The Little Guy Lobby!

[unmerged(7034)]

No one is saying the little guys should be enabled to take over the world.

They should be simply made playable. Right now there's no gameplay when you choose one, basically.

 

[Judge]

Well I believe they are playable. This of course depends on which minors you are talkning about but I tend to play small weak minors frequently and sometimes you crash and burn, sometimes you are able to build up a small or a pretty large empire.

That is just how things should be if you ask me

 

[unmerged(12740)]

unfortunately, the NA states were not states. as far as i know, & correct me if i'm wrong, they had no system of taxation, had no currency, had no cities -- they were loose federations of tribes at best. many were in the stone age technologically.

on the other hand, the reason they lost so totally in the competition w/ the europeans had more to do w/ disease (which, as i understand it, reduced their populations by b/tw 90 & 99%) than it had to do w/ technological superiority.

also, certainly the aztecs, the incas, & benin were states in the sense i mean.

i'm uncomfortable w/ the cores system as it is -- it gives a huge advantage to certain states that i think had less to do w/ historical determination & more to do w/ the accidents of history & the perspicacity of their leadership. i feel that a "core" province shld become a core after holding it for a long time (there was active colonization in central europe/france, etc. throughout the early period of the game.) but i'm arguing w/ the whole paradox model here, so there's little point in that.

i feel as if states shld start w/ functioning economies in the beginning unless there are historical reasons otherwise. this may be too much work, however; so i dunno. if it were easily done, i'd just give everyone infra 1 at the beginning & a TC in every province they own. but this is all to say that i agree that all states in the game shld be playable, at least.

 

[Zander]

The TC change is crippling for poor small states, and for many AI states in general. From my observations so far, I still think that either (a) the effect needs to be moderated (so that you get some census taxes even without a TC), or (b) every owned province should start out the game with a TC (which is perfectly reasonable, since the concept of taxation wasn't invented in 1419).

 

[unmerged(6159)]

Originally posted by Pan_Stretch


(I would also suggest that colonizing NA was not such a cake walk. Remember who has written the history book.)

One should be able to play ahistorically with NA natives. If they had not been at continual war with each other, things may have turned out different. Plus, historically disease, peace treaties and trade agreements were large reasons that colonization was at all possible.

Just couldn't resist commenting here. I think that if the Europeans hadn't continually been at war with each other it would have turned out quite differently. The NA natives played off Europeans against one another much more effectively than the Europeans ever played off the natives against one another.

Another possible solution for never getting to infra 1 might be to add a date modifier to the economic techs if you lag FAR behind. Not sure that's workable though.

edit: Doesn't most of this problem go away if you play later scenarios? I can't remember, but I thought most countries had infra 2 in (say) 1617.

 

[unmerged(15394)]

Originally posted by Isaac Brock
Just couldn't resist commenting here. I think that if the Europeans hadn't continually been at war with each other it would have turned out quite differently. The NA natives played off Europeans against one another much more effectively than the Europeans ever played off the natives against one another.

Good arguement.

Maybe there should be more avenues for alliances with native groups. French allied with Hurons at war with English. Seems only 1 alliance can exist at a time.

Colonization was just not that easy, and took a long time.

 

[Velociryx]

Good stuff here this morning.

To Johan: I agree that the states I'm talking about *do* get some money, yes....but that's not operating capital....that's money that can't be touched if you're in the poor tech groups, because if you are, then yes, zero inflation has GOT to be a goal if you want to have any hope of ever getting beyond tech level 2-3 in the course of 400 years of playing. If you run with ANY inflation when your techs cost 25,000 and up, you're dooming yourself.

To Judge: I'm definitely NOT looking for "gimmies" that will enable me to take over the world as Ashanti, but countries need operating capital. You get operating capital from annual tax revenue. You cannot get operating capital from minting coin as the nations in the groups I'm talking about because:
a) Inflation will kill what little research you have, and b) your economy is so small that you won't net much cash to operate with in any case.

Operating capital is needed to play the game. You can't get RM's unless you have good or bad relations, you only get one diplomat a year (not that you can afford to use more than that anyway), so you've got to make each one count. Without operating cash, how can you? The only way I've seen so far is to rely on events, and as mentioned, those can help or hinder, depending on what you get.

The nations in question were not ruled by the whims of chance in reality.

-=Vel=-

 

[unmerged(6159)]

The point you should make that if your infra level 1 cost is 25,000, then the increase in that research cost is 250 per poitn of inflation. The break even point (the point at which you all the research that you have done puts you no closer to reaching that tech level) is given by:

increase in cost=research done
25,000* inf = (1-100*inf)*INCOME
inf=I/(25000+100I)

If your annual income is 15 (say) the break even inflation rate is .06%. In other word if you put more then 0.9 ducats anuually towards cash you are getting further away from that elusive tech 1.

Obviously this ignores the monarch bonus, but basically points out that you have to rely on the monarch bonus to get that tech level if you take any cash at all.

edit: added 'annually'

 

[Velociryx]

Thanks for the assist, Master Brock! That's what I've been wanting to say, but as a non-math guy, I was unsure how to express it formulatically, but you've certainly hit the nail on the head.

If you want to have ANY chance of ever reaching Inf1, then you can't afford even 1% of inflation (figuring that over the course of the 40+ years it'll take you to reach that hallowed position, you'll almost certainly get some bad event that will force you to take on inflation (rebellion, corruption--this event KILLS the nations I'm talking about.....there's no way you'll have the money to fight corruption, taking a loan is suicide, cos you have no means of paying it back, and if you don't, the 10% inflation adds 2500 (or at least another 10 years, assuming an at least average monarch) to the goal of Infra 1.

I agree it should be difficult to play as the nations in question, and believe me, it is.

It should not be utterly impossible to act, however.

-=Vel=-

 

[Zhengissimus...]

Some of the "little guys" out there in ROTW are leading producers of a particular good at the beginning of the GC, and would benefit from a bonus as argued in "What is the use of being biggest producer of something?" http://www.europa-universalis.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=78974&perpage=25&pagenumber=1

 

[unmerged(6159)]

Originally posted by Velociryx

If you want to have ANY chance of ever reaching Inf1, then you can't afford even 1% of inflation (figuring that over the course of the 40+ years it'll take you to reach that hallowed position, you'll almost certainly get some bad event that will force you to take on inflation (rebellion, corruption--this event KILLS the nations I'm talking about.....there's no way you'll have the money to fight corruption, taking a loan is suicide, cos you have no means of paying it back, and if you don't, the 10% inflation adds 2500 (or at least another 10 years, assuming an at least average monarch) to the goal of Infra 1.

It should not be utterly impossible to act, however.

In my example, if your income is 15d, and you get 1% inflation in 16 years ALL of the cash that you put into research has been wiped out by that ipoint of inflation.

If I'm in this situation, I have no idea why you would ever accept inflation from an event. Surely you're much better off in the long run taking -6 stability, +3 RR for 12 months than accepting 2% inflation.

 

[unmerged(4444)]

Originally posted by Velociryx
...
Operating capital is needed to play the game.
...
-=Vel=-

Exactly. That's why (IMHO) the beta TC rule is unbalancing, damaging even for majors (when AI controlled), and totally game-killing for poor minors (who, as you point out, can't afford to take out monthly income), even when human controlled.

Phil

 

[unmerged(10355)]

Originally posted by Zhengissimus...
Some of the "little guys" out there in ROTW are leading producers of a particular good at the beginning of the GC, and would benefit from a bonus as argued in "What is the use of being biggest producer of something?" http://www.europa-universalis.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=78974&perpage=25&pagenumber=1

Very, very few of them are. There are only 20 goods for someone to be the leading producer of, and most of those are taken by the major countries.

 

[Zhengissimus...]

Leading producers of goods, GC 1419:

Latin:

Wine & Fish: Aragon
Naval Supplies: Sweden

Muslim, Chinese & Exotic:

Copper & Iron: Golden Horde
Wool: Timurid Empire
Cloth: Delhi
Salt: Gujarat
Cotton: Hyderabad
Coffee: Aden
Slaves: Mali
Grain, Tea, Chinaware & Spices: China
Ivory: Ashanti
Fur: Iroquois
Tobacco: Lenape
Sugar: Maya
Gold: Inca Empire

What about a production & trade tech bonus for these?

 

[unmerged(2695)]

The problems of the exotic minors are eminently historical. I personally think that Paradox should add Hawaii, Tahiti and Fiji as playable countries, just to make the point about the exotics.

Compared to the civlizations of the Old World the exotics of America, Oceania and Africa South of the Sahara were non-starters.

Juggling the game engine to give them a chance is so antihistorical that it is far better to cheat when playing them.

 

[Velociryx]

I disagree. IMO, if the NA tribes had banded together when the first Euro settlers showed up, and aggressively pushed them back, they could have, technological differences or not (taking out the matter of disease for a moment, which is not modelled in the game we're discussing this in the context of).

These were *functioning* nations. That's what I'm askin' for here. Functionality....

-=Vel=-

 

[unmerged(6159)]

Originally posted by Hardu

Compared to the civlizations of the Old World the exotics of America, Oceania and Africa South of the Sahara were non-starters.

Fair enough, although I'm not sure that the West Africans aren't somewhat different, as they had extensive contact with North Africa at various periods. But what about the Indian and SE Asian minors? Your argument falls apart there, and while their problems in game aren't as bad as those of the exotics, I think there is a bit of a problem in the chinese tech group. When your monthly income is 1d, and you need thousands of research to it infra 1 you cannot print money until you hit infra 1 for the TCs.

Personally I'm willing to let the American, and to some extent subsaharan nations suffer this fate. But I think Asia deserves better.

 

[Velociryx]

I'm just not seeing how the argument can be made that giving the nations in question 25-50% or so of their annual tax so they can have some level of operating income is going to unbalance things, or wreck the playing experience for those in Europe. With the values we're talking about, that amounts to about 8-10d a year (Example: Cherokee 17d per year annual income in 1.06....50% of this made available to them is 8.5d per year....not exactly something that is going to make the rest of the world tremble in fear)

This is enough money so that if you scrimp and save, you can at least engage the world diplomatically now and again (which is about all you'll be able to do, besides maybe recruit a thousand troops every 3-4 years for the first 40 years or so....can't place merchants....no tech), and maybe replace the occassional lost troop.

Given the rest of the cards stacked against them, I do not see how this scant amount of operating coin would break the game, or make wildly ahistoric outcomes possible. What it *would* do, however, is make the nations at least playable again.

-=Vel=-

 

[Johan]

I'm considering removing tech development and military upkeep from the tribal nations in south africa and north america until european contact...

 

[SJG]

This is not just a single problem.

Some of the countries in the game had a barter economy (eg the North American tribes). Strictly speaking these countries should not really have armies as such and if they did have a fighting force they should not get paid as 'pay' was not a concept that they understood. Other countries (eg Asian minors) had cash economies, which is how the game represents them.

Now, part of the problem is that both of these types of economies are covered under infra 0. It really would be better if there was an infra -1 that represented barter economies where money was not a concept. Quite a few countries were in this situation at the start of the game.

Another part of the problem is that the non-European minors, because they can't build TCs, are pretty strapped for cash.

Personally, I think the fact that level 1 forces and level 60 forces cost the same to pay is the root problem.