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

[Casluerj]

HG,

We dont need to start THIS saturday... We can start on Sat 21th... Everyone can wait a week to play a more balanced and playable scenario. No problem.

About the edits:

The returns that we've get is that Portugal is really playable in this mod. So why edit up all Portuguese provinces? I also think that Toledo is heavily underpowered as it was one of the most important provinces of Spain at that time.

I also am anxious to hear other proposals from you and from the others about edits to boost the coutries that need it and to take some power from the countries that have it higher than it should.

I'll take Venice if it is still available.

Hi Nit! Good to see you around! Venice is yours.

 

[unmerged(6147)]

I can play on Saturday.

 

[Casluerj]

First post updated with new players and ICQs... Now missing only Poland...

 

[the_genius]

Nice seeing this going good luck Cas... perhaps I can sub once in a while sigh I wanna play AoD ... btw, you treacherous.. I was thinking about AoD to ATE3 first .... Good luck boys... I'll be following you

 

[K'shar]

HG,

We dont need to start THIS saturday... We can start on Sat 21th... Everyone can wait a week to play a more balanced and playable scenario. No problem.

About the edits:

The returns that we've get is that Portugal is really playable in this mod. So why edit up all Portuguese provinces? I also think that Toledo is heavily underpowered as it was one of the most important provinces of Spain at that time.

I also am anxious to hear other proposals from you and from the others about edits to boost the coutries that need it and to take some power from the countries that have it higher than it should.



Hi Nit! Good to see you around! Venice is yours.

Well ideally by going over the tax/mp lvls of european provinces we shouldn't have to do much more editing (via BoP). However, coming to concensus in the short time period available, may prove problematic.

edit: we also need to come to agreement on

1. the expanded event set (personally im opposed as it stands).
2. Minimal historical events (i must have missed this first run ... I also oppose this)
3. 5 naval/land slider lock ... i know this is controversial and Cas for one is not a fan, but I still feel it opens up the playing field more than polarized sliders.

 

[unmerged(41172)]

We dont need to start THIS saturday... We can start on Sat 21th... Everyone can wait a week to play a more balanced and playable scenario. No problem.

Good. We need time to do the edits in a proper way.

edit:

We also need to come to agreement on

1. the expanded event set (personally im opposed as it stands).
2. Minimal historical events (i must have missed this first run ... I also oppose this)
3. 5 naval/land slider lock ... i know this is controversial and Cas for one is not a fan, but I still feel it opens up the playing field more than polarized sliders.

1. I agree; opposed
2. K'shar - that is already agreed, we play with historical events
3. I oppose this idea too. I know HoG will strangle me now with thousands of pages of valid arguments but I played it that way and I can't say I was all too happy.

 

[unmerged(41172)]

John,

Hehehe. So we'll be playing the reverse of BoP, eh?

We do seem to wind up in this situation quite a bit, don't we? I think the first time we did France-Brandenburg in ToT III. Then Brandenburg-Austria in TfG. Austria-Brandenburg in BOP. And now back to Brandenburg-Austria.

Hehe, so we can expect a lot of clashes. Just beware of K'shar. Once you attack him you can expect life long commitment in that direction :rofl:

 

[Casluerj]

3. 5 naval/land slider lock ... i know this is controversial and Cas for one is not a fan, but I still feel it opens up the playing field more than polarized sliders.

Yeah, I am against this... Remove one more way of flexibility of the game. It forces the player to play in one way that might not be what he wanted in the first place.

For example, if I wanted to be a naval France or Russia?

Also would make nations like NL, England, Sweden and Portugal be much more vulnerable to France, Spain, Russia, etc... Especially England as they can protect all their empire (and the nation itself) just with a navy (which is historical and logical).

Nice seeing this going good luck Cas... perhaps I can sub once in a while sigh I wanna play AoD ... btw, you treacherous.. I was thinking about AoD to ATE3 first .... Good luck boys... I'll be following you

Thx TG... I'll be putting you as a regular sub, then

 

[Casluerj]

Option Settings:
Colonial Culture = yes
Equal DP Sliders = no
North American Minors = no
Sub-Saharan Minors = Yes
Expanded Random Events = No
COT Shuffling = no
Minimal Events = No
Averaged Regional Taxes = no
Averaged Regional Manpower = no

The new modified optios.

However, coming to concensus in the short time period available, may prove problematic.

I agree... So probably we should start at

SATURDAY, JANUARY 21th, 2006

 

[HolisticGod]

Cas,

Not true. I'm really not looking forward to hashing out this entire argument again; suffice it to say that games with Land 5 = fun and games without Land 5 = dull, ahistorical, unrealistic, almost painfully static.

When you lock the land slider, it allows all countries to participate in continental and naval warfare, to colonize, trade, etc., on an equal basis. This is historical, realistic and much more fluid.

If you don't lock the land slider, the game is divided into two camps-the naval countries and the land countries. Grossly ahistorical and no fun. And it certainly doesn't give the player "flexibility." Exactly the opposite, actually.

Another important problem is that Spain, France, Austria, the Ottoman Empire, Brandenburg, Poland and Russia must go land. If they do not, they lose any wars they fight in Europe without an uber leader. Simple as that. And if the OE, France, Spain, Austria and BB go land, that makes England totally invulnerable. Because of the recent patches, still unfixed, much less the new map, Portugal, Venice and Holland (combined) cannot compete with the Royal Navy unless England is really poorly played. Naval support is totally out of whack.

You need multiple possible naval enemies with more ports-France, Spain, the OE (especially), Brandenburg.

Ultimately, there's no such thing as choice in this issue. If you decide to play a naval France, you will get your ass kicked. If you decide to play a land England, you will get your ass kicked. So either we're locked at land 5 or we're locked at land 10 and 0. Simple as that.

 

[unmerged(41172)]

Because of the recent patches, still unfixed, much less the new map, Portugal, Venice and Holland (combined) cannot compete with the Royal Navy unless England is really poorly played. Naval support is totally out of whack.

I will play it poor if we can just play it without locking naval slider

 

[unmerged(36826)]

Well that rule did not help Chill 3, I am aware there are maybe other factors, but it is certainly not black and white. Holland and Portugal must go Naval or they are even less of a threat to England with expensive warships and less trade income.

 

[unmerged(41172)]

Well that rule did not help Chill 3, I am aware there are maybe other factors, but it is certainly not black and white. Holland and Portugal must go Naval or they are even less of a threat to England with expensive warships and less trade income.

Frengeland was a story for itself.

 

[unmerged(36826)]

Frengeland was a story for itself.

I know, which is why I said there were other factors, but it is not a given that a land locked game is going to be more exciting than a free land game, so discussion is probably useful.

 

[HolisticGod]

Bob,

Er, I think Nab's point is that Chill 3 is an irrelevant example. Frengland in that game was unlike any country that's ever been created in competitive MP and it's unlikely we'll see anything like it in this game. So to draw that comparison, particularly with regard to naval support, is in error.

Hell, even if Portugal had go full naval and Frengland full land, the latter would've had leaps and bounds more naval support and, at least during the galley era, more ships.

On the subject of Portugal/Holland, er, no, because England always goes naval too, so their relative strengths will be exactly the same whether it's locked at 5 or left free. More to the point, while England will have the same direct naval superiority, it will be on a much shorter scale, which will help competition.

Portugal and Holland do not suffer for monetary reasons. That's not the issue. They can match or exceed England's income, and Portugal certainly does early in its history. That'll be true at land 0 as well as land 5. But even so, England still has dominant naval power because its support is so much higher by nature.

The best solution is to permit countries like France, Spain, the Ottoman Empire, Austria and Brandenburg to be full participants.

 

[unmerged(41172)]

I think Nab's point is that Chill 3 is an irrelevant example.

Excatly.

Frengland in that game was unlike any country that's ever been created in competitive MP and it's unlikely we'll see anything like it in this game.

Or in any other game for that matter.

Hell, even if Portugal had go full naval and Frengland full land, the latter would've had leaps and bounds more naval support and, at least during the galley era, more ships.

On the subject of Portugal/Holland, er, no, because England always goes naval too, so their relative strengths will be exactly the same whether it's locked at 5 or left free. More to the point, while England will have the same direct naval superiority, it will be on a much shorter scale, which will help competition.

Portugal and Holland do not suffer for monetary reasons. That's not the issue. They can match or exceed England's income, and Portugal certainly does early in its history. That'll be true at land 0 as well as land 5. But even so, England still has dominant naval power because its support is so much higher by nature.

The best solution is to permit countries like France, Spain, the Ottoman Empire, Austria and Brandenburg to be full participants.

HoG, I can't stay silent anymore. Naval is not only about ships but also about money. In short, naval supremacy means larger market and better competitivnes in economy. NL and Porto had empires but total GDP value of their empires couldn't match England's. If you want I can explain it in much more detail, but please, don't force me to do that. But let me simplify to the extreme; one of the reasons why British Pound is so strong currency can be traced back to British naval supremacy and effective dispersion of all monetary assets to colonies while goods were going the other way. Modern example of such politics is USA during 90's. Enormous trade deficit coupled with expansive monetary policy enabled USA to trade inflation for goods. There are huge difference in these two examples but the point is the same; larger market means more money, more trade, more competetivnes and usually stronger currency (in both examples countries were more developed then their colonies or trading partners and therefore they imported goods which had cheaper price elsewhere and exported gold or US $ in the USA case). All of this means also more money for ships in real world. Fleet supports market and market gives money for ships.

Why BB, OE, Fra and others didn't have same money and chance for colonisation as England did? Because hostile armies were burning and destroying their land throughout the history. It is history. I know it is not fair but life is not fair. My Spain is also land Spain but I never complained because there is nothing to complain about. To remove land/naval slider from the game would mean stripping game of historical accuracy. In other words you want to tell us how we should pretend how Porto, NL and England are in the middle of the continent. But, we can't pretend that because we are not. Also you will pretend that you are not in the middle of the continent, and therefore that your army doesn't have natural inclination to large land force instead of investing in ships. There is a good historical reason why Johan refused your idea about that slider

 

[Van Engel]

Of course not, still they did collapse when you were playing them

I remember they collapsed when I was away doing exams in England... or just after I left.

But OMG I'm an EGA fwiend *naaaaaaaaaaaaaaw*

 

[unmerged(41172)]

But OMG I'm an EGA f(w)iend

Fiend? You are - chaotic and unpredictable as all fiends goes

 

[HolisticGod]

Nabu,

Nay.

The British pound was the dominant currency not because of its colonial dispersion (its strongest daughter economy-the United States-abandoned the Sterling altogether and its second strongest daughter economy-India-never adopted it in a way that made any difference in international finance), but because the British capital market became the largest, cheapest and best financed in the world during the Napoleonic Wars. Fixed pound sterling was not even the basis of global monetary exchange until the 19th century, which falls outside our time period. And it never achieved the kind of universal supremacy of the dollar, which certainly wasn't based on maritime colonial policies but on, again, the strength and stability of US capital.

More to the point, wealth didn't flow in that direction. Take a look at a breakdown of the globe by culture and language-the Spanish presided over the largest colonial expansion in modern history, not the British, and the Spanish were engaged in relentless European warfare during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Now, what you say is true-the British invested far more capital in the development of self-sustaining colonial economies, but these economies had limited benefit to the Crown itself. The real benefit was to the colonists, who prompty (in the area of greatest settlement and development) declared war on the British Empire and went to their own business.

So what's the difference between the Spanish and English? Because you are correct that British capital formation, at least at the end of the time period, was considerably greater than that of any other country. But it's not that the English, by virtue of a maritime policy, created a more viable revenue. If the Spanish raped the New World while the English cultivated it-it was the Spanish who drew in mass and immediate fortunes. But the English, by virtue of their neutrality and, more importantly, immunity (esp. from Napoleon), had a more viable expenditure.

That's something that ought to be-and is-reflected in the actual game. If the English refrain from getting embroiled in European warfare, and if they maintain naval domination (they did not until the Napoleonic Wars), they will have greater wealth and time for development. This happens all the time. It's called hyperteching. And it can easily happen in a land 5 game too. It's just not written on stone (nor was it historically nor should it be in a game).

That said, I don't mind the economic benefits of a "naval" policy. It's just that they aren't worth the morale/manpower/naval support/naval cost side-effects. They're definitely not historical and they're far too rigid. England had an army, remember, and a highly effective one. And France had a navy and a highly effective one. It's not nearly as black and white as the land slider makes it out to be.

 

[HolisticGod]

All,

I have talked with Ryo and he will be implementing this option in the next mod:

"Fixed Land-Naval Slider": Activates random events that force anyone not at land 5 to move to land 5. Very high probability of random event occuring very soon after moving away from land 5

Also, we've decided it's best, with the extra week, to go through Europe province by province. Ryo's doing it tonight/tomorrow, then I'm reviewing it versus some numbers I've put together. Everybody else is welcome to take a look as well, of course.

What to do with the ROTW is still undecided as far as I know, so keep that in mind. Colonials may very well find themselves in an unacceptably strong position if land is not locked.