Europe Unleashed: The Return of the Slarg

[unmerged(18425)]

Besides that, I support the scaled wars idea. It will make the Spanish-Austrian-Venetian alliance less dominant.

Besides that, I don't think Constantinople needs a besieging everytime the sultan talks about a lone Venetian island or an African province

 

[unmerged(18425)]

BTW, the Tzar could like to talk with the Sultan regarding the situation of Georgia -his current ally. A country that is currently oppresing some orthodox and that rules some lands that are clearly meant to be part of Russia.

The sultan invites the benevolent Russian Tsar Ivan the terrible to conduct diplomacy on ICQ...

Regional deals don't necessary need to be posted on the forum, nor is it necessary to flex muscles in diplomacy for the eye of the world.

 

[Hive]

I'm going to attempt to keep wars local and scaled as much as possible. I'm not saying this is the way it's going to be all the time as it's not a promise I can make, but it will be my ambition.

For example:
Ottoman Empire asserts its strength in Algeria -> Spain won't intervene on land. Possibly the spanish fleet will support the venetians if the ottomans venture too far west with their fleets.

Ottoman Empire is victorious in Algeria and starts casting wistful glances at Dalmatia since Venice is down and low -> Spanish intervention is probable.

Ottoman Empire moves on Venezia -> Spanish intervention is all but guaranteed.

Me like.

 

[Peter Ebbesen]

On an entirely different note:

I'm going to attempt to keep wars local and scaled as much as possible. I'm not saying this is the way it's going to be all the time as it's not a promise I can make, but it will be my ambition.

Example two, Henri III of France performs a security operation for the return of the illegally occupied territories (i.e. Lombardia) -> Karl V of Spain and Austria does not intervene.


...Not bloody likely outcome, that....

As far as I can see, this is just another ploy to maintain the Habsburg's alliance complete dominance in Europe by splitting the potential opposition, but as it is a ploy that is likely to work, well done.

 

[Slargos]

Example two, Henri III of France performs a security operation for the return of the illegally occupied territories (i.e. Lombardia) -> Karl V of Spain and Austria does not intervene.

Henry, bastard king of France, attacks Venice while it is busy with Selim, clanleader of the sheepmongering tribes -> Spain does intervene.

 

[Slargos]

Regarding randomization:

The current random goods file is scaled for the total randomization of the americas and africa. Since most of those goldmines are in already owned provinces they aren't randomized and hence there will be about twice the amount of goldmines as in the GC.

I'll run a new randomization with the goldmines scaled down or we'll run with the current one.

Thoughts?

 

[Slargos]

Also something we need to consider:

Should the "minor" nations get better leaders than the majors to sortof balance things out?

I'm thinking Portugal, Holland, Sweden, Denmark. Possibly Venice and England although they're border-line...

"mean" value will be 4 to begin with. If that is deemed to high, we'll set it at 3 next session.

 

[Wyvern]

I'd say scale down the goldmines if the balance is screwed too much.

 

[Wyvern]

Can you give a summary Slargos on the basis for how leaders will be generated throughout the campaign. ie how many to expect, what their stats are likely to be etc. I'm very hazy on details.

 

[Slargos]

Right. Daedalus posted the new version of his generator today, and here's the details:

​

The number of leaders of each kind (admirals and generals) are set in the selection box. The chance for each leader actually appearing is then set on the right.

The "normal" value is set on the slider below. 4 creates a good spread of leaders, in my opinion.

Then the checkbox for conquistadors/explorers can be set if they are wanted, and the chance that any given general/admiral will instead turn into its exploring counterpart.

When this is done, the generator lists all nations in the savefile with the selectable already pre-selected, and leaders are generated.

Here you can find a copy of last session's savegame with leaders generated.
http://www.slargos.se/forum/index.php?act=Attach&type=post&id=2210

Settings used were 50% chance for 3 generals and 2 admirals. 25% chance for explorers.

--------------------------

 

[Slargos]

I just got a pretty interesting idea while talking to FAL about this btw.

Why not give all AI nations random leaders with the average value of 6-7? Would definitely make the AI less of a pushover and put a bit of sting into the german minors.

Perhaps not for this game, but for the next one I definitely think we should do it.

 

[unmerged(18425)]

Here you can find a copy of last session's savegame with leaders generated.
http://www.slargos.se/forum/index.php?act=Attach&type=post&id=2210

Take a look at the Ottoman leader file

Let's all vote for actually using this file!!

 

[Hive]

I think maybe you should tone down gold a notch, yes...

And I don't think it should be certain that we get a set number of leaders each session. Let it be a surprise.

Also, the giving AI uber leaders doesn't sound all that good to me... could give some pretty wicked results.

 

[unmerged(18425)]

Why not give all AI nations random leaders with the average value of 6-7? Would definitely make the AI less of a pushover and put a bit of sting into the german minors.

And having AI allies/vassals would then finally be somewhat benefitting instead of wasting warscore with them

 

[Hive]

Take a look at the Ottoman leader file

Let's all vote for actually using this file!!

Eh... wasn't one of the reasons for random leaders that people shouldn't know what was coming to them?

So why did you post this already, Slargos - and why did you look, FAL?

 

[Peter Ebbesen]

Also something we need to consider:

Should the "minor" nations get better leaders than the majors to sortof balance things out?

Possibly too much trouble. What is a minor, when is it no longer a minor, and (as would be likely), why is it always a "minor" leader leading an alliance offense? Just as well say that nations that fight wars often should have better leaders on average and have done with it.

You might consider, however, scaling the proportion of generals to admirals by the naval/land setting using a 30% chance of occurring per man.

Land 0-1: 6 admirals and 2 generals
Land 2-4: 5 admirals and 3 generals
Land  5:  4 admirals and 4 generals
Land 6-8: 3 admirals  and 5 generals
Land 9-10: 2 admirals and 6 generals

 

[unmerged(18425)]

Also, the giving AI uber leaders doesn't sound all that good to me... could give some pretty wicked results.

AI with super-leaders could result in the wicked result of a BB who is not able to annex the electors at will

And in a China who is truly hard to conquer

 

[unmerged(18425)]

Eh... wasn't one of the reasons for random leaders that people shouldn't know what was coming to them?

So why did you post this already, Slargos - and why did you look, FAL?

For testing purposes. Otherwise i won't call for a vote, no?

 

[Peter Ebbesen]

I just got a pretty interesting idea while talking to FAL about this btw.

Why not give all AI nations random leaders with the average value of 6-7? Would definitely make the AI less of a pushover and put a bit of sting into the german minors.

Perhaps not for this game, but for the next one I definitely think we should do it.

Anyone who can remember my German Minor Deathsquad from Mowers' aborted Tsunami 2 will shudder to think of the consequences of such a policy. No, I tell, you, for the love of god, NO!

 

[unmerged(18425)]

Land 0-1: 6 admirals and 2 generals
Land 2-4: 5 admirals and 3 generals
Land  5:  4 admirals and 4 generals
Land 6-8: 3 admirals  and 5 generals
Land 9-10: 2 admirals and 6 generals

A lot of work for the GM, but a good idea (and something Slargos and me chatted about).

But possible getting 8 leaders is a bit too much imo