What is wrong with WatK3.1 1419?

[unmerged(6147)]

I have started making a little MOD of the Watk3.1 map for Aladar and myself. We aim at a 1419 start.

I have heard people complain about the basic scenario that accompanies the map although I am not sure about what they complain about. What is it? Please note that balancing issues between different nations or areas are not relevant for us. More the type "tax values are generally too high" or perhaps "too low" etc.

Tax
Production
Manpower

Do they on average seem to be OK?

 

[Brent15]

I am currently playing a GC with this map on Local Area Network. For some reason the game seems to lag more than the vanilla version. My guess it that the increased number of provinces requires more processing speed but I'm not sure.

Otherwise, I don't have any major complaints and I like how the scenario has been unfolding so far (particularly in the HRE).

 

[unmerged(36826)]

A lot of complaints are directed at the time, 1419 means pre LT9 combat which is very random and cavarly focused.

It also means you cannot make real money for 60-80 years unless you conquer everything in sight, which often means boredom. And it also allows a powerful power to get strong beyond all recognition, check Chill 3 for Frengland, Russkey and Portugal D)

 

[unmerged(18425)]

Tax
Production
Manpower

Do they on average seem to be OK?

I would say yes. Perhaps that Russia has a bit too few manpower, but this does not concern you, right?

 

[unmerged(6147)]

I would say yes. Perhaps that Russia has a bit too few manpower, but this does not concern you, right?

Exactly FAL. You understood this. In my little scenario all European provinces will have the same MP

 

[unmerged(6147)]

A lot of complaints are directed at the time, 1419 means pre LT9 combat which is very random and cavarly focused.

It also means you cannot make real money for 60-80 years unless you conquer everything in sight, which often means boredom. And it also allows a powerful power to get strong beyond all recognition, check Chill 3 for Frengland, Russkey and Portugal D)

Thanks for your ideas Bob. However I was concerned about the WatK3.1 map and its 1419 scenario, not a 1419 scenario initself. I love 1419 scenarios.

 

[unmerged(6147)]

I am currently playing a GC with this map on Local Area Network. For some reason the game seems to lag more than the vanilla version. My guess it that the increased number of provinces requires more processing speed but I'm not sure.

Otherwise, I don't have any major complaints and I like how the scenario has been unfolding so far (particularly in the HRE).

Thanks Brent. Nice to hear. You may well be right about the number of provinces.

 

[unmerged(36826)]

Thanks for your ideas Bob. However I was concerned about the WatK3.1 map and its 1419 scenario, not a 1419 scenario initself. I love 1419 scenarios.

I see......

 

[DSYoungEsq]

Thanks for your ideas Bob. However I was concerned about the WatK3.1 map and its 1419 scenario, not a 1419 scenario initself. I love 1419 scenarios.

Thank-God someone stands up for them! I had a ball with a start in the mid-1300's; more people should have to play the game with LT 1 and Trade 1.

 

[unmerged(18425)]

Thank-God someone stands up for them! I had a ball with a start in the mid-1300's; more people should have to play the game with LT 1 and Trade 1.

My problem with the 1419 scenario is not so much the technology, but that it is severly unbalanced. Either France or England will be too strong after the HYW, There's Burgundy which can be a pain in the ass if played and so on.

 

[DSYoungEsq]

My problem with the 1419 scenario is not so much the technology, but that it is severly unbalanced. Either France or England will be too strong after the HYW, There's Burgundy which can be a pain in the ass if played and so on.

As to France/England, how can you say that seriously? The 1453 and 1492 starts have France in its historical position (lord of all of Frankland); how can France end up more powerful than that when faced with a determined England during the HYW? And an England on the Continent would be a blessing: you want an England that doesn't hypertech and colonize? - Keep them in north France and watch what happens when they drool over the Netherlands...

Actually, the usual comments I hear about the HYW is that England and France end up crippled from their constant warfare, while the rest of the world gets a head start on Infra 5.


As for Burgundy, I consider that country to be a wonderful reason to play 1419. Burgundy SHOULD end up as a major power; it is only bad luck (and a few assassinations) that caused them to be subsumed into France and Austria. Played well, they would offer a unique counterpoint to the usual Austria v. France tension that develops along the Rhine.

 

[Norrefeldt]

I have never seen any kind of balance between BUR, HAB and FRA. One of BUR and FRA has always been annexed by the other, and the same can often be said for ENG and FRA.

I think the ENG vs FRA war can work, if the rest of the player group are skilled enough to understand the threat and make sure, through didplomcy or intervention, that both countries come out of the conflict playable. They should, since if one of FRA/ENG is allowed to dominate/annex the other, the game got itself a giant, that is very hard to stop.

 

[arcorelli]

As to France/England, how can you say that seriously? The 1453 and 1492 starts have France in its historical position (lord of all of Frankland); how can France end up more powerful than that when faced with a determined England during the HYW? And an England on the Continent would be a blessing: you want an England that doesn't hypertech and colonize? - Keep them in north France and watch what happens when they drool over the Netherlands...

An unified France in 1492 got a strong Spain and a not that weak Austria to contend with. An unified France in 1420's got nothing against.

Or England wins the HYW and well any Frengland is too much for anyone.

And I don't know a lot of endings to the HYW that are not a very early unified France or Frengland.

 

[unmerged(18425)]

As to France/England, how can you say that seriously? The 1453 and 1492 starts have France in its historical position (lord of all of Frankland); how can France end up more powerful than that when faced with a determined England during the HYW?

If France defeats England in the first 10 year of the game, it rapidly can unite France proper and then create already a Rhine border before 1453 and certainly before 1492.

And an England on the Continent would be a blessing: you want an England that doesn't hypertech and colonize? - Keep them in north France and watch what happens when they drool over the Netherlands...

Ah, but then you get a so-called Frengland. It conquers the Dutch, keeps the French possessions with French culture and simply starts to dominate the game. Not necessary bad, but not something I would like.

Actually, the usual comments I hear about the HYW is that England and France end up crippled from their constant warfare, while the rest of the world gets a head start on Infra 5.

Depends. I have found that with the low land tech warfare one can annihilate the leader file of his opponent quite quickly and then force peace
But of course, it can differ from game to game.

As for Burgundy, I consider that country to be a wonderful reason to play 1419. Burgundy SHOULD end up as a major power; it is only bad luck (and a few assassinations) that caused them to be subsumed into France and Austria. Played well, they would offer a unique counterpoint to the usual Austria v. France tension that develops along the Rhine.

It will mean no Netherlands though and thus rob the game of another colonial contender. And I simply don't see room for a France + Burgundy while still prevenging the Habsburgs from dominating the game.

-----

The 1492 and 1520 starts have proven time on time that they are balanced and most of the time finish in 1820 without a single country dominating the rest totally. 1419 starts have much worser stories to tell on average

 

[DSYoungEsq]

The 1492 and 1520 starts have proven time on time that they are balanced and most of the time finish in 1820 without a single country dominating the rest totally.

This statement right here establishes exactly why the 1492 and 1520 starts should be avoided at all costs. The point to the game is not balance, and anyone who plays it to create "balance" is playing the wrong game... :wacko:

 

[arcorelli]

This statement right here establishes exactly why the 1492 and 1520 starts should be avoided at all costs. The point to the game is not balance, and anyone who plays it to create "balance" is playing the wrong game... :wacko:

Well, having an scenario that almost guarantee that you are going to have an uber-country from the beginning (and then the rest of the game is the boring 'will be able to stop country A or not?), I guess balance is better.

Balance do not mean that all countries are equally successful and that some country can not become very strong. It means that the game is challenging all the way until 1820. 1492 and 1520 had proved their ability to do so.

 

[DSYoungEsq]

Well, having an scenario that almost guarantee that you are going to have an uber-country from the beginning (and then the rest of the game is the boring 'will be able to stop country A or not?), I guess balance is better.

Balance do not mean that all countries are equally successful and that some country can not become very strong. It means that the game is challenging all the way until 1820. 1492 and 1520 had proved their ability to do so.

Actually, I disagree. Indeed, it is my (humble? :rofl: ) opinion that the consistent use of the same scenarios has led to the stultification (Merriam-Webster Online definition here; see #3 particularly) {I put that word in just for Daniel }) of the MP game among the community. The games follow much to predictable a pattern. No one tries hard to knock anyone out of the game, everyone finishes in some fashion, usually relatively unmolested even when they are playing like putzes, and the result is so boring that most of the really good players play MP at best in fits and starts. Where are the PE's any more? Has it ever occurred to the playing community that the reason it has shrunk so much is that people are tired of "same ol', same ol'?"

Too, I think that the recent upsurge in games using modifications of one sort or another can be in large part laid to the doorstep of the increasing commonality of the games played with the scenarios you mention. The attempts to find some new way to spark interest can only be a result of a lack of interest in the old scenarios. If games using those scenarios were consistently dynamic, with the result for the various countries hanging on a thread, there would be little need to find a new scenario. And need one mention the ever-to-be-damned strait between Calais and Kent, which can only be considered a last ditch attempt by Johan to try and get England players to stop being hyperteching colonizing bitches?

I am a relatively poor player at MP; my war skills simply do not stand the test of the games in which I play. But I've never bothered to upgrade them. Do you know why? Because I don't have to. As was shown in the recent "Balance of Power" game, all I had to do was not antagonize the primary warmongers and I was allowed to play unmolested as England, colonizing to my heart's content, left a distant 3d or 4th in trading efforts, never a threat to anyone else militarily. If you were to review the most recent save, the truth should dawn upon anyone: England should have been fighting for her life. But that's not part of the "norm" around here, is it?

It is absurd to assert that France in 1419 can unify before anyone can arise to challenge it. Spain manages to unify itself just as quickly, if not more so, and can usually gobble up a complacent Portugal in the process (assuming a human is not in that seat, which is usually the case any more). HoG in Austria was in no way handicapped in Balance of Power: he was ready willing and able to challenge France the moment the English threat was over. But the existence of an unsettled situation at the beginning for France and England at least forces those players to put forth some real effort at the beginning of the game, rather than the usual cherry-picking of AI neighbors that attends the first two sessions of a 1492 scenario.

Balanced? Bah. Boring and lacking any true tension. o

 

[arcorelli]

Actually, I disagree. Indeed, it is my (humble? :rofl: ) opinion that the consistent use of the same scenarios has led to the stultification (Merriam-Webster Online definition here; see #3 particularly) {I put that word in just for Daniel }) of the MP game among the community. The games follow much to predictable a pattern. No one tries hard to knock anyone out of the game, everyone finishes in some fashion, usually relatively unmolested even when they are playing like putzes, and the result is so boring that most of the really good players play MP at best in fits and starts. Where are the PE's any more? Has it ever occurred to the playing community that the reason it has shrunk so much is that people are tired of "same ol', same ol'?"

Well, anyone could at some point become bored with playing a game 4-5 years. I could say that old timers still play in fits and starts show that the game is fun.

And what are you talking is not about scenario design (and definitely not about balance) is about that:
a) hyperteching is, simply, the most efficient way to play (there is a reason why good Daniel usually hypertechs, he only cares about power at end session and hyperteching is simply best to do that). Wars are fun but not properly rewarded. So unless you play with some extra-rewards for war (and there are some), simply going for warmongering ways does not pay. Unless you are very good and take always 3-4 provinces in every war

b) Since we got a lot of experience, we know what things work and what things don't. So there is less of 'strange' things because at some point that strange things had been tried. If they were successful, they are not anymore strange, and if they were not successful, well we know that they were not successful.

The need for new scenarios is not about 1492 or 1520 being bad things, or boring ones, it is simply we all played them a lot. And, well, with a new map you can have new things in good old 1492 or 1520.

To be more precise. When all scenarios were new and no one knew that much how they worked, the community ended selecting 1492 and 1520. 1419 (or 1648) were tried. But didn't worked. In other words, when everything was equal 1492 and 1520 were the selected ones, and 1419 was the rejected one.

Only now, after a lot of players had played those scenarios for years, we are looking for new things. But we got a new thing: a nice new map. And in this case, well, even a 1492 (or 1453, other scenario that works) can become new.

Balance is about, IMHO, making nations viable along a long game (months of gameplay).