Köln

[RedPhoenix]

I want to make Köln a viable option in the Aberration.

There would be a few ways to go with making Köln an expansionist nation/kingdom etc.

Should it be made as a perception of what could have happened if the Archibishops and eventually the democratic city council of guilds didn't gain as much power and Köln never joined hansa.

Now this would open some venues for some monarch/dictator rulers as other kingdoms.

Alternative is ofcourse to go with archibishops ruling it (as allready is in the original Eu2 event file), but that would not quite be so prudent if the city becomes more expansionist and acts more like a kingdom.

Alternative is an earlier city council and Köln would act more like Genova and Venice.

These choises would naturally a bit influence what kind of leaderfile Köln gets too.


I'm really interested in doing some work on Köln it has allways been an inspiring little city. (well a big one for most part of medieval days and later, one of the major german cities, or THE major in the past, as it was the capital of the roman rule in germany.)

It would be great to see Köln as a playable nation in Aberration, maybe this would require modifiying some of the surrounding land under Köln rule at the start though to give them a fair shot. Would be a good representation of the expansion starting allready earlier as there would have been no bishop rule.


I'm working on some monarch/leader and events for Köln, but I need to get an ID range for Leaders please

 

[tombom]

Go reserve an ID range in the ID range thread.

 

[Avernite]

I dunno, I think it would be rather bad for Bavaria to have another big power holding the land they might want. I don't think Germany is big enough for 4 powers, but I might be wrong..

 

[TheArchduke]

Cologne will be a possible power, strong enough and fun for SP, but seldom playable in MP.

 

[Johan]

Well.. they were big in our game for a while

 

[TheArchduke]

Well.. they were big in our game for a while

Well, for special cases like that one, we might need some "reserve" great powers.

 

[RedPhoenix]

Well, for special cases like that one, we might need some "reserve" great powers.

Honestly I don't think the setup should originally be such that it is ment for a couple nations to share some geographical area, there should be the possibility of player competition.

It's a bit like in the past people said denmark shouldn't be played in MP because Scandinavia is only big enough for one power.

I think there need to be more powers in Germany, France and Iberia at the least. Sure not all of them will be played in all MP games but the general idea is anyway that if you want to rule your area, then kill those other player powers. It shouldn't be just bash ai bash ai.

Anyway Cologne is on the border with french culture areas too so I don't know if they would have only inclinations to go east.

Either way If Scandinavia is big enough for Kalmar Finland, Hansa and Scotland, then definately Germany has room for more than just 1 new power.

Swabia is there anyway if I might point out I also wouldn't mind seeing some of the French minors in the southwest corner have some nice events and leaders and make them playable too, as well as pointed out the iberian catholics.

Playing the game in MP is about playing against human opponents not the AI.

 

[unmerged(21937)]

Cologne is imo as viable power as Swabia, so it could be made into a playable power by adding some events and leaders.

 

[Johan]

We saw some nations practically eliminated early in this first MP testrun.
Savoy & Union of Kalmar are basically out of it, and they had lots of details and stuff for them.

I think giving Köln, Swabia, Languedoc, the Iberians and others events and leaders will give them the possibility to be vital powers.

IMHO, an MP game of Aberration should start with 16-20 players, and let people that get eliminated dissappear or moved to the next viable nation. This creates a more cutthroat playing atmosphere, and no nations get "artificial injections" like in vanilla game where you HAVE to have a France, a Spain and an England.

 

[unmerged(21937)]

I agree with Johan and I would like to mention that I think some early booster events should be toned down, so that all viable countries get more-or-less same levels of boost. Big tech boosters for example feel to me like "artificial injections", especially early on when tech prices are still low and many people would love to research some economic techs, but can't because they need war techs too. If this need for war techs is lessened by getting significant tech boosts in them, it will just encourage people to hypertech even more, not to mention unbalancing situation.

Imo countries should most importantly rely on the player's skills and the assortment of leaders and starting land they get. Booster events should be in of course, but they should never be the deciding factor.

 

[RedPhoenix]

I agree with Johan and I would like to mention that I think some early booster events should be toned down, so that all viable countries get more-or-less same levels of boost. Big tech boosters for example feel to me like "artificial injections", especially early on when tech prices are still low and many people would love to research some economic techs, but can't because they need war techs too. If this need for war techs is lessened by getting significant tech boosts in them, it will just encourage people to hypertech even more, not to mention unbalancing situation.

Imo countries should most importantly rely on the player's skills and the assortment of leaders and starting land they get. Booster events should be in of course, but they should never be the deciding factor.

Well I think that there should be some thing to differentiante the countries, not all should be equal in every field. Some countries are better at something than others, while others are weaker in every field. Some countries are supposed to be more challenging, not everyone is supposed to be equal.

This is a simulation of a "what if" world, that means the same rules should apply basically than to the normal EU2 world, just to different nations and frankly more of them. But they all should be treated totally differently, ofcourse there needs to be some balance in there, but some SHOULD BE a lot stronger than some, while many are equal just not in the same areas necessarily.

Main thing is every country should have as much as possible player competition, not giving them free reigns over AI.

Thats why a geographically isolated start is propably best for an aberration game like in tsunami, We first pit all players in western europe and as people get eliminated they move to a new geographical area more to the east, this allows for a realistically flacutating game environment.

Also some nations might be forced to be released as part of a peace deal, that would give some players chances to come back to play western europe or new players to the game later.

 

[unmerged(21937)]

Well I think that there should be some thing to differentiante the countries, not all should be equal in every field. Some countries are better at something than others, while others are weaker in every field. Some countries are supposed to be more challenging, not everyone is supposed to be equal.

Difference is already created in leaders, setup, starting DPs and by events. I do not think that a bunch of clone states creates interesting GC setting, but I also oppose the idea of some nations getting large boosts (especially early on) or even very significant setup advantages, which would make them "Always-strong" nations in MP. That would only lead to getting "Must-be-played" nations in Aberration too. I think currently Aberration is doing nicely in that respect as there is very few stronger than others. Granada is stronger, but then as seen in the test game, it gains bad events early on, which make it vulnerable on most important stage.

 

[Culise]

Well, if you want to keep the archbishops and still make it a kingdom, you can look at the good archbishop Hermann V von Wied, who ruled from 1515 to 1547. Started out in opposition to Lutheranism in most of his reign, then did complete policy change and began to advocate Lutheranism, bringing in preachers, Protestant advisors, and was suspended in 1546, then forced to resign a year later. What if he had successfully defied the Pope?

Or, even later, Gebhard II Truchsess von Waldburg (1577-1583), who went Calvinist in 1582 and tried to proselytize his new religion in the see. He was put under ban of the empire and then the Catholic Emperor and Pope tried to depose him, replacing him with Ernest of Bavaria. With support from the Protestant powers, he fought his Rome-chosen successor for five years (The War of Cologne or Kölnischer Krieg), but lost.

With either side, you could use the opportunity to split from the Catholics and join the Protestants, effectively ridding yourself of the burden of the Catholicism and those meddling Popes and Emperors, and there could be a series of conflicts between the newly Protestant leadership and the Unversity of Cologne, which was historically staunchly Catholic even into the late 1700's (When it was effectively ruined by a series of edicts from, ironically enough, a Catholic Archbishop who supported the rationalism coming out of France at the time).

More information on Cologne, from the view of the Catholic Church, and entailing the biases apparent therein (Describing Gebhard's actions as "[following] the evil course of Hermann of Wied" for example ).

 

[Medicine Man]

Difference is already created in leaders, setup, starting DPs and by events. I do not think that a bunch of clone states creates interesting GC setting, but I also oppose the idea of some nations getting large boosts (especially early on) or even very significant setup advantages, which would make them "Always-strong" nations in MP. That would only lead to getting "Must-be-played" nations in Aberration too. I think currently Aberration is doing nicely in that respect as there is very few stronger than others. Granada is stronger, but then as seen in the test game, it gains bad events early on, which make it vulnerable on most important stage.

Some interesting comments on both sides of this discussion.

In principle, I agree with Byakhiam. The ultimate goal of Abe is to create a scenario where nothing is guaranteed. To this end, we don't want to set up too many nations as obvious dominant powers. In particular, we need to avoid slotting nations as guaranteed continental or colonial powers (ala France or Spain).

That said, I don't really want a level playing field either. There should be 1st tier, 2nd tier and speed-bump nations. There should be nice booster, danger and flavor events to create variety and opportunity for the featured (favored) nations. We just need to monitor how much we are giving and how early we are giving it. So I agree with Red Pheonix also.