The Grand Multiplayer Super Scenario

[Slargos]

Rulediscussions for the Machiavelli SE

One of the biggest problems of Machiavelli has been the reluctance to enter into small, regional conflicts.

In many a historical conflict, a 3rd party would intervene in some way, for instance with their navy. Doing so in Machiavelli is risky because the conflict will likely just escalate.

Someone made a suggestion about not using in-game alliances but relying on a system of good faith and CBs in handling wars.
I like it. This may be a drastic step to take though...

However, I would suggest we be more strict about wars and peaces. In the event of a conflict, war aims should be stated before battles start. Also, if an ally joins the war, nevermind if they are allied in-game, peace-deals should be alliance wide in the majority of cases. This to lessen the fear of being left alone against a larger enemy in a coalition war.

If this can be enforced, small nations would not be as reluctant to enter into conflict..

 

[unmerged(5161)]

I proposed a "immediate declaration of war aims" house rule a LONG time ago and no one listened. Maybe they will now.

THREAD HERE

I am hesitant to take away the option of seperate peace. However, I think if you limited player-nation alliances to 2 human members, many of these problems would be solved.

 

[Slargos]

Also, we need to discuss the issue of leaders.

The classical France gets lots of admirals even without a navy while Denmark builds 300 warships and is stuck with generic crap-for-brains leaders.

Should leaders be dynamicaly awarded during the game? Perhaps at a cost? Editing them in is easy enough.

Edit: Machiavelli really SHOULD be awarded a forum of its own. We can remove one of those crappy RPG forums that no one visits.

 

[unmerged(10915)]

Re: Rulediscussions for the Machiavelli SE

Originally posted by Slargos
One of the biggest problems of Machiavelli has been the reluctance to enter into small, regional conflicts.

In many a historical conflict, a 3rd party would intervene in some way, for instance with their navy. Doing so in Machiavelli is risky because the conflict will likely just escalate.

Someone made a suggestion about not using in-game alliances but relying on a system of good faith and CBs in handling wars.
I like it. This may be a drastic step to take though...

However, I would suggest we be more strict about wars and peaces. In the event of a conflict, war aims should be stated before battles start. Also, if an ally joins the war, nevermind if they are allied in-game, peace-deals should be alliance wide in the majority of cases. This to lessen the fear of being left alone against a larger enemy in a coalition war.

If this can be enforced, small nations would not be as reluctant to enter into conflict..

Thats a great idea and i hope we try it in Machiavelli 2! Alliances never existed for the long time they do in-game anyway and they were always very loose. This also simulates the egoistic personality of machiavellian rulers of the time.

 

[King John]

two players per alliance max is a good idea allies like spain and austria, denmark and russia, sweden and poland etc are fine imo. just so conflicts generally stay regional.

i think denmark is the only country that actually needs better leaders. also some colony/army/navynames would be nice.

 

[TheArchduke]

Originally posted by King John
two players per alliance max is a good idea allies like spain and austria, denmark and russia, sweden and poland etc are fine imo. just so conflicts generally stay regional.

i think denmark is the only country that actually needs better leaders. also some colony/army/navynames would be nice.

Actually imo the answer would be a bigger alliance system allowing for multiple alliances..

 

[RedPhoenix]

I see no point enforcing alliance wide peaces thats just utter ****. In many cases historically some enemies were bought off or just peaced out during a conflict and sides switched rapidly during one single war.


The point about max 2 human nations per alliance sounds good to me though, this doesnt prevent lets say 10 nations from grouping up and taking on one big nation, but it means they can't all be in the same alliance, thus in the end will be forced to make separate peace deals.

But anyway, atleast it would in general restrict the conflict to a certain area as the other nations are not "obliged" to help, as too often people feel they are, even though this truly should not be the case if you atleast made an effort to play like a real leader.

About war aims... well its dandy and fine to state you have a goal when you attack, and yes that should be a case. However it was not allways the case in reality, nor should it be that you can't change your goals during a war.

 

[Slargos]

Well. I'm glad you can engage in this discussion without profanity, Red.

Re: the enforced alliance wide peace.

I'm not saying ALL peaces should be alliance wide. I'm just saying we need a houserule for alliance wide peaces when the game fails in this aspect.

If a game-alliance calls in a diplomatic ally in a war, and the war is concluded, the game-alliance gets peace but the diplo-ally doesn't, leaving him out to dry.

We could rely on an honour system where the other side wouldn't abuse this game-flaw and continue war against the now-alone nation... but it is an issue which needs to be adressed.

I.e. if the alliance publicly declares "This Nation is considered part of this alliance for the duration of the war", the new ally is considered such for all intents and purposes, and in the case of an alliance peace with the alliance leader, the new nation is included in the peace aswell. This means that this doesn't have to be agreed on the fly as has been the case thus far.

This is not a case of restricting peace-treaties, it's a case of streamlining alliances where the game is lacking...

 

[Slargos]

Originally posted by TheArchduke
Actually imo the answer would be a bigger alliance system allowing for multiple alliances..

It looks like we're getting a system like this for Victoria, but what money would you put on a similar system being introduced for Eu2?

 

[TheArchduke]

Originally posted by Slargos
It looks like we're getting a system like this for Victoria, but what money would you put on a similar system being introduced for Eu2?

If Tsunami is played and Johan stumbles over it much.

Seriously if we get a good idea together we could persuade Johan to bring it in. But it better be good.

 

[RedPhoenix]

Originally posted by Slargos
Well. I'm glad you can engage in this discussion without profanity, Red.

Re: the enforced alliance wide peace.

I'm not saying ALL peaces should be alliance wide. I'm just saying we need a houserule for alliance wide peaces when the game fails in this aspect.

If a game-alliance calls in a diplomatic ally in a war, and the war is concluded, the game-alliance gets peace but the diplo-ally doesn't, leaving him out to dry.

We could rely on an honour system where the other side wouldn't abuse this game-flaw and continue war against the now-alone nation... but it is an issue which needs to be adressed.

I.e. if the alliance publicly declares "This Nation is considered part of this alliance for the duration of the war", the new ally is considered such for all intents and purposes, and in the case of an alliance peace with the alliance leader, the new nation is included in the peace aswell. This means that this doesn't have to be agreed on the fly as has been the case thus far.

This is not a case of restricting peace-treaties, it's a case of streamlining alliances where the game is lacking...

I don't remember ever getting into profanity in a discussion, I may get pissed off and get into profanity if I'm challenged on a personal level, but thats a differnt thing and anyone has a limit in that.

Anyway...

There is allready a game mechanic for alliance wide peace, you have the opponent offer a peace simultaneously to both "alliances" you have... the one with others and the separate nation, you don't accept the peace proposal untill it has been offered to both, after that there is no way to abuse that. Quite simple actually.

If you are referring to stab hitting someone for peace, well that is clearly outside the parameters you defined here and is not an alliance wide peace in any definition.

Thats why alliances should remain smaller anyway, you are referring to a celestial gang bang situation where you have multiple different alliances banging on a single alliance or nation, that is something we all should work to get out of, not trying to get it easier to manage such a situation like you are proposing.

 

[Slargos]

Close, but no cigar.

I am referring neither to stabhitting nor to gangbanging.

I'm referring to those situations where nations from different alliances are united against a common enemy.
Case in point, Austria/Poland vs Ottoman Empire.

If an Austro-Polish war against the turk is wanted, the would-be allies are forced to break their current alliances to prosecute the war against OE. Very inefficient. If we can instead agree on a system for alliances and not have it abused by signing peace with for example Austria who is the defender, and then proceeding to attack Poland despite the originial goal being to steal provinces off of Austria, regional wars would be easier to orchestrate.

Sans the fear of Poland proper being invaded, the polish player has a bigger incentive to historically come to the aid of Austria.

A better alliance system would create a temporary "war alliance", but the current one can't. Hence, the honour system.

 

[ForzaA]

perhaps just "no human alliances", instead working with a "CB-only" rule, and the extensive use of guarantees etc (very few alliances were offensive during the timeframe anyway)

and perhaps some "military roles" with Peace/engagement rules accompanying them.
like:
"naval support" - you only send in your navy.. the one your fighting against may engage you on land.. if the capture one province.. peace must be accepted by the "naval" nation for either that province, or a combination of cash/acces/... (but not non captured provinces)
"defensive support" you dont engage the one you "attack" on their soil, only on your own land, and on the land of the one you defend.. should be able to be forced out of the war approximately the same as a "naval supporter"

things like that

 

[RedPhoenix]

honestly the discussion about limited wars in that scope is all in player minds, the intervening party should announce he is only sending his navy to support, and wishes not to escalate it, its up to the other party to judge how grieve an offense he deems that naval support to be.

I mean in real life, scenarios like this have escalated into something bigger too if the attacked party did not accept the scenario of it remaining only an areal conflict at the sea.

 

[ForzaA]

Originally posted by RedPhoenix
honestly the discussion about limited wars in that scope is all in player minds, the intervening party should announce he is only sending his navy to support, and wishes not to escalate it, its up to the other party to judge how grieve an offense he deems that naval support to be.

I mean in real life, scenarios like this have escalated into something bigger too if the attacked party did not accept the scenario of it remaining only an areal conflict at the sea.

well, yes.. but I was trying to addres the problem of nations not willing to commit themselves, just BECAUSE they know they would be smacked up completely in total war (I doubt the poles would have to come to Vienna if they risked losing their whole country... hence the REDUCED "warspoils".

 

[RedPhoenix]

Originally posted by ForzaA
well, yes.. but I was trying to addres the problem of nations not willing to commit themselves, just BECAUSE they know they would be smacked up completely in total war (I doubt the poles would have to come to Vienna if they risked losing their whole country... hence the REDUCED "warspoils".

In this world, if someone intervened, they knew they risked the fury of the one they intervened against, so yes this had the aftereffect that OE would kill poland next had they been victorious in vienna, but really why poland intervened is that they would have been killed regardless since OE would have gone next for someone else in europe.

So really there you have it

 

[Smirfy]

Originally posted by RedPhoenix
honestly the discussion about limited wars in that scope is all in player minds, the intervening party should announce he is only sending his navy to support, and wishes not to escalate it, its up to the other party to judge how grieve an offense he deems that naval support to be.

I mean in real life, scenarios like this have escalated into something bigger too if the attacked party did not accept the scenario of it remaining only an areal conflict at the sea.

Well then simple naval intervention should be very flexible (as it was) cost no stab Hit, not rely on alliance and contribute nothing to war score and cause no war exhaustion, then it can be up to the party if he wants to esculate the situation.

The whole diplomatic set up peace,alliace war, has not kept pace with player evolution unfortunatly. It is no reflection on the game as it stood, but presently if multi-player is to keep going forward we need a better system. taking into account alliance wide peace, more flexible alliances, sale of province, increased european values, flexible naval war option, Increasing the frequency of war but decreasing the consequences.

One thing on a military front I would like to see is really increasing attrittion except when ajacent to owned, allied or controlled province. (this may help the minors alot)

Edit and for coastal province without a fleet

 

[Peter Ebbesen]

Re: Rulediscussions for the Machiavelli SE

Originally posted by Slargos

Someone made a suggestion about not using in-game alliances but relying on a system of good faith and CBs in handling wars.

Yet more advantage to the nations that get cores on other nations territory by events, no matter how silly or irrelevant the event may be when it is received (or later on). Per default, I like it not.

I especially dread the A has CB on B (permanent, because of core or scripted) but not vice versa situation that would basically legitimize A banging up on B whenever he felt like it, but wouldn't allow B to take proper revenge without 1) using the diplomatic options to get a CB on B, which has limited applicability against humans, or 2) A having finally started conquering B's core provinces.

 

[unmerged(10915)]

Well, shouldnt we edit the number of CBs certain countries have? Then your problem would be solved Peter.

 

[Wyvern]

Improvements for the next RPG/Machiavelli or equivalent campaign - decided to post here rather than start a new thread.

Had an interesting discussion with Archduke last night, I think both of us felt Machiavelli was lacking some undefinable quality that sapped a lot of the enjoyment from it and we wanted to come up with some ideas for the next one to somehow make it better and more what we felt the original should have been like. I know I'd probably not want to join Machiavelli again if it was to be a repeat or similar run-through of the first game.

Well neither of us had a golden solution but a few things we talked about were:

1. RPG'ing in the original Machiavelli seems to have fallen into playing to the events/trying to create various major occurences from history rather than what I'd actually define as roleplaying which is to actually conduct your diplomacy in character, have conversations more or less in character during the game (especially when you're about to make a major decision like declaring war/breaking alliance), conducting your foreign policy in a consistent manner (doesn't matter if its historical or not - just be consistent), that sort of stuff whichout any emphasis on trying to recreate history. I remember when I tried to roleplay Henry VIII and his divorce, nobody was remotely interested and when I tried conducting diplomacy in character I always got back standard replies as I would in any normal game so that eventually I stopped trying.

2. Now for the second point. Machiavelli just felt a little too restrictive in what was allowed. And this is where some of the fuzzyness arrives as I find it hard to put my finger on exactly what it was that gave this feeling as I did think the persian block rule and early (though not later) bar on map trading were good ideas. On reflection I think it was the limited wars idea that lost its way somewhere along the line. Again in principal it was a nice idea, but in practice it hurt anyone who wasn't one of the big four (Spain/France/Austria/Ottomans). An attitude developed where it was frowned on for others to jump in when a war broke out, despite this being the one time when the smaller powers need to take advantage of a major powers weakness as they would in a regular game. I think this is one of the things that made it less interesting to play the game if you weren't one of the big four. Spain obviously got too strong too early as well in relation to the others, yet the emphasis during the first 100 years was to keep Austria and Spain ostensibly working together when in a normal balance of power scenario they would no longer have done so - that's my impression anyhow.

Perhaps others have their own impressions of what went wrong and so needs to be avoided next time, and hopefully have their own ideas for improvements. Or heaven forbide, you might even think Machiavelli is fine to be repeated as is , just don't ask me to play if so!