Let's Compile "House Rules"

[Lt. Tyler]

Originally posted by MonkeyLord
Ye Gods! No war without CB, no retreating, no mercenaries, no changeing DP sliders without events, massive colonization restrictions, massive BB restrictions. Why make a perfectly good strategy game into a game of sheer luck and starting position (random events, CB shields, and complete reliance on random outcomes in battle)? These might help make an SP game more challenging, but they would ruin MP. In MP who cares if the AI can handle it; MP should be about human v. human. If you can't use every aspect of the game to your advantage (F12 and file editing, obviously excepted), you're probably not as clever as you think you are, and you should be sticking to SP with a foe that also can't handle every aspect of the game

I think everyone agrees that the same house rules for SP probably aren't the same ones that would be appropriate for MP.

Rather MP may have house rules that are more like agreements between the players to do, or refrain from certain actions.

But, having never played MP, I don't know. Suppose I'm just not clever enough.

 

[unmerged(9043)]

Originally posted by Lt. Tyler


I think everyone agrees that the same house rules for SP probably aren't the same ones that would be appropriate for MP.

Rather MP may have house rules that are more like agreements between the players to do, or refrain from certain actions.

But, having never played MP, I don't know. Suppose I'm just not clever enough.

I actually haven't played MP for quite some time, so maybe posting this makes me much less clever than I thought as well(too poor for a decent internet connection) Oh, well, no offense intended, I just hate to see the element of strategy removed from a strategy game I do see the point in SP, however.

 

[unmerged(5664)]

I believe there's a separate thread in the MP forum.

 

[Lt. Tyler]

ML,

Sorry if I came off like a crank too. A bit tired this morning; I should have put some smilies in

Your point about MP is well taken; as long as all the players agree to a set of guidelines, you should do whatever's best for your country while staying within the those guidelines.

And in SP, do whatever you like. Just play to have fun.

 

[unmerged(9074)]

Originally posted by Drakken
Never ever change DP settings by yourself. By events only.

Drakken

If I lose my coastal provs, then I'm not supposed to be able to shift my DP towards "land"?
Unhistorical!

 

[unmerged(9506)]

3. Never occupy a country's provinces with "Cover"-sized armies for the sole purpose of keeping them from raising troops.

I may be wrong, but it seems accurate to me that a nation at war would employ occupation forces to keep the local population in check (like the Germans in France during the second world war). In game terms, this would be the equivalent of keeping a small force there to prevent troop recruitment, I think.


-ninja love

 

[BiB]

It's just that the ai doesn't. And that example gets a bit silly when 1000 man can prevent 36000 from forming an effective resistance totally with no losses.

 

[unmerged(9506)]

It's just that the ai doesn't. And that example gets a bit silly when 1000 man can prevent 36000 from forming an effective resistance totally with no losses.

Yeah, I suppose you're right. Also, something else to consider - a nation at war would probably only use a small occupying force on areas they already control. If you think about it, if the nation against whom you are fighting can still make troops, that means that they still control the province. Obviously, an invading army wouldn't use a small occupying force to keep an area in check if there's still a fortress with a fifteen-thousand-strong garrison opposing them

-ninja love

 

[Holmesy]

mine which hasn;t been mentioned by anyone: as castille/aragon, don't get involved in the hundred years war with the sole purpose of making sure france will always be weak. I just think it makes spain/ aragon even easier

 

[unmerged(7470)]

My rules:

*No loans to AI (or myself if I can help it)
*No merceneries
*Manufactories are always in a fitting province
*I never actively try to kill natives
*I never steal sieges
*I never save/reload for missionaries/annexation/colonisation

 

[Lt. Tyler]

Originally posted by Holmesy
mine which hasn;t been mentioned by anyone: as castille/aragon, don't get involved in the hundred years war with the sole purpose of making sure france will always be weak. I just think it makes spain/ aragon even easier

Another thing along this line is when playing England, loose the Hundred Years War. If you don't, it'll be a bit easy.

Well it'll probably be easy anyway, but at least it'll be more challenging for awhile.


Of course did I do this when I played England? No. But I didn't take all of France, just all his coastal provinces.

 

[Shai]

At STW we called these "IronMan Rules". They make for a tough and engaging game. They are NOT for those whose purpose is to conquer the planet.

For those with an eye to history and Balance of Power politics, 'Ironman' rules promote a better feel for the need to calculate expansion, war, etc. With inhibiting rules to economic decisions (ie: merchants, manufactories, loans, etc), the Human player will find himself unable to finance million man armies (completely ahistorical), and more likely to play the diplomacy game.

For my self, I allow myself to build only one of each type of factory. If the event gives me one free, that's fair enough.

Since reading them here, I've adopted the the 'No DP slider changes except for Events', 'no recruitment except in core provinces', and decided, on my own, to limit merchant placement to two in COT's not within my immediate sphere. Monopolies should only be considered in COTs one controls, imo.

The suggestions for naval transport probably would be more in line if one limited transport capability to a % of capacity, no more than 25% (which still may be high). As troop capability is often high for the period, one might be handicapping oneself too greatly. The enemy still has access to his over-large troop capabilities.

Regarding AI peace offers, there's little to be done. Either one offers far less than the victory margin, or receives an excess from the AI. Personally, if the AI doesn't accept my offers, I'll take theirs. Blame on their diplomats.

 

[unmerged(7027)]

No "phony wars". If I join in a war with my allies, I must actually participate in the war. In the event that I don't the means or the will to actually send troops to help my allies, I must finance their war effort by sending them as many gifts as my treasury/diplomat pool will allow.

 

[unmerged(9081)]

I thought about one rule I might try in my next campaign,
when a monarch with a poor military rating is ruling, I will lower maintenaince to some 60% or so, to simulate bad decisions, strategy and planning for the military by the ruler and his military advisors.

maybe bump it if an excellent leader is available during the monarch's reign

 

[unmerged(7398)]

Originally posted by natt och dag
I thought about one rule I might try in my next campaign,
when a monarch with a poor military rating is ruling, I will lower maintenaince to some 60% or so, to simulate bad decisions, strategy and planning for the military by the ruler and his military advisors.

This reminds me of something I've idly been wondering about for a while - what does military rating actually do, besides give free insignificant tech investment? Anything?

 

[unmerged(8339)]

Originally posted by natt och dag
I thought about one rule I might try in my next campaign,
when a monarch with a poor military rating is ruling, I will lower maintenaince to some 60% or so, to simulate bad decisions, strategy and planning for the military by the ruler and his military advisors.

maybe bump it if an excellent leader is available during the monarch's reign

That idea, Night and Day, is really interesting. I am going to do it on my next game.
My personal house rules, to date, are simple. I do not adjust the DP sliders and I do not go to war without a CB.

 

[Dev]

I have somewhat of a problem with the no DP slider changing since I don't think the initial slider configuration does a very good job of realism.

I mean if the sliders very correect, shouldn't every landlocked nation in the world be _very_ land oriented?

Also just about every nation starts out with a high aristocracy which all things being equal will raise due to events (in my games anyway) making it impossible for the small trader nations to reach their historical plutocracy.

Did I miss something ?

/dev

 

[unmerged(9994)]

Was the purpose of this thread to get ideas for your own games? Because there's no way you're going to get a consensus on most items. Some of the ideas mentioned were good, more were good but impractical, and most just reflect their own personal play style.

Giving loans out to AI- I've never done this, and I can see why some might see it as exploitive if it's earning you high interest.

Retreating from combat- I don't agree with this one. If your generals know they're outnumbered, they're not going to sit there and let the enemy kill them. Especially if their orders are to avoid engagement in the first place. This rule is especially bad for small nations. Try it as Orleans or Granada and see how long you last. It's ahistorical as well. Take the accounts of the Crusades, or Redcoats fighting Indians. Maybe if you limited it to European powers it would be less historically nonsensical. As for the gripe that the AI can't do it, this is the same AI that gets no attrition, inflation reduction to your level, and probably a dozen other cheats I don't know about. If they can't manage to keep their raw recruits from deserting, I don't feel any sympathy.

Peace offers- While I agree that it's cheesy for them to give you all their trading posts and colonies, I don't think it's fair to have to accept a few ducats instead of the province or two you 'earned'
to end a war.

Colonizing newly spotted territory- Ok this one makes sense. However, I don't usually bother keeping track of whether my explorers have gone back yet. It hasn't mattered much in my games, as I've either been the first person there by a long shot, or been exploring already colonized land.

Changing the domestic policy slider- I see nothing wrong with this, after all you are the deus ex machina for your nation, not just the chief of the army.

Attacking without CB- sometimes you just want to be an imperialist

I understand the desire to make the game harder, however, I do this by picking a weaker country. After I've conquered the world as Assam or Champa or Kongo, I'll consider artificial limitations. For now, I'll stick to avoiding actions that feel like cheating.

 

[unmerged(10456)]

Why the manufactory rule?
it's completely unsensical to me
Can anybody explain that

 

[Lt. Tyler]

Originally posted by alaexis
Why the manufactory rule?
it's completely unsensical to me
Can anybody explain that

The reasoning is because it becomes very easy to build so many manufactories that you become so rich, and will be by far the tech leader.

It can make it more challenging to play with this limitation.