Tsunami II - 1419 debate- Potential problems and solutions

[unmerged(4633)]

I wonder what the roster of countries would look like. You guys concentrating on west asia and europe? It looks like itll be awfully complicated with more then a few players being effectively eliminated before 1492. But then I guess once Europe is cleaned up those players could shift over and be Asian nations like China, Nippon, whomever.

lets see
England, France, Castille, Portugal, Sweden, Muscovy, OE, Austria, Venice, Mamelukes, Poland, Genoa, Brandenburg and Denmark. Thats 14 obvious ones. But then do you add players with the potential to be eliminated (or eliminate others?), like Scotland, Bohemia or Hungary, Aragon, Papal States, or Teutonic Order?

 

[Mowers]

The emphasis will be on the Med and Western Europe with a gradual shifting in Eastern Europe.

Then 1530 should leave us with 6/7 Western countries and 2 Med countries which will have meant a shift of around 8/9 countries who didn’t make the cut. There will be no definite cuts giving all countries a chance to make it into the big time.

 

[unmerged(6159)]

Kibitzing

Comments from a kibitzer. As such feel free to ignore:

-Why not make the rule only one non-core German province? Would loosen the binds on Burgundy as she could get Alsace and inherit Luxembourg without running into the rule. Not much more complicated than only one German province

-How about Helvetia. If the emphasis is Mediterranean/Western Europe they played a role historically in both. From a gameplay point of view they can intervene effectively in both Italy and France, they start with very different sliders than anyone else allowing possibly specialization, and with their small forts and crappy culture they aren't too attractive for expansion. They would seem to me to be much more handy than Savoy which would be a threat and a prize because of cultures, and therefore much less able to affect BOP.

 

[Damocles]

Why don't you play MP with us, Isaac? =P

 

[unmerged(16459)]

Re: Kibitzing

Originally posted by Isaac Brock
-How about Helvetia. If the emphasis is Mediterranean/Western Europe they played a role historically in both. From a gameplay point of view they can intervene effectively in both Italy and France, they start with very different sliders than anyone else allowing possibly specialization, and with their small forts and crappy culture they aren't too attractive for expansion. They would seem to me to be much more handy than Savoy which would be a threat and a prize because of cultures, and therefore much less able to affect BOP.

I've read through the entire thread today and I was wondering the same thing since page 2. Helvetia would a great addition to the game (in 1419).


On a side note (basically adressed at Mowers):

Historically I agree with your theaters of operations, and I'm convinced it will be a lot of fun.

But why the strong reservations about ahistorical play in middle europe? From a gaming point of view, why don't we tweak this scenario for all that it's worth? If you can host the game with 18 players, then why don't we just go ahead and play the years 1419-1492 a few times.... ? Right now most asume AI bashing will unbalance the game.... but that doesn't have to be a bad thing. This first campaign doesn't have to be perfect (and probably won't be, no matter how much planning is involved beforehand). Let's see what gamers come up with... Host a few 100 year sessions, just to see some tendencies . For one it would appease the "what if" fans of EU2. Also it will probably prove that in order to have a somewhat balanced game you either need 32 gamers for the whole of europe (sigh) OR you have to confine the campaign to 2(3?) theaters of operation AND make some (unpleasent?) rules to.
Gamers tend to balance each other out. One gets too strong, four smaller nations pounce on it. So what if Friesland controls most of Poland? Or Scotlands the isles. We all tried it in SP and had fun doing it. The other players will restore the balance of power (if not historical reality...)
Getting "dedicated players" shouldn't be a problem either, since you could cram it in a weekend or two.

Basically all I'm saying is test 1419-1492 for 1 or 2 games with everything goes. Then test it with your setup for 1-2 games. The results/ AARs would be interesting. I suspect that you'ld get two new "ways of going" for lack of better terms. One group will prefer and stay with a more historical set up, the other'll want to see what else (= ahistorical silliness)can be done with the game. However, just the fact that it would be MP would see a kind of balance evolve.

C-ya.

 

[unmerged(6159)]

Originally posted by Damocles
Why don't you play MP with us, Isaac? =P

'Cause I'm Kibitzing Seriously, lack of time to commit to it, slow connection. Maybe if I lose my job.

 

[unmerged(9895)]

my opinion, not that anyone asked of course , is that adding another 100 years onto game time is just making the results a little more absured (battles involving 500K soldiers in the 1800's?)

what should be done, again not that anyone asked what i think, is re-run a 1492 tsunami game, except this time put all the so-called "competent" players either in eastern europe, or the middle east/asia. the game engine wouldnt crack down any wores than it did the first time because it would have to deal with the exact same time span, yet end could see some very interesting results. Maybe a large part of eurpe as muslim from ottoman dominance, an unstoppable russian invasion, a sweden with a very large colonial empire. Stuff like that.

anyways....just some thoughts

KK

 

[Damocles]

my opinion, not that anyone asked of course , is that adding another 100 years onto game time is just making the results a little more absured (battles involving 500K soldiers in the 1800's?)

Leipzig?

Borodino?

The Austro-Prussian war and the Franco-Prussian both involved similar numbers. Maybe not in one battle, but mobilized in the same province.

 

[RedPhoenix]

I really do think that the 1419 start would be the best way to go, I do think we should perhaps make minor adjustments to the scenario though, or atleast edit the scenario a bit later.. since it has the same adherent problems as the 1492 one...

Editing out COTs from manhattan, ivoria, maybe cuzco...

Also adding manpower and income to ottomans, poland.

Etc.

But all in all, I hope we will do the 1419 as it is criminally too little played.

 

[Wyvern]

Well I'll play either, but personally I think the 1492 scenario is likely to be better one to play. I can see the 1419 one crashing and burning and requiring a lot of edits to keep it going in a reasonable manner. Could be wrong - hope I am.

 

[unmerged(15967)]

I think the 1419 scenario will be fine as long as people avoid bakrcupting themselves in the first 10 years. Or at all for that matter.

 

[RedPhoenix]

Originally posted by Freiherr vStein
I think the 1419 scenario will be fine as long as people avoid bakrcupting themselves in the first 10 years. Or at all for that matter.

Well as there is only "long term" play allowed, I think that solves this problem. If you are out to bankrupty your country you are out of the game. If someone manages to ruin a country, then I guess inflation can be lowered and the player in question can be removed from the game

This in mind, I would suggest giving the smaller countries that are more likelely to be "loan abused" to be given to only players who will guarantee they will not bankrupty them with excessive loans.

 

[Damocles]

The whole point of playing in 1419 is because we ALWAYS play from 1492.

 

[Damocles]

I agree with Red btw. Mowers should exercise some judicious editing of the starting scenario (Tho, I don't think the Ottomans need more income and manpower) and keep an eye on abuse. For all we know, due to the equality of the starting positions (more so then then in 1492) we might end up with a much more balanced and vibrant game in 1700 then otherwise.

 

[unmerged(11031)]

1419 will be fun because a) It's different and b) Byzantium may suvive as we funnel money to it.

 

[RedPhoenix]

Originally posted by Lord_Robertus
1419 will be fun because a) It's different and b) Byzantium may suvive as we funnel money to it.

I seriously doubt anyone will have money to spare to give to byz, considering there is an all out war raging in west europe.

 

[unmerged(9895)]

Originally posted by Damocles
The whole point of playing in 1419 is because we ALWAYS play from 1492.

this statement makes sense in a small way, but you make it sound like 1492 and 1419 are the only options.

1492 is ALWAYS played , so to say, for many reasons, but basically because it is simply the most fun.

1419 is NEVER played, plain and simply because it is BORING, UNBALANCED, AND TOO UNREALISTIC by the time it is finished

there are many more, and better, options than 1419.

just incase you want to get out of ALWAYS playing the same one , try age of enlightenment or age of merchantalism; anything but the dreaded grand campaign.

 

[RedPhoenix]

Originally posted by KrisKannon
this statement makes sense in a small way, but you make it sound like 1492 and 1419 are the only options.

1492 is ALWAYS played , so to say, for many reasons, but basically because it is simply the most fun.

1419 is NEVER played, plain and simply because it is BORING, UNBALANCED, AND TOO UNREALISTIC by the time it is finished

there are many more, and better, options than 1419.

just incase you want to get out of ALWAYS playing the same one , try age of enlightenment or age of merchantalism; anything but the dreaded grand campaign.

Personally I don't see a problem with an ahistorical end result, as long as historical conditions are set there and allowed to happen if so they will. If history had different rulers and events, it would not have unfolded as it did... thats the whole fun of play If only could we do a bit RPG style in tsunami.

 

[unmerged(15967)]

Originally posted by KrisKannon
this statement makes sense in a small way, but you make it sound like 1492 and 1419 are the only options.

1492 is ALWAYS played , so to say, for many reasons, but basically because it is simply the most fun.

1419 is NEVER played, plain and simply because it is BORING, UNBALANCED, AND TOO UNREALISTIC by the time it is finished

there are many more, and better, options than 1419.

just incase you want to get out of ALWAYS playing the same one , try age of enlightenment or age of merchantalism; anything but the dreaded grand campaign.

We sometimes play nappy, too. But if you want a very long campain you choice is either 1492 or 1419.

 

[Juu]

Originally posted by KrisKannon
1419 is NEVER played, plain and simply because it is BORING, UNBALANCED, AND TOO UNREALISTIC by the time it is finished

Ah, but we're missing on 73 years of historic events then .

P.S. I think 1419 should be tried. If England has expanded way too much in 1492 (or something like that) you can always restart (with 1419 or 1492).