for outfitting and maintaining the army. In the middle ages, it is the nobles' responsibility, and that depends on the local wealth and non-convertible assets like horses and equipment.

If anything, IMO, nations have TOO MUCH freely spendable eco. (There is no such thing as regular annual income tax. The HoS gets money from the country by specific taxes and levies - they are almost always war taxes. Eg, if the King wants to raise an army to fight some enemy, he has to petition the estates (nobles for one, bourgeoisie for another) for the right.) I disagree with Longinus - base eco IMO should not be defined purely by province values. I'll explain this in a few days.

To what extent should province values affect base eco? Well, obviously it seems logical that richer areas should => richer kingdoms - but this isn't necessarily the case. Think about the fact that very rich areas (eg Picardie/Flandern/Holland) are not Royal domains. The wealth in fact belongs to the middle classes who are far less willing than any other group to hand it over to the crown. They have their own agendas, and are highly opposed to war as it disrupts their business interests and gives the king a reason to impose a tax. The wealth is also rarely in the form of "gold" or cash.

I will concede however that there could be a slight difference (+/- a few eco, tops) for very rich and very poor nations. I'll have a think about it and let you know; in the meantime keep discussing it.

As for province values, I'll keep them all in mind, and if people can agree on certain values that will help your case for getting them changed.

Finally on prov values and tech, I have needed to compromise on province values representing wealth, population, tech and fortresses (more population, higher tech = more strongholds and longer capture time). It would be unnecessarily complex to give every province separate eco, LM and fort contributions.


PS Oh, and when I said some nations are "boosted", what I mean is that (almost) every nation has their stats based on their relative EUM size. In general, realms will have stats equivalent to a new size of 2x old size. So for nations like Luxembourg, they have an extra LM which they lose by being only 1 province instead of 2.

PPS I agree with Hamilcar on army movements (attrition and looting, and no RoP barriers), but I'm not sure how to introduce any of that without unnecessary complexity, and game balance.

PPPS A few more random replies:

I'm not saying that tech has nothing or little to do with actual innovation and the welcoming of new idea/ practices

Actually, I'd say tech has almost NOTHING to do with innovation and welcoming of new ideas/practices. Northern Italy is practically the only area making technological advances. Who makes the guns? Does it matter? Who owns the guns? Whoever can afford it. Who can afford it? Nobles in RICH PROVINCES.

with the regeneration of a landmil up to your base, maybe it would make sense to make this not 100%? As in, the chance of you getting that landmil back is based upon a percentage in proprotion to your number of home provinces and how many you control. A country half-occupied, would only regen this 1 landmil, 50% of the time for instance.

The trouble is that then I have to *calculate* wartime regeneration, instead of a quick inspection.

PS. I kindly ask OE to be included into Latin tech group

In fact, I reckon it might be better just to put everyone at the same level. Saves confusion, and the difference is tiny anyway. Province values can be adjusted down if necessary.

There certainly was nothing like nationalism. However I do think you are underestimating basic human "us" and "them" mechanics. If people are different, in any way, its much easier to hate/dislike/mistrust.

Sure, but what are they gonna do about it, and is it a large enough effect to warrant stats representation? IMO, no. What would be more appropriate would be, for example, rebellion events in certain areas that were naturally rebellious.

I also think that religion and culture should not be seperated as issues here, at the time, religion significantly made up cultural identities - it still can and does for that matter.

Agreed - which is why I said I'd rather a religion modifier than a culture modifier. As you say, culture = religion + a little tiny bit of ethnicity/language.