Europe's Golden Age 4 ... (EGA4 Finally!!!)

[unmerged(41172)]

I thought I'd bring an idea to discuss with you guys. How about allowing players to sell and buy armies and fleets from one another in-between sessions? Sort of like mercenary work between players

Seconded, I always wondered why they haven't included that

 

[Casluerj]

I thought I'd bring an idea to discuss with you guys. How about allowing players to sell and buy armies and fleets from one another in-between sessions? Sort of like mercenary work between players

Sth that should be discussed... What are you suggesting? Mercenaries cant back to its original country... expedicionary forces can. We should define it to avoid exploits.

 

[K'shar]

Sth that should be discussed... What are you suggesting? Mercenaries cant back to its original country... expedicionary forces can. We should define it to avoid exploits.

He implies it as a permanent sale no doubt ... barring leaders of course.

 

[Casluerj]

He implies it as a permanent sale no doubt ... barring leaders of course.

As PERMANENT i would accept... and you k'shar?

 

[K'shar]

As PERMANENT i would accept... and you k'shar?

Well as I said on ICQ to tem, armies are less important as they build fast and usually die fast ... temporary leaders could be interesting but may destabilize the game alot. Selling fleets though ... hmmm interesting idea.

edit: willing to give it a go though.

 

[unmerged(41172)]

Well as I said on ICQ to tem, armies are less important as they build fast and usually die fast ... temporary leaders could be interesting but may destabilize the game alot. Selling fleets though ... hmmm interesting idea.

edit: willing to give it a go though.

Completely right K'shar ships are more important then armies and generals are out of the question !!

 

[Tem_Probe]

I agree fleets are more important. Still... armies could be worth it too. Nations with low MP expecting a war soon might need a large army that they don't have time to build. And yes, I was implying a permanent sale.

 

[Casluerj]

I agree fleets are more important. Still... armies could be worth it too. Nations with low MP expecting a war soon might need a large army that they don't have time to build. And yes, I was implying a permanent sale.

Under such terms I would accept and place this in our rules. Also the price of this would be agreed by the involved nations. Anyone aggainst?

Also to avoid exploits I'll put a clause saying that the receiver nations cant send armies or navies to the other nation for 2 sessions.

 

[Tem_Probe]

Under such terms I would accept and place this in our rules. Also the price of this would be agreed by the involved nations. Anyone aggainst?

Also to avoid exploits I'll put a clause saying that the receiver nations cant send armies or navies to the other nation for 2 sessions.

Great!

Btw, what kind of exploits are we talking about?

 

[K'shar]

Great!

Btw, what kind of exploits are we talking about?

My one concern explot wise is, a situation where a naval and land power ally publically or secretly. When the land power state wants to engage in a colonial war it "buys" 200 ships at an enormous discount from it's friend, then fights and wins its war returning many of the ships back to the naval state. Later the naval state wishes to engage in a war in which a large land campaign needs waging. It buys 250k men from the land state at an absurdly discounted price and wins its war etc. etc.

The issue I see with this is that it's not only ahistorical (in the amounts of exchange people will be doing, not small scale mercenaries) but well as you all can see it can totally throw sky high any idea of equality between nations or naval/land advantage. BB could contract england to build 300 warships for it not only at a cheaper price then BB could but at a secretly reduced price on top of that ... allowing BB to effectivily fight a large established naval power with ease and without official allies.

Hehe, naturally I used tem's nation for this example .

Parts of this I like, others ... i'm more cautious about.

 

[unmerged(17489)]

What uber alliance? My affiliation with France and BB is limited and primarily a reconciliation of France-Britain by the wiley Margrave. As for the French-Spanish-British entente it is nowhere near close to an alliance. I am more likely to go to war with Spain then Russia, and not France only as i'm in an alliance. This is simply a common grouping of states that not only feels diplomatically put off by Russian statements and policy, but sees a far more destabilized situation in Eastern Europe then any equivalent in the west. Where 1-1 or even 2-1 no eastern state stands a chance ... this treaty is meant to counteract some of that and Russia's voracious appetite.

I was talking about this: "Also considering Russian NAP with Ottoman Empire and BB and the alliance with Austria will be kind of difficult to make them force me to release Poland or Finland, isnt it?"

My one concern explot wise is, a situation where a naval and land power ally publically or secretly. When the land power state wants to engage in a colonial war it "buys" 200 ships at an enormous discount from it's friend, then fights and wins its war returning many of the ships back to the naval state. Later the naval state wishes to engage in a war in which a large land campaign needs waging. It buys 250k men from the land state at an absurdly discounted price and wins its war etc. etc.

The issue I see with this is that it's not only ahistorical (in the amounts of exchange people will be doing, not small scale mercenaries) but well as you all can see it can totally throw sky high any idea of equality between nations or naval/land advantage. BB could contract england to build 300 warships for it not only at a cheaper price then BB could but at a secretly reduced price on top of that ... allowing BB to effectivily fight a large established naval power with ease and without official allies.

Hehe, naturally I used tem's nation for this example .

Parts of this I like, others ... i'm more cautious about.

I agree, and these are only a few of the exploits I see. Others are that for example two allies (Brandenburg and Russia?) can go serfdom (Russia) and free subjects (Brandenburg) and then Russia buys a shitload of cheap infantry that Brandenburg then uses. It's also much easier in a war if you're alone fighting controlling all armies than if you have to try to coordinate attacks with your allies

Frankly, I don't see what the rule adds to the game and I think it openes up too many exploits

 

[Tem_Probe]

Yeah, to a point this can be taken advantage of in regards to the difference in sliders, but I don't see that as a bad thing, because for one it will increase competition(particularly in the naval field, where not enough powers compete imho), and also because the boost isn't instantaneous. To use your example of BB buying 300 ships from England, well that's 3 rich shipyards in England running at full capacity for almost 10 years; and then waiting for end of session. Similarly, although yeah a full quality/offensive/freedom army could take a quantity/defensive/serfdom army and use it to better effect, I don't see that as a major problem, again because the transfer can't be done in real time(wait for end of session edit) and because no country will sell its entire army to anyone, opening itself for attacks. Transfers would also effectively be public, since they are edited.

 

[unmerged(41172)]

My one concern explot wise is, a situation where a naval and land power ally publically or secretly. When the land power state wants to engage in a colonial war it "buys" 200 ships at an enormous discount from it's friend, then fights and wins its war returning many of the ships back to the naval state. Later the naval state wishes to engage in a war in which a large land campaign needs waging. It buys 250k men from the land state at an absurdly discounted price and wins its war etc. etc.

The issue I see with this is that it's not only ahistorical (in the amounts of exchange people will be doing, not small scale mercenaries) but well as you all can see it can totally throw sky high any idea of equality between nations or naval/land advantage. BB could contract england to build 300 warships for it not only at a cheaper price then BB could but at a secretly reduced price on top of that ... allowing BB to effectivily fight a large established naval power with ease and without official allies.

Hehe, naturally I used tem's nation for this example .

Parts of this I like, others ... i'm more cautious about.

One again I'm against buying armies!!!! It is unnatural!!! No english or any other army could ever been sold - these are humans and they wouldn't accept this!!! On the other hand ship is a peace of wood and it can be sold!!!! I'm for trading with shipps but I'm completly against trading with armies. Think people - if u were in an army and somebody told u that you are not an army of your country anymore would you fight for another flag?????

On the other hand countries constantly but ships and equipment (airplanes and so on in modren age). Cas please forbid trading with armies!!!! That is against all sense!!!

 

[unmerged(19903)]

Nab has right. Buying ships is ok, but armies not - who would agree to fight for foreign country for 15 - 20 years :wacko:

Mercs are in game already and I don't see a reason to allow to trade armies...

 

[unmerged(17489)]

doesnt ships have crews? Anyway, trading with only ships is better than trading with armies and ships imho

 

[unmerged(43658)]

i vote against buying/selling armies. nabucco said it well, this is large body of people that simply cannot be sold. if you want to help someone in the war join the war and send your troops. you can allways ask for money for your help...

buying ships sounds more natural to me. if you can aford it, there is no reason why you couldn't order ships in foreign shipyard.

but i see some problems with this too. say you have naval tech 2, and you buy ships from england that has naval tech 100, once you get them, from mighty man'o war armed with cannons they sudenly turn in simple caracas armed with catapults.

imho it's actually a pity that games usualy don't have some sistem of buying/selling weapons. for instance if you are small undevelloped country, in real world you can allways buy most advanced weapons and have "high tech" army as long as you can pay for them, and as long as you can find someone who will sell you those weapons. usualy in games you have to develop everything yourself. which is unrealistic. if real word would be like strategic games presenting it, in africa they would be fighting mostly with spears and bows, sience they didnt invest much in tech.

 

[unmerged(36826)]

I am against any selling/buying of armies or navies, the only reason to do it is to try to get a better deal than you could get using the game mechanics, and I personally would prefer not to do that. If you can't build a fleet then it is because you have a better army or have invested in a manu as opposed to a shipyard. This sort of argument is even more valid for armies - using a serfdom/free subject exploit to get hordes of cheap, well disciplined troops would be too common. You have chosen to go free subjects, face the consquences or vice versa. But it is up to personal choice I suppose, and there may be some points where it may make sense to buy some ships, but overall i am against it-especially army transfers.

 

[Van Engel]

I'm against about buying merc's from other countries... it does seems too complicated to me and say, a naval nation could buy 300k from Russia/France and then invade someone and win without having to use a single bit of MP. Ships I don't mind alot, as I'm sure it happened in history too, but how it would benefit either player I'm not sure. If someone would make some really good rules for this (without loopholes) I don't mind having the rules.

 

[Van Engel]

On the subject of rules, I was wondering if we implement/change (if we have this rule already) a rule to put a limit on how many you can have in an alliance.

[U]Rule:[/U]
An alliance can have as max 2 points worth of countries in the alliance. The country 'points' are as follows:

Majors: 1 point
Major-minors: 1/2 point
AI countries: 0

[U]The 'Majors'[/U] 
England
France
Spain
Austria
Ottomans
Russia

[u]The Major-Minors[/u]
Denmark
Venice
Holland
Persia 
Portugal
Sweden
Mughals
Brandenburg/Prussia 
Poland

[U]The 'AIs'[/U]
Any AI country. (Including dead human nations ofcourse) 

[U]Example[/U]
France (1pt), Denmark (1/2pt), Holland (1/2pt) and Alsace (0pt) = 2pt 

Spain (1pt) and Portugal (1/2pt) and Navarre (0pt) = 1.5pt

[U]What is classed as Major or Major-Minor?[/U]
The 6 main nations which are [B]always[/B] majors are:
England
France
Spain
Austria
Russia
Ottomans

The nations which start off the game as Major-Minor are:
Portugal
Sweden
Denmark
Venice
Holland
Persia
Mughals

Any nation can be classed as 'major' if it's land mass and income is high enough (I think we will use Cas's common sence to rule which nations are major other than the major 6)

Come on it ain't that difficult! Also I would rule in this game that BBurg is a major atm, and persia maybe too.

 

[Casluerj]

Engel, you rule means a lot of subjective feelings, dont you think? It is clear that BB and persia are Major powers, but if they want to say that they belongs to another group? I still think that ubber alliances can be counter by ubber alliances. Actually what we should discuss is decrease the max of humans we can have in an alliance from 3 to 2.

About the buying Army/Navy rule I am starting to become against. Even only ships. Let suppose that Russia wants to build a massive fleet. Will it construct a shypyard and expand money on its expensive shíps or buy it from, lets say England?