Machiavelli : Europe Arising

[Damocles]

Austria's base manpower gain will only be about 5. Technically, Italian culture for Austria is very historical (the events of our game making it even more so) but is left out for gameplay reasons in normal games, the logic of which does not apply in this case.

For another thing, this isnt like Denmark conquering a few German provinces and getting German. The Austrian situation is a COMPLETELY UNIQUE situation in which the gameplay and balance factors for all of Europe revolve around.

Now, Ottoman Empire, France and Spain looked at the situation and decided it was best for the spirit of the game, for gameplay and historical reasons. So far, Portugal is against it.

If anyone else is against this change being made (Despite Peter only getting 5 manpower out of it, the primary benefit letting him recruit in Italy once Austria is swamped by the Turks) please speak up now.

BTW, after Peter loses the Lowlands, his base manpower will be 25. With Italian, it is 30. So this isn't something to get up in arms about. It is just a quaint little modification based on historical and rpg sense.

Smirfy, I would agree with you if this were any game but Machiavelli in it's current situation. We're all very mature, good players trying to follow the spirit of the game, thus we can go out on a limb and do stuff like this, being confident its within the parameters of the game and actually, a fact historical wise. Charles assembled the largest army Christiandom had ever seen after the siege of Vienna, the majority of which consisted of Italians!

I think giving Austria Italian culture when it loses the Netherlands and chooses to keep Italy, yet losing Magyar and SLovak would be the best decision keeping in mind game balance and historical facts.

Does anyone else object?

 

[Peter Ebbesen]

Originally posted by Damocles

If anyone else is against this change being made (Despite Peter only getting 5 manpower out of it, the primary benefit letting him recruit in Italy once Austria is swamped by the Turks) please speak up now.

It would also result in increased taxes of about 20d (and a corresponding amount of census tax).

 

[TheArchduke]

Some other nations opinions are still missing though..

 

[kurtbrian]

Hmm. I don't think I will object to it, allthough I have always been oposed to adding new cultures

 

[unmerged(15967)]

I have no strong opinion on the issue of italian for Austria.

 

[Slargos]

On the one hand, it makes sense to do this switch out of a gamehistorical perspective.

On the other hand, it might seem unfair to the rest of the players to impose changes like this...

I say go ahead, but be aware that there might be more calls for the same, and you would have to be openminded about them...

 

[kurtbrian]

that would be my worry as well, that we will have to do all sorts of editing and it will create a rift between the players, because some feel cheated.

 

[unmerged(10915)]

Perhaps we should create a more static rule about this no?
If Austria doesnt get stronger, we might have a very short game.

 

[BiB]

We're not seeing enough AARs or is that a weekend job for most? So they can doctor their stories enough to come out looking good?

 

[Peter Ebbesen]

Originally posted by Mulliman
Perhaps we should create a more static rule about this no?
If Austria doesnt get stronger, we might have a very short game.

Hey, Austria is pretty strong now.... so long as it does not get jumped by both Spain and France at the same time. After 1556, however, it will be slightly less powerful than Denmark as about 3/7ths of its income (losing a CoT, ouch) and some 30% of its manpower will evaporate. (It will still keep the same dangerous enemies, though )

After all, the main Austrian problem is not really low manpower, it is not having the funds to hire the (Italian) mercenaries that it historically used to counteract the larger manpower of its enemies

(In EU2 it requires massive transfer of money from other nations as gifts to acquire the same effect)

Anyway, my position is simple: BiB and ArchDuke are running the show, editing when and where they feel necessary. As Gamemasters, their rulings are final, and I am impressed with the sensitivity with which they have treated Damocles proposal.

While I would certainly approve of Italian culture (and can even see historical justification for granting it while removing Magyar and Slovak, given the actions of Austria and Hungary), mainly for the increased income rather than manpower, to be frank, it is in no way essential to me. I will have a jolly time trying to survive the onslaught of my two powerful enemies no matter which way the decision falls After all, it is not as if it matters all that much in the end, considering the Turk can overrun 2/3rds of my land in three months if he is willing to take appalling casualties from attrition, due to my complete lack of defense in-depth.

 

[Slargos]

Originally posted by Peter Ebbesen

Anyway, my position is simple: BiB and ArchDuke are running the show, editing when and where they feel necessary. As Gamemasters, their rulings are final[/u.

While technically true, consider the fact that a game where the GMs run over the opinion of the player will quickly find itself without many players at all.

I think it is only beneficial that we discuss the merits of this kind of decision before carrying it out so everyone is, if not a happy camper, atleast content.

 

[Peter Ebbesen]

Originally posted by Slargos
While technically true, consider the fact that a game where the GMs run over the opinion of the player will quickly find itself without many players at all.

Sure, I certainly do not disagree with you on that. It is rather that once a ruling has been made (which has not happened in this case yet), arguments over the rightness of the ruling should mostly stop, lest we spiral into those fruitless eternal "if this hadn't been changed that wouldn't have happened" discussions.

 

[kurtbrian]

Originally posted by BiB
We're not seeing enough AARs or is that a weekend job for most? So they can doctor their stories enough to come out looking good?

'


I was planning to write some this afternoon...I had soem sort of writeers block before...

 

[Wyvern]

Originally posted by Slargos
While technically true, consider the fact that a game where the GMs run over the opinion of the player will quickly find itself without many players at all.

I think it is only beneficial that we discuss the merits of this kind of decision before carrying it out so everyone is, if not a happy camper, atleast content.

Anything like this should be discussed, but then that is what everyone is doing now right? I get the impression this change will only go ahead if the large majority are for it or at least ambivalent about it.

 

[Smirfy]

Originally posted by Peter Ebbesen
Sure, I certainly do not disagree with you on that. It is rather that once a ruling has been made (which has not happened in this case yet), arguments over the rightness of the ruling should mostly stop, lest we spiral into those fruitless eternal "if this hadn't been changed that wouldn't have happened" discussions.

Once the ruling has been made, yes I'm fine with it providing off course a very good AAR is writen to explain it.

I was hoping in this game role-playing could make up for deficencies in the game engine and roleplaying could also be used to counter-act obvious to objective minds imbalances between nations that existed in reality. I have made representations to a GM about my concerns and was *very* disapointed both with arbitary nature of the reply and the lack of consideration to the point of not even listening to what I believe are important balance issues, Damocleas has touched on some of these a few posts back and I have still other concerns. The difference of consideration that was given to my *limited* concerns and those of a *major* change are striking hence my disillusionment with this change (an abcess does not help either).

My limited proposals were not for my benefit as is self evident from my play to date but for the future benefit of nations some not even created yet.

 

[Smirfy]

1/ On a different and more practical level, Is Venice not vunerable now and that COT looks quite rewarding?

2/ Will the dynamic of Austrian expansion into the balkans not be gone with the removal of those cultures? (i know its in trouble anyway)

3/ will this now lead to the cushy relationship between OE and Austria we feared?

4/ Is France ever goin to roleplay? which is essential more than ever now


5/ How will this effect Northern Europe? (bit of a power vacum with high inno)

6/ The Pope's position is it now redundant?

7/ Genoa's position is interesting what are the implications there?

 

[Peter Ebbesen]

1) Venice is vulnerable and, ever since it threatened to attack Austria in 1538 and formed an alliance with France, high on the Austrian hit list in case of danger. This regardless of the culture issue.

2) The only dynamics for going to the Balkans are 1) every Emperor's deep seated desire for Defensive depth, and, 2) warlike and devout emperors desire to assert Christian superiority. If the emperor went after provinces on a cultural basis, Germany would be the first to suffer.

3) Peace with the Turk!? As succesful as the Turk has been until now, there is only one thing that makes sense from a roleplaying perspective: The road to Rome. Whether the Turk will try to blaze the trail through Austria or Venice, rest assured that at some time the Turk will make his move on Rome itself. This is irrespective of culture.

4) France is roleplaying.

5) How will what affect Northern Europe? The Emperor will, of course, attempt to protect the HRE as is his sworn duty.

6) He is the Pope. We all have deep respect for the Holy father. Especially when he sticks to religious matters.

7) Genoa is part of the French-Venetian axis of really-mean-nations. Should it attack the Emperor, it will suffer. This is irrespective of the culture issue.


Main point, Smirfy: Culture or no culture, Austria-Italia is becoming a reality in the minds of both the people of Austria and Northern Italy and the monarchs (Maximilian I and now Karl V), and my intentions (as a player) will not greatly change depending on how the culture issue is resolved.

The Italians welcomed Austria with open arms while the Hungarians turned away, despite the great sacrifices made by Austria in the first war against the Turk. Thus Austria-Hungary will likely never, ever, be in this game, but I will make every effort to maintain an Austria-Italia.

 

[TheArchduke]

4.) I got serious discussions with Smirfy going on about France not playing colonially and not going after crap provinces in Hudson Bay and much else. Seems like I have to colonize absolutely historical to rpg it seems.

Also with 1 colonist per year I can´t really stuff anything.

 

[kurtbrian]

If you haven't signed any agreements with portugal (ToT or similar) about you only colonizing in North armerica, I can't see the problem. You didn't enter the colonial race early but as far as I know waited until you had some explorers etc which is fine by me.

 

[Smirfy]

Originally posted by kurtbrian
If you haven't signed any agreements with portugal (ToT or similar) about you only colonizing in North armerica, I can't see the problem. You didn't enter the colonial race early but as far as I know waited until you had some explorers etc which is fine by me.

I have explained my point which has more revelance to Holland (especially with the culture rule) I have presented to Duke my arguement and it is now up to him as ever i argue hard but abide by the decision.