All,
I should add, some of these changes simply aren't going to appeal to everyone. Though the CC cap and fortress rules are very simple and easily followed/enforced, particularly with a parser that makes corrections automatically, and inflation, tech switching, etc., that don't directly involve the players, we run into the two big questions that haunt MP right now:
1. How do you strike a balance between players? What Damo, Slargos and I are working on is intended to make the game more realistic, more difficult and more dependent on tactical skill and economic wisdom. We're slowing down income, technology and construction, and creating a model for the Napoleonic wars.
This just doesn't interest some people. To the contrary, it's the precise opposite of what most EU II players want, and Gary is a prime example. All understandable.
However, Machiavelli is a franchise apart. Its players are willing to try things other groups aren't, put in more work and take more time and, generally, give up the easy win. Mach II was a step in the right direction, but if you take a look at the vast majority (including the GM, for instance, or me, when I got fed up with things) it was played at the core like any other EU II game. I don't want this to be any other EU II game, because any other EU II game means the following:
A. Sacrifice of all historicity. I'm not talking about conquests, wars, size, rise and decline. I'm talking about the framework in which we're operating, which shouldn't be beatable.
B. Ease. I've won full MP games with England twice, Russia once (to a point), the OE thrice, France thrice, Austria twice, Sweden twice, Spain once and Lorraine once (minors). In almost every case, the competition was as good or better than the current roster. I know Damo can say the same, Slargos too, probably Mulli. Gary himself has some experience.
Even if you get the very best EU players around for every vital slot, it's a rote game. No challenge, no back-and-forth.
C. WWI epic front warfare. When you can replace half a million men with ease, a hundred warships with ease, there's absolutely zero excitement in any battle. And very little in the way of "genius." Just being more consistently awake than the other guy.
D. Absurdly rich, fortified, teched up countries that aren't worth the effort to invade and very rarely can be beaten anyway.
I don't want to play this. I'll bend to the will of the majority,
from within the game, but I strongly suggest we take measures, preferably these, against A-D.
But not everyone is at the same skill level or has the same skills or the same interests.
2. Overcoming flaws in the game engine. Idealistically, Johan would have the time to fix forts, MP, tech (the fabled exponential cost), shipyards, CCs, etc., but he doesn't. Not right now. And he also has to consider singleplayer in all the decisions he makes.
This leaves us to, imperfectly, create a ruleset that compensates. The three province rule, for instance-good stuff. It's about 10% of the battle. You can't go that far and stop-it creates as many problems as it solves.
Yes, we're probably going to end up with slightly more in the way of rules than Mach II (not much more-note that the Guidelines are vital only to the GM).
But if we get a better game because of it, and I believe we will, so what?
