Foiling dastardly MP players' Nipponese CoT snatching

[Peter Ebbesen]

Nippon has a centre of trade in its capital (Kansai, 686) from game start. This placement guarantees that the trade flows through Nippon. However, when the capital changes as a result of the Nipponese unification, the centre of trade is no longer in the capital. Due to the Nipponese vulnerability to European attacks, it is usual to see European powers conquering Kansai and leaving the rest of Nippon alone in MP, confident that AI Nippon can do nothing to stop them. It is entirely normal to see AI Nippon with a capital in Kyushu and owning all the rest of the Nipponese islands except for the province of Kansai (usually owned by the Dutch, Danish, Portuguese, or, indeed, anybody with a fleet and an expeditionary force) . This is remarkably silly, even by the standards of EU2MP silliness.

I propose a slight change to the Nipponese unification events, moving the CoT with the capital using the new cot and removecot commands as follows (three potential different new capitals, three minor changes shown in orange)

[color=white][font=courier new]
event = {
	id = 6947 #Takeda Alliance Wins!#
	random = no
	country = NIP
	trigger = { event = 6946 }
	name = "EVENTNAME6947"
	desc = "EVENTHIST6947"
	style = 1
	date = { day = 1 month = july year = 1564} #Takeda Shingen dies 1573#
	offset = 90
	action_a = {
		name = "OK"
		command = { type = domestic which = centralization value = -3 }
		command = { type = domestic which = serfdom value = -3 }
		command = { type = province_revoltrisk which = 684 value = -10}
		command = { type = province_revoltrisk which = 686 value = -10}
		command = { type = province_revoltrisk which = 687 value = -10}
		command = { type = province_revoltrisk which = 688 value = -10}
		command = { type = capital which = 685}
[color=orange]		command = { type = cot which = 685 }
		command = { type = removecot which = 686 }[/color]
	}
}


event = { id = 6949 #Kyushu Daimyo Win!#
	random = no
    country = NIP
	trigger = { event = 6948 }
	name = "EVENTNAME6949"
	desc = "EVENTHIST6949"
	style = 1
	date = { day = 1 month = july year = 1542} #Mori Motonari dies 1571#
	offset = 90
	action_a = {
		name = "OK"
		command = { type = domestic which = land value = -3 }
		command = { type = domestic which = offensive value = -3}
		command = { type = domestic which = mercantilism value = -3 }
		command = { type = province_revoltrisk which = 684 value = -10}
		command = { type = province_revoltrisk which = 685 value = -10}
		command = { type = province_revoltrisk which = 686 value = -10}
		command = { type = province_revoltrisk which = 687 value = -10}
		command = { type = capital which = 688}
[color=orange]		command = { type = cot which = 688 }
		command = { type = removecot which = 686 }[/color]
	}
}


vent = {
	id = 6921 #Uesugi Kenshin Wins!#
	random = no
	country = NIP
	trigger = { event = 6920 }
	name = "EVENTNAME6921"
	desc = "EVENTHIST6921"
	style = 1
	date = { day = 1 month = july year = 1567} #Uesugi Kenshin dies 1579#
	offset = 90
	action_a = {
		name = "OK"
		command = { type = domestic which = ARISTOCRACY value = 3 }
		command = { type = domestic which = serfdom value = 3 }
		command = { type = domestic which = offensive value = 3 }
		command = { type = domestic which = innovative value = -3 }
		command = { type = province_revoltrisk which = 685 value = -10}
		command = { type = province_revoltrisk which = 686 value = -10}
		command = { type = province_revoltrisk which = 687 value = -10}
		command = { type = province_revoltrisk which = 688 value = -10}
		command = { type = capital which = 684}
[color=orange]		command = { type = cot which = 684 }
		command = { type = removecot which = 686 }[/color]
	}
}
[/font][/color]

These changes only impact those players engaged in CoT snatching. (Hmm. I guess we might see MP players beginning to conquer the potential capital provinces before the event in order to get the CoT when it moves, but preventing the capital move. Nevertheless, that does require more effort earlier in the game, so it is a worthwhile tradeoff in terms of sillyness, I guess)

 

[unmerged(15967)]

What's wrong with CoT snatching? It's a bit unrealistic that you need to own the entire province to get the CoT, but forcefully taking control of the trade in a region is perfecty historical IMO. The ease with which europeans can conquer the Japanese and Chinese CoTs is a but unrealistic, but that's caused by the lack of China and Nippon players.

 

[Damocles]

Originally posted by Freiherr vStein
What's wrong with CoT snatching? It's a bit unrealistic that you need to own the entire province to get the CoT, but forcefully taking control of the trade in a region is perfecty historical IMO. The ease with which europeans can conquer the Japanese and Chinese CoTs is a but unrealistic, but that's caused by the lack of China and Nippon players.

QUESTION) Whats wrong with cot snatching?

ANSWER) It is unrealistic.

I fully support Peter's statement.

 

[Duuk]

Being part of an MP game where Every Asian CoT is European owned with almost no other territories taken, I fully support this.

 

[unmerged(15967)]

Originally posted by Damocles
QUESTION) Whats wrong with cot snatching?

ANSWER) It is unrealistic.

I fully support Peter's statement.

But that was the point. I disagree on the assertion that it's unrealistic. The CoT system itself has some problems, but once you accpept that CoT snatching gives the best aproximation of an accurate representation of actual european behaviour in Asia IMO.

 

[Twoflower]

Originally posted by Peter Ebbesen
Nippon has a centre of trade in its capital (Kansai, 686) from game start. This placement guarantees that the trade flows through Nippon

This is the reason why Japanese CoT snatching is unrealistic. The Kansai CoT is supposed to encompass the Japanese provinces, and nothing else. Why would the Japanese not start trading in one of the provinces left to them if a European country captures the CoT province?
Therefore I fully support the idea.

 

[Norrefeldt]

Can EEP have your blessing to include these events in it's removecot-option version of GC?

 

[Peter Ebbesen]

Originally posted by mnorrefeldt
Can EEP have your blessing to include these events in it's removecot-option version of GC?

*Sprinkles holy water over mnorrefeldt*

Of course. As usual, anything I write/mod for EU2 can be used as you see fit.

 

[Damocles]

Originally posted by Freiherr vStein
But that was the point. I disagree on the assertion that it's unrealistic. The CoT system itself has some problems, but once you accpept that CoT snatching gives the best aproximation of an accurate representation of actual european behaviour in Asia IMO.

I don't agree with this.

My point was that its the exact opposite.

 

[Zander]

I heartily support this change. Additionally:

Originally posted by Peter Ebbesen

I guess we might see MP players beginning to conquer the potential capital provinces before the event in order to get the CoT when it moves, but preventing the capital move.

You could put in a second copy of each event. Have one require Nippon to own the province in question, and the other require Nippon NOT to own it. Then have the capital/CoT move only for the one where Nippon owns the province.

 

[unmerged(6159)]

Yeah, that's the best way to do it.

Freiherr, do you support moving the Oman and Malacca COTs (or capitals), as these currently prevent Europeans from seizing the trade in those regions.

 

[Damocles]

I think a monopoly, wherein the Europeans with their higher trade techs can completely dominate the ROTW is more then generous in simulating the seizing of trade.

Annexing some foreign cot, embargoing everyone else, a couple hundred years before most of Europe is aware of it, and then having your own personal monopoly that offers more income then all of Italy is obscene.