France didn't enter the war for quite a while, not sure about the actual time but around the halfway mark of the UK,AUS vs SWE war
-
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.
Timeline of a "big war"
1532 may - Sweden dowed Holstein, Spain joined war against Sweden. Spain landed 60 k in Skane, there was some naval fighting as well. Unforunately, none of the spanish soldiers came back home to tell their stories
Spain peaced out in may 1534.
1533 september - Austria dowed Sweden
1536 september - England attacked Sweden
1539 january - France entered Swedish alliance and war against England and France
1540 february - Poland dowed Austria
1541 november - OE dowed Poland
1542 april - peace between Sweden, France, England and France
1543 - Poland peaces OE and Austria
1532 may - Sweden dowed Holstein, Spain joined war against Sweden. Spain landed 60 k in Skane, there was some naval fighting as well. Unforunately, none of the spanish soldiers came back home to tell their stories
Spain peaced out in may 1534.
1533 september - Austria dowed Sweden
1536 september - England attacked Sweden
1539 january - France entered Swedish alliance and war against England and France
1540 february - Poland dowed Austria
1541 november - OE dowed Poland
1542 april - peace between Sweden, France, England and France
1543 - Poland peaces OE and Austria
Last edited:
ok jamala timeline with a little addition :
Timeline of a "big war"
1532 may - Sweden dowed Holstein, Spain joined war against Sweden. Spain landed 60 k in Skane, there was some naval fighting as well. Unforunately, none of the spanish soldiers came back home to tell their stories
Spain peaced out in may 1534.
1533 september - Austria dowed Sweden
1536 september - England attacked Sweden
1536 November - Austria entered a Military Alliance with England
1539 january - France entered Swedish alliance and war against England and Austria
1540 february - Poland dowed Austria
1541 november - OE dowed Poland
1542 april - peace between Sweden, France, England and France
1543 - Poland peaces OE and Austria
I particularly liked this sentence : "Unforunately, none of the spanish soldiers came back home to tell their stories".
good, now I'm ready to check out war bonuses.
Timeline of a "big war"
1532 may - Sweden dowed Holstein, Spain joined war against Sweden. Spain landed 60 k in Skane, there was some naval fighting as well. Unforunately, none of the spanish soldiers came back home to tell their stories
Spain peaced out in may 1534.
1533 september - Austria dowed Sweden
1536 september - England attacked Sweden
1536 November - Austria entered a Military Alliance with England
1539 january - France entered Swedish alliance and war against England and Austria
1540 february - Poland dowed Austria
1541 november - OE dowed Poland
1542 april - peace between Sweden, France, England and France
1543 - Poland peaces OE and Austria
I particularly liked this sentence : "Unforunately, none of the spanish soldiers came back home to tell their stories".
good, now I'm ready to check out war bonuses.
ok the easiest to begin with
1) Poland vs. Austria : 3 yrs war
White peace
Poland : 450d, def of 1.5%, 12.5% leader
Austria : 450d, def of 1.5%, 12.5% leader
2) Austria - England vs. Sweden - France:
Austria, England and Sweden are in the 6-14 yrs war.
France is in the 3-6 yrs war.
Totals for each side : 750d, def of 2.25%, 22.5% leader.
So for England - Austria it is :
England : 250d, def of 0.75%, 15% leader
Austria : 500d, def of 1.48%, 22.5% leader
(details : see below)
Now, Sweden - France :
Sweden : 562d, def of 1.68%, 22.5% leader
France : 188d, def of 0.56%, 7.5% leader
Details (Sweden - France) : I took advantages of a 6-14 war, applied it to both member. Sweden get 3/4 of the benefits and France get 1/4 of the total benefits.
Total of 750d for 1 side, divided by 4. Because, it was a 6 yrs war in total, Sweden fought alone for 50% of the time so he gets automatically 50% of the advantages. After, when France joins, Sweden and France gets each 25% of the total.
Details (Austria - England) : Austria fought 3 yrs on 9 yrs alone so he basically gets 2/3 of the benefits of his side.
As for leaders, the calculation is different. Each side gets the the total divided by 2. it is applied to each member. For England, he fought 2/3 of the time so he gets 2/3 * 22,5% =15%. France fought 1/3 of the time so he gets 1/3*22.5% =
ouf, was complicated a little bit, hopes it please everyone.
Tell me if there something wrong!
1) Poland vs. Austria : 3 yrs war
White peace
Poland : 450d, def of 1.5%, 12.5% leader
Austria : 450d, def of 1.5%, 12.5% leader
2) Austria - England vs. Sweden - France:
Austria, England and Sweden are in the 6-14 yrs war.
France is in the 3-6 yrs war.
Totals for each side : 750d, def of 2.25%, 22.5% leader.
So for England - Austria it is :
England : 250d, def of 0.75%, 15% leader
Austria : 500d, def of 1.48%, 22.5% leader
(details : see below)
Now, Sweden - France :
Sweden : 562d, def of 1.68%, 22.5% leader
France : 188d, def of 0.56%, 7.5% leader
Details (Sweden - France) : I took advantages of a 6-14 war, applied it to both member. Sweden get 3/4 of the benefits and France get 1/4 of the total benefits.
Total of 750d for 1 side, divided by 4. Because, it was a 6 yrs war in total, Sweden fought alone for 50% of the time so he gets automatically 50% of the advantages. After, when France joins, Sweden and France gets each 25% of the total.
Details (Austria - England) : Austria fought 3 yrs on 9 yrs alone so he basically gets 2/3 of the benefits of his side.
As for leaders, the calculation is different. Each side gets the the total divided by 2. it is applied to each member. For England, he fought 2/3 of the time so he gets 2/3 * 22,5% =15%. France fought 1/3 of the time so he gets 1/3*22.5% =
ouf, was complicated a little bit, hopes it please everyone.
Tell me if there something wrong!
Are we spliting the leader chance? If we aren't all those complicated sums are kinda irrelevant.
edit: who wants holstein, gateway to the Baltic, I am prepared to consider offers from anyone (except France-damn french sunk my fleet )
edit: who wants holstein, gateway to the Baltic, I am prepared to consider offers from anyone (except France-damn french sunk my fleet
)
Dr Bob said:Are we spliting the leader chance? If we aren't all those complicated sums are kinda irrelevant.
Well, we split the total by 2, so each side have for example 22,5% chance to get a leader. I don't split this number between alliance member though.
I split numbers when a member fought less time than the other member.
Just because I fought for less time doesn't mean the war hurt me less, all those men lying dead in the mountains of Norway, my own son dying from his wounds as swedes fell before him, the brave sailors who lie in Davy Jones's locker in the icy waters of the channel, somone think of the children they left behind never knowing where their fathers had gone. Why doesn't someone think of the children!!! waaaaaaaaa those poor children.
After that impassioned speech, back to more important matters: someone must want Holstein, hey Sultan wouldn't you like this bit of the atlantic coast. Look it even has protestants so you can become totally multi-religious, see Holstein has something for everyone
http://tourist-information.de/?dynmenue=no&size=small
After that impassioned speech, back to more important matters: someone must want Holstein, hey Sultan wouldn't you like this bit of the atlantic coast. Look it even has protestants so you can become totally multi-religious, see Holstein has something for everyone
http://tourist-information.de/?dynmenue=no&size=small
Last edited:
ok, leader generation :
1) Poland vs. Austria : 3 yrs war
Austria =
0.8913
Poland =
0.0185
Well, Poland again got a leader.
2) Austria - England vs. Sweden - France:
England =
0.6154
France =
0.9218
Austria =
0.1763
Sweden =
0.4057
Well, Austria got a leader also.
1) Poland vs. Austria : 3 yrs war
Austria =
0.8913
Poland =
0.0185
Well, Poland again got a leader.
2) Austria - England vs. Sweden - France:
England =
0.6154
France =
0.9218
Austria =
0.1763
Sweden =
0.4057
Well, Austria got a leader also.
Poland leader :
General
Manoeuver = 4
Shock = 3
Fire = 5
Siege = 0
Duration = 20 yrs
Austria leader :
General
Manoeuver = 3
Shock = 3
Fire = 4
Siege = 0
Duration = 25 yrs
General
Manoeuver = 4
Shock = 3
Fire = 5
Siege = 0
Duration = 20 yrs
Austria leader :
General
Manoeuver = 3
Shock = 3
Fire = 4
Siege = 0
Duration = 25 yrs
Dr Bob said:
:rofl:
No thanks.
About leader and percentage. The chance must be function of something. The only variable that is simple to record is the time. I agree that the best variable would be men that died but it seems to me very complicated to count that. So the time variable is the easiest in my opinion. and realistically, if a nation fought 100 yrs has more chance to see a leader born on the battlefield than a nation that fought 10 yrs.
Important notice
ok, we need to boot our brain for some thinking. Along with other ppl, I think that war-bonuses aren't perfectly implemented. Dr Bob suggested to use men lost in the war. This could be done with the stats page to a certain extend (section 8).
What I need here is suggestion to tweak our War Rules to avoid some situation where no actual combat took place, or just limited combat. How could we improve those rules?
This is important. Mainly because we have to improve what we do in life but also because I want fairs-rules where no one is disadvantaged in regards of them.
So, what I need from you is suggestions, ideas, etc!
If nothing is brought here, I shall probably keep the rules as they are but I will tweak them so they could represent more actual fighting that took place. This could lead though to some crying and etc.
ok, we need to boot our brain for some thinking. Along with other ppl, I think that war-bonuses aren't perfectly implemented. Dr Bob suggested to use men lost in the war. This could be done with the stats page to a certain extend (section 8).
What I need here is suggestion to tweak our War Rules to avoid some situation where no actual combat took place, or just limited combat. How could we improve those rules?
This is important. Mainly because we have to improve what we do in life but also because I want fairs-rules where no one is disadvantaged in regards of them.
So, what I need from you is suggestions, ideas, etc!
If nothing is brought here, I shall probably keep the rules as they are but I will tweak them so they could represent more actual fighting that took place. This could lead though to some crying and etc.
i think leaders should be generated as a function of lost men, while for economic bonuses we should take into consideration looted provinces, war taxes...
maybe involving the number of actual battles is too much to calculate and possibly irrelevant, but a factor should be, IMHO, provinces captured and/or retaken.
These are all just suggestions... I am sure there are many other things to include, but these were my first thoughts....
maybe involving the number of actual battles is too much to calculate and possibly irrelevant, but a factor should be, IMHO, provinces captured and/or retaken.
These are all just suggestions... I am sure there are many other things to include, but these were my first thoughts....
Here we are changing to summer time. The ending time would be problematic a little bit. So is it possible to play 1 hour earlier? (18:30 GMT)
That is fine with me, in fact it suits me better than 7:30.
Also a small advert for Holstein http://www.answers.com/topic/schleswig-holstein come on some-one must want it, look at the history!!
Also a small advert for Holstein http://www.answers.com/topic/schleswig-holstein come on some-one must want it, look at the history!!
Dr Bob said:
:rofl: You have to much time at your disposal.
I'm quite surprised to see no interest from Sweden or Austria.
So I played only AI war vs Lithuania, it seems ...
but Poland was active in battles and sieges there.
but Poland was active in battles and sieges there.
Elio Vasa said:
yeah that's the kind of situation we need to get rid of. In my head, the poland-austria war is not actually a war that needs compensation. I didn't wanted to overrun the rules. So that's why we need a better definition.
Fnuco said some good ideas. What's next?
One simple tweak could be : You're qualified of you lose around x % of your manpower. Would that be possible to implement you think?
For example, if we choose x=25.
Then for Ottomans, they would have to lose at least 76k men to be considered a war that needs compensation.
So, if we take last session for example,
Sweden would be compensated
Austria also
France also
England also
But poland wouln'T get bonus from his war and austria wouln't get bonus from this war.
Now after that, take Sweden. he lost 2,5 times his manpower. We take a fixed amount of compensation, for example base could be 300d.
Sweden would get 2.5*300d=750d
France lost only around 30% so he would get the base amount of 300d.
ok, I'm improvising when writing all this but I think those kind of guideline could lead to a better compensation related to our wars. For now, there is some amount of lost men that are attibuted to AI but this will be less and less a factor. Only german minors and asian country are left.
For example, if we choose x=25.
Then for Ottomans, they would have to lose at least 76k men to be considered a war that needs compensation.
So, if we take last session for example,
Sweden would be compensated
Austria also
France also
England also
But poland wouln'T get bonus from his war and austria wouln't get bonus from this war.
Now after that, take Sweden. he lost 2,5 times his manpower. We take a fixed amount of compensation, for example base could be 300d.
Sweden would get 2.5*300d=750d
France lost only around 30% so he would get the base amount of 300d.
ok, I'm improvising when writing all this but I think those kind of guideline could lead to a better compensation related to our wars. For now, there is some amount of lost men that are attibuted to AI but this will be less and less a factor. Only german minors and asian country are left.
Last edited:
As we talked before Balinus, i have two proposals, one being to give up on edits entirely. :rofl:
Second one is to keep current rules with some tweaks and a right for GM to adjust things when he thinks it's needed - so GM is not binded by the rules.
Proposed tweaks on the rules:
1.
multiplayer and multialliance war - last time we had Sweden - France alliance against England and Austria, but also Poland against Aus and Oe against Poland. When we followed old rules Aus fought two alliances Swedish and Polish one, thus got double edits.
What i propose is to treat cases like this as a one big alliance war against another. I think it was clear that it was one big war of Aus, England, OE against Sweden, France and Poland. This is especially important in leaders generation. When we treat this as a sinlge war, we should have one pool of benefits for each side of a war. Those benefits should be divided based an the time each particular country was involved in war, or as just Balinus just said, percentage of MP lost.
2. As to leaders generation - its most important here to treat those multialliances wars as a one big war so each paricipant gets only one roll on a leader
3. I just hope you could understand what i meant here :rofl: Too bad english aint my native.
Second one is to keep current rules with some tweaks and a right for GM to adjust things when he thinks it's needed - so GM is not binded by the rules.
Proposed tweaks on the rules:
1.
multiplayer and multialliance war - last time we had Sweden - France alliance against England and Austria, but also Poland against Aus and Oe against Poland. When we followed old rules Aus fought two alliances Swedish and Polish one, thus got double edits.
What i propose is to treat cases like this as a one big alliance war against another. I think it was clear that it was one big war of Aus, England, OE against Sweden, France and Poland. This is especially important in leaders generation. When we treat this as a sinlge war, we should have one pool of benefits for each side of a war. Those benefits should be divided based an the time each particular country was involved in war, or as just Balinus just said, percentage of MP lost.
2. As to leaders generation - its most important here to treat those multialliances wars as a one big war so each paricipant gets only one roll on a leader
3. I just hope you could understand what i meant here :rofl: Too bad english aint my native.
Last edited: