Poland A Bit Too Underpowered

[unmerged(15959)]

Originally posted by N Katsyev
Aside from wide use of paper cartridges, innovations in the field or rocketry before any of the western powers considered them useful, horse artillery, artillery doctrines that formed the basis for the Swedish tactics later on that won the Swedes such great victories, the use of smaller more firm command types that could disperse easily to better live off the land and effectively come together at their destination, on and on and on.

Also, the Ottomans lost the ability to compete militarily in the latter years of the time period. The Polish never came to this point, technology-wise even if not at the lead anymore, they were still on par, however the nobles simply didn't allow the manpower (and later on there wasn't enough manpower period) to combat her enemies effectively. Poland's eventual demise was not due to military failure or lack of technology and/or tactics.

Much things can be said about that period but I would like to add something for swedes for the early parts of the game especially for 15th century Sweden cavalry wasn't successful as French, so in order to that Sweden developed tactics for massed pikemen. Sweden pikemen was very famous at that time and were used as mercenaries througout the Europe.
So my point is;although Swedes' land tech for medieval time is less than other European countries, that was not the case for the medieval times.
Well, if the community started to improve somethings, why don't discuss all of the countries?
Why all countries start at the same military tech levels(one or less I mean we can give assault to some countries;there is no actual bonuses for the countries that has leading land tech levels)?Isn't that a burden of older strategy games?
History is not default!(I guess you can understand what I mean here)

 

[N Katsyev]

Originally posted by Umei Kaihen

Well, if the community started to improve somethings, why don't discuss all of the countries?

If there are a certain few aspects of a given country you want to discuss, begin a thread about it.

Originally posted by Czajna
I don't have a time to participate in this discussion, but I think I could start another one As we already have the latin techgroup, maybe we (you ) should start to fight for CoT in Danzing (and removing that one in Curland). So, round one - fight!

The GC move of Kurland CoT to Danzig through event i've brought up already in this thread, however it seems for the most part lately that my posts are falling on dead ears.

 

[unmerged(15394)]

I would support the CoT in Danzig as I think there is enough historical backup for this.

EU could also rename Danzig to Gdansk. If for no other reason than for my wife who is offended by "Danzig".

 

[N Katsyev]

Originally posted by Pan_Stretch
I would support the CoT in Danzig as I think there is enough historical backup for this.

EU could also rename Danzig to Gdansk. If for no other reason than for my wife who is offended by "Danzig".

History definitely supports the idea that CoT should be in Danzig. It also in many ways supports the idea that the CoT should be there in the first place and not in Kurland. However, obviously something like this would create an effect where everyone gets all defensive and argues the idea to death. So I think an event that moves it there is a good enough compromise.

As far as Gdansk goes, it really should begin as Polish culture and with city name "Gdansk". (Obviously it couldn't be changed on the map) Once again i'm going to return to the 1607 Struggle for Royal Power event. Seeing as how the nobles were more interested in the Ukraine while the monarch usually more interested in the Baltic at the time, if the monarch chooses to right the nobles (exterminate them, option C) then no change at all is made to Danzig provinces. However with A or B, we could have the name changed to Danzig and the culture changed to German to represent less interest in the Baltic?

 

[unmerged(15394)]

I think the Teutonic Order Germanized Gdansk, more out of extermination than the poles losing interest in it.

This would be a case where culture actually changes. But EU, I am sure wont go there, and it is not necessary. Danzig is baltic (not german) in the game right?

But this is off topic of the COT.

Aside: I have found Poland doing much more historically in the latest beta patches.

 

[Dinsdale]

Will no one be satisfied until Poland reaches the Atlantic?

Having read through this thread its one thing after another, with almost no balance from sources conflicting with ones brought up with the Poles. Now the Danzig/Gdansk semantic issue has come up

1) There appears to have been no testing done to support measures to temporarily strengthen Poland

2) There appears to be conflicting issues between SP and MP

3) There hasn't been a whisper about extra events to weaken the beefed up Poland. As Poland hardly ever ends up being partioned as it is, this is a major issue.

4) While we all await some form of aid to create the Ottomans as a threat, other balance in the area is futile. If the Ottomans weakened Austria, as historic, then one of Poland's potential enemies will be hampered, leading to more security on the Southwest. Furthermore, with an Ottoman menace, AI Poland and AI Austria might be less likely to go to war. In many of my games I see Poland and Austria competing for Bohemia.

5) I have no desire to get into a 20 page historic debate, but a number of issues raised as Gospel are at least suspect.

6) Poland already performs better than historic in most SP games I play. They blossom into Germany, fall back, sometimes break up, but provided Poland makes it to the early 17th century, Poland survives. Come up with some suggestions to make Poland more historic in the 18th century, and not selectively stronger in the 16th


Is it now a course of action that he who shouts loudest and longest gets changes steamrolled into the game?

FWIW, my priorites on further balance should be;

Castille and Aragon to unite more than is current
Spain to form and hold it's oversees empire
Ottomans
Ottomans
Ottomans
Some part of Burgundy to be left by the time it's inheritance event occurs
Ottomans
Oh, and did I mention the Ottomans.

 

[N Katsyev]

Originally posted by Dinsdale
Will no one be satisfied until Poland reaches the Atlantic?

Having read through this thread its one thing after another, with almost no balance from sources conflicting with ones brought up with the Poles. Now the Danzig/Gdansk semantic issue has come up

1) There appears to have been no testing done to support measures to temporarily strengthen Poland

2) There appears to be conflicting issues between SP and MP

3) There hasn't been a whisper about extra events to weaken the beefed up Poland. As Poland hardly ever ends up being partioned as it is, this is a major issue.

4) While we all await some form of aid to create the Ottomans as a threat, other balance in the area is futile. If the Ottomans weakened Austria, as historic, then one of Poland's potential enemies will be hampered, leading to more security on the Southwest. Furthermore, with an Ottoman menace, AI Poland and AI Austria might be less likely to go to war. In many of my games I see Poland and Austria competing for Bohemia.

5) I have no desire to get into a 20 page historic debate, but a number of issues raised as Gospel are at least suspect.

6) Poland already performs better than historic in most SP games I play. They blossom into Germany, fall back, sometimes break up, but provided Poland makes it to the early 17th century, Poland survives. Come up with some suggestions to make Poland more historic in the 18th century, and not selectively stronger in the 16th


Is it now a course of action that he who shouts loudest and longest gets changes steamrolled into the game?

FWIW, my priorites on further balance should be;

Castille and Aragon to unite more than is current
Spain to form and hold it's oversees empire
Ottomans
Ottomans
Ottomans
Some part of Burgundy to be left by the time it's inheritance event occurs
Ottomans
Oh, and did I mention the Ottomans.

You make some valid points here, and i'd like to point out that the whole Danzig/Gdansk thing wasn't something I'm trying to get "steamrolled" into the game, it was just simply being dicussed, that i'm not really all too serious about. It'd be a nice change, but I seriously doubt its going to happen. That's why there has been no testing about it, because as far as i'm concerned its really no big deal. In fact, the only reason I brought it up, is because someone else did only a few minutes ago. So chill.

In fact, you summed up just about your entire post pretty nicely with your point #2, as far as the conflict between MP and SP. In SP, the AI Ottomans can have a hard time yes. In MP they certainly do not and can easily become one of the most powerful countries in play. I like the idea of giving AI only events to Ottomans to help them out early on, I especially like the idea of giving them one very early to help out with their TC build.

You talk about Poland never ceasing to exist as a serious issue, and once again, I point to the difference between SP and MP. In MP with players on all sides, it'd very very easy for Poland to dissapear, way before the 18th century without any nasty events to help it along, it already has enough nasty events as is. Also, I don't see Poland "beefed up" with increase to all of Orthodox tech group, they get a slight bonus (offset by their horrendous centralization) for about 90 years (i'm talking the scenario that really counts here, AoE), + some very minor tax and manpower change. Hardly "beefed up", strengthened, but not to the point where they are incredibly more powerful than they were before. Yes, in SP, it is very very difficult to see countries over a handful of provinces dissapear. However the key here is to not force a player to be dismembered, as a player can counter the social/political issues that caused the downfall in the first place, making it a moot point. So we've a very difficult issue on our hands, and if you wish to discuss it, make a thread about it. This thread is about trying to make Poland strong when she should be strong, not about killing her when she should be weak. Hence the reason there hasn't been a lot of talk about destroying her here, it would be OT.

You talk about your goals and priorities, that need to be adressed and discussed, feel free to open a thread about them and start discussing. Why come into this thread, whose subject and title clearly are not talking about the Ottomans or Brandenburg, or whoever, and then ask why these countries aren't being discussed here? Its silly.

 

[unmerged(15394)]

Dinsdale,

I have not been active in this thread until a couple of post ago. My discussion has been marginal.

What I have found in the last 5 handsoff I have ran is that AI poland has not expanded, but has held its own until 1625-1750 where it starts getting beat up, and 4 out of 5 times has gotten completely swallowed by Austrial-Rusia-Pommernia.

To me this is more historic than when it would be beat up in 1550-1650. IMHO the patch has helped, and I haven't seen larger than history PLC's. This is only a few tests, and you may have other results.

I have not played MP, so have no comment.

Gdansk/Danzig was a personal comment of which I do not care too much about.

I very strongly agree that the OE is a bigger AI problem than Poland is at the moment. I really don't see a need for Poland to be stronger as I think everything is balanced with PL. My comment about Gdansk getting a COT was not out of game balancing issues but out of historical accuarcy.

I agree with you that the number one issue is why the OE never attacks Malemuks. I suggest you start a thread on it, as I will support it, and would like to see a special progressive AI written for it to help it along. (mentioned by someone else)

As for this thread, it seems I stepped into the middle of a long heated battle. IMO much of this thread has lost relevance since the changes in the latest betas (that are successfully a result of this thread). It is now impossible for anyone to read through this entire thread. Please start a new thread if needed, I will no longer add to it. (for fear of getting my head bitten off)

 

[Czajna]

The problem with Poland conquering HRE (which is used as an example of overpowered Poland) exist because of that big northern alliance (Teotons, Prussia, Pommern...) and Polish CB on Danzig/Stetin. Poland also likes to get into alliance with Brandenburg and Bohemia, and that also leads to wars with german minors. It will happen even if there's no CoT in Danzig.

Btw: Although in a latin techgroup, Poland still has lower tech levels than for egzample Austria or Bohemia in the same time.

 

[Varyar]

Originally posted by Czajna
The problem with Poland conquering HRE (which is used as an example of overpowered Poland) exist because of that big northern alliance (Teotons, Prussia, Pommern...) and Polish CB on Danzig/Stetin. Poland also likes to get into alliance with Brandenburg and Bohemia, and that also leads to wars with german minors. It will happen even if there's no CoT in Danzig.

Which is one of the reasons why I advocate that Hinterpommern should be removed as a polish core. But the Kurland CoT should definetly be relocated to Danzig during the 15th century.

 

[Dinsdale]

Originally posted by N Katsyev
You make some valid points here, and i'd like to point out that the whole Danzig/Gdansk thing wasn't something I'm trying to get "steamrolled" into the game,

No, but if we are unlucky the semantic name dispute will choke another 20 pages.

You talk about Poland never ceasing to exist as a serious issue, and once again, I point to the difference between SP and MP. In MP with players on all sides, it'd very very easy for Poland to dissapear

Wouldn't the same be true of France, Austria etc? If a nation is surrounded by enemies it will be defeated. Is there a difference in Poland's situation?

Just how oftern does disappear, and how often does it reach the 18th century? Is this any more, or less than other nations surrounded by enemies?

If MP and SP issues cannot be resolved, what do you think should happen?

Also, I don't see Poland "beefed up" with increase to all of Orthodox tech group, they get a slight bonus (offset by their horrendous centralization) for about 90 years (i'm talking the scenario that really counts here, AoE), + some very minor tax and manpower change. Hardly "beefed up", strengthened, but not to the point where they are incredibly more powerful than they were before.

I'd call moving to Latin tech "beefing up" Adding a COT, tax and manpower changes and any one of the list of potential improvements in this thread. If not, why the passionate call for their inclusion in the game?

Yes, in SP, it is very very difficult to see countries over a handful of provinces dissapear. However the key here is to not force a player to be dismembered, as a player can counter the social/political issues that caused the downfall in the first place, making it a moot point.

Most of the changes in this thread are to make Poland a power through pre-determinism, yet you don't want it weakened because you argue against pre-determinism. Pick a side of the fence and stick to it. You want to argue the pre-determinism of a union with Lithuania, then you should also argue for partition.

So we've a very difficult issue on our hands, and if you wish to discuss it, make a thread about it. This thread is about trying to make Poland strong when she should be strong, not about killing her when she should be weak. Hence the reason there hasn't been a lot of talk about destroying her here, it would be OT.


You talk about your goals and priorities, that need to be adressed and discussed, feel free to open a thread about them and start discussing. Why come into this thread, whose subject and title clearly are not talking about the Ottomans or Brandenburg, or whoever, and then ask why these countries aren't being discussed here?

It's all relative though isn't it. The Ottomans directly affect Austria and Poland. Indirectly, this conflict, or lack of conflict affects Germany, Poland and then Russia.

I didn't mean to "pollute" the thread with other game problems, I was merely pointing out that there were many other issues, and the fact that they are not being lobbied for makes them no less relevant. Didn't realise that Poland was not part of the game and existed in it's own vacuum.

Its silly.

 

[N Katsyev]

No, but if we are unlucky the semantic name dispute will choke another 20 pages.

If it does, then I certainly won't be a part of it, as far as i'm concerned this thread is dead now.

Wouldn't the same be true of France, Austria etc? If a nation is surrounded by enemies it will be defeated. Is there a difference in Poland's situation?

Poland is much more surrounded by enemies than France or Austria, hence it will probably die. That was my point, no need to destroy it through events if its probably going to happen anyway.

Most of the changes in this thread are to make Poland a power through pre-determinism, yet you don't want it weakened because you argue against pre-determinism. Pick a side of the fence and stick to it. You want to argue the pre-determinism of a union with Lithuania, then you should also argue for partition.

If I was saying that Poland should have a hardcoded +1 bonus to shock due to their incredible cavalry. Then i'd see your point, but i'm not. When I say that Poland should have Latin tech group because they were every bit as innovative as Austria/France etc for at least the first 200 years, i'm being just as pre-determinst as someone who says France should have a lot of manpower because France had a very proportionally high population. Certain countries have certain traits to represent them in the game, if they didn't (which would be the lack of any determinism) then we would simply be playing the Blue country and the red country. Poland being partitioned isn't a trait of the country, its technological progress however, is. However, to steer us toward a more historical outcome, which is the goal, there are events in place. The partition events give away all of the Commonwealth's territory to various neighbors as cores. I'd say that's a fair bit of determinism, enough to give these neighbors an incentive to follow history, but yet it still gives the option of it not happening. I think its modeled pretty well.

I'd call moving to Latin tech "beefing up" Adding a COT, tax and manpower changes and any one of the list of potential improvements in this thread. If not, why the passionate call for their inclusion in the game?

It really sounded to me that you were saying we made Poland a super-power overnight, which is far from the truth. She is still incredibly vulnerable. Latin tech's relative effect on Poland was lessened due to the changes to Orthodox tech's penalty, the tax and manpower changes were incredibly minor, and nobody is talking about "adding a CoT" just how to get the 1419 Kurland CoT to Danzig during the time that it historically made this transition. You may call this again determinism, but its no worse than the Thrace CoT, the Amsterdam CoT, so on and so forth, I even said that this should be dependant upon Poland taking Danzig in the first place just to avoid excessive determinsm (which i've now been accused of ) however the chance that we'll get a new event simply for this transition is infinitely minimal.

All this being said, there is a new thread for discussing the Poland question in the 1.07 world, and i'm saying goodbye to this wonderful little thread which has more than served its purpose.

The new thread is here:
http://www.europa-universalis.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=81386

 

[Dinsdale]

Originally posted by N Katsyev
If it does, then I certainly won't be a part of it, as far as i'm concerned this thread is dead now.

There are some excellent posts in here, and despite my opinion I enjoy reading the historic arguements, there are many valid points and I would imagine I am not the only person to have learnt something from reading it. Is it necessary to start a new thread on exactly the same topic?

Poland is much more surrounded by enemies than France or Austria, hence it will probably die. That was my point, no need to destroy it through events if its probably going to happen anyway.

France has Spain, England, Burgundy to begin with, as well as a host of German minors. Those are every bit as dangerous as Poland's problems. Austria is even more precarious; Ottomans, Poland, German minors, and the threat of France. Are you really saying that Poland is in a worse position?

Is there some data for Poland being absorbed in multiplayer any more than France/Austria ?

When I say that Poland should have Latin tech group because they were every bit as innovative as Austria/France etc for at least the first 200 years, i'm being just as pre-determinst as someone who says France should have a lot of manpower because France had a very proportionally high population.

In your new thread you have;

Having Lithuania as a vassal to Poland is a crucial source of income. It is virtually impossible without a ton of ahistorical expansion for Poland to vassalize Lithuania through normal game means

That appears to be the very essence of pre-determination.

Poland being partitioned isn't a trait of the country, its technological progress however, is. However, to steer us toward a more historical outcome, which is the goal, there are events in place. The partition events give away all of the Commonwealth's territory to various neighbors as cores. I'd say that's a fair bit of determinism, enough to give these neighbors an incentive to follow history, but yet it still gives the option of it not happening. I think its modeled pretty well.

"Traits" and determinism are intrinsically linked. There should be no guarantee that Poland ends up in it's historic state, but there should be a chance of it. Just as some of the other major events; Spain/Austria, Austria-Hungary, France/Spain, Burgundy etc. It appears to me that you are selectively dismissing the partition of Poland, though events such as that are how EU works.

It really sounded to me that you were saying we made Poland a super-power overnight

Not a super-power, but definately changing the game's balance, without any data to test what those changes might do.

I pose the question againl; with MP and SP having apparent diverging needs, what should be done?

 

[N Katsyev]

Okay, I can't help myself... but this is it, really...

Is there some data for Poland being absorbed in multiplayer any more than France/Austria ?

Good question, I haven't seen very many MP games go that far. However, there is a much greater chance of it happening considering Poland's enemies get cores on all her provinces (which certainly doesen't happen to Austria or France) and the fact that she is surrounded by more hostile major powers, Austria, Prussia, Russia, Sweden, and the Ottoman Empire, all of these with the possible exception of Sweden have an extensive land border with Poland, and will eventually have higher tech, more wealth and manpower. I'd say her chances of survival are notably less than those of France.

That appears to be the very essence of pre-determination.

It does, doesen't it? However i'm not sure how else we can model this, which certainly should be modeled. In fact, the best way to model it in my opinion would be for Poland to start with Lithuania as a vassal. This would be just as pre-determinist as the Golden Horde starting with Moscowy as a vassal... I mean after all, when the Mongol hordes came centuries ago, maybe it was possible for the various Russian states to unite and throw them off? In fact, I think its impossible to avoid some amount of determinism and still get a game based on history... I take that back, it is impossible. If we were going to choose to have Lithuania vassalized prior to 1419, the best way to do this would be to have a special event covering it, however we won't. And therefore my suggestion it be included in an event, determinism, sadly yes, a way to avoid it and have Lithuania more often than not become a Polish vassal, not that I can think of... As i've stated before elsewhere, the key is to find a healthy level of determinism to give options with all things in as many places as possible, while still leaning more toward history. Some things are gonna turn out ugly unfortunately, look at the Hungarian events.

I pose the question againl; with MP and SP having apparent diverging needs, what should be done?

You could just ask me the meaning of life and expect as much to get a fully conclusive answer.

Anyway, as for why I started a new thread "about the same topic" its not just the same topic. Its summarizing 3 seperate threads are reaching the point where they are beginning to wobble away from their original topic. Its giving a new look on the present situation of the country being discussed. Its now easy for anyone interested to what is currently being done and discussed regarding Poland in one area without having to bounce around 3 seperate threads and read a ton of various posts, many of which are no longer relevant.

 

[unmerged(2833)]

Originally posted by Dinsdale
Not a super-power, but definately changing the game's balance, without any data to test what those changes might do.

How can you test changes before making them?

 

[Dinsdale]

Originally posted by DarthMaur
How can you test changes before making them?

Make the changes, play the game I don't see what you are asking

Originally posted by N Katsyev
Good question, I haven't seen very many MP games go that far. However, there is a much greater chance of it happening considering Poland's enemies get cores on all her provinces (which certainly doesen't happen to Austria or France) and the fact that she is surrounded by more hostile major powers, Austria, Prussia, Russia, Sweden, and the Ottoman Empire, all of these with the possible exception of Sweden have an extensive land border with Poland, and will eventually have higher tech, more wealth and manpower. I'd say her chances of survival are notably less than those of France.

Cores yes, major powers I disagree. Prussia is hardly a major. The way the game works now, minors appear more dangerous than majors

It does, doesen't it? However i'm not sure how else we can model this, which certainly should be modeled. In fact, the best way to model it in my opinion would be for Poland to start with Lithuania as a vassal.

I agree. IMHO Poland's potential woes are more dangerous early than late. The times I do see Poland collapse are through war with Lithuania, or the other extreme; being diplo-annexed by Lithuania.

You could just ask me the meaning of life and expect as much to get a fully conclusive answer.

But we need to think about it and someone needs to come up with a solution. If MP and SP require dramatic differences in balancing then perhaps it's time for multiple scenarios.