• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.

Aladar

Field Marshal
26 Badges
Apr 22, 2002
4.663
3
  • Stellaris Sign-up
  • Europa Universalis 4: Emperor
  • Crusader Kings III: Royal Edition
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall
  • Europa Universalis IV: Golden Century
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Stellaris
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • 500k Club
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV
Once Daniel is no longer banned he'll comment on all this. He wrote it all, i just posted it for him.

But i agree on some points made already, just need to discuss it with him.
 

labalag

Not easily impressed.
89 Badges
May 2, 2003
2.291
3
www.paradox-fan-forum.tk
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Magicka
  • Majesty 2 Collection
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Europa Universalis: Rome
  • Semper Fi
  • Victoria 2
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Rome: Vae Victis
  • 500k Club
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III: Collection
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Knights of Pen and Paper 2
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris Sign-up
  • Hearts of Iron IV: No Step Back
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Arsenal of Democracy
  • Cities in Motion
  • Cities in Motion 2
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Darkest Hour
  • Deus Vult
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis III: Chronicles
  • Hearts of Iron Anthology
  • Divine Wind
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • For The Glory
  • For the Motherland
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • Hearts of Iron III Collection
Well, you can count me as interested...
 

FJ!

Anusûrimbor
35 Badges
Feb 7, 2005
990
1
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Stellaris
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Cities: Skylines - Green Cities
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Cities: Skylines Industries
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Europa Universalis IV: Golden Century
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Crusader Kings III: Royal Edition
  • Europa Universalis 4: Emperor
  • 500k Club
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Cities: Skylines Deluxe Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
I'm interested in joining! Sounds like my kind of game!

ICQ is 211-547-342
 
Last edited:

unmerged(27108)

Dancing
Mar 24, 2004
2.207
0
www.geocities.com
Dr Bob said:
So you like progressive taxing I see?

damn commie :mad:

hehehe commie uh? :)

Dr Bob said:
However 400ducats means nothing to a 600MI England and a whole lot to a 80MI BB so it has to be scaled in this way for the large nations to want to do it.

Or they ask for deflation, which makes more sense

That's assuming that both England and Brandenbourg have the same number of provinces. Which is highly unlikely imo.
 

TheArchMede

General
11 Badges
Jun 16, 2004
2.370
76
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis III: Chronicles
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis: Rome
  • Rome Gold
  • Victoria 2
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • 500k Club
  • Europa Universalis: Rome Collectors Edition
Some suggestions on the winning criteria:

- keep it simple, unless you want to test how good players are at concealing changes in their strength during the final session

- what it is doesn't matter, since players have 400 years to turn whatever advantages they have into "strength"

- rather than a straight determination of strongest country, which will leave little but arranging gangs of the strongest to diplomacy, have a two stage process. First, determine the strongest alliance, then determine the strongest country within that alliance. This will give rise to much more subtlety in diplomacy, and give players that fall a long way behind something to play for.
 
Oct 22, 2001
8.242
0
Visit site
King John said:
A few suggestions:

First, I'd take away the 3 prov restriction on peacing alliances. That makes victory against an alliance far less lucrative than it should be. I would change it to restrict peaces to 3 provs in any human-human peace. .

Yes, there is an error in the text, as can bee seen on closer inspection the number for alliances is not mentioned. It is a lacuna. Your suggestion makes for a simpler rule and that is as good as argument as any. Thus I tend to agree.

King John said:
I'd define clearly how many ships makes up a "small force" to stop people from landing. Just settle this in a definitive number- it'd be bad to leave stuff like this open to interpretation.

Well, this rule, a standard one, is one of the most difficult that we need to have. All agree of the importance of the rule. But it is impossible to construct a well-working rule. If we, as you suggest, set a limit then someone would attack with 1 more than the limit and there would probably be bad tensions. Say we set it to at least 20. What would you say if your 400 fleet was attacked by a 21 ship fleet and that destroyed your leader who was just retrating to the ships? So, then perhaps you suggest at least a certain percentage of the other fleet. Say 20%. Well then we need to start to make fairly complicated mathematical operations in the middle of the war. Not good. Although I in principle agree with you 100% (I hate unclear rules) I see no good formulation to adapt. Instead I trust that the suggested rule will work. Which it incidentally does according to my experience. We use this rule in a lot of games. And the only time I have had problems with it was with two newbies. But they accepted it fast when they were told what breach of rule they had done. In fact, one of these "newbies" was Damocles in his short return to our community. Apparently this tactic was accepted to a much higher degree in the older times when he frequented the MP games and before FAL and myself started working on the standardised exploit list.

King John said:
I would add a land naval locked slider rule. Not just because it's better for gameplay, but it'd be much easier to decide a winner this way. Otherwise there's a good chance there will be a master of the seas and a master of the land. If you want a winner, all should be competing in the same playing field.

Indeed an interesting suggestion. We will see about that. I am still not convinced in either direction on this hot topic. We really should have a thorough debate that once and forever decides whether this is good or bad.
 
Last edited:
Oct 22, 2001
8.242
0
Visit site
King John said:
For AAR rewards, why not just leave the money alternative as a set value? If it's 500 for everyone, and you have a high income, you're better off taking the deflation, and if you're a small nation you're better off taking the money. You actually have more of a thoughtful decision to make, whether your income warrants deflation or money.

If it's defined by how many provs you have, people with either always choose money(if you have the reward too high), or they'll only choose money when they have too low inflation(if the reward is too low), and then there's not much point in having a choice.

"Set money" rewards do not work well. They will fit nicely into some era of the game, some 50 years or so perhaps. And be wrong the rest of the game. If you choose some "middle" value it will be far too high in the beginning and far too low in the end. THus you will end up in exactly the situation you describe "that either all or none chooses it".

An alternative could be to have it change with time. As Van Engel does in the C&C series. Regardless, it cannot be static. That would be an error.
 
Oct 22, 2001
8.242
0
Visit site
FAL said:
WatK3v1 is a mod too, so the 'No MODs required' part is a bit confusing.

Indeed it is. Will be corrected.

FAL said:
Is there a good reason to make this a max from an alliance too?

What is a 'comparatively very small fleet'? If I have 10 ships in port and an enemy fleet blocks this port, can I attack that enemy fleet with these 10 ships even if I have 150 warships in another war theatre?
I commented on these items in my responses to KJ above.

FAL said:
In fact it is not. One concerns switching back to catholiscism freely, the other being force-converted back to catholiscism by a fake war.

FAL said:
Note that this is a very tricky rule.

EXAMPLE: If I am France and fight the alliance of Austria and Spain, I might be able to stab hit Spain out of the war separately first. Then finish my war with Austria.
Am I then forbidden to attack Spain before my truce with Austria has expired? I would say so, since it was my own skill that made this possible.

EXAMPLE 2: I am France and in war with the alliance of Austria and Spain. I fight them both and ultimately make peace with the alliance. However, before I am able to dow Venice too with France, Spain and Austria invite Venice in their alliance. Am I then not allowed to dow Venice because I have a truce with Austria and Spain?

Yep, these situations may seem to be bad. However, the current "bug" that you suffer a severe stab hit when honoring an alliance call in a defensive war is even worse IMO. If any change would be necessary it is to even broadening the definition. I.e. you are neither allowed to join an offensive war with a nation that is in alliance with another nation you have a truce with. Yep I will do that.

Truces are just for 5 years. The limitation on the aggressor is quite small. But a stab hit of 5 for breaking the truce is IMO much worse.

FAL said:
I always believed it is your own duty to cancel any MA if YOU want to no longer have an MA exist. So, if I have MA with you and we end up in war, it's your own responsibility to cancel it. Why place the burden on the one wanting to dow?

Because in reality your MA would automatically end for the nation making the DOW and the DOWed nation would not have their stab lowered because of this action, on the contrary their citizens would applaud if their own nation tookk away the MA of the nation who DOWed them. Indeed, if you still allowed your opponent in the war to have MA in your nation (whatever that could be when a state of war existed between your two nations) then you would experience a decrease of stab simply because your people would lose faith in you. They would rightly consider you a complete idiot who let your enemy have MA in your nation during the war. :cool:

Since the game gives you a stab hit for cancelling it we have decided not to force a defensive nation to cancel their own MA in the aggressor's nation. All burden on the aggressor.

FAL said:
Also, I would propose to add one extra rule to this otherwise good list:

n) Do not look in the history log of the host save.

We will not have rules we have no possibility at all to check whether they are adhereed to or not. Such rules benefit those with low moral that allow themselves to break the rules and hurts the honest people. It is a no-no with such rules. Instead, if the host wants to keep his log secret he should delete it before he "rehosts for save". He can keep it for himself for future reference if he wants to. I consider the inclusion of such a rule as a clear error on part of the GM.

FAL said:
Strongly advice against this. Allowing someone to send lag colonists or building lag fortresses is not really a good thinng. You do not directly earn ducats from this, but it still can be very benefitable.

In a game a few days ago one player was able to send lag stab hits. I did not know you could do this. As there are at least some possibility to check the adherence of this we will include the standard lag rule.

Thanks for your points of view FAL!
 
Last edited:
Oct 22, 2001
8.242
0
Visit site
The Arch Mede said:
Some suggestions on the winning criteria:

- keep it simple, unless you want to test how good players are at concealing changes in their strength during the final session

- what it is doesn't matter, since players have 400 years to turn whatever advantages they have into "strength"

- rather than a straight determination of strongest country, which will leave little but arranging gangs of the strongest to diplomacy, have a two stage process. First, determine the strongest alliance, then determine the strongest country within that alliance. This will give rise to much more subtlety in diplomacy, and give players that fall a long way behind something to play for.

Yes, unless Tonio will come up with some automated nice formula (like the one we had a dsicussion about some weeks ago) we should definitely use an easy formula. One I got to think about the other day was to count the number of controlled European provinces at Dec 29 1819. It of of course not a perfect solution, but at least it is simple!

If you fall a long way behind you should still fight. I admit, the original official aim of the game, "to win", was erronous. The correct is "to do as good as you can" or "to end up as high as possible in the end ranking".

Of course if you are dead last and far behind going into the home stretch you may believe that it does not matter anymore what you do, well then you still have to fight it out. It cannot be that much left of the game, perhaps one session.

I am more dubious about the alliance thing. Towards the end it may be kind of ridiculous with the alliances overbidding eachother trying to induce the non-allied nations, if such exist, to join their alliance and not another one.
 

arcorelli

I like a Field Marshall title
22 Badges
Apr 5, 2003
3.399
10
Visit site
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Victoria 3 Sign Up
  • Imperator: Rome Sign Up
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Pride of Nations
  • 500k Club
  • Victoria 2
  • Semper Fi
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Hearts of Iron II: Armageddon
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis III: Chronicles
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II
Daniel A said:
Because in reality your MA would automatically end for the nation making the DOW and the DOWed nation would not have their stab lowered because of this action, on the contrary their citizens would applaud if their own nation tookk away the MA of the nation who DOWed them. Indeed, if you still allowed your opponent in the war to have MA in your nation (whatever that could be when a state of war existed between your two nations) then you would experience a decrease of stab simply because your people would lose faith in you. They would rightly consider you a complete idiot who let your enemy have MA in your nation during the war. :cool:

Since the game gives you a stab hit for cancelling it we have decided not to force a defensive nation to cancel their own MA in the aggressor's nation. All burden on the aggressor.

I believe you don't lose stab if you cancel MA when at war? (although not sure)
 

Lurken

Leading the Mombotian Horde
58 Badges
Oct 6, 2003
3.822
4
Visit site
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Rome Gold
  • Victoria 2
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Rome: Vae Victis
  • 200k Club
  • 500k Club
  • Europa Universalis III: Collection
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Stellaris
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Imperator: Rome Sign Up
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Commander: Conquest of the Americas
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis III: Chronicles
  • Arsenal of Democracy
  • Divine Wind
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Lead and Gold
  • Magicka
Just letting you all know that I am willing to play, after my semester ends for my scoutgroup.
 
Oct 22, 2001
8.242
0
Visit site
Considering the lack of attention to this thread by the GMs we are fairly satisfied with having the following players having "signed up" or shown their interest so far

--- WANTS TO PLAY -------
Aladar
Daniel
Absolut
ArchMede

---------- SHOWS INTEREST ----------
labalag
FJ

We would appreciate if they who merely "showed" their interest showed an increased level of interest.

We will probably not accept more than two newbies into the game. Presently this means FJ has the first pick among those.

And yes, as far as I know all other participants are known to be nice. And at least not "unreliable" :D
 

King John

Frienemy to all
48 Badges
Mar 22, 2003
5.138
15
Visit site
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Tyranny: Gold Edition
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Knights of Honor
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Tyranny - Tales from the Tiers
  • Tyranny - Bastards Wound
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Europa Universalis IV: Golden Century
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Crusader Kings III: Royal Edition
  • Europa Universalis 4: Emperor
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Darkest Hour
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Divine Wind
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Arsenal of Democracy
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • 500k Club
  • Europa Universalis III: Collection
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Stellaris
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
I signed up earlier, and I am willing to raise my bid for Switzerland to 0 inflation just for fun.


About a "low ship" value, just as long as we have a good general impression of what this number would be, I think we'll be ok. If you're sending 20 percent of the number of ships your foe is using, losing that number would probably hurt you more than the benefit of delaying a landing. The same would apply for percentages as low as 5 percent, which could still equal 50 ships fairly easily.

If we're talking about single digit values for warships(which could be stretched but only a little), I think it would be reasonable. For galleys it should be a little more.


I still think there should be a definite limit that everyone understands though. If someone sends out 1 less ship than they're allowed, just penalize them for it. But it could be done using a curb, so that breaking it by just one ship would result in a minor penalty, while making a very obvious breakage of the rule like sending one ship fleets out would mean something a lot worse like +1 inflation.

When all these rules are finished, there should be a required confirmation from all players that they've read them all and understand them, so that nobody can claim ignorance as an excuse(and maybe forgetfulness as well).


For DOWing nations that are aligned with people you have a truce with, the only way to handle this without causing problems is to outlaw alliances altogether for countries that are not in war. This would have another benefit, in that wars would have a smaller natural tendency to become major alliance wars, and players would be more inclined to use reasons other than "he's my ally" for joining or not joining a conflict. And it would remove to need to have a "you must cancel MA when joining" rule, to have one less thing to remember to do.
 

FJ!

Anusûrimbor
35 Badges
Feb 7, 2005
990
1
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Stellaris
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Cities: Skylines - Green Cities
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Cities: Skylines Industries
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Europa Universalis IV: Golden Century
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Crusader Kings III: Royal Edition
  • Europa Universalis 4: Emperor
  • 500k Club
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Cities: Skylines Deluxe Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
Daniel A said:
Considering the lack of attention to this thread by the GMs we are fairly satisfied with having the following players having "signed up" or shown their interest so far

--- WANTS TO PLAY -------
Aladar
Daniel
Absolut
ArchMede

---------- SHOWS INTEREST ----------
labalag
FJ

We would appreciate if they who merely "showed" their interest showed an increased level of interest.

We will probably not accept more than two newbies into the game. Presently this means FJ has the first pick among those.

And yes, as far as I know all other participants are known to be nice. And at least not "unreliable" :D


Feel free to put me on the "wants to play"-list :).

I'm currently not posting alot because I don't feel like I can add alot to the discussion. I'll let you veterans handle that ;) .