EUM Map Proposal and Rules - Discussion

[Mettermrck]

Well, I hope RL clears up for ya, ccc. Complying with Longinus' request, I have reviewed the rules and conclude that cccino's proposals are cool not just map-wise, but rules-wise as well. I do hope we can come to a common agreement soon so that the game can enjoy the map and rules. *Looks at Longinus again, as if waiting for an approving nod*

 

[N Katsyev]

As per the culture thing 3c, you'll see I came to the same conclusion. That there's no reason to represent it mechanically and events would be best used in specific cases.

 

[I Killed Kenny]

I propose some changes in Portugal if possible...

As you can see 3 names changed and the river TAGO ( or Tejo as I like to call it ) changed, it does not mean a great change but the map would look MUUUUCH better

 

[unmerged(17500)]

obviously im a bit biosed on this one, but doesn't make sense that with morea, samara, lebanon, and the other aragonese lands, these dudes would 5 tech, especially with their importance to trade?

I think more the problem is castille should have one less. There are just some povinces that don't make sense that are 4s and 5s. Toldeo is a 5 should be a 4, Cadiz is 4 should be 3, Andalusia is 4 and should be a 3...anyway just thought that would make this a lot more cohesive across the peninsula from aragon to portugal.

With Venice, Thessaly should not be a 2 and Vicenza should be a 5. On the other hand I absolutely agree with the Corfu which some people might want to up.

Ignore this if im not making any sense

 

[unmerged(17500)]

I think these rules are great, my only other concern is that the Wartime Morale Modifiers are going to be too subjectively picked. Offering a chance for players to make their case in a post might help? I don't know but then that makes it a pain.

 

[unmerged(17500)]

you should have read the rules first you lazy sod



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.

Actually I think it makes attacking more intersting...forces flexibility and efficiency, I really liked the attrition section. Also the large nation states are so massive that they can clobber on the small ones even easier now. This makes it more balanced.

 

[unmerged(17489)]

If we're gonna nitpick on the map...

I don't understand why Finnveden is a seperate province, you can merge it easily with Småland. Apart from that, the Mälardalen-Stockholm-Östergötland area is messed up. Stockholm isn't located in the Stockholm province for example, in 1450 I believe it was on an island between present Stockholm and Mälardalen provinces and on the northern shore. I would merge Stockholm and Mälardalen, while giving the northern part of Mälardalen (Gästrikland province in CK) to the Gästrikland province on your map (which should be named Hälsingland). The new province should be either Stockholm or Mälardalen, either works fine.

Östergötland looks very weird, it's northern part (Närke in CK) can be given to Värmland, Bergslagen and/or Mälardalen. Also, Bohus should be a part of Denmark, Sweden never owned it and thus it couldnt be conquered by Gelre, right?

If we could give Bornholm (the small island south of Skåne) to Denmark that would look much better too

 

[unmerged(8054)]

...Also, Bohus should be a part of Denmark, Sweden never owned it and thus it couldnt be conquered by Gelre, right?

If we could give Bornholm (the small island south of Skåne) to Denmark that would look much better too

Now that we are nitpicking; Gelre won the province(s) in the war between Denmark and the Greif-Schussel Allianz.
Denmark gave away provinces to the victors (Pommern, Bremen, Gelre), and released Sweden from vassalage. So the province in question was conquered by Gelre, from Denmark.

 

[unmerged(17489)]

Now that we are nitpicking; Gelre won the province(s) in the war between Denmark and the Greif-Schussel Allianz.
Denmark gave away provinces to the victors (Pommern, Bremen, Gelre), and released Sweden from vassalage. So the province in question was conquered by Gelre, from Denmark.

ah, I see, didn't know that, I just assumed they were taken from Sweden as they were Swedish in 1419 and I believe Västergötland has been dutch for quite a long time (30-40 years?). Well, then it all depends on how the peace treaty was written and how it has been RPed I guess

 

[unmerged(9770)]

In the case of Bar, I think that I did RP it more than any players who played the Anjou dynasty. Even FB, in his court, said he claimed the title, but that is was under dispute with Lotharingia.

There was a dispute about Lorraine, ideed. But Bar was RP`ed as controlled by Anjous. You can check it the lounge. I`ve posted some links there.

Same thing with Anjou. It said it was claimed, but that there wasn't much to be done about it.

Duchy of Maine was claimed, where Charles d'Anjou, brother of Rene d`Anjou ruled. It`s part of France, and... let it be. I`m playing Rene`s line.

-------------------------------------​

Well, I think that when the new map is introduced, we can mark Rene d`Anjou properties on it.

Ok, so here it goes.

1. Duchy of Anjou –
2. Duchy of Bar – I`ve posted about it in the lounge
3. County of Provence – Rene is count of Provence, historically, by RP, and in nat stats.

Some notes:

1. Naples is a freee kingdom, by Provence and Anjou Rene is vassal of France, by Bar – vassal of K. Of.Lotharingia. There are no rules about such situation, but I`m going to play these lands as vassals ( unless I`ll decide to break it IC, but of course will all IC consequences ).

2. I would like to make treaties IC about money and men given to Rene`s sovereigns, ( which would have consequences in nat stats, I mean LM in case of war, and ECO ). I think that would be fair.

What do you guys think about that?

EDIT: when I say "consequences in nat stats, I mean LM in case of war, and ECO " I mean that for example France should have 1 eco for these three provinces ( anjou + 2 in Provence ).

 

[unmerged(17500)]

So i had a great idea when i was talking with hammy the other night. we were discussing unit movements and the reasons why i absolutely love attrition. Well now i extrapolated on that convo.

TWO POINTS

1. Can we add a modifier which is based on troop movments for instance.... an army is in its home province lets say it is Mantua and is attacked by two Venetian armies; one coming from Verona and the other from Vincenza. There should be a flanking bonus or something of that sort.

What I'd like to add is actually military strategy instead of like in the current game where the larger the glob the better. I'd rather have smaller armies used (even though the risk of them being destroyed is larger.

2. Also the negative morale that is taken in a loss should be relative to the army that is lost in my opinion. If you just lost an army of 15 lm you should lose more then 1 morale, while an army loss of 2lm shouldn't count for negative morale.

 

[Avernite]

1. Can we add a modifier which is based on troop movments for instance.... an army is in its home province lets say it is Mantua and is attacked by two Venetian armies; one coming from Verona and the other from Vincenza. There should be a flanking bonus or something of that sort.

Uhm, except for the fact that a province is still several times the size of a batllefield, thus the armies would more likely meet on some field where they could care less who came from where. I don't think such a flanking bonus makes sense, though terrain bonuses might to a small extent.

 

[unmerged(17500)]

Uhm, except for the fact that a province is still several times the size of a batllefield, thus the armies would more likely meet on some field where they could care less who came from where. I don't think such a flanking bonus makes sense, though terrain bonuses might to a small extent.

My goal was to make incentives for players to have multiple medium sized armies instead of huge globs which aren't realistic. It also adds an interesting level of military strategy which I think would be really welcomed. Large armies are just boring and don't take much intelligence to weild.

You can easily say because an army came from a different province, it comes from a different direction on the battlefield. I know it is a light stretch, but I think it is the only way that you can have flanking on a battlefield. It does make a bit of sense. Keep your mind opened to it , stay flexible and think how it would feel the day before orders were due, to be able to play with that option.


What about my second idea?

 

[unmerged(945)]

Upon request from a member of this game I have decided to comment on the proposed rules (Even though I am not a player of the game off course.)

First of all I would like to give thumbs up to cccino for his hard work on making this rules, deserving of respect indeed. The map itself looks excellent.

Ok, on to the rules themselves... time to line up the firingsquad... errr, I mean... time to give constructive critizism on the rules


The stats

I believe the emphasis is still too much on size and too little on wealth. Nations like Lithuania is still too strong compared to the smaller and wealthier nations like Poland (wealthier compared to Lithuania at least).

In addition I believe the "hardcoded" starting eco should be removed. It should be based on province wealth only. In many cases nations can have different eco even if they own the exact same provinces. As an example a Genoa consisting of Genoa, Savona, Nice and Piemonte would be much richer than a Piemonte owning the exact same provinces. I do not believe the genoese are inherently superior

There are certain balancing issues. Some people claim that minors are too weak, and majors are too strong. This is absolutely not true, quite the contrary. Both due to the ways the stats are calculated and because of the proposed combat system.


Example of conflict between 1 major and 3 minors

For purposes of this example, Castille is at war with Saxony, Holstein and Mecklenburg. Quite unlikely, but they are all the same tech so it makes it easier to compare them. For this war all participants pump all their eco into landmil, and there is no outside intervention.

Castille (19 LM/9 TECH/10 Morale) 28 provinces
Saxony (7 LM/9 TECH/10 Morale) 5 provinces
Holstein (5 LM/9 TECH/10 Morale) 2 provinces
Mecklenburg (5 LM/9 TECH/10 Morale) 2 provinces​

Ok, so Castille has 19 LM/28 provinces and the germans have 17 LM/9 provinces. The germans have 32% of the provinces (same wealth level) and can still muster 89% of the forces! Quite a lot considering that these minors are not even that strong for minors. Some might argue that such minors held off the Habsburgs, but don't forget that the Habsburgs had to contend with the likes of France and the Ottoman Empire at the same time. Also there are much more minors in Germany than these three.

Ok, time to take a look at the battle resolution. Then we shall see that the real difference in strength is not the one listed above.


Battle system

The formula for calculating a nations damage potentional is as follows:

(LM + 4) * (Morale) * (1 + 1D6) / 100​

The average result on a D6 is 3.5 and let us assume that morale is 10. The average damage potentional will be as follows:

(LM + 4) * (10) * (4.5) / 100​

So with 1 LM you get an average potentional of (5) * (10) * (4.5) / 100 = 2.25
2 LM: (6) * (10) * (4.5) / 100 = 2.7

So if you increase your forces by 100% you only increase your damage potentional by a lousy 20%!

3 LM: (7) * (10) * (4.5) / 100 = 3.15

This time forces are increased by 50%, and damage potentional only by 16.67%. And so it continues. This means that smaller armies get a bonus to their potentional damage compared to larger armies. Which again benefits minors, since their armies tend to be smaller.


Major minors

Same example as above, Castille in war against Saxony, Holstein and Mecklenburg. Average rolls are used to make a better comparison (It is off course impossible to roll 3.5, but that IS the average).

Castille: ((19 + 4) * 10 * (1 + 3.5))/100 = 10.35
Saxony: ((7 + 4) * 10 * (1 + 3.5))/100 = 4.95
Holstein: ((5 + 4) * 10 * (1 + 3.5))/100 = 4.05
Mecklenburg: ((5 + 4) * 10 * (1 + 3.5))/100 = 4.05​

With 19 landmil Castille has 10.35 damage potentional. With 17 landmil the germans has 13.05 damage potentional, due to the seperate potentional for each army, and therefore 4 added to LM for each army.

So to sum it up the germans has 32% of the land, 89% of the forces and at the same time does 126% of the damage Castille does because they all have the same tech.

If 3 such small minors are able to outperform one of the strongest majors in the game in such a way, the game system is in my opinion unbalanced and needs to be looked at. Ok some unbalances has been found, now it is time to abuse the system.

The proclamation of Zupken - We will rock you!

Many nations signed the proclamation. Of those Pommern, Brandenburg, Gelre, Bremen, France and Bavaria decided to send troops. To counter this threat Lotharingia has spent its entire treasury on troops. The coalition sent 1 LM each, none of them even using any eco to raise troops.

Lotharingia 21 LM/11 TECH/10 Morale
Pommerania 1 LM/8 TECH/10 Morale
Brandenburg 1 LM/8 TECH/10 Morale
Bremen 1 LM/9 TECH/10 Morale
Bavaria 1 LM/8 TECH/10 Morale
Gelre 1 LM/9 TECH/10 Morale
France 1 LM/10 TECH/10 Morale​

Average Damage potentional

Lotharingia 11.25
Pommerania 2.25
Brandenburg 2.25
Bremen 2.25
Bavaria 2.25
Gelre 2.25
France 2.25​

So Lotharingias 21 LM has 11.25 damage potentional and the coalitions 6 has 13.5

28% of the troops, 120% of the damage. If the entire coalition army is annihilated it does not matter. They get -1 morale for 1 turn only, and the LM is regenerated next turn because they are under starting LM. Lotharingia on the other hand can not regenerate until LM is below starting, and by then everything they built with eco has been used up. Even their tech advantage will not stop them from being hurt quite a bit from this much smaller army. The ninja-commandos of Zupken cheers while BusterBunny cries big salty tears

This can be taken further off course so lets rape the system a bit more.


Commando Raids

By using 1 LM armies like the above each turn it is essentially possible to wittle down an entire enemy force. 1 LM per battle by 1 nation is sufficient for this as long as tech is similar. The 1 LM will then usually kill 1 or 2 LM of the enemy per turn, and dont forget that it regenerates every turn. Note that it can be nothing too, or as much as 3 - even 4 if you significantly out-tech the enemy. Also, the morale lost does not matter as the morale losses are regained after 1 turn anyway. The opponent will get morale bonus at 3 or 4, but this is irrelevant as he will never meet armies larger than 1 LM unless it is small enough to be safely dealt with by other means anyway. As long as the commando player allways manages to keep some of his own provinces under control this would work quite well. Easier still due to all the extra new provinces.

Off course, the opponent can use the same tactic, which pretty much means that the game would turn into a series of border skirmishes and no decisive battles


Other things

Damage potentional is calculated using a D6. This means getting an extreme result is just as likely as a result in the middle, which in turn makes the battles very variable. Perhaps a greater probability of an average result would be better.

Attrition and movement rules like the ones Lars made for 1558 should not be added in my opinion. With much more detailed battle rules I believe this game will lose some of its soul.

I have only looked at stats and field battles in detail, perhaps I will comment on the rest sometimes later. And more on the above if I see something else

Cheers

 

[cccino]

I propose some changes in Portugal if possible...

As you can see 3 names changed and the river TAGO ( or Tejo as I like to call it ) changed, it does not mean a great change but the map would look MUUUUCH better

Yeah all the rivers are terrible on the EU/CK map. I'll add your changes to my list of things to look at.

obviously im a bit biosed on this one, but doesn't make sense that <etc>

Sure, I'll look at it. Anyone else agree Castile's tech is too high?

If we're gonna nitpick on the map...

Go right ahead. There are many areas I know nothing about, have few clear historical maps of, etc, and Scandinavia is one of those. So I appreciate your comments. I'll look at correcting the map as soon as I get a chance.

1. Duchy of Anjou –
2. Duchy of Bar – I`ve posted about it in the lounge
3. County of Provence – Rene is count of Provence, historically, by RP, and in nat stats.

Ok, so there's a big stink about titles and property ownership, with Anjou as the archetype of a more general problem.

We are trying to, simultaneously, roleplay each as a dynasty and/or as a realm or specific title/group of titles. For example, we have a Kingdom of Naples ruled by d'Anjou. Now EU2 deals with distinct nations, because that is more appropriate over the 400 year timescale. In our game we are looking at 40 - 80 years. When we roleplay as a realm, we can deal with the complexities of feudal hierarchy by considering only one title, and playing characters that control that "kingdom" (so we can change the HoS freely without having to change map territory). The conflict only arises when one character (who cannot be split) owns title in multiple realms, as overlord of some region and vassal in another.

The only resolution as I see it is to redefine what it is we are playing - a nation or a dynasty? The practical solution would be to organise some complicated hierarchy - so that Rene d'Anjou, for example, owns Naples outright but owes partial vassalage to the French King for his territory in France, and partial vassalage to Burgundy for Bar etc. Would this be best represented by giving map provinces to Naples, and Naples owing vassal eco to France/Burgundy (proportional to respective French/Burgundian territory, not total territory)? Ah, but there is a problem! Let's say there is a coup (from within, not another RPG realm) and d'Anjou is ousted from the Kingdom, and no longer King of Naples, but still Duke of Anjou and Bar. Does Naples still own those Anjou territory? or do those territories have to be given back to France/Burgundy and Anjou become merely a character to be roleplayed by one or the other of those realms? Or does Anjou become a completely new "nation" in the RPG?

We CANNOT arbitrate land ownership until these possible conflicts are considered. Otherwise, the only option is IMO to stick to giving territory to the absolute top overlord of the hierarchy (HRE excepted), and sub-territories limited to RP. Otherwise it is an incomplete solution and, more importantly, unfair to distribute vassal land in some cases but not in others.

1. Can we add a modifier which is based on troop movments for instance.... an army is in its home province lets say it is Mantua and is attacked by two Venetian armies; one coming from Verona and the other from Vincenza. There should be a flanking bonus or something of that sort.

What I'd like to add is actually military strategy instead of like in the current game where the larger the glob the better. I'd rather have smaller armies used (even though the risk of them being destroyed is larger.

I disagree, military strategy is anachronistic. There is no frontline, hence there is no such thing as strategic flanking. Everything is is tactical and hence should be managed by battle system.

Also, I'd argue that forcing players to control such military strategy is in opposition to the spirit of the game. For the scale of the map it is silly, and for the added complication the payoff is very low. The reason I don't play 1558 is because I don't want to have to deal with such things as economy and war at such a detailed level, and I'm sure others agree with me.

2. Also the negative morale that is taken in a loss should be relative to the army that is lost in my opinion. If you just lost an army of 15 lm you should lose more then 1 morale, while an army loss of 2lm shouldn't count for negative morale.

Maybe, but then really the people at home would have no idea of the actual military significance of the defeat, only what they were told through propaganda (pantomimes and such). But the main reason it's that way is because it makes a major defeat have extra bad effects - you lose your LM and you also suffer a major morale hit.

Upon request from a member of this game I have decided to comment on the proposed rules (Even though I am not a player of the game off course.)

Thanks Icarus, I really appreciate that someone can do such an analysis of the rules. Frankly, I am really hesitant to implement something that hadn't been fully tested, and I simply can't test something thoroughly because I'm automatically blind to any flaws I may have introduced. I only figured that it would take weeks if not months for this proposal to be discussed, so there was plenty of time for tweaking (or indeed complete revision) of the rules while the map was being discussed. Hopefully next week I'll have more time to spend on this thing. If you feel like comparing what results you actually want/expect from battles with respect your analysis above, go for it.

Again guys, keep up the good work analysing the map and rules. Be as critical as you like. Oh, and congratulations all for being so constructive!, rather than "I hate this", etc.

 

[unmerged(17500)]

Maybe, but then really the people at home would have no idea of the actual military significance of the defeat, only what they were told through propaganda (pantomimes and such). But the main reason it's that way is because it makes a major defeat have extra bad effects - you lose your LM and you also suffer a major morale hit.

We are talking apples and oranges here. I think of morale and i think of morale of the populace and more significantly the morale of any forces left. I feel like you're talking about the morale of the population.

If the remaining forces see only 2 lm get wiped it, that isn't as devistating as if 10 lm get wiped out. The fear that instills is different.

 

[unmerged(945)]

Thanks Icarus, I really appreciate that someone can do such an analysis of the rules. Frankly, I am really hesitant to implement something that hadn't been fully tested, and I simply can't test something thoroughly because I'm automatically blind to any flaws I may have introduced. I only figured that it would take weeks if not months for this proposal to be discussed, so there was plenty of time for tweaking (or indeed complete revision) of the rules while the map was being discussed. Hopefully next week I'll have more time to spend on this thing. If you feel like comparing what results you actually want/expect from battles with respect your analysis above, go for it.

Again guys, keep up the good work analysing the map and rules. Be as critical as you like. Oh, and congratulations all for being so constructive!, rather than "I hate this", etc.

Quite often one often focusses on everything that is wrong rather than the positive when reviewing such rules though, so I will say again: good work!

Now for todays exploit! Loans! Now, this is actually something that is possible even today, but it will be much more severe now that TECH is even more important. The same applies to high morale nations, even though that is not as variable as TECH.

In coalition wars it is common to use all your eco internally to raise your army. Unless the tech of each ally is similar, this is very ineffective.

Suppose that Burgundy and Denmark is allied, and at war with someone (Pommern?)

Burgundy
Stats: 10/3/11/10/9(11) -->[10/3/11/10/11]

Denmark
Stats: 5/6/8/10/7 --> [5/6/8/10/7]

Normally one would think that they would spend their own eco to raise armies like this:

Burgundy: 21 LM/11 TECH/10 Morale
Denmark: 12 LM/8 TECH/10 Morale

But why would Denmark build 7 more LM at TECH 8, when they can instead lend their money to Burgundy so that they can build 7 more LM at TECH 11?

Burgundy: 28 LM/11 TECH/10 Morale
Denmark: 5 LM/8 TECH/10 Morale

The larger the TECH gap between allies, the larger the potentional gain off course. This is possible today as well, but much less of a potentional problem since TECH/Morale is not quite so significant today.

This is also a problem with loans from outside the alliance, as the high tech nations will gain a lot more for the money they are lending (even though the amount is exactly the same). Same is true today, but again to a much lesser degree. Off course, in the old system it is possible to buy TECH/Morale too. Not sure if that would be the case in the new system.

To balance it out there should either be hard restrictions on loans or wealth affecting other things than just TECH.

 

[cccino]

I feel like you're talking about the morale of the population.

True. Forget that argument then. But I think...

it makes a major defeat have extra bad effects - you lose your LM and you also suffer a major morale hit.

...still holds true. We'll review all those modifiers at some point. I'd like to have more clear, predefined modifiers and less subjective ones.

<etc>

Regarding loans, I've already recognised it as a problem at the very bottom of the rules ("chain of thought bullshit") but never gotten around to resolving it... in fact I had forgotten about it entirely o.

As for battles, apart from anything else, the (LM+4) component is a clear flaw; multiple armies gain the benefit each instead of as a whole. We'll address the imbalances you're examining soon.

Keep up the good work Icarus.

 

[unmerged(945)]

Regarding loans, I've already recognised it as a problem at the very bottom of the rules ("chain of thought bullshit") but never gotten around to resolving it... in fact I had forgotten about it entirely o.

As for battles, apart from anything else, the (LM+4) component is a clear flaw; multiple armies gain the benefit each instead of as a whole. We'll address the imbalances you're examining soon.

Keep up the good work Icarus.

Ooops.. didn't see that. At least you were reminded of the problem again

As far as military forces go I think 1 LM should be worth 1 LM, regardless of how many you have. Perhaps some form of limitations if one force significantly outnumbers the other. I am not going to post any concrete suggestions for a new battle resolution, as you know after seeing the (hidden) HYW battlerules my approach is quite different from yours

 

[N Katsyev]

I also have always thought that loans were far too exploitable, far too used. Perhaps we should simply make it a rule that any money taken in more than half your max eco should automatically result in inflation.

Another thing, I was thinking last night over the concerns over minor nations raised in one of Icarus' quite nicely done examples above. Perhaps we should make regeneration dependant upon the max lm a country has. For example, say that instead of just 1lm for everyone, it would be 1 lm per x max lm. Major powers, having higher numbers of max lm, could then regenerate more per turn to begin to offset the imbalance.

I also want to point out though, that Lotharingia butting heads with the combined coalition used in the example really should have a real battle on its hands to come out victorious. Pommern is a major, Saxony was a significant european contender for centuries, Meklenburg very rich, etc. All that said, Lotharingia with her 21 lm could very easily go offensive early in the war and quite potentially knock some of her opponenets out in the first couple turns, regeneration wouldn't even become an issue.

What's in 3c's rules now isn't perfect, but hardly as flawed as the example made it seem.