New Order IV

[Hive]

WP all round including ALL AI that hab and france are in war with sounds good. We will then release milan and ally them. ok?

Deal.

 

[unmerged(10915)]

Peacemongers!

 

[Hive]

Peacemongers!

I wouldn't mind doing a 1 on 1 with Burgundy, if you really want more war...

 

[Owen]

Yes.

And really, this whining from the Iberians and England is beyond me. Do you hear France and Austria whine because others now have the chance to get generals as good as ours? Do you hear Muscowy complain because Lithuania and Poland might get conqustadors for Siberia? Do you hear Venice complain because others might now get admirals as good as hers?

It's because of two things:

1.We're impacted now, rather than later in the game. Partly this makes it worse because it's current, partly because differences at game start become amplified later on. While this might also affect Muscowy, they seem to have an agreement to be friendly with Poland/Lithuania, which has already allowed them to conquer most of the Golden Horde.

2. Other countries can now use their explorers to do something they could normally barely do at all, and that after 1550 at the earliest, whereas random generals just allow nations who don't normally get them to do something they can do anyway better. In addition, the random leader generator very rarely throws out a Napoleon-level general; while this means it has a lesser impact in Europe, what matters for explorers and conquistadors is just getting them; their stats are a relatively minor consideration.

EDIT: It's also because you announced random leaders and didn't announce random explorers so we didn't expect there to be any.

 

[Hive]

EDIT: It's also because you announced random leaders and didn't announce random explorers so we didn't expect there to be any.

Well the word leaders cover generals, admirals, conquistadors and explorers all at once imo - so I didn't think it would be necessary.

And it's not like there's a very high chance of getting them... Each nation have a chance to get 4 generals and 2 admirals, with a 50% of each appearing. Of those who appear, there's a 15% chance that they'll be a conquistador or an explorer.

 

[Fredrik82]

And it's not like there's a very high chance of getting them... Each nation have a chance to get 4 generals and 2 admirals, with a 50% of each appearing. Of those who appear, there's a 15% chance that they'll be a conquistador or an explorer.

Thats sounds fair, just consider this as healthy competetion Owen

 

[Owen]

Well the word leaders cover generals, admirals, conquistadors and explorers all at once imo - so I didn't think it would be necessary.

And it's not like there's a very high chance of getting them... Each nation have a chance to get 4 generals and 2 admirals, with a 50% of each appearing. Of those who appear, there's a 15% chance that they'll be a conquistador or an explorer.

I've just worked this out, and it took a while:

For each country per session:
Probability of at least one random explorer = 0.144 (1 in 7)
Probability of at least one random conquistador = 0.268 (better than 1 in 4)

On the assumption that France, Denmark, Sweden, Poland, Lithuania, Venice and the OE would have explored if they could the probability of Spain, England or Portugal being pissed off by at least one ahistorical country colonising = 1 - (1-0.144)^7 = 0.664. Of course, the same probability applies next session too.

I consider 0.664 (2 in 3) to be a high probability.

 

[Owen]

Thats sounds fair, just consider this as healthy competetion Owen

Well I'm happy to do that, but it would have been nicer if I'd known when I was choosing my country and then doing my pre-game diplomacy, rather than finding out after a couple of game years when Denmark got that explorer.

I'm also a bit confused by Hive announcing in-game that random explorers is working as designed, and then today admitting it was a mistake.

 

[unmerged(10894)]

Owen, that's what random leaders are all about, diverging from history. It's what makes the game more interesting. I want to put this nicely, but get over it. Adapt to changing circumstances and you may just find it's not so bad after all. Believe me, I have been on the receiving end of exactly the same thing, but it actually made things a lot more interesting than it otherwise would've been.

 

[Owen]

Owen, that's what random leaders are all about, diverging from history. It's what makes the game more interesting. I want to put this nicely, but get over it. Adapt to changing circumstances and you may just find it's not so bad after all. Believe me, I have been on the receiving end of exactly the same thing, but it actually made things a lot more interesting than it otherwise would've been.

Like I say, I'm happy to play according to the new rules, and I would still have asked for England if I'd known this was going to happen. What I don't like is not knowing that it was going to happen, and then being told that it has little impact on the game, when it clearly makes a big difference.

 

[Hive]

I'm also a bit confused by Hive announcing in-game that random explorers is working as designed, and then today admitting it was a mistake.

Imagine the endless bitching people would make if I admitted ingame that it was a mistake... I figured it was better to take this whole discussion afterwards. Besides, I did intentionally include them - I just didn't think it through, due to being in a hurry...

Though I would have added random explorers and conquistadors eventually at any rate...

But I'm a fair guy: if the majority wants to stop using random explorers and conquistadors; so be it.

 

[devil]

Oh, and about random explorers so soon... it was an error, actually.

The truth is that I had forgotten about random leaders, and Fredrik reminded me at 19:12 or something - so I had to hurry up and do them. And in the hurry, I clicked random explorers and conquistadors by mistake...

But now that they have been introduced already, I feel it necessary to continue making random explorers and conquistadors - to make it fair and even to all others than the lucky bastards who already got them...

Well you also forgot to generate leaders for Hungary

 

[Hive]

Well you also forgot to generate leaders for Hungary

No, I didn't. But like I said: everyone have a chance of getting leaders, but they can't be *certain* to get any. And remember that we only played 10 years, when I generate leaders I do it for a 40 years timespan...

 

[devil]

Well the word leaders cover generals, admirals, conquistadors and explorers all at once imo - so I didn't think it would be necessary.

And it's not like there's a very high chance of getting them... Each nation have a chance to get 4 generals and 2 admirals, with a 50% of each appearing. Of those who appear, there's a 15% chance that they'll be a conquistador or an explorer.

Well thats just great for Hungary, I especially like explorers for a nation without ports

 

[unmerged(7276)]

For valour in combat and bravery beyond the call of duty against the ottos , hungary has been awarded the title protector of the empire! Also france alying muslim pigs was most dispicible, though hardly suprising. We dowd pope to take back miilan who was annexed so dont give me that 'defensive war' crap

 

[devil]

For valour in combat and bravery beyond the call of duty against the ottos , hungary has been awarded the title protector of the empire! Also france alying muslim pigs was most dispicible, though hardly suprising. We dowd pope to take back miilan who was annexed so dont give me that 'defensive war' crap

Hungary was proud to serve the Habsburg, and let this be a warning to the Ottomans, next time we will not be so lenient in our peace terms.

 

[devil]

But I'm a fair guy: if the majority wants to stop using random explorers and conquistadors; so be it.

Allright can I get 6 generals instead?

 

[Owen]

Imagine the endless bitching people would make if I admitted ingame that it was a mistake... I figured it was better to take this whole discussion afterwards. Besides, I did intentionally include them - I just didn't think it through, due to being in a hurry...

Though I would have added random explorers and conquistadors eventually at any rate...

But I'm a fair guy: if the majority wants to stop using random explorers and conquistadors; so be it.

I think we continue as we have been. I should have been told about this before the session when planning my overall game strategy and carrying out diplomacy. Now I just have to do this before next session instead. If we change back to a situation with no ahistorical explorers, we just end up favouring Denmark over the other countries who didn't explore in the 16th century, solving one problem and creating another.

 

[unmerged(18425)]

But I'm a fair guy: if the majority wants to stop using random explorers and conquistadors; so be it.

The majority exists of countries not getting historical explorers before 1550-1600.

I am against this sudden change of a game situation. It vastly changes anything. For example, I would probably not have choosed Castile to play with if I should have known this on the beforehand.
I perhaps would accepted White peace with France long before if I knew Denmark could explore the Caribbean. I could use my energy to whack them out or at least guard the area better.

The GM admitted it was a mistake. The GM failed to inform everyone that there would be random explorers. In short: this is a situation that should not have arisen. This random exlorer stuff is a mistake and mistakes need to be solved.

Certainly not continue to exist.

 

[devil]

I would liek to suggest that Hungary, Sweden and Muscowy gets their techs adjusted. Especially Muscowy will reach LT5 in 1580 and Hungary that will reach LT6 in 1560.

Hive demands a majority to vote yes for this, so I urge everyone to reply.