Europe's Golden Age 5: The Golden Age is Back

[HolisticGod]

Caslu,

Hmm... All right. Then we should also ban:

1. Adjustments to the maint. slider. Afterall, an attacker can hit 100, march four or five armies in and assault, gaining a heavy advantage.
2. Attacking with a CRT advantage.
3. Attacking with leaders. (this especially has nothing to do with skill)
4. Unequal military sliders at start.
5. Attacking a country after an unavoidable - military sliders event.
6. Attacking a country after a bad event (Beys, Iberian revolts, Civil War, WoR, ToT, etc.)
7. Attacking a country after a bad random event, for that matter.

Etc.

All of those come down essentially to luck, and most of them are as potent or moreso than DOTF.

Marcus,

Heh. Nice name.

No, not a workable idea. First of all, the "DOTF" historically had no trouble attacking coreligionists. So for historicity or RP or whatever, it's an incorrect stricture.

But for game balance, it'd be awful. And it's unnecessary. DOTF works fine.

 

[K'shar]

Ah, but it is precisely there for a semblance of balance. If we all shared the same faith and could claim the title under that pretense, competing to be the one single defender of the faith (pointless, however if true) I might be more inclined to agree. But orthodox nations or sunni nations (only 1 of each) get this title as a matter of course ... yet you still feel this is a viable 'skill' ... anyone can claim DOTF and it takes no personal skill whatsoever to do so. Initiative or grabbing an oppurtunity is not an excuse, grab other oppurtunities over your victim ... one that he can do so as well (without knowing of the coming dow he cannot take the title), that is a challenge worthy of player skill. It's simply not viable to state that one option being removed from the game, denies all the advantages one state may theoretically have over another when the said option is entirely for free (1000 ducats is a pittance); if this needs greater explanation feel free to ask.

Upping your morale before your intended victim and marching in your armies one after another HoG will only help the initial skirmish.

A CRT adv, is a long term strategic intention that your enemy could also match if he intended (impossible with two Catholic nations fighting for example - ref. DOTF).

Leaders are there as an expected threat that your neighbours again can be prepared for, but compounding that with DOTF is overkill ... or would you personally need that?

Sliders are a challenged to be met, again the attacker (generally the one with the better sliders and position) would again be the one to claim.

As for events, we all suffer from them ... onle one victim at a time suffers from a DOTF claim out of the blue.

I'm just personally tired of seeing over and over; that such and such nation claims DOTF, then bam, war (in fact this often takes away from a surprise attack ... cutting out that advantage). Then he uses this absurd morale bonus, wins the war and asks one of his cronies to dow him, killing the tech penalty that he should pay.

I feel, that without RP incentives or some limitations, DOTF has lost it's importance as a game function. If you like we can claim DOTF but the claiming state must then keep the title until it is lost in a true and damaging war (to be decided by the GMs) that I am fine with. A lose something to gain something.

 

[unmerged(48268)]

No, not a workable idea. First of all, the "DOTF" historically had no trouble attacking coreligionists. So for historicity or RP or whatever, it's an incorrect stricture.

But for game balance, it'd be awful. And it's unnecessary. DOTF works fine.

You claimed my idea was not "workable" because it wasnt historical, was bad for game balance, and was unneccessary. You presented no evidence to support these claims.

Historically, DotF only applied to Henry VIII of England and was inherited by subsequent British Royals. We are already talking about abstract concepts. There is no DotF of non-Catholics in history except the abstract OE claim based on the control of Mecca when in reality OE fought many Sunnis. I dont see how a total ban is not more balanced than allowing only one per religion. As I see it, one per religion is inherently unbalanced against Catholics; not to mention the Reformed bug. And I dont see how you can claim it is unnecessary when it is perceived by multiple people to be a problem. Further, rules are not made because they are necessary but because they improve gameplay.

The proposal I put forward would improve gameplay, in my opinion. It would certainly improve the roleplaying aspect. So I think it is a good rule. You are entitled to disagree though, but you will need to present some kind of actual evidence or theory to prove your point.

 

[King John]

The other question to consider is whether it's worth the stress of having another rule. It's one more thing you have to inform all subs of, and one more thing a sub, or even a perm, may forget at least once or twice, resulting in possibly a rehost, a GM having to force a wp or a lot of bitching because so and so broke the rules.

It takes extra effort for everyone to conform, and sometimes be made to conform to these rules. So is this rule even worth it?


That on top of whether it'd be better for gameplay even if it were possible to have the rule implemented perfectly. It takes no skill to claim DOTF first? Not true. It's like a contest of reaction speeds. Whoever misses it is the most forgetful, the person who gets it is just better at anticipating what they need to do quickly. I do not see how having a stronger presence of mind for preparing your country for war is not a matter of skill.

And as HG said, 1000D is a fairly substantial investment. Until the 1600s, it takes quite a large chunk of your income to take DOTF. It also slows down research. So there's a trick in using it. You're not gauranteed the ability to keep DOTF unless you hold on to it, which results in slower tech. If you decide to give it up, it becomes available to other co-religions again.

Concerning the OE and Russia, yes they get to use the DOTF for free, but they also have to deal with weaker tech groups, and inferior leaderfiles to a lot of other nations. It's not fair, but DOTF hasn't caused imbalance with these countries in the past. I don't see why it would now.


I'm interested in joining this game, BTW . Even if it means I have to cut down on subbing ;p.

 

[K'shar]

As I said, 1000 ducats is a pittance KJ for a victorious war. The true penalty of suffering is severe tech lag and is easily avoidable.

I do not see how having a stronger presence of mind for preparing your country for war is not a matter of skill.

KJ, you declare yourself DOTF before you initiate offensive operations ... explain again how the defender unless your sloppy is aware of the impending attack ?????

To repeat, i'll confer with Trajan and Cas, I believe we'll just adjust the rule to outlaw dow's for the explicit reason of cancelling the title.

 

[K'shar]

If you are defeated take it like K'shar always did; with honour. Yes, K'shar - you have my deepest respect for how you always took it.

You make it sound like I have a long list of sorrowful defeats .

 

[unmerged(6147)]

I demand that the religion of Reformed is forbidden. You see it carries an unfair advantage, a 20% bonus to trade efficieny. Reformed religion is not open for all nations. For example Orthodox or muslim nations cannot convert to Reformed. And in practicality huge nations with many catholic provinces cannot do it either. And it carries no skill to convert. Just press the button. What did you say? That there is a cost-benefit analysis to do? No-no, I tell you, there is not. You just press the button. Very simple. In fact they say you even earn money from doing it. But in reality the increased stab cost (from having a high number of nono-state religion provinces) is of course not to be forgotten. But that amount of ducats (insert here a suitable number of your own choice) really is a pittance. I always go around with a couple of 1000d in my treasury in the early game, especially the 15th century. Makes me feel safe and comfortable.

In fact, I believe all nations shall have exactly the same starting positions and same options for the rest of the game, same tech group, same religion, same basic tax values, yes even the same geographical position. It is really a shame that e.g. only Russia under normal circumstances can reach the Siberian Corridor. Each nation should own one province at the Western end of the corridor from start and then they can have a race for it.

-----

Written by Daniel who almost never DOWs but frequently is DOWed by evil aggressionists like John . However, it is not always that John claims Dotf, neither does Hog. How come: when 1000d is just a "pittance"? Are the two of you stupid or merely forgetful or could it be that often it is a substantial amount of money?

DotF is normally a benefit to the attacker and as I said I am normally the one being attacked. Still I am in favour of it. Because each feature adds something to the complex web of this game. And the more complex it is the more challenging it becomes. I like challenges. If I am not an aggressor I need to play the diplomatic game better. That is in general the best way to counter negative aspects: trying to balance them by other measures, not by forbidding them.

 

[unmerged(41172)]

You make it sound like I have a long list of sorrowful defeats .

Concerning DOTF again; what is wrong with some middle solution? For instance K'shar suggested DOTF until a real war with a real provinces is lost. In that case people would use a title when they are drowning instead for attacking.

Also, nice idea Marcus.

KJ, yes it is worth a rule because boost to morale is now 0.5 and DOTF nation rocks after that. Welcome as a perm.

 

[unmerged(48268)]

It is easy to avoid argument by escalating things to the point of absurdity. For example, if someone wants to ban one thing; a good counterpoint might be to suggest the elimination of everything and ignore the argument for a special case.

If someone wanted to stop American Football players from dancing and celebrating after scoring because it is unsportsmanlike, suggest that we ban all expressions of emotion on the field. No smiling ordinances and Anti-High-Five Rules.

That is what quality debate is all about, right?

 

[unmerged(6147)]

What is wrong with a middle solution concerning the fact that all nations are unequal from start? We could for instance give all the same religion and tech group from start but do nothing about the fact that we are in geographically entirely different positions.

 

[unmerged(41172)]

I demand that the religion of Reformed is forbidden. You see it carries an unfair advantage, a 20% bonus to trade efficieny. Reformed religion is not open for all nations. For example Orthodox or muslim nations cannot convert to Reformed. And in practicality huge nations with many catholic provinces cannot do it either. And it carries no skill to convert. Just press the button. What did you say? That there is a cost-benefit analysis to do? No-no, I tell you, there is not. You just press the button. Very simple. In fact they say you even earn money from doing it. But in reality the increased stab cost (from having a high number of nono-state religion provinces) is of course not to be forgotten. But that amount of ducats (insert here a suitable number of your own choice) really is a pittance. I always go around with a couple of 1000d in my treasury in the early game, especially the 15th century. Makes me feel safe and comfortable.

In fact, I believe all nations shall have exactly the same starting positions and same options for the rest of the game, same tech group, same religion, same basic tax values, yes even the same geographical position. It is really a shame that e.g. only Russia under normal circumstances can reach the Siberian Corridor. Each nation should own one province at the Western end of the corridor from start and then they can have a race for it.

-----

Written by Daniel who almost never DOWs but frequently is DOWed by evil aggressionists like John . However, it is not always that John claims Dotf, neither does Hog. How come: when 1000d is just a "pittance"? Are the two of you stupid or merely forgetful or could it be that often it is a substantial amount of money?

DotF is normally a benefit to the attacker and as I said I am normally the one being attacked. Still I am in favour of it. Because each feature adds something to the complex web of this game. And the more complex it is the more challenging it becomes. I like challenges. If I am not an aggressor I need to play the diplomatice game better. That is in general the best way to counter negative aspects: trying to balance them by other measures, not by forbidding them.

Dan,

Take it easy.

All of you have a valid arguments.

As I said, I would like to have DOTF because it is a part of game. Majority seems to agree BUT K'shar also has a point. Nation shouldn't be allowed to use DOTF for mere invading purposes. Or it can be done, BUT not in a way people use it; take the title - DOW - win - DOW AI - offer him money.

Trajan's idea is good but not good enough. It is hard to tell weather it was intentional or unintentional and such discussions can bring sour mood.

I have one idea; anyone who claims DOTF should have it for a 20 years or untill he looses provinces aginst human player in a real war. Same is with vassalisation; if you wanna be my vassal, you have obligation to be such for a 20 years. If you wanna be Defender of The Faith... Why not? Take the title and have it. But don't discard it tommorow. And a 1000 ducats is really not an obsticle nor price for a 0.5 boost in morale.

 

[unmerged(48268)]

The thread has been up almost a day, I think we should do a preliminary application of country requests to reward those who put in their requests first (or put them in at all). There should be some benefit to posting your requests immediately, I think.

Therefore, I propose we put the following people up on the board.

England: Nab
France: K'shar
Spain: Casluerj
Portugal: Arcorelli


That puts two more violent players in this continental spots and two trader-types on the edges. It is good for Western Europe balance. I am very flexible so I will just surrender my original preferences (as they are all also first choice for others) and take the following preferences.

Venice
Ottomans
Denmark

And we should add Sub-Saharan minors for Portugal. I am torn about N.A. Minors though. I think they allow for much too swift big trade in N.A.

 

[unmerged(41172)]

It is easy to avoid argument by escalating things to the point of absurdity.

And yes, stick to the point.

Hmm, why Poland? Isn't BB better? Poland has a nasty habbit of dissapearing and I wouldn't like to have it human played.

 

[unmerged(48268)]

And yes, stick to the point.

Hmm, why Poland? Isn't BB better? Poland has a nasty habbit of dissapearing and I wouldn't like to have it human played.

We are playing with minimal events and I actually read the event file this morning That is why. I suggest everyone reads the event file!

 

[unmerged(6147)]

It is easy to avoid argument by escalating things to the point of absurdity. For example, if someone wants to ban one thing; a good counterpoint might be to suggest the elimination of everything and ignore the argument for a special case.

If someone wanted to stop American Football players from dancing and celebrating after scoring because it is unsportsmanlike, suggest that we ban all expressions of emotion on the field. No smiling ordinances and Anti-High-Five Rules.

That is what quality debate is all about, right?

The one claiming that 1000d (plus inflation) is a "pittance" of money, without specifying under what circumstances it is so, is the one that drags the debate below the quality mark (in case you fail to understand this I can inform you that 1000d is a very high amount of money early in the game and more so for some nations than other). Thus if the rule was that DotF was only allowed up to a certain date, then this argument would be a valid one, especially if it was scaled to wealth. When more generally defined as here it is simply not true that it is a "pittance" of money, it sometimes is, sometimes not.

It is the one stating "If we all shared the same faith and could claim the title under that pretense, competing to be the one single defender of the faith (pointless, however if true) I might be more inclined to agree" without understanding that each faith (and nation etc) carries pro's and con's and that thus this line of reasoning really is an argument for removing all differences, that drags the debate below the quality mark. The mere fact that one nation/religion has a benefit/drawback that another one miss is not a reason for eliminating a feature. The game is literally filled with such differencies as I jokingly hinted at. To me these differencies in general adds spice to the game, makes it replayable almost in eternity. The bottom line is: The mere fact there exists a difference is not an argument for having it removed.

It is the one (you) not understanding these basics when having them pointed out quite clearly although comicly by another (that is me) that drags it below the quality mark.

--------

Note I do not believe the other side in the debate is entirely without arguments. I could well understand the bitter feeling if someone was repatedly DOWed by another who always claimed DotF. But some arguments posted are not very well thought and I have tried to identify (some of) them.

 

[unmerged(48268)]

I believe you are confusing me and my friend K'shar.

Regardless, after talking to Nab on ICQ, I wouldnt want to endanger my survival by playing Poland. So I will edit my previous posting.

 

[unmerged(6147)]

Dan,

Take it easy.

All of you have a valid arguments.

I am taking it easy. The post was intended as a joke although the basics was serious.

But no, all arguments are not valid. As I pointed out in my latest post.

But sure, some kind of limitation on the DotF might be the best solution although that would not be my first choice. The main problem is perhaps the ease by which you can lose it. Some kind of 20 year rule, as you suggest, might be a good solution. I hope there will be no instnaces of cases where it is lost before that date by some dubious war and there is a heated debate whether that loss is OK for losing the DotF title. Rules are preferably clear and that one seems difficult to make clear.

 

[unmerged(41172)]

But sure, some kind of limitation on the DotF might be the best solution although that would not be my first choice. The main problem is perhaps the ease by which you can lose it. Some kind of 20 year rule might be a good solution.

What say you K'shar and Caslu?

 

[unmerged(6147)]

Regardless, after talking to Nab on ICQ, I wouldnt want to endanger my survival by playing Poland. So I will edit my previous posting.

I have solemnly sworn that I will never play Poland in EU MP.

In my latest game we had a POL and I, as RUS, merely told myself there was no hurry to have those Polish provinces for breakfast. And indeed, they came as lunch when the player abandoned his nation because of being trashed by BB and SWE.

 

[unmerged(6147)]

Thx Daniel. Maybe every fourth Saturday Ozzeh can sub you so we can check that our dispute about weather K'shar is the best economist (my opinion although I wouldn't place my hand in a fire for that anymore ) or Ozzeh/Daniel are (your opinion).

He-he, well I have never claimed I am the best, nor that Ozzeh is. I have never played versus for example K'shar and thus I cannot compare myself to him. From what you say he is an extremely skilled eco player so I would really appreciate to play in the same game as him and by watching and learning improving my own skills.

Between the two of us Ozzeh is much too preoccupied with keeping his inflation at zero