Game Rules Ideas - discussion

[Slargos]

Something we should perhaps look into more is the addition and removal of CB shields.

When is it justified to remove claims and when to add them?

As we all know, the MP game doesn't adhere to history all that much most of the time, so perhaps teh event distribution of CB shields isn't enough?

For instance, as part of a peacetreaty: Relinquish claim to this or that territory.

Happened frequently enough in history to be in but can't be regulated very well through events...

 

[TheArchduke]

Originally posted by Slargos
Something we should perhaps look into more is the addition and removal of CB shields.

When is it justified to remove claims and when to add them?

As we all know, the MP game doesn't adhere to history all that much most of the time, so perhaps teh event distribution of CB shields isn't enough?

For instance, as part of a peacetreaty: Relinquish claim to this or that territory.

Happened frequently enough in history to be in but can't be regulated very well through events...

Yep. Much more easy to get cbs and loose them in a sensible manner.

 

[Wyvern]

Originally posted by TheArchduke
Yep. Much more easy to get cbs and loose them in a sensible manner.

Hmm, but how exactly do you administer the gaining of such cb's? Losing them is perhaps not so difficult to administer, but gaining them? I can foresee heated arguements over that one .

 

[Slargos]

Originally posted by Wyvern
Hmm, but how exactly do you administer the gaining of such cb's? Losing them is perhaps not so difficult to administer, but gaining them? I can foresee heated arguements over that one .

A standard of one freebie CB shield for every other game-start so the editing in can coincide with the normal post-game editing?

 

[TheArchduke]

Originally posted by Wyvern
Hmm, but how exactly do you administer the gaining of such cb's? Losing them is perhaps not so difficult to administer, but gaining them? I can foresee heated arguements over that one .

Yeah it is a hassle.

 

[ForzaA]

ALL MINE !

it would be reasonably easy to administer if its something like "50 years owned= CB" or the like

 

[Prince Eugene]

*Warps through thread*

I'm not one for a lot of rules, especially the alliance and CB ones. House rules vary from house to house. If I join Mowers' game for instance I am joining recognizing that I will abide by his rules, however a set of more or less universal rules would upset a lot of people and couldn't really be enforced.

 

[Slargos]

Originally posted by Prince Eugene
*Warps through thread*

I'm not one for a lot of rules, especially the alliance and CB ones. House rules vary from house to house. If I join Mowers' game for instance I am joining recognizing that I will abide by his rules, however a set of more or less universal rules would upset a lot of people and couldn't really be enforced.

Eugene, Meet bigger picture.
Bigger picture, this is Eugene.

This is not a forum for some sort of Standardized rules that are to be applied to all games.

This is a forum for discussion of what rules are reasonable and exchange ideas on how to implement certain features like for instance the switching of CB shields..

If someone has a great idea that they only use in their own games, wouldn't it be a shame if they didn't share it?

 

[unmerged(5161)]

You can always warp the game engine by save-editing. If the host is honorable (most are, it is usually why they are host), then you can do nearly anything with a peace treaty.


However, to get back to Wyvern's original point, I think the problem everyone is really afraid of is the Alamo syndrome.

"I will fight to the last man!"

Perhaps the solution is to have an agreement to accept a reasonable peace if the war score is over 50% in one direction for more than 2 years. I know "reasonable peace" is hard to define, but 3 provs may be a good starting point for debate.

What do you guys think?

 

[Mowers]

Ryoken69- That is an interesting basis for a potential change. There is the making of a good change/ rule in there.

 

[unmerged(15967)]

Originally posted by ryoken69
You can always warp the game engine by save-editing. If the host is honorable (most are, it is usually why they are host), then you can do nearly anything with a peace treaty.


However, to get back to Wyvern's original point, I think the problem everyone is really afraid of is the Alamo syndrome.

"I will fight to the last man!"

Perhaps the solution is to have an agreement to accept a reasonable peace if the war score is over 50% in one direction for more than 2 years. I know "reasonable peace" is hard to define, but 3 provs may be a good starting point for debate.

What do you guys think?

A mechanism for that is already in place, it's called "stab hitting".

 

[Mowers]

Indeed, there is a system already in place. But I think he is suggesting that it is further upgraded so that you can make suicidal decisions. The reasoning being that you would be overthrown by your own powerbase before this happened.

 

[RedPhoenix]

A general set of MP administrative rules, by Juv


thats something that should be rules for everygame.

 

[TheArchduke]

Originally posted by Prince Eugene
*Warps through thread*

I'm not one for a lot of rules, especially the alliance and CB ones. House rules vary from house to house. If I join Mowers' game for instance I am joining recognizing that I will abide by his rules, however a set of more or less universal rules would upset a lot of people and couldn't really be enforced.

I am not so sure about that juv´s rules look to me what has cristallized itself during the games with more than 8 players in the last time.

My personal idea. If it isn´t Tsunami-like (20-30 persons spamming the valkyrienet channel) you should stay with 12-13 permanent players. You can cover the most important countries without overstuffing.

Cuts on rehost/waiting time and improves performance.

 

[unmerged(5161)]

Yes, you can Stab hit Freiherr, but you have to accept very low terms. I have seen many long wars hovering in the 50-70% zone for a while. But if winning side wants more than 10-30% terms, they cannot stab hit.

See my point?

 

[Wyvern]

stab hitting is also not all its cracked up to be. Unless you're suffering high war exhaustion you can easily take stab hits even at -3 stability and suffer no rebellions.

 

[unmerged(15967)]

Originally posted by ryoken69
Yes, you can Stab hit Freiherr, but you have to accept very low terms. I have seen many long wars hovering in the 50-70% zone for a while. But if winning side wants more than 10-30% terms, they cannot stab hit.

See my point?

Huh? You can stab hit for WS- 12%, I. e. I could have stab hit you yesterday for a 36% peace when I had 44% ES. I chose not to because Russia had nothing I was interested in. That and the fact I didn't control any of your provinces . It was my fist time ever to I stab hit for WP, though. My point is I rarely see wars continue beyond the stab hit level unless circumstances change or the losing nation hopes to be rescued by allies. At least if all sides are fully aware of the mechanisms of stab hitting.

 

[unmerged(15967)]

Originally posted by Wyvern
stab hitting is also not all its cracked up to be. Unless you're suffering high war exhaustion you can easily take stab hits even at -3 stability and suffer no rebellions.

Depends. If you have many non-cores and non-state cuture provinces stab hits will hurt even with modest WE. And there is also the income reduction. Even if rr at stab -3 is only 3% you will lose 30% of ´the tax income compared to stab +3, and merchants at stab -3 are much less competetive, so you will lose a considerable part of the treade income, too. 30% less total income will make a considerable difference in a war. Also the recruitable numbers will me much lower, so your enemy will have an easier time harrasing reinforcements or you might not be able to recruit in sufficent numbers at all. In general if you were already doing badly enough to be 40% WS down stab hitting willl insure that you go down much faster. Unless there are some special circumstances.

 

[Wyvern]

Originally posted by Freiherr vStein
Depends. If you have many non-cores and non-state cuture provinces stab hits will hurt even with modest WE. And there is also the income reduction. Even if rr at stab -3 is only 3% you will lose 30% of ´the tax income compared to stab +3, and merchants at stab -3 are much less competetive, so you will lose a considerable part of the treade income, too. 30% less total income will make a considerable difference in a war. Also the recruitable numbers will me much lower, so your enemy will have an easier time harrasing reinforcements or you might not be able to recruit in sufficent numbers at all. In general if you were already doing badly enough to be 40% WS down stab hitting willl insure that you go down much faster. Unless there are some special circumstances.

Oh I agree with you, I'm just saying its not the all powerful tool to force someone out of a war that many people think it is. The stubborn player can still fight on for a long long time is he wants to, though more often than not to the long term detriment of his nation. Thankfully most experienced players will make peace once they're being stab hit, after all it is a pretty reliable sign that they've lost the war, I do wish that stab hitting also raised the losing nations war exhaustion by +1 though .