Tuesday game - Defeat Before Dismemberment

[unmerged(6147)]

Ah, this is yet another map. How interesting.

Have you never played a whole campaign from 1419 FAL? I assume you mean in MP.... Surely you have done it in SP.

And remember: there is basically no need for any balancing at all. The only thing needed is that players are aware of the stats of the nations, then they can adjust their policy so that a nice balance in the game is established. This is what great statesmen like Richelieu, Oxenstierna or the Pitts did in Europe for centuries. Although some of you may consider yourself lesser than them I do not... since EU is so much easier to grasp than was the real world for these statesmen

The only threat to balance is the inborn conservatism of players and their inabilty to adjust to changed conditions.

 

[HolisticGod]

Daniel,

Generally that's true. It takes a very aggressive player in a very good position to break a game completely.

The real problem with GCs is usually that if a regular major is destroyed or a particular country becomes ahistorically strong and the map looks wierd, players don't adapt and quit because country X is "too strong." When, in fact, it's not too strong-it just doesn't look or behave the way they're used to.

So if we're doing a GC, we have to go into it with a commitment to play it out even if England defeats France or the OE colonizes Siberia.

 

[unmerged(6147)]

The real problem with GCs is usually that if a regular major is destroyed or a particular country becomes ahistorically strong and the map looks wierd, players don't adapt and quit because country X is "too strong." When, in fact, it's not too strong-it just doesn't look or behave the way they're used to.

Yeah, I have seen that. It is soooo bad. Really loser type of guys. No stamina, no will to fight to the last drop of blood. Not competitive types really. They should play with dolls instead of competing with men. I could name a few myself.

And rest assured, I have nothing against you changing tax and MP vales etc on the map. I have complete trust in you in these matters. I am only concerned with postponements of the start because of it and potential quarrels stemming from them.

BTW, when I played SPA in the first session of Cheech's game with the the new map (kasperus version 2 I believe)and Ryo's 1490 scenario, I and FAL (Austria) was in war with Cheech (FRA). FAL then told me to send 100k to the lowlands to help him take that back. I was completly astonished. My supportable amount of men at that time (around 1500 IIRC) was something like 70k IIRC. Luckily I had not yet conquered anything in America so I needed no men there but could have all my men in the Pyreneese mountains and southern France. Thus I was available to withstand FRA in that area. But I certainly had no men to ship to Flanders. I remember FAL was quite surprised when I told him that, he said he had some 150k in supportable amount or so. I do not remember the precise figures but they were something like this. But perhaps you know about this already. If you believe it calls for an edit is up to you. For me this only means that the cooperation between SPA and AUS (or some other power/powers) vs. FRA is only more important than in vanilla.

 

[unmerged(18425)]

Have you never played a whole campaign from 1419 FAL? I assume you mean in MP.... Surely you have done it in SP.

Actually no. I never completed a SP campaign from start till finish in EU2. I have completed the EU1 grand campaign with Spain in single player though.

I once tried a world conquest in EU2, but got bored in the 17th century. I started multiplayer quite early.

 

[Tonioz]

Well, personally first and single time i saw 1819 end year in recently finished C&C: War of Limes game
It was also AoI game upto 1914, but i had to miss last session.

 

[unmerged(18425)]

And remember: there is basically no need for any balancing at all. The only thing needed is that players are aware of the stats of the nations, then they can adjust their policy so that a nice balance in the game is established. [...]

The only threat to balance is the inborn conservatism of players and their inabilty to adjust to changed conditions.

Oh I agree to a large degree. That's why I dare to do a 1419 campaign afterall. It's the most imbalanced campaign of all the multiplayer campaigns there exist.
As HoG said, you need to be ready to accept things that don't happen in other multiplayer games. It's bound to become less historical. But at least I did drop countries like Burgundy and made sure there's only one human in the Spanish territory to make it more like it results in a semi-historical outcome.

I would hate to lose France, for example. I would miss Napoleon so much that it hurts. But if it happens, it happens.

But I would like to have semi-vanilla levels of manpower, population and income, since it's proven that this works in multiplayer. Of course, this also has to do with me being slightly conservative

And rest assured, I have nothing against you changing tax and MP vales etc on the map. I have complete trust in you in these matters. I am only concerned with postponements of the start because of it and potential quarrels stemming from them.

It all depends on me to get an edit list ready in time.

 

[unmerged(6147)]

I have never quit a game in SP before its natural end in 1819, with the exception of restarts of the same game when I wanted to try another approach with that nation. I always try to do my best and am interested in seeing how far I can get, sometimes redefining my inital aim (WC) when I see I cannot accomplish it.

An approach similar to the one I apply in MP. The only difference is that WC in MP is sadly possible only in theory.

 

[unmerged(18425)]

HoG raised the topic of random generated explorers and conquistadors. I can see the benefits of this. We do have a bigger colonial world now, afterall.

if no one largely opposes, I will generate random explorers and conquistadors too.

 

[unmerged(6147)]

That is very fascinating. From an egoistic point of view, if I become ENG that is , I am against it, but from an objective point of view I support it.

Simply because this makes it possible for more nations to consider the possibility of colonising. Extra possibilities generally increase the joy of gaming and so it does in this case I believe.

Question is: from what time would they be allowed. From start?

 

[unmerged(18425)]

Question is: from what time would they be allowed. From start?

If we do them, yep.

 

[Tonioz]

HoG raised the topic of random generated explorers and conquistadors. I can see the benefits of this. We do have a bigger colonial world now, afterall.

if no one largely opposes, I will generate random explorers and conquistadors too.

I always wonder why so many GMs misses nice opportunity to giving more random in exporation and use generator for that.
If this idea accepted, no conq/explorers should appear before 1500, don`t make second Chill3.

Then two ideas can be implemented
- 10-20% chance to get conq/exp per session, life period 10-20 years
- more chance to get, life period is shorter, like 4-7 years

 

[unmerged(6147)]

Only those two alternatives? A limitation in the generator?

What happened in Chill3? Besides HoG and Ozzeh running away and the rest lacking the brains to understand they needed to join against one or both of them?

 

[Tonioz]

no limitations of the generator, that is personal suggestion.

as far as i understand in Chill3 England knew Asia before 1500 and so on.
In New Order (prolly III) they started without historical leaders, ended in England in Mexico and their economic domination.

 

[unmerged(38752)]

as far as i understand in Chill3 England knew Asia before 1500 and so on.

England knew some of Asia because of the Timurids... they were human played and sold their maps to them.

 

[Tonioz]

After looking the scenario, i must say following:

England has 3 provinces more than in Vanilla
MP: 50
Support: 65
Income: 19

France has 1 provinces less with less space to move around Paris.
MP: 47
Support: 56
Income: 13
No French province under the control of England

French CoT can be captured by Henry, which produces more income instability. At the same time Burgundy is AI and more provinces, which can be like source for France to gain income.
So i suppose events +200d, +10K cav like i described before in 01.01.1420 and 01.01.1421 is good solution for compensation of income. Boosting tax is not proper solution to let winner have boosted provinces.

If FAL is going to give France shock 4 leader, like Hive did in AoI, i suppose it should have 4 mov.
In current setup England has much more good chances to take economical win over France and pressed it down. Besides England has Maine for more strategical depth, while Picardie is owned by Burgundy, not giving French troops much chance to intercept retreating English troops.

So imho Picardie should be ceded to France, even without Burgundy control.

 

[Tonioz]

England knew some of Asia because of the Timurids... they were human played and sold their maps to them.

ah, i see now

Anyway on early techs only Iberians, England, and maybe France can sail to New World with explorer. Rest is able to that only via MA. Imho exporation should start with Columbus, not meaning Portugal sailing to Asia.

 

[Tonioz]

ah, and must-update
France should be edited infra1

 

[Tonioz]

OE got new gold mine in Balkan (besides 1 more spawn in north Bohemia).
Russia still didn`t get Ufa goldmine back. Ural mountains were rich by jewels, so imho it should be there

 

[unmerged(6147)]

If I am ENG and Wonko FRA you do not need to consider the FRA vs ENG military strength position in 1420. It will not be relevant.

As for colonisation I see no reason to wait for Coulmbus, apart from conservatism. Indeed, if all can get really early explorers/conqs then the usual advantage POR/SPA/ENG has will be largely eliminated since their historic explorers/conqs will now have competition from random ones - arriving earlier than the historic ones (with the exception of the early Portugues one perhaps).

Would this be different from a normal game? Yes of course. Would it be bad? Anyone claiming that has the burden of proof.

Will these other nations - other than POR/SPA/ENG/FRA - be able to reach NA or sail down by the African coast? Well no one knows. It is partly a question of general exploring skill, partly a diplomatic problem that they have to solve. Intruiging! Nice! Excellent, yet another quest for them!

 

[Tonioz]

Daniel, new map is already very different from normal game. I don`t think it is very good to put all ideas in same pack, like 1419, land=5, new map, early explorers, no historical leaders and so on