New game: Test of skill

[-Lyko-]

just rememberd that thursday 18 of may i'm going on a celebration. exam celebration. so i can't play at that time.. so either we get a sub for me or we could play anyother day that week

well it's better to inform u guys now then the day before it

i'm for land-naval locked sliders. there's no fun when some have lt 40 but only NT 13 and some have the opposite

 

[Aladar]

We have a lot of work to do before we can start the campaign, so let's see it the what the date will be when we get closer to it.

Anyway first session should be pretty straigtforward for a sub, since all start out equal and far from each other. So annex annex annex.

I'm hoping Daniel is going to post the save soon, so players can check it out.

 

[unmerged(30948)]

What about minors like Asturia or Navarra instead of Portugal?
What about minors like Skane or Norway instead of Denmark?

 

[Aladar]

Nations are choosen so that they are far from each other. Since there a 0 historical events/leaders/monarchs, the name of the nations is rather irrelevant.

 

[unmerged(30948)]

Saxony then (Sachsen), hoping in a good luck.

 

[unmerged(6147)]

I am away on a conference. Will be back on Friday evening.

I have not understood how to create a new game on Tonio´s site. I have asked him on ICQ how to proceed and when I come home I hope I find them on ICQ or here on the forum.

If all goes well this could mean we make our bids before Monday evening and then FAL sends the bids to me and I determine the starting nations on and publish the outcome the same Monday evening.

Regarding locked land slider I am beginning to agree with John. However, Cicero has made an ultimatum and I believe it is more important that we have one player more than sacrirfice him for the ability to play with a locked land slider.

BTW, I will be away as well the 2nd session but intend to get myself a sub. I am going to fly in a baloon! I hope I survive it.

 

[unmerged(36826)]

If you get on ICQ I can show you how to create a new game for the stats page

edit: It is balloon, not baloon

 

[unmerged(6147)]

Thanks Bob, but as I said I am away on a conference and even if they had ICQ here I do not have the save here. But if I have not received any instructions from Tonio when I come home I will try and contact you. Prolly around 19.00 CEST tomorrow evening.

 

[Cicero]

Regarding locked land slider I am beginning to agree with John. However, Cicero has made an ultimatum and I believe it is more important that we have one player more than sacrirfice him for the ability to play with a locked land slider.

that doesnt sound good, i dont wanna be the guy who forces all the others to play according to his personal preferences. if the majority wants to go with locked land sliders we should do so (just without me ).

i understand the advantages of a game with locked land/naval. but nevertheless i heavily prefer free choice in domestic policies. mainly because of this: if you take away the possibility to choose the land or the naval way the game loses a very interesting feature, you artificially take away a bit of complexivity.
especially in this balanced "game of skill" the land slider setting is very important. in my eyes its part of skilled play to choose either the land or the naval path, or something between. the aim of this game is to become the strongest nation. so i develop a strategy: will i go land or naval to reach the aim? in a standard game with most nations this isnt a real choice, its a nonbrainer most times: England, NL, etc. go full naval; Austria, Russia etc. full land. but in this game with constructed, balanced nations its a very important, sophisticated choice. i dont wanna miss that.

maybe my "play-without-locked-sliders-or-i-wont-join-attitude" seems a bit childish. but as we all know EU2 mp eats a lot of time and i dont wanna join a game i dislike from the beginning. im willing to compromise with a lot of rules or settings i dont like very much (for example: im not a fan of 1419 start, but i can live with it), but locked land/naval is a no-no.
so my proposal: lets do a quick vote. if the majority is against locked land: fine. if most people want that rule you should really use it. i that case im out but you will find another player for sure.



one comment on something very different:
i really love the monarch rule, its truly innovative and adds a whole new dimension to the game. its an additional feature that forces us to develop a longterm strategy pre-game. so i can think about it and have fun with a game that hasnt even started yet.
im not sure if this rule was used in another game before or who invented it. but i send my congrats to Aladar and Daniel if they have developed this excellent idea.

 

[unmerged(49182)]

Im with Cicero here, I think it adds to the challenge if a country is allowed to change their land/naval sliders as they want. Im not against a locked slider but Im leaning slightly towards Cicero. I wont have anything against playing with it locked though.

So my vote is: Dont lock it

 

[King John]

As much fun as it may be to weigh in, choosing land or naval is only a one time "challenge". It's one of many reasons traditional games are most interesting in the first few sessions. I would rather focus on the longterm pros and cons though, because I want to see this game stay as competitive and stimulating as possible for the duration.

Land nations become relatively safe from attack by naval nations, and naval nations become relatively safe from land nations(assuming naval nations are the ones with few or no connections via land to these countries, which ought to be the case). Your chances of dominating navally and colonially are much higher if you go naval, as you need only worry about serious competition from a few other countries that have also chosen naval. And the opposite is true for land nations- a naval nation attacking you on land won't be very effective because of the huge morale MP and troop cost gap, unless that nation is extremely powerful. So you can become a lot safer this way.

This I find much less challenging than a game where every nation has the same land/naval abilities, where you can be pounced on by basicly any country that isn't grossly behind yours in tech and so forth. It also gives you more options- assuming you can gather the resources together, you can plan for attacks on anyone in any way. There are a lot more possibilities, which means more factors to consider.



We could retain elements of both, however. This could be done by allowing movement of the slider, but on the condition that after each session it would be moved back to 0. Or after every other session. So, if you found it important enough for upcoming wars or a massive naval buildup or whatever, you could still go 2-3 clicks one way or the other, and secure a pretty big advantage against any foe that doesn't match your movements, but not be permanent. I think this would be better than a purely locked or unlocked game.

 

[Tonioz]

i have no opinion if land=5 good or not for this game until i see the scen.

 

[Van Engel]

I'd be interested in this game depending on the starting date, if it's still 11th may then I can't. June is when I can start at the earliest...

Read through the rules and stuff:

Monarchs, hmmm 2 monarchs of 1-1-1? 2 of 2-2-2 etc? I know for me atleast that will be very painful to go those 20years with such crappy monarchs. I suggest 4 monarchs of 5-5-5, 4 monarchs of 7-7-7 and 2 monarchs of 10-10-10. All ofcourse at 20years.

Province cap in wars is something I'm totally against. Either raise the cap or get rid of it. Players are good themselves to regulate if 1 player is taking too much in war, so this rule is useless imo.

I'd also like to have a look at the country placement on the map and how many 1 province minors we'd be swamped with. Maybe 1 or 2 2 provinces minors would be better than just 1 provinces.

 

[unmerged(49182)]

Land nations become relatively safe from attack by naval nations, and naval nations become relatively safe from land nations(assuming naval nations are the ones with few or no connections via land to these countries, which ought to be the case). Your chances of dominating navally and colonially are much higher if you go naval, as you need only worry about serious competition from a few other countries that have also chosen naval. And the opposite is true for land nations- a naval nation attacking you on land won't be very effective because of the huge morale MP and troop cost gap, unless that nation is extremely powerful. So you can become a lot safer this way.

I understand what you mean, but Im still slightly leaning to an unlocked slider.

Im not quite sure what you mean here.
For example:

Lets say France chooses to go naval instead of land, how can it then be safe from its neighbours, mainly Austria and Brandenburg/Prussia if they, as they most probably will, have max land?

 

[unmerged(36826)]

You can always lock it at 3-7 as opposed to fullly at 5

But giving people free movement of land slider, will mean almost certainly that Ireland will go naval and become an England and I am sure you can this being repeated in other places around the globe.

I don't know if that is what you want for the game, because it will create 2 tiers most probably and who can say at the end that a rich, totally teched nation with 1000 warships is better than a ok income, huge manpower nation that has total dominance of the continent?

 

[unmerged(6147)]

At home now.

No need to vote. I will not miss Cicero because of this. We are 11 with him. Had we had plenty of other reserves a vote would have been suitable.

Regarding the save unfortunately the response from Tonio did not help me at all. He says


Tour num -> New Tour

but I cannot find any "new Tour" alternative among the tours listed on the page I am. I have asked him and Bob for assistance. Any help is wellcome.

 

[unmerged(49182)]

You can always lock it at 3-7 as opposed to fullly at 5

That actually sounds good to me, its like a compromise.

 

[unmerged(6147)]

Well, let see if Cicero accepts that.


SAVE AVAILABLE

Anyhow, save is now available at

http://www.europa2.ru/cgi-bin/leagu...kyrie.net VIII&game=XX&yearsave=1419&lang=eng

The difference in power points from start is as far as I understand caused by the starting monarchs' stats in the save. As you know you will yourself change that later on.


ANNEXATION

I think it is best if we decide that no annexation of a player nation is allowed before 1500. All should get a resonable chance to create his own nation.


AUCTION

I have thought a bit more about this as well. The inflation cost for the nation you select will be 0.1% more inflation than the 2nd highest bid for that nation. In case of the difference being smaller than that the price will be the offer you made.

Shall we say that you all have unto Monday to make your bids?


KARAMAN

Karaman is still in the nations. However, if we end up with 11 players Karaman will not be among the playable nations.


NEW GAME THREAD

I will create the official game thread for the game tomorrow. Wait with making your bids until you have read it. There may be minor changes of rules done during the weekend. I hope to be able to finalise the rules at latest during Sunday afternoon.

And send your bids to our beloved demimod FAL

 

[TheArchMede]

SAVE AVAILABLE

Anyhow, save is now available at

http://www.europa2.ru/cgi-bin/leagu...kyrie.net VIII&game=XX&yearsave=1419&lang=eng

Is it intended that Ireland starts unfortified (which is the other effect on the starting power ratings)?

 

[Cicero]

You can always lock it at 3-7 as opposed to fullly at 5

i guess i can live with that rule, it seems like a fair compromise. it leaves the possibility to choose either the naval or the land way but the differences shouldnt be that much, so a land nation can still compete with a naval one on the seas and a naval nation is still competetive on land.