Folks,
All right.
Read the thread, read the rules._ As promised, I have nothing productive to say, but I do have several unproductive things to say:
1. Chinese, Manchurian, Japanese and Korean (I know, but...) provinces should be completely off-limits to Europeans, because there's no reasonable way to simulate the difficulty in taking and keeping territory in that region.
2. Converting Indian provinces should be illegal, on the chance that someone tries it... Only Islam encroached seriously in the Hindu south during this period and the Ottomans have no business in the subcontinent anyway.
3. Separating colonial and European wars is a terrific idea, insofar as it encourages real conflict, but within the game engine it's a lot more complicated than a simple time-delay. Ideally, it'd be possible to use privateers and trading companies to destroy fleets, raid outposts and claim territory without the two nations in question getting involved directly. All I can suggest is that we try to simulate this-when there's a DOW that's pre-announced as an overseas conflict we have caps on how much can be taken and how long the fighting can last. For instance:
1607. England declares a colonial war against Portugal. England has colonies in North America, a small presence in India and a small presence in Africa. Therefore, it (and Portugal) is permitted the following without risking a continental war:
-Operations in Africa, India and North America.
-Naval operations in the Atlantic and Western Indian Ocean
-Burning trading posts.
-Occupying up to six colonies under one thousand (see below)
-Occupying colonies and cities over one thousand
-Blockading up to six ports with
privateers
Neither is permitted to:
-Use its own fleet to blockade any ports, except while loading and unloading troops
-Commit more than forty thousand troops at any one time
-Actively pursue the war in more than one theater at one time
Most importantly, a colonial war may last for no more than four years. At the end of four years, it either goes continental if both sides are dissatisfied or neither side can make a a compulsory demand. These are:
Any colony level 1-9 that has been occupied for more than a year must be ceded in a peace agreement provided the total demand does not exceed province rules or include more than one colony of one thousand + or a city. Additionally, if England and Portugal, in this case, each held such colonies, only the plurality would count (due to the peace system only, of course)
A warscore of 20 or above allows for two colonies of one thousand + in addition to the aforementioned colonies 1-9, and for every twenty thereafter up to the cap.
A warscore of fifty or above allows for a non-COT city, seventy-five for two.
A warscore of eighty or above allows for a COT. (not likely-also, it should give an automatic CB for some period of years, beginning at the soonest rehost)
(percentages might have to be tweaked-I don't pay a lot of attention to warscore because I don't stab-hit. One option is to base it on territory occupied/ending fleet strength relative to the start/naval losses/etc, in our formula)
Following a colonial war, a continental war is impossible for five years. If one party has taken three cities or six colonies of a thousand + it should be a CB for ten years.
(might consider a population/tax value factor here-in fact, should consider, but I'm too tired right now)
And this is why:
A "colonial" war most nearly reflects competition between adventurers that happen to stump for one particular country or another. To permit a country like France to use as many troops as it pleases overseas against, let's say Portugal, without risking a confrontation with her allies, is ahistorical nonsense. At best, we can pretty well give an even scope to these disputes by limiting the number of armies involved and the types of operations they're allowed. (also furthers the importance of the navy)
However, if a band of these adventurers, in 1607, were to take military control of a settlement of four hundred people, that settlement could be said to belong firmly to whatever King or Queen was paying the bills. Giving a suitable period of time to reclaim them and four years total to beat out a better peace is more than fair.
The rest is just the best I can make of a suitable balance.
4. The 3-province rule is pretty well reflective of the first century and a half, but after 1670 I think it should be increased to four, after 1720 to five, after 1760 to 6 and after 1789 should be abolished altogether. Just doesn't suit the whole time period. Natural difficulties (fortification, less end-time to recoup losses, bigger alliances, handier coalitions) retard late-game conquests-but they should also, rightfully, raise the stakes.
5. The 6-province rule is also good, but I think it should be raised to eight after 1700 and removed after 1789.
6. Forcing Spain to choose A. Thumbs up.
7. OE choosing the Moslem tech group. Thumbs down. No Persian expansion, shitty events, shitty monarchs, shitty leaders and shitty relative CRT for more than half the game. Something has to give.
8. Role-play.
I've read a sizable chunk of Mach I and the Mach I AAR. The role-play is almost exclusively built to explain game events, not dictate them. Great work by BiB, Damo, Peter and Wyvern (Frederick the Paranoid Loon), and of course others, but overall it was simply a much more sophisticated roll through the mud with the same motives, same game orientation, same reliance on events and leaders. Sure-neat rules, some neat twists, some neat, not-often-seen wars, a weird Austrian fiat in Italy. It was MGC: BiBed.
I don't want to downplay it-Mach I is what got me interested in Mach II. But I think the innovation that could make this game better than the last isn't a new rule, a new set of players, past experiences or even, and I'm not entirely sure about this one, me. What'd really do the idea justice here is if people just stopped playing to win.
If coming out on top is what matters to you, crack open single-player, HOI 3.0, the Victoria Beta (kidding, kidding) or challenge Byng to a one on one Spain v. Incan Empire slugfest. It's easy.
But in this game, try running a country into a nightmare of religious conflict, instability, economic crises and poor artistic traditions because your monarch has low stats and seems like the kind of guy who'd cheer at Ann Coulter. Choose wrongly in events. Make bad diplomatic decisions. Reverse policies wildly. Route the Prussians and prepare to enter Berlin, reversing the course of history in your (and likely the Jews') favor for all time, then sign a white peace and establish a money-for-uniforms program.
And for Christ's sake, when you lose the Battle of Lyons in 1533, leaving forty-eight thousand of your men dead, sign the fair peace.
And for Christ's sake, when you win the Battle of Lyons in 1533, leaving forty-seven thousand of your men dead, offer a fair peace. Don't fuck around.
No country in Europe could lose a million or a million five or two million men in the sixteenth century. Almost no country in Europe could lose a hundred thousand. The absurdly protracted wars in this game have something to do with demands, and that's been handled pretty well, but they principally come down to people being assholes and running through the population of Western Europe every couple of decades.
The MP system is a real hole in EU II. Most of the time, it's just part of the game... But if we're going for something better here, decisively large fights should end a one-on-one conflict, which should only last for one to five years.
And colonial nations should have colonial policies and colonial wars.
And coreligionists should not unite with infidels against one another during the sixteenth century.
And Spain should not being controlling inflation, wheeling and dealing brilliantly world-wide, leading in scientific innovation and just generally living it up when its King is a Papist sycophantic child rapist.
And land countries should not have naval traditions.
And naval countries should have naval traditions...
Which brings me, with apologies to Peter E, to the dead horse I'll proudly beat:
9. Random leaders.
Or, at least, corrected leaders. Portugal
should have admirals if it's wealthy, advanced, stable and naval oriented. Naval Sweden shouldn't be DOWing Denmark in winter 1625 and happily raping the women of Copenhagen by spring 1626. If BiB dropped in 1550 when the budget was full naval and didn't get picked up until 1622 because no one gives a shit about the King without his crown and England ends up two CRTs behind in LT, Marlborough shouldn't be able to make up the difference.
Either way, I think something should be done about this, especially in a role-playing game.
My preference is, instead of editing and watching DPs all the time and yelling at each other and editing some more and fussing with the save and history and all that, let's do something truly innovative and dump the historical leaders altogether. They're fun, sure, especially in single-player. But with Leader-Gen, we can crank out unknowns for everyone based on 1520 DPs/MP/wealth/potential fleet-size/monarch stats, to run for, let's say, fifty years (just the first round, so people can implement long-term changes), and then we just take the new set and run it again for, let's say, eighty years. And then, just for kicks, we run it again for, let's say, eighty years... Not very hard. Conceivably, every four sessions for a relatively small number of countries. I'll even help compile lists of special names for the countries in question.
I'll even run the program.
I'll even help people create backstories in their AARs.
Don't care, but it'd sure be a refreshing change.
As it stands, you wait for El Gran Capitan. You wait for Turrene. You wait for Suleyman. You wait for Babur. You wait for the Frunds. You wait for Herr Eugene. You wait for Napoleon. Most decisions about war and peace are based on who gets leaders when and how good they are. That's bull shit.
Silly crutch for some, huge limitation for others.
What was it Old Nick said about chance?
Finis
