Poland A Bit Too Underpowered

[Derek Pullem]

Originally posted by N Katsyev
Well, I took a quick glancing look and here is what we have simply from military technology:
(land/naval)

Poland 10/9
Russia 11/4
Austria 17/11
Sweden 15/13
Ottoman Empire 12/10
(and just for comparison purposes)
Algeria 9/9 (scheduled to hit 10 by end of 1567)

Sooo, Poland is behind, everyone, when she should be nearing the peak of her military power (early 1600's). This is in 1567, so Poland one of the most powerful countries (not to mention militarily innovative, if arguably not in other areas) historically at this time, will be by the end of the year, technologically on par with Algeria. Peter's idea about giving Poland a weapons manufactory in Krakow is definitely good, but I doubt it in itself will solve this glaring problem.

Well.... the impact of these tech levels is limited. The biggest change comes with a new CRT level. Austria and Sweden are a level ahead which sounds ok.

Poland was not militarily innovative compared to Western Europe. It relied on heavy cavalry which were old hat in Europe by early 1500's. It had no pike armed foot to speak of and little organised mounted missile troops employing caracole tactics. Now you can argue that the effect of not having these troops was not significant. I would agree. But this only supports my observation about the tech levels not being all important.

What did happen was that eventually the superior Polish leaders and cavalry dominance was insufficient to hold back all its enemies. Which is why Poland followed Europe in the style of its armies in the later c17 not the other way around. As the tech levels widened then the imapct of polish "backwardness" in tech did become apparent even to the Poles.

And to claim that Poland was on a par with France during this period is way off the mark IMHO. Sure they controlled huge tracts of Eastern Europe but they were unable to bring the disparate parts of the nation together and equally unable to "modernise" their economy cf France, Spain, England.

Poland doesn't need the tech to dominate its historical holdings through 1600. Remember also that historically Sweden (until Gustavus Adolfus) and Russia (after Ivan) were relatively weak as well. Which is unlikely to be the case in a MP game.

 

[unmerged(2833)]

Originally posted by Derek Pullem
Well.... the impact of these tech levels is limited. The biggest change comes with a new CRT level. Austria and Sweden are a level ahead which sounds ok.

Poland was not militarily innovative compared to Western Europe. It relied on heavy cavalry which were old hat in Europe by early 1500's. It had no pike armed foot to speak of and little organised mounted missile troops employing caracole tactics. Now you can argue that the effect of not having these troops was not significant. I would agree. But this only supports my observation about the tech levels not being all important.

What did happen was that eventually the superior Polish leaders and cavalry dominance was insufficient to hold back all its enemies. Which is why Poland followed Europe in the style of its armies in the later c17 not the other way around. As the tech levels widened then the imapct of polish "backwardness" in tech did become apparent even to the Poles.

And to claim that Poland was on a par with France during this period is way off the mark IMHO. Sure they controlled huge tracts of Eastern Europe but they were unable to bring the disparate parts of the nation together and equally unable to "modernise" their economy cf France, Spain, England.

Poland doesn't need the tech to dominate its historical holdings through 1600. Remember also that historically Sweden (until Gustavus Adolfus) and Russia (after Ivan) were relatively weak as well. Which is unlikely to be the case in a MP game.

Now, if we would have different tech trees for different techgroups (along with many new techgroups, and possibility of switching them), i could agree with Poland having 'lower' techlevel (say, 9 in Polish techgroup, while Austria having 15 in Austrian).

The thing is, 9 in PL should be more effective than Austrian 15*. Caracole was very innefective cavalry tactic, western style pike armed foot wasn't useful on PLC terrain (but wagon-type infantry was, contrary to the previous opinion stated here, that it was backward).

Military superiority/inferiority doesn't have anything with Poland decline-PLC army beign worse is its effect, not cause. Comparing French or Spanish army to Polish doesn't make much sense, especially without stating where would that comparison take place (i doubt Polish army was well suited to fight in mountainous terrain, obviously, and i think Spanish or French would perish in Ukrainian steppe)

Anyway, as for the impact of the tech-certainly. Still, PLC military was at least more effective than Russian one. Its still 1567, thats decades before Kirkholm, Chocim or Kluszyn, yet Poland already has lower tech than enemies at those battles. (with Swedish even one CRT ahead)

It can use cavalry? Sure, so can its enemies. There is no longer difference in cavalry cost for various countries.





*For example-PL techgroup would mean 20% higher cost research (or, 10% land, 50% naval, 80% infra), but level 12 PLC cavalry has thrice Austrian techgroup shock (which has huge impact), half its firepower (which doesn't matter anyway, as cavalry firepower doesn't matter), infantry has 60% shock (PL infantry wasn't shock arm), and 20% more firepower (it was fire-support branch)

Obviously its idea won't be implemented, but i think its very interesting.

 

[Derek Pullem]

Originally posted by DarthMaur
Now, if we would have different tech trees for different techgroups (along with many new techgroups, and possibility of switching them), i could agree with Poland having 'lower' techlevel (say, 9 in Polish techgroup, while Austria having 15 in Austrian).

The thing is, 9 in PL should be more effective than Austrian 15*. Caracole was very innefective cavalry tactic, western style pike armed foot wasn't useful on PLC terrain (but wagon-type infantry was, contrary to the previous opinion stated here, that it was backward).

Military superiority/inferiority doesn't have anything with Poland decline-PLC army beign worse is its effect, not cause. Comparing French or Spanish army to Polish doesn't make much sense, especially without stating where would that comparison take place (i doubt Polish army was well suited to fight in mountainous terrain, obviously, and i think Spanish or French would perish in Ukrainian steppe)

Anyway, as for the impact of the tech-certainly. Still, PLC military was at least more effective than Russian one. Its still 1567, thats decades before Kirkholm, Chocim or Kluszyn, yet Poland already has lower tech than enemies at those battles. (with Swedish even one CRT ahead)

It can use cavalry? Sure, so can its enemies. There is no longer difference in cavalry cost for various countries.





*For example-PL techgroup would mean 20% higher cost research (or, 10% land, 50% naval, 80% infra), but level 12 PLC cavalry has thrice Austrian techgroup shock (which has huge impact), half its firepower (which doesn't matter anyway, as cavalry firepower doesn't matter), infantry has 60% shock (PL infantry wasn't shock arm), and 20% more firepower (it was fire-support branch)

Obviously its idea won't be implemented, but i think its very interesting.

Completely agree with the observations on deviations in tech development between Poland (and other non western European nations - Ottomans / Persia for example) and the West.

Ideally the shock imapct of cavalry would be sustained a while longer in Poland. Which begs the question - why not give Poland either 9 offensive on their slider at start or increase the shock ratings of their leaders by an extra point. Also review the Mil abilities of many of their Kings with a view to increasing them to increase Morale bonus

 

[unmerged(6881)]

Originally posted by Derek Pullem

Poland was not militarily innovative compared to Western Europe. It relied on heavy cavalry which were old hat in Europe by early 1500's. It had no pike armed foot to speak of and little organised mounted missile troops employing caracole tactics. Now you can argue that the effect of not having these troops was not significant. I would agree. But this only supports my observation about the tech levels not being all important.

Well, I'm sometimes confused answering the same questions again. Cavalry was not dominant in Polish warfare up to 16th cen. cause there was no reason for it (big, plain areas).
Military advancement of Poland during 14 and 15th cen. is very similar to that of Western Europe. To be strict there are no differences. In 1399 at Worskla, Poles, Teutons and Lithuanians were crashed by Golden Horde. Tatars used their normal tactics while euopean army was composed of western style and used tactics typical for France or HRE. 13 Year's War (1454-1466) saw only one battle with cavalry domination - polish loss at Chojnice in 1454. Then it was mainly infantry who waged the war.
Poland started to develop new type of cavalry that has no equivalent on the West (cause there was no reason to create this type of unit), very mobile, light, tatar-style but with firepower. With time new type of heavy cavalry (husaria) was introduced too.

Anyway I agree about later suggestions of you and DarthMaur. Latin tech given to Poland is a kind of simplification but I think that there is no replacement for it. 150 years in latin group should not boost Poland too much.

 

[Derek Pullem]

Originally posted by vilkouak
Poland started to develop new type of cavalry that has no equivalent on the West (cause there was no reason to create this type of unit), very mobile, light, tatar-style but with firepower. With time new type of heavy cavalry (husaria) was introduced too.

Anyway I agree about later suggestions of you and DarthMaur. Latin tech given to Poland is a kind of simplification but I think that there is no replacement for it. 150 years in latin group should not boost Poland too much.

I would not say that Poland developed a new light cavalry. After all they drew upon their experiences with the Tartars. And Polish "light" cavalry was often more akin to heavy cavalry in the West e.g. pancerni. Cossack light cavalry was used in quite small numbers until c17.

The difference I would suggest was in the mobility and organisation of the Polish cavalry compared to the West. It was much more of a disciplined "shock" army. And I'd argue that the Husaria predated the large scale use of cossacks. The number of cossacks tended to increase betwen 1550-1648.

The problem with giving them latin tech is that they get too many "sweeties" then in the development of infrastructure and trade, which the Poles did not excel in.

And I still don't see ahistorical results in most of my games with Poland

 

[Woreczko]

Originally posted by Derek Pullem
Completely agree with the observations on deviations in tech development between Poland (and other non western European nations - Ottomans / Persia for example) and the West.

Ideally the shock imapct of cavalry would be sustained a while longer in Poland. Which begs the question - why not give Poland either 9 offensive on their slider at start or increase the shock ratings of their leaders by an extra point. Also review the Mil abilities of many of their Kings with a view to increasing them to increase Morale bonus

Offensiveness on 9 is good idea in (roughly) 1570 - 1660 period. Same goes for Quality, it should be also very high in this period, at least to reflect small size of the polish army.

Vilkouak, what do you mean by this polish light cavalry? AFAIK early hussary wasn`t prized for it`s firepower so it can`t be that.
AFAIK main advantage of polish army was high mobility (unlike old style knightly cavalry) combined with devastating shock ability. Rather not tatar style tactics though.

 

[N Katsyev]

Even if it were just an "overslimplifcation" to put Poland into Latin techgroup, it would at least be better than the "overslimpification" of leaving them out, which causes us to have a horribly underpowered Poland. As far as their tactics are concerned, yes they were cavalry heavy, look at the land they had to fight on and you'll see why. That doesen't mean at all that they didn't have a highly effective infantry army either, which they did, although drastically smaller by the time of the Union. We simply don't see as many cases in history of Polish infantry as Polish cavalry simply because Poland's time as a great power was during the period where she cavalry heavy. Now while it can be argued that in latter stages Poland started following the trend of Westerners in terms of their infantry, this was no different than other countries who simply "kept up", and we certainly don't go tossing them into the Orthodox tech group.

As far as Trade tech and Infrastructure supposely being inferior. Their tech was never actually the problem, it was the inner chaos of the country. When that started to recede in the late 18thc and we began to see reforms, Poland lept right into a state of Proto-industrialization, just like any other European power. Too much is blamed on "backwardness" which was in fact inner chaos preventing things from being carried out, remember that for a century Poland was in absolute turmoil that no other European country can relate to. It has nothing to do with her technological level, but something completely different. I suppose the difficulty would be how to model this in the game without crippling Poland to the point where she is dreadfully weak before and during the time when she should be the most powerful.

 

[Derek Pullem]

Originally posted by Woreczko
Offensiveness on 9 is good idea in (roughly) 1570 - 1660 period. Same goes for Quality, it should be also very high in this period, at least to reflect small size of the polish army.

Vilkouak, what do you mean by this polish light cavalry? AFAIK early hussary wasn`t prized for it`s firepower so it can`t be that.
AFAIK main advantage of polish army was high mobility (unlike old style knightly cavalry) combined with devastating shock ability. Rather not tatar style tactics though.

Which argues for a couple of events instituting the Hussar system around the time of the Commonwealth and another in 1660 when "western" style army was more common.

Combined with the many good leaders Poland has this should keep them militarily ahead of their neighbours.

I just disagree with Katsyev - I don't see the problem and I don't see why latin tech is justified. Just my opinion of course

 

[N Katsyev]

Originally posted by Derek Pullem
Which argues for a couple of events instituting the Hussar system around the time of the Commonwealth and another in 1660 when "western" style army was more common.

Combined with the many good leaders Poland has this should keep them militarily ahead of their neighbours.

I just disagree with Katsyev - I don't see the problem and I don't see why latin tech is justified. Just my opinion of course

And my opinion is that there is no way in 1567 or whatever, Poland should be on tech par with Algiers.

 

[Varyar]

Originally posted by Derek Pullem
I don't see the problem and I don't see why latin tech is justified. Just my opinion of course

Well the problem should be fairly obvious by now, PL very very rarely reach their historical might, and usually ends up having lower tech than Russia in the end of the 1500s. It may be true that latin tech is not the perfect fix to this, but it is a very simple solution that aimes straight at the problem, namely their tech, and specifically their landtech. Also there is enough historical justification for Poland having latin tech for the first half of the game.

I wonder if Johan have given it any thought...

 

[N Katsyev]

Okay, I figured i'd go through each of the Eu2 scenarios with Poland in a significant part and post Poland's tech along with that of her neighbors, just to toss some more info in here...
(land/naval)
GC, 1419:
Poland 1/0
Austria 1/0
Moscow 0/0
Ottoman Empire 1/0
Sweden 0/0


AoE, 1492:
Poland 6/4
Austria 6/3
Moscow 4/2
Ottoman Empire 6/6
Sweden 4/4

AoM, 1617
Poland 20/16
Austria 21/16
Moscow 17/11
Ottoman Empire 19/20
Sweden 22/20
(As a note, most Italian states, German states, England and Portugal all have land tech 20 in this scenario as well)

Age of Enlightenment, 1700
Poland 25/23
Austria 29/25
Russia 25/24
Ottoman Empire 26/25
Sweden 32/28
(As a note here, Spain is at level 26, and the various Italian and German states in between 25 and 28)

AoR, 1773
Poland 36/33
Austria 41/33
Russia 39/33
Ottoman Empire 36/33
Sweden 37/35
(At this point, most of the German states are at 34, 2 tech levels behind Poland, as well as the Italian states, Wurzberg at 32 and Bavaria at 35 for exceptions... Spain is at 38)


Sooo, judging from the above info, GC everyone starts nearly the same level with a couple exceptions above and below the 1/1 line.

In AoE, Poland begins as one of the world leaders in military technology, her other major nation Orthodox techgroup partner, Ottoman Empire begins relatively the same with higher naval tech.

In AoM we find Poland on par with most everyone else once again (and higher than the other two major Orthodox, Russia/OE), 2 years after one of my suggested cut-off points for Latin in 1607.

In Age of Enlightenment we find Poland behind countries such as Austria and Sweden, however on level with countries like Spain, and those of Italy. She is one tech below her fellow Orthodox OE, and 3 above Russia. Are we going to drop Spain or more importantly (Spain has her inflation to deal with, her excuse) the Italian states down to Orthodox at some point too?

Now in pretty much her final appearance in the Age of Revolutions we find the techs of the more powerful English, French, ahead of their central and eastern European counter-parts, but among these countries things remain somewhat similiar, with Poland holding up the rear... However it should be noted that in this scenario it looks like the German states are more deserving of Orthodox tech than Poland.

The main point behind this pretty much is though, that of the 3 major Orthodox techgroup countries, Russia, Poland, Ottoman Empire. Russia and the Ottoman Empire have the wealth necessary to keep up or even possibly surpass these tech examples at the given times. However Poland doesn't, and she will ahistorically (even in Eu2 terms) fall behind where she is supposed to be. She simply doesen't have the wealth to keep up with where she should be. This tech-hobbling coupled with religious disunity (Poland was incredibly tolerant, and while didn't go converting the Urkainian Orthodox, they did get them to recognize the Pope) and thereby instability, inflation gaining events, low tax values, ahistorically low manpower values, and economy murdering dp settings will bring us not just a Poland not up to historical standards, but a Poland not up to even Eu2 standards.

 

[unmerged(6881)]

Originally posted by Derek Pullem
I would not say that Poland developed a new light cavalry. After all they drew upon their experiences with the Tartars. And Polish "light" cavalry was often more akin to heavy cavalry in the West e.g. pancerni. Cossack light cavalry was used in quite small numbers until c17.

The difference I would suggest was in the mobility and organisation of the Polish cavalry compared to the West. It was much more of a disciplined "shock" army. And I'd argue that the Husaria predated the large scale use of cossacks. The number of cossacks tended to increase betwen 1550-1648.

The problem with giving them latin tech is that they get too many "sweeties" then in the development of infrastructure and trade, which the Poles did not excel in.

And I still don't see ahistorical results in most of my games with Poland

Yes, it can be said that Poland only merged the ideas of western and eastern warfare. But this is another dicussion, historical rather than about game balance. I agree that main difference was type of organisation and mobility with addition of firepower.
I don't think that husaria is connected to Cossacks cause the latter formation was formed outside the army and officialy Cossack were auxiliary force. On the other hand very high firepower of Cossack infantry was somewhat caused by observations of husaria.

Problem with Poland in the game it that she should not expand and be able to defend herself. If Poland is too weak, she falls , if too strong, she advanced into HRE. Change of the tehcgroup is only the beggining but gives a chance that the balance will be achieved.

In three of my game in 1.06_6 Poland is doing his best to be erased before the mid of 16th cen. In one game she was saved only by union with Lithuania. Half Polish cores are held by Austria. Poland has tech 10 (in 1572) while Austria 16.

 

[unmerged(6881)]

Originally posted by Woreczko
Offensiveness on 9 is good idea in (roughly) 1570 - 1660 period. Same goes for Quality, it should be also very high in this period, at least to reflect small size of the polish army.

Vilkouak, what do you mean by this polish light cavalry? AFAIK early hussary wasn`t prized for it`s firepower so it can`t be that.
AFAIK main advantage of polish army was high mobility (unlike old style knightly cavalry) combined with devastating shock ability. Rather not tatar style tactics though.

But mobility was taken from Tatars. Light cavalry (pancerni, petyhorcy and so on) was developed on Podole and Ukraine by leaders of the borderguards in the first half of 16th cen. Hetmans used another tactics taken from Hussites (tabor). It was based on group of wagons guarded by infantry armed with guns while cavalry was placed inside the camp, waiting for occasion to break the enemy lines (shock tactcis). Kamieniecki and Tarnowski are the best examples.

 

[Derek Pullem]

Originally posted by vilkouak
Yes, it can be said that Poland only merged the ideas of western and eastern warfare. But this is another dicussion, historical rather than about game balance. I agree that main difference was type of organisation and mobility with addition of firepower.
I don't think that husaria is connected to Cossacks cause the latter formation was formed outside the army and officialy Cossack were auxiliary force. On the other hand very high firepower of Cossack infantry was somewhat caused by observations of husaria.

Problem with Poland in the game it that she should not expand and be able to defend herself. If Poland is too weak, she falls , if too strong, she advanced into HRE. Change of the tehcgroup is only the beggining but gives a chance that the balance will be achieved.

In three of my game in 1.06_6 Poland is doing his best to be erased before the mid of 16th cen. In one game she was saved only by union with Lithuania. Half Polish cores are held by Austria. Poland has tech 10 (in 1572) while Austria 16.

The one point which I agree with in the "Poland is too weak" argument is that the Polish army should be feared in Eastern Europe from circa 1550-1650. Right now it does not get any noticeable advantages over its historical opponents and as been pointed out many times, its land tech is behind many of its neighbours.

Its just that placing them in Latin tech group seems somewhat arbitary and not necessarily effective. I'm just not convinced that 3 or 4 tech levels on the land combat is going to deliver historical performance. On the other hand, making the default leaders +1 shock through event driven slider changes, increasing Polish named leader shock values by +1 in this period and perhaps modifying the Monarch military values to add morale would go a long way to making Polish armies extreemly dangerous in this period, even with their relatively low land tech.

Remember that although Poland had several military adventutres beyond its borders in the period in question (Sweden, Moscow) most of it wars were essentially defensive. The adventures tended to be when opposing countries were in even worse shape from a governance viewpoint than the Commonwealth.

 

[unmerged(2833)]

Originally posted by Derek Pullem
The one point which I agree with in the "Poland is too weak" argument is that the Polish army should be feared in Eastern Europe from circa 1550-1650. Right now it does not get any noticeable advantages over its historical opponents and as been pointed out many times, its land tech is behind many of its neighbours.

Its just that placing them in Latin tech group seems somewhat arbitary and not necessarily effective. I'm just not convinced that 3 or 4 tech levels on the land combat is going to deliver historical performance. On the other hand, making the default leaders +1 shock through event driven slider changes, increasing Polish named leader shock values by +1 in this period and perhaps modifying the Monarch military values to add morale would go a long way to making Polish armies extreemly dangerous in this period, even with their relatively low land tech.

Remember that although Poland had several military adventutres beyond its borders in the period in question (Sweden, Moscow) most of it wars were essentially defensive. The adventures tended to be when opposing countries were in even worse shape from a governance viewpoint than the Commonwealth.

(mp perspective)
+1 to historical leaders will make a difference. +1 offensive won't since everyone does that anyway. Morale i am not exactly sure, although investment from monarchs would, especially before the union (as Poland is smally until that)

What was the fact Poland waged mostly defensive wars has to do with its performance? Isn't it the issue for ai file?

 

[unmerged(6881)]

Originally posted by Derek Pullem
The one point which I agree with in the "Poland is too weak" argument is that the Polish army should be feared in Eastern Europe from circa 1550-1650. Right now it does not get any noticeable advantages over its historical opponents and as been pointed out many times, its land tech is behind many of its neighbours.

Its just that placing them in Latin tech group seems somewhat arbitary and not necessarily effective. I'm just not convinced that 3 or 4 tech levels on the land combat is going to deliver historical performance. On the other hand, making the default leaders +1 shock through event driven slider changes, increasing Polish named leader shock values by +1 in this period and perhaps modifying the Monarch military values to add morale would go a long way to making Polish armies extreemly dangerous in this period, even with their relatively low land tech.

Remember that although Poland had several military adventutres beyond its borders in the period in question (Sweden, Moscow) most of it wars were essentially defensive. The adventures tended to be when opposing countries were in even worse shape from a governance viewpoint than the Commonwealth.

I agree that latin tech is oversimplification and like your suggestions about changes in Polish miltary. But implementing it needs much more work than simple tech change. I'm afraid of that complex changes will be talked and talked without any consent while change of tech group is easy enough to be added.

Poland had few adventures against well standing neighbours too, like Russia under Ivan III and Ivan IV or Ottomans in early 17th cen and later in 1619-20.

Anyway that's right. Most of the wars was of defensive type cause no need for further expansion existed. In fact after UoL Poland was bigger than it should be to keep good pace.

 

[Derek Pullem]

(sp view)

So we need to change Polands stats cos the MP game shows up the fact that given equal ability some countries are much stronger than others. No way! You could equally reduce Russia and the Ottomans. Or reduce the bonus that latin tech gives the Western Europeans

Sorry but if MP players want to balance the game to give all countries a good game thats ok with me. Just don't make the changes for SP.

The point about defensive wars was that everyone seems to think that Poland was some kind of European superpower during this period. I would argue they were a strong regional power but that is about it. They had no strong unified foe to fight until late in the period (Sweden, Russia) and the conflicts with the Tartars and Ottomans were mainly confined to the border regions (Moldavia etc). They were not some kind of military powerhouse, as can be seen from the size of most of their armies (relatively small especially if you discount some of the "cossack" numbers).

Their game performance should be good enough to keep them alive and more or less the same size through 1650 and then face a real tough challenge to keep all their provinces. Which is broadly speaking what I see most often in SP.

As I said before MP is a different game and (maybe) has different issues.

 

[Mowers]

As an MP person I would not want a seperate game as it would mean that only one could be correct. I want an accurate simulation of the period as possible. I dont think that balancing efforts is the right way to go about things at all.

But I do think that tech groups ought to share technology bonus'
between one another, but at a proportional fraction. At the moment there is no neighbour bonus between tech groups and that doesnt seem right to me. But perhaps it was built into the orginal model.

 

[kurtbrian]

Originally posted by Derek Pullem
(sp view)

So we need to change Polands stats cos the MP game shows up the fact that given equal ability some countries are much stronger than others. No way! You could equally reduce Russia and the Ottomans. Or reduce the bonus that latin tech gives the Western Europeans

Sorry but if MP players want to balance the game to give all countries a good game thats ok with me. Just don't make the changes for SP.

The point about defensive wars was that everyone seems to think that Poland was some kind of European superpower during this period. I would argue they were a strong regional power but that is about it. They had no strong unified foe to fight until late in the period (Sweden, Russia) and the conflicts with the Tartars and Ottomans were mainly confined to the border regions (Moldavia etc). They were not some kind of military powerhouse, as can be seen from the size of most of their armies (relatively small especially if you discount some of the "cossack" numbers).

Their game performance should be good enough to keep them alive and more or less the same size through 1650 and then face a real tough challenge to keep all their provinces. Which is broadly speaking what I see most often in SP.

As I said before MP is a different game and (maybe) has different issues.

That generally is the issue when we discuss changes to the game in my experience.

Some argue from a mp view and others from sp view.

Both are right and I don't think the factions will ever agree

 

[unmerged(2833)]

Originally posted by kurtbrian
That generally is the issue when we discuss changes to the game in my experience.

Some argue from a mp view and others from sp view.

Both are right and I don't think the factions will ever agree

Well, i think Poland is underpowered in both sp and mp. Dunno what Derek means by its performs ok in his SP games, but it certainly doesn't in mine (even though i play with deleted tax decreases, boosting Poland and Lithuania)


Anyway, a year ago i came up with a series of events which, i think, very nicely reflected Poland's problem. I dropped them, since there was certain non-solveable problem with the idea, but this problem will not exist in MP.

But more on that later, and not in this thread, but Nation Setup one (as its MP only)