In the name of balance and equal opportunity

[unmerged(6147)]

How about the other points? I especially like the points 2, 5 and 6.

My dear Nagel,

I am working at 110% but as you can see FAL spits out posts almost as fast as I do. And my posts take so long time to write as I, as you know, completly lack the ability to present my views in a few words.

 

[Fredrik82]

Another FAL vs Daniel thread *yawn*

 

[unmerged(18425)]

Another FAL vs Daniel thread *yawn*

Hey! It was first Dano versus Arco! But I shall take the hint and leave him to Nagel for now

 

[unmerged(6147)]

I've been following this discussion with much interest. May I make some suggestions.

1: random events: pain in the ass, but makes game more interesting. I would however delete ALL good events and some bad events (10 stab hits in 10 years is IMO just too much).

Yes, the events are troublesome. I also believe they add to the gaming quality (they are simply "fun"). And Aladar certainly agree to that.

But they do randomise the game. Perhaps we should merely delete the extreme ones, like deflation and political crisis. On the other hand events like political crisis are very important since they are the main reason why the serfdom slider is so difficult to use. Take away the political crisis alone and I believe that free citizens become the obvious alternative. Definitely if we remove the unhapiness amony peasentry as well.

2: monarchs/leaders: everybody recieves leaders (monarchs/explorers/conquistadores/...) with the same stats and the same duration. But stats and duration must be in a random order and not 40 years each as DA proposed)

I am not sure you mean that their distribution in time should be random, but the same for all... is that what you meant? If so, yes that would make it equal. But I want equal as well as providing an element of skill, thus I want the players to decide in what order they shall appear. And having thought more about it I think 40 years is too long. Better have 20 20-year reigns. The players can put together their own lists making it easy for the editor.

5: dp sliders are ALL fixed. They may not be changed by the player even if some event changes them.

Same objection here Nagel. I want skill. There is a lot of skill in managing the DP sliders. Perhaps I should define my basic principal idea again

1. Try to create as equal starting positions as we can
2. Then during the game try to remove random elements and add skill elements, making it more a skill game than what is presently the case (but do it carefully, do not jeopardise the game of joy from playing)

6: everybody has same religion + tech (also all latin, although it would be fun/challenging/more fair to give everybody Pagan religion and tech. But some people, like traders, would most likely not want this)

Yes, I agree, I believe I wrote about these in my first post

 

[unmerged(32886)]

Hey! It was first Dano versus Arco! But I shall take the hint and leave him to Nagel for now

That will in no time mean huge posts by the both of us (I also tend to use huge posts to say what I mean).

 

[unmerged(6147)]

Another FAL vs Daniel thread *yawn*

What kind of a post is this?

Can we hope a Mod will delete it?

 

[Fredrik82]

What kind of a post is this?

Can we hope a Mod will delete it?

Well, FAL obviously understood the hint of it.

 

[unmerged(6147)]

Well, FAL obviously understood the hint of it.

I do as well. That is exactly why I wrote what I did.

 

[Fredrik82]

I do as well. That is exactly why I wrote what I did.

Then you should read through all your posts in this thread again, and consider how interesting they are for a public discussion.
Some of your posts are a personal debate with FAL, which interest no-one else i'm sure of.

Why not create a discussion that actually encourage a open debate?, instead of closen it down for two?

I'm sure that what Aladar had in mind when he created this thread,
then again, this is not the first time that you Daniel is entering a thread and paint "Daniel" all over it

 

[arcorelli]

No he did not explain. He said that eventually the one starting in France would become France. This we do not know at all. It was a false statement.

Er, I had played random games Daniel A (for some time it was all the rage I remember). We alwyas end with an 'England', an 'Iberia', a 'France', a 'Russia', a 'Sweden'. Geography -and I am starting to think that this shows how good EU2 is as simulation- is a large part of destiny

 

[unmerged(32886)]

Then you should read through all your posts in this thread again, and consider how interesting they are for a public discussion.
Some of your posts are a personal debate with FAL, which interest no-one else i'm sure of.

Why not create a discussion that actually encourage a open debate?, instead of closen it down for two?

I'm sure that what Aladar had in mind when he created this thread,
then again, this is not the first time that you Daniel is entering a thread and paint "Daniel" all over it

Great, your comment caused the discussion to die .

Let me try to revive it. If I understand it correctly, the mission is to create a scenario where skill is the deciding factor, without (if possible) having more files then a scenario + event file.

1. Events: no use of them (random or not). If you use random, you might get lucky or not. Point about it being equal if you spread it over 320 or 400 years is in theory correct, but not in reality. I've played games where I got 95%stab hits and 5% stab + (that's 1 good versus 19 bad). But I've also played games where is was 25% stab hits and 75% stab +. The same goes for things like deflation, gifts, merchant unhappiness, etc... So, looking only at equality and skill, all events should be left out.

2. Capital: must have a port and a CoT.

3. Monarchs: Everybody gets a certain amount of them (say 30) and a certain amount of points (say 150 for each stat, that's 450 points in total) that can be distributed by the player. The start and death dates are for all monarchs the same (to avoid having a monarch with 1/1/1 for 2 years and a monarch with 9/9/9 for 30 years), but a player can decide when he has which monarch

4. Explorers/Conquistadores/Generals/Admirals: Everybody gets a certain amount of them and also a certain amount of points for each stat.The start and death dates are for all leaders are the same (to avoid having a leader with 1/1/1 for 2 years and a leader with 6/6/6 for 30 years), but a player can decide when he has which leader. (the only possible exception is for instance with explorers. Someone in Eng can explore more then someone in Russia, therefor give Russia an extra month or two (the time in takes to get to position Eng)???) Also fixed starting locations for all leaders (capital). (and no eternal admirals/generals)

5. Each nation gets 1 culture, same religion, starting techs, and tech (latin?)

6. DP sliders: all start at 5 (in the middle ) but can be moved freely

7: No VP stuff. Leave the VP out of the picture.

8. Geographical issues and gold...: nations which gold provs or with beter locations get tax value decreases and others increases

Now, bear in mind that this is only version 1.1. It's a start that may be commented on since nothing is fixed. Also remember that nothing is perfect.

So, what are your comments on this?

 

[unmerged(6147)]

Great, your comment caused the discussion to die .

Have no fear Nagel, any attempts to stop the freedom of speech, within the forum rules, is doomed to fail as long as there are people like us. Especially posts like the one in question, with errors of fact

Let me try to revive it. If I understand it correctly, the mission is to create a scenario where skill is the deciding factor, without (if possible) having more files then a scenario + event file.

Yep, although perhaps it will end up in a mod in the end anyway. That is not a big concern, just a concern.

1. Events: no use of them (random or not). If you use random, you might get lucky or not. Point about it being equal if you spread it over 320 or 400 years is in theory correct, but not in reality. I've played games where I got 95%stab hits and 5% stab + (that's 1 good versus 19 bad). But I've also played games where is was 25% stab hits and 75% stab +. The same goes for things like deflation, gifts, merchant unhappiness, etc... So, looking only at equality and skill, all events should be left out.

Yes, I tend to agree. I guess it will be up to the players to decide, are the random events so "funny" so that we cannot be without them. Well if they say so I won't stop them.

2. Capital: must have a port and a CoT.

Well, "must have a port" is an exaggeration. Most players can reach a port within the first session as long as their initial position is far away from other humans. And in this scenario they will be. Regarding a COT I agree.

3. Monarchs: Everybody gets a certain amount of them (say 30) and a certain amount of points (say 150 for each stat, that's 450 points in total) that can be distributed by the player. The start and death dates are for all monarchs the same (to avoid having a monarch with 1/1/1 for 2 years and a monarch with 9/9/9 for 30 years), but a player can decide when he has which monarch

Yes, this is a definite test of skill, perhaps not demanding much skill but definitely demanding some. And something that will end up in interesting comparisons I hope.

4. Explorers/Conquistadores/Generals/Admirals: Everybody gets a certain amount of them and also a certain amount of points for each stat.The start and death dates are for all leaders are the same (to avoid having a leader with 1/1/1 for 2 years and a leader with 6/6/6 for 30 years), but a player can decide when he has which leader. (the only possible exception is for instance with explorers. Someone in Eng can explore more then someone in Russia, therefor give Russia an extra month or two (the time in takes to get to position Eng)???) Also fixed starting locations for all leaders (capital). (and no eternal admirals/generals)

Yes, roughly so. Concerning "Russia" they have the potential of Siberia so I do not think we need to deal with a few months here and there. The set up will not be 100% equal, especially not concerning the "potential" or the "lebensraum" so each contestant must put together the data and then make some kind of ranking of the nations. Perhaps also depending on his playing style. And then make his bids. They will be pretty equal from start but to be able to analyse their potential centuries into the future you need to spend a little time on analysing and use your skill and knowledge to be able to make a "correct" bid at the auction.

5. Each nation gets 1 culture, same religion, starting techs, and tech (latin?)

Yep. Or possibly all nations gets all cultures that exist in Europe. It amounts to the same thing.

6. DP sliders: all start at 5 (in the middle ) but can be moved freely

Yep, and also a few free moves from start. That is also skill and players generally like such an option.

7: No VP stuff. Leave the VP out of the picture.

Yes of course, the VP system is broken one might say.

8. Geographical issues and gold...: nations which gold provs or with beter locations get tax value decreases and others increases

Yes, this is rather important. I hope we can do it without a MOD. Concerning gold we could edit the "mine" value in the save. Make it 15 or 20. That would eliminate the need for a MOD since we cannot change the type of goods in a province without making a mod.

We could perhaps ask HoG to go over the tax values. He is very experienced in those matters. Incidentally I believe he already has looked them over in Ryo's 1.04.

 

[unmerged(11287)]

are you all trying to convert players to play campaigns with the suggestions I've seen you stated here?

let them decide what kind of experience they want to have in a EU2 game.

2nd, equality doesn't exist in an Eu2 game. from geography to Mp/taxes/incomes/leaders. take one off and the other aspects will be even more determinant. is this good? test it.

3rd, changing the known "balance" (unbalance-historical setups) to something different will be good. having an unpredictable game on leaders-monarchs will make it equal for everyone for example? test so and let's see who was right.

4th, knowing we will never have equal countries, some experienced players will want to play difficult countries to have a funnier game, other will think different (maybe some will want to play Brandenburg because of known disavantages at the beginning, but weakening others by having "random" setups to have more chances to win as Brandenburg... is this a good idea?)

5th, I detected some confussion here, Equality and Balance aren't the same thing. Equality doesn't exist, Balance exists. Balance as "balance of power" solves countries' differences. Why France ally NL? Why Spain ally Potugal? Why Oe ally France? this as normal. Sometimes France ally Spain... it's logical we look for allies to counter our disadvantages. thus having Balance in the game and make it viable (screw the historicity, balance isn't historicity). Finally having an unpredictable game will screw this idea of "solving my disadvantages or covering my lacks" simply because we don't know others' atributes or future ones. This will create unbalanced alliances and we will be dependant on luck and statistics to have this balance.

would you play a game you'll depend on luck entirely? would you play Brandenburg knowing you will never have Frederick II? knowing you can recieve (punches) and never give? is this fun? think about it

 

[Aladar]

Then you should read through all your posts in this thread again, and consider how interesting they are for a public discussion.
Some of your posts are a personal debate with FAL, which interest no-one else i'm sure of.

Why not create a discussion that actually encourage a open debate?, instead of closen it down for two?

I'm sure that what Aladar had in mind when he created this thread,
then again, this is not the first time that you Daniel is entering a thread and paint "Daniel" all over it

Well i do consider this an open debate. That Daniel and FAL have much to say is not a problem in my view. If you don't post ideas we'll never find out if they are usable.

And again, we did create this thread for come up with an "equal from start" scenario. I believe many have come up with ideas we'll use, not only Daniel or FAL. Except yourself Fredrik, who made 3 posts about nothing.

 

[unmerged(32886)]

*bump*
There is of course a simple way to overcome the geographical issues and still using only the scenario file. Divide the entire world, and I mean the entire world, between the players. This guarantees equality from the start (+- the same MP, taxes, division of gold..., same division of religion in the provs (everybody will have a lot of pagan provs)...) and with no AI the game will be much more interesting and challenging (more wars).

 

[unmerged(6147)]

Heh, that was indeed a novel idea.

But I like exploration and colonisation, two features that I guess we would miss in such a layout.

But I would not be adverse to try it if someone made the scenario.

The closest to that I have experienced must be Thirst For Glory 1 where most of the world was owned by the human players towards the end - there was only some uncolonised parts in Tibet and a few AI nations in IndoChina left I think. But that game did not end until around the year 2100 or so IIRC.

 

[unmerged(6147)]

In case someone is interested I would just like to mention that Aladar and myself are planning for this game.

One of the problems we have is finding a good scenario for one of the new maps and starting in 1419.

-----

And to Pibe. I believe your post contains a record number of errors. I will just comment on a few of them. Starting from the top:

are you all trying to convert players to play campaigns with the suggestions I've seen you stated here?

let them decide what kind of experience they want to have in a EU2 game.

Aladar and myself are simply trying to get players to play a campaign along the lines we outline here. What you mean by your statement is doubtful. Concerning the 2nd paragraph I would only like to say that how you can get into your head that we want to deprive the other players of their right to decide what kind of experience they want is mindboggling.

2nd, equality doesn't exist in an Eu2 game. from geography to Mp/taxes/incomes/leaders.

Yes, we all agree that equality, i.e. exact equality, does not exist. As I wrote myself in post 18

WHAT WE AIM AT

And yes, we are not expecting to create a 100% equal scenario, that is of course in practice impossible. But we aim at creating a scenario were all contestants at start will believe that they have just about an equal chance as anyone else to become the mightiest nation on the map. Something not yet experienced in any MP campaign as far as I know (I guess the Throne for Heaven is closest so far). Something new and exciting I hope. And thanks to Aladar and myself that can be true in just a few months.

So why do you say that "equality does not exist" when we all agree about it?

But, as you have also been able to read in this thread, we have the idea of an auction before the game start to take care of (most of) any remaing inequality.

Your ending of the previous quote

take one off and the other aspects will be even more determinant. is this good? test it.

The answer is no, we will not test it before the game starts. The game will be the test if it is a fun scenario to play. I am quite sure it will be - as we do something similar just now in Chill4.

And the main determinant factor will not be any factor left unedited by us, as you seem to believe, the main determinant factor deciding who is most succesful will be skill. And all of the players will have about an equal chance to come out on top, objectively, of the others. That is what we hope is so great with this scenario. And it cannot have been too difficult to understand that if you really cared to read what we have written.

 

[Gamlasemlan]

This campaing looks really interesting. Though i don't know if you want me in after my noobish preformance in Chill 4.


EDIT:

But that does not rule out players with less experience can take part. No one expects them to do well in this kind of game, as no one expects them to do well in a normal game.

Though when reading this, my slefconfidence is higher than ever.

 

[unmerged(6147)]

GamlaSemlan,

You are most wellcome and you know it

The priority when selecting players will basically be

1. reliability
2. pleasentness
3. skill

in that order. You are as reliable as well as pleasent and thus you are among the first ones chosen.

Skill is something one mostly acquires by experience and thus there are always room for those without it, else they would not stand a chance to become skilled. Besides your nation is a tricky one in Chill4. To have a big evil Dr Bob as a neighbour is not easy for anyone and to have to fight someone with twice your MP (GH) is almost impossible for anyone.

BTW, the basic edits of the WatK3.1 map/scenario was made during Easter. I aim to finish the scenario this weekend (well, there will of course be occasional minor things to fix after that). We hope to be able to present the game and invite people next week and then launch the campaign on Thursday the 11th of May.

 

[Aladar]

Perhaps we should make our save available to people can check it out.

We haven't settled on all the rules yet, but will update something on that soonish.