Historical Accuracy vs Historical Precision

[unmerged(31587)]

Thats what the high council was created to do. We were supposed to coordinate all the regional efforts. We've been a bit too irregular for the past few months I must admit. o

Basically, all I was saying was that there might be a thread or thread(s) that lists all of the major goals and issues that the AGCEEP project is trying to achieve such as:
Formation of Spain, Formation of France, Formation of Persia, Formation of Mughal Empire, Colonization of Spain, Formation of Kingdom of Prussia, etc.

A published list would serve the purpose of letting people know what the HC considers to be the consensus of what the major items are, what's been done/needs to be done, and possibly allows people to discuss what the major items should be. themselves.

Then also when people work on and discuss detailed/regional issues, the "temporal list" of major historical outcomes serves as a good reference so people don't lose track of the big picture. You read the list of the major items, making sure you work towards them or at least no work against them in the regional threads.

This was really what I had in mind. Whether it is useful or not, I can't say but it seems like it might be useful as I see general historical systematic discussions taking place all time in tons of disparate different threads. So it might be good to have a couple of threads (or just one thread) just focused on the major items that people can turn to as a reference.

 

[Garbon]

And I think all of those belong in proper regional threads. We've sort of had a break down as people create threads for each nation. o

 

[unmerged(21523)]

Displaying all proper fear of being off-topic in this thread, the main problem in the Middle East is not so much that the Ottomans overperform as it is that all the other states in the region underperform, I suppose I'll make a complaint about that in the regional threads one of these days, but thought I'd toss it out while we're on the Persian question.

 

[unmerged(45766)]

And I think all of those belong in proper regional threads. We've sort of had a break down as people create threads for each nation. o

Great. Say you have a problem with the 30 Years' war, you would need to keep a look to Sweden, Germany, France, Austria, Dutch regional threads.

 

[unmerged(2456)]

And I think all of those belong in proper regional threads. We've sort of had a break down as people create threads for each nation. o

It would be good if we could have an active moderator who could help merge and close useless threads here. But then we could get some meglomaniac as well.

 

[Garbon]

It would be good if we could have an active moderator who could help merge and close useless threads here. But then we could get some meglomaniac as well.

*nods* I've often had that thought, but indeed I don't know how it would be done properly.

 

[unmerged(29041)]

Displaying all proper fear of being off-topic in this thread, the main problem in the Middle East is not so much that the Ottomans overperform as it is that all the other states in the region underperform, I suppose I'll make a complaint about that in the regional threads one of these days, but thought I'd toss it out while we're on the Persian question.

Overperforming and underperforming are comparative terms. In absolute terms there is a clear unbalance with regard to historical comparative levels of military achievement. This balance can be regained by reducing the technological speed of some countries or by raising that of others. Being equally valid, I think the first approach involves less work, as the second means basically increasing the tech speed of every country in the world, as the problem spreads outward. Try playing the Uzbeks, for example, or read a current AAR where their tech group had to be changed, because otherwise there was no game. But raising tech speed is popular, while reducing it is not. This despite the fact that with Latin countries you max out around 1740, and with Muslims and Torthodox around 1790, leaving you only with inflation and a very ahistoric situation of most countries at a high technological plateau due to the bonus.

 

[unmerged(45689)]

One issue with the mideast is that those "muslim" states in the Iranian/Afghani region are actually Exotic tech, rather than Muslim; at the very least AKK and QAR are. Since Persia revolts from AKK (or, in some recent changes Garbon is making, QAR as well), it revolts with the technology of a nation that is not just behind its Muslim Ottoman and Timurid neighbors, but is multiple techgroups behind. Unfortunately QAR is so aggressive during that early period where techgroups don't matter as much that it seems to stomp everyone early.

Regardless, Persia winds up revolting in the early 1500s as a Muslim-group nation with the preexisting tech accumulation of an Exotic. 100 years of that is going to put anybody behind the top three techgroups. It might also explain why a giant PER-replacing QAR winds up just being a mess for the OE and India to dissect; it's never going to catch up.

I agree about potentially raising lowering tech groups where appropriate and when appropriate. The question is whether it's appropriate. I think if Persia had some way to start off stronger, perhaps by moving AKK and QAR up in techgroups (not necessarily to Muslim, mind), it'd assume its historical position sooner but without racing ahead due to any sort of unfair bonus.

 

[unmerged(45766)]

Not stupid. Persia would need a little help to increase its tech to be able to immediately compete with the OE and India.

However, I'm not so sure the effect is so destroying. In 81 years, the best european, latin, mono-province (rich one), countries get one CRT advantage, maybe two (at most).

And please note that shiism already has a morale bonus of +0.50, which is the difference in morale between levels 0 & 6, or 2 & 8, or 9 & 12. I don't remember ever seeing OE or India higher than 8 around 1500 though, and the combat values of cavalry and infantry between lvl 2 and 8 do not rise so much (not at all for cavalry).

What is probably more hurting IMHO, is the lack of troops and the empty treasury while neighbours have troops immediately available (in great quantities, given the built-in Ai-cheats).

But next games, I'll survey the area, and increase techs to the level of OE (or just below) to see if it helps.

 

[Toio]

Well, I can't currently do it. But just open a game, check your maintenance costs*. Close it. Edit the file. Open the game anew, and check the maintenance costs again.

Probably even better if you first edited the save to give several hundreds ships, to avoind rounding approximations.


* both displayed (tooltip) and real : check treasury decrease after one month**.

** and I think you can even use that to check maintenance of AI countries : be sure they have nothing to build or expend their money on (essentially, remove all diplomats, colonists, merchants, etc, be sure they have sufficient money, and don't have any building to build)

After many tests i can conclude only these stats:

with a .3 setting for all types of ships, then having 78 ships gives a monthly maintenance of 3.7

with a setting of .1 , then the monthly cost is 2.2

A difference of 1.5 per month. is this only a visual showing or is the money truly lowered by the new monthly maintenance costs. I seem to have more money to play with as POR.

Further tests are required by myself and volunteers.

 

[unmerged(45766)]

After many tests i can conclude only these stats:

with a .3 setting for all types of ships, then having 78 ships gives a monthly maintenance of 3.7

with a setting of .1 , then the monthly cost is 2.2

A difference of 1.5 per month. is this only a visual showing or is the money truly lowered by the new monthly maintenance costs. I seem to have more money to play with as POR.

Further tests are required by myself and volunteers.

The monthly maintenance you give is for only the naval forces, or the naval + land forces ? Because the ratio of decrease between the setting and the displayed maintenance seems weird.

 

[Toio]

The monthly maintenance you give is for only the naval forces, or the naval + land forces ? Because the ratio of decrease between the setting and the displayed maintenance seems weird.

Only naval forces, and no maufacturing of more ships as well as amount of ships sits comfortably within POR limits

I will test what I get from using .2

if 1 artillery is worth 1000 men , then does 1 ship equal 1000 or 100 or just 1?

 

[binTravkin]

1000

 

[unmerged(29041)]

Only naval forces, and no maufacturing of more ships as well as amount of ships sits comfortably within POR limits

I will test what I get from using .2

if 1 artillery is worth 1000 men , then does 1 ship equal 1000 or 100 or just 1?

1 artillery is worth 100 men, not 1000.

 

[Toio]

1 artillery is worth 100 men, not 1000.

and a ship ?

 

[unmerged(29041)]

and a ship ?

Minimal size units for the purpose of recruitment are:
1 ship / 10 cannons / 1000 soldiers
These are also the units considered for size, and a fraction will be considered a full unit for size.

I suspect that for purpose of maintenance you don't start paying extra until you are a full unit above the limit, but perhaps I am wrong on that.

For purpose of attrition, you get fractions of attrition in ships, but not in soldiers, so a ship will only attrite when that particular ship reaches 100% attrition. I ignore if cannons have also fractions of attrition, I would guess not.