Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In

Rules for Victoria Games Discussion Options · View
Ederon
Posted: Friday, August 10, 2007 7:16:18 PM
 Field Major


Joined: 2/28/2007
Posts: 5,949
Location: Heart of Europe
We have lot of talk about them in varous topics, so I suggest discussion them here. Most rules of APS3 game are really good IMHO and I know few of you share this opinion.
Hytzon
Posted: Friday, August 10, 2007 7:24:48 PM
 Brigadier General

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 3/8/2007
Posts: 1,199
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Lord Ederon wrote:
We have lot of talk about them in varous topics, so I suggest discussion them here. Most rules of APS3 game are really good IMHO and I know few of you share this opinion.


Agreed, and let me say that its not fair to have expected this game we have going now to be flawless. I mean it was our first real game, and we needed to know what was wrong and how to correct the flaws. Now we have more experience and we are ready to bring our Monday Vicky game to the next level. Btw. the current game might not even be fun to play in HoI, so lets not force it if it turns out to be a disaster.

You can't say civilization don't advance - for in every war, they kill you in a new way.
Ederon
Posted: Friday, August 10, 2007 7:26:06 PM
 Field Major


Joined: 2/28/2007
Posts: 5,949
Location: Heart of Europe
I'm reposting APS3 ruleset here, for quoting purposes.

A Place in the Sun 3 Game Rules


Gameplay

1. Tech trading among humans is forbidden. Tech trading among AI countries is allowed and there are no limitations.

2. When a human declares war upon another human, a reason must be given for this action. Of course it may be a pretext or as naive as you want, but there has to be a formal declaration of war.

3. Colonial wars are not allowed between human nations, unless both players agree.

4. The amount of regular divisions in your army must always be at least ten times the amount of native divisions. eg. Your army consists of 110 divisions, 100 must be regular, while 10 may be native. Therefore the ratio of regular to native divsions is 10:1.
Also, you are not allowed to build artillery native divisions.

5. You must have enough soldier pops to support your divisions. If any player is found to have more divisions than he can support, he will be unable to increase his army until he has converted enough pops to once again support his army's divisions.

6. If claims that allow a colony to be formed are taken in a war, the colony cannot be claimed until the current war is complete.

7. Do not attack an AI-controlled human nation. If there is such a scenario, defend yourself but don't 'rape' them. The gains from this war must be minimal, just enough to ensure that the defending nation is not in disadvantage after the end of this war. All players will decide after the session what these gains should be.

8. Any nation that goes bankrupt will be severely punished. Apart from having their army, navy, RPS halved, they will also incur a much higher interest rate when they go bankrupt.

1st bankruptcy: +15% interest rate increase
2nd bankruptcy: +30% interest rate increase
3rd bankruptcy: +50% interest rate increase

Other punishments will be included in order to make bankruptcy something to avoid!

9. It is prohibited for a player to do the following with regard to colonies:
A player builds the four types of claim buildings required to claim a colony. He then builds further claims in the rest of the provinces required to claim the colony. He then sells the excess claim buildings which are not needed in order to claim, to the AI.

It is perfectly fine to:


To build a claim where it is obvious another country is going to be able to claim, with the view to selling it on to the AI. In other words a person can build a claim in a colony, in order to sell it, as long as that person is not going to claim that colony.
To claim a colony where another human still owns claim buildings. Of course be warned that the other human player may not be happy with this action.
10. A tiered maintenance rule shall be used in this game for both armies and navies. The following are how the rules have been set:

The maintenance of armies shall be like so:

0-29 divisions = no enforced maintenance
30-69 divisions = at least 50% maintenance
70+ divisions = 100% maintenance

For navies:

0-49 ships = no enforced mainteneance
50-99 ships = 50% maintenance
100+ ships = 100% maintenance


Behaviour
Respect your fellow players.
Don't insult other players.
Don't take it personally if you are not playing well or are being defeated badly in a war.
Please be punctual and give excuses for when you are going to be absent.
Refrain from using exploits.


Exploits (aka. don't do the following)

a. Prestige farming - Attacking same nation many times to gain prestige and/or taking small bits of country and then attack again in few years to gain prestige and/or few provinces. If you can't annex the country in first war an exception can be made.

b. It is forbidden to give a province to an AI or human nation, in order to further your own needs/goals. These include giving provinces in order:
to gain statehood for a province
for the receiving nation to convert/promote pops for you
to expand RGOs if you are an unciv nation
to avoid an event
or any other reason like building factories, railroads or giving more pops.

c. You are allowed to buy provinces from the AI. However, if you intend to do so you must announce it in public and wait 1 month before actually buying it. This will give the other players a chance to oppose your plan.
However, in the likely event another player will want to buy the province, he must also announce it too and wait 1 month before he can buy it.
Thus its forbidden from other players to sneak buy a province after a player announces his intention to buy it; thus its forbidden for players to sneak buy provinces altogether.

d. You may not release a satellite when at war, to create a buffer state!

e. Players must not purposely avoid negative events.


Punishments for breaking rules:

1st offense : Stocks, treasury and RPs edited to zero.
2nd offence : 1 session suspension without a sub.
3rd offense : Ban from this game .
Ederon
Posted: Friday, August 10, 2007 7:28:45 PM
 Field Major


Joined: 2/28/2007
Posts: 5,949
Location: Heart of Europe
Hytzon wrote:
Btw. the current game might not even be fun to play in HoI, so lets not force it if it turns out to be a disaster.

Agreed. Best would be if we converted right now and played HoI2 continuation of conflict over OE/Italy. But let's try it after 1936 just to test the conversion. If we found then it's not worth the time after 1-2 sessions, we can jump back on Victoria (or EU3 eventually Smile).
Mr.G
Posted: Friday, August 10, 2007 7:47:57 PM
 Major

Forum Supporter Medal 1st ClassOne Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership MedalAuthor of 8000th post

Joined: 3/6/2007
Posts: 504
Location: New York City
I agree with Hyzton and Ederon, rules are needed in the game.

And to address Hyztons previous post about financial problems. Any cost of the war is temporary as the countries who is done with war has time to rebuild. I'm not sure about either one of your economies but France has reached its peak for its national population. Now with plenty of time to split there is not reason any country should be able to bounce back fast.

What would of happened in Germany situation would be growth out pacing industrial growth before the debt is paid. Once the debt is paid (2-3 years) the growth of population will be tremendously out stripped by growth of industry reaching the same square as if there was no debt in the first place. The result, less money in the treasury. The only thing that can hamper this is a time restraint, and we still have plenty of time. I gave Germany the money to skip that process among other reasons. The point being even without the gagillions of dollars Germany has received from France he is no different then from before the war, the biggest difference will always come from loss of national population or strong economic land.

The difference the Austrian succession of Northern Italy was because everyone, even Austria recognized it was Italy because of the cores and real history. Had it been something else like Yugoslavian provinces then we have something entirely different. Look at the Annency , French core and French majority but Italy will fight to the last piece of lands instead of handing it over. I recognize the flaw in the games I'm just tired because some players seem not to mind they are taking advantage of it.


Anyways, I like the rules made by Noddy and gang.
Ederon
Posted: Friday, August 10, 2007 8:01:53 PM
 Field Major


Joined: 2/28/2007
Posts: 5,949
Location: Heart of Europe
Here are my own comments on APS3 rules.
Quote:
Gameplay

1. Tech trading among humans is forbidden. Tech trading among AI countries is allowed and there are no limitations.

Some tech tranding should be possible IMHO. I remember one rule we had back in Monday Game yet with HoI1 - allies could give each other one tech per year, we set it on 24th/25th of December (as giving tech in HoI1 meant you had it instantly available, not just BP as in HoI2). For Vicky purposes, it may be once in 5 or 10 years on Christmas (or New Years Eve, doesn't really matter), and every country would be allowed to accept just one tech.

Quote:
2. When a human declares war upon another human, a reason must be given for this action. Of course it may be a pretext or as naive as you want, but there has to be a formal declaration of war.

So be it, nothing essential. Good just for flavour and it happens anyway.

Quote:
3. Colonial wars are not allowed between human nations, unless both players agree.

I completely agree. Since colonial war limits you from attacking elsewhere than in colonies, it gives attacker unjust advantage defender cannot break because of game engine. in practive, game would be paused, attacker sais he wants to wage colonial war and if defender agrees, it can be declared. If defender refuses to wage colonial war, full war must be declared. I think it is important to enforce the latter too.

Quote:
4. The amount of regular divisions in your army must always be at least ten times the amount of native divisions. eg. Your army consists of 110 divisions, 100 must be regular, while 10 may be native. Therefore the ratio of regular to native divsions is 10:1.
Also, you are not allowed to build artillery native divisions.

I don't have opinion on this, but it seems reasonable.

Quote:
5. You must have enough soldier pops to support your divisions. If any player is found to have more divisions than he can support, he will be unable to increase his army until he has converted enough pops to once again support his army's divisions.

Frankly, I don't know what is meant by this. You can build divisions only if you have enough soldiers, or not?

Quote:
6. If claims that allow a colony to be formed are taken in a war, the colony cannot be claimed until the current war is complete.

Again, it sounds reasonable.

Quote:
7. Do not attack an AI-controlled human nation. If there is such a scenario, defend yourself but don't 'rape' them. The gains from this war must be minimal, just enough to ensure that the defending nation is not in disadvantage after the end of this war. All players will decide after the session what these gains should be.

Agreed.

Quote:
8. Any nation that goes bankrupt will be severely punished. Apart from having their army, navy, RPS halved, they will also incur a much higher interest rate when they go bankrupt.

1st bankruptcy: +15% interest rate increase
2nd bankruptcy: +30% interest rate increase
3rd bankruptcy: +50% interest rate increase

Other punishments will be included in order to make bankruptcy something to avoid!

Very good, though I'd made it even more steep. Like +30% for 1st, +50% for second and +100% for third. Seriously, who would lend money to chronic bankrupter?

Quote:
9. It is prohibited for a player to do the following with regard to colonies:
A player builds the four types of claim buildings required to claim a colony. He then builds further claims in the rest of the provinces required to claim the colony. He then sells the excess claim buildings which are not needed in order to claim, to the AI.

This would be an explot, so I can only agree with such rule.

Quote:
It is perfectly fine to:


To build a claim where it is obvious another country is going to be able to claim, with the view to selling it on to the AI. In other words a person can build a claim in a colony, in order to sell it, as long as that person is not going to claim that colony.
To claim a colony where another human still owns claim buildings. Of course be warned that the other human player may not be happy with this action.

Yes, this is perfectly ok by my standards.

Quote:
10. A tiered maintenance rule shall be used in this game for both armies and navies. The following are how the rules have been set:

The maintenance of armies shall be like so:

0-29 divisions = no enforced maintenance
30-69 divisions = at least 50% maintenance
70+ divisions = 100% maintenance

I'd adjust it to:
0-14 - no enforced maintenance
15-29 - at least 33% maintenance
...

Quote:

For navies:

0-49 ships = no enforced mainteneance
50-99 ships = 50% maintenance
100+ ships = 100% maintenance

Agreed.

Quote:
Behaviour
Respect your fellow players.
Don't insult other players.
Don't take it personally if you are not playing well or are being defeated badly in a war.
Please be punctual and give excuses for when you are going to be absent.
Refrain from using exploits.

Not really necessary, as we are all mature enough to accept each others insults. One Tooth Grin But I don't mind having preamble like this in the rules, although it'll leave most of us behing the wall of this Victorian camp Tongue

Quote:
Exploits (aka. don't do the following)

Let me learn something Big Grin

Quote:
a. Prestige farming - Attacking same nation many times to gain prestige and/or taking small bits of country and then attack again in few years to gain prestige and/or few provinces. If you can't annex the country in first war an exception can be made.

Never heard about it, but it's another obvious explot. It's wonderful how ingenious pleople are. Smile

Quote:
b. It is forbidden to give a province to an AI or human nation, in order to further your own needs/goals. These include giving provinces in order:

Let's take it one by one (well, not one by one...)
Quote:
to gain statehood for a province

could be
Quote:
for the receiving nation to convert/promote pops for you
to expand RGOs if you are an unciv nation
to avoid an event
or any other reason like building factories, railroads or giving more pops.

absolutely

Quote:
c. You are allowed to buy provinces from the AI. However, if you intend to do so you must announce it in public and wait 1 month before actually buying it. This will give the other players a chance to oppose your plan.
However, in the likely event another player will want to buy the province, he must also announce it too and wait 1 month before he can buy it.
Thus its forbidden from other players to sneak buy a province after a player announces his intention to buy it; thus its forbidden for players to sneak buy provinces altogether.

This is good rule imho, it'll be much more interesting with it.

Quote:
d. You may not release a satellite when at war, to create a buffer state!

Kinda agree, though I'm not 100% about this one.

Quote:
e. Players must not purposely avoid negative events.

yes, sir!

Quote:
Punishments for breaking rules:

1st offense : Stocks, treasury and RPs edited to zero.
2nd offence : 1 session suspension without a sub.
3rd offense : Ban from this game .

Ah, seeet Smile I like first one the best.
Hytzon
Posted: Friday, August 10, 2007 9:42:12 PM
 Brigadier General

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 3/8/2007
Posts: 1,199
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
I agree with the rules above, and I think we should also play with APS3 mod and maybe even modify a bit ourselves. The problem in late game is players have too much money, this is somewhat balanced out by ASP3 where some ships costs 150.000 a piece.. But I do think that we should make an event, which would turn the prices up on almost everything around 1900. Also, we should decrease POP-growth at the same time as its highly unrealistical that its so linear. IMHO it should flatten out, actually we could say that once you have doubled your national population or something - it would be toned down. Maybe to harsh, but we need to do something.

You can't say civilization don't advance - for in every war, they kill you in a new way.
Aster
Posted: Friday, August 10, 2007 10:23:04 PM
 Sergeant
One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 7/5/2007
Posts: 65
Location: USA
I either fully agree with, or have no real problems with, all of the proposed APS3 rules. Playing with the APS mod would also be fine by me.

I also agree with Hytzon's proposal to tone down population growth in some way. Don't think it will be necessary to add a special event to increase costs, as I believe that APS is reasonably good here already. No need to solve the problem twice.

If we have a set of rules, we must choose 1) a rulemaster, and 2) an omsbundsman, to judge cases where the rulemaster is personally involved.



One more proposed rule (already posted in another thread)
Aster wrote:

I also agree that it should be possible to enforce a victorious peace. Endlessly massacring partisans because the other chap won't agree and can't be forced sucks.

One idea is to introduce (in the next game) a rule something like the following:

RULE:
- If you are at war, have lost your capital, have anywhere in your or allied [co-combatant] lands fewer than 1/4th the divisions the enemy fields in your own territory, and have at least 70% of your state provinces occupied if fighting alone, or 90% if allied [co-combatant] with either a human-controlled nation or a Great Power, then:

You must accept ANY peace deal of 150% warscore or less (but only 90% of this may be used for global demands like reparations, etc.).

A player invoking this rule must pause the game, announce a "Forced Peace", and present his terms.





sonofliberty
Posted: Friday, August 10, 2007 10:24:23 PM
Free Man

Forum Supporter Medal 1st ClassOne Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership MedalBiggest Spammer '08 Award

Joined: 3/5/2007
Posts: 4,329
It is even worse in vip. My USA population topped 300,000,000 before 1935.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. -- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

There is a new game on the way Project Blitzkrieg
Anders
Posted: Friday, August 10, 2007 10:44:25 PM
 Generalfeldmarschall

Forum Supporter Medal 1st ClassOne Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal2012 Good Cause Support MedalBanned in ActionAuthor of 7000th post

Joined: 3/9/2007
Posts: 13,057
Location: Auf das der Adler wieder fliegt
Having played two rather under-developed countries in three games now, I have some obvious objections to the 'no tech-trade' rule.

"Hvor fattige var de ikke, disse fiskere som levde av havets nåde! De slet sig gjennom livet uten å se sig om til høire eller til venstre. Deres gleder var få, deres bekymringer mange. Men de hadde allikevel et gemyttlig smil til den fremmede, en munter vise og en lun historie. For sånn er de, disse Sørlandets barn."

King of Men wrote:
Anders is correct.

Fivoin wrote:
Yeah, Anders is right.

baronbowden wrote:
I would tend to agree with Anders.

Support Ederon.net via your Amazon purchases!

I joined Ederon.net before it became mainstream
sonofliberty
Posted: Friday, August 10, 2007 11:11:26 PM
Free Man

Forum Supporter Medal 1st ClassOne Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership MedalBiggest Spammer '08 Award

Joined: 3/5/2007
Posts: 4,329
Quote:
1. Tech trading among humans is forbidden. Tech trading among AI countries is allowed and there are no limitations
What is the rationale behind this rule? just because UK starts with such a big lead? Would it not be more reasonable to reduce thier lead in mp? I think countries should be allowed to share or sell/trade techs as desired. Alliances are all about helping each other. Especially in mp where such alliances are likely to be long term.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. -- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

There is a new game on the way Project Blitzkrieg
Ederon
Posted: Friday, August 10, 2007 11:14:42 PM
 Field Major


Joined: 2/28/2007
Posts: 5,949
Location: Heart of Europe
As you can see I offered alternative to "no-tech trade". As per peacedeals, I'd also introduce Hytzons no deals after capital falls.
Valdemar
Posted: Saturday, August 11, 2007 12:31:07 AM
 Corporal
One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 7/24/2007
Posts: 87
Location: Orlando, Florida, U.S.A.
Aster wrote:
I also agree with Hytzon's proposal to tone down population growth in some way. Don't think it will be necessary to add a special event to increase costs, as I believe that APS is reasonably good here already. No need to solve the problem twice.


I did a calculation for Germany using this formula: SP x R x T = FP

1) SP = Germany's starting population in 1837

2) R = the annual rate of growth

3) T = the time in years

4) FP = the final population in 1937

We know SP, T, and FP, so we must solve for R

FP/(SP x T) = R

67,830,000 / (30,010,700 x 100 ) = 0.0226

So, over the 100 year period from 1837 to 1937, Germany's rate of population growth averaged 2.3% per year.

Germany was severely effected by losses during WWI and it took 20 years (!), from 1919 -1939 for Germany to have the same population she had in 1914.

Since we're sorta on the subject of demographics, Germany's population right now is roughly 80,000,000 people. By 2050, it is projected to have a population of only 53,000,000. Further, ethnic Germans will be a minority in their own country by 2100. Welcome to Germanistan.

If anyone is interested in doing a larger survey to determine an average growth rate for various parts of the globe, I'd be happy to help.

Regards,
Valdemar

"Tell my mother that, when you found me, I was with the only brothers I had left. She'll understand that." - Private Ryan Saving Private Ryan
Hytzon
Posted: Saturday, August 11, 2007 9:17:54 AM
 Brigadier General

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 3/8/2007
Posts: 1,199
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
AFAIK the prussian POP growth modifier is something like 1.0033 standard, on top of this comes inventions and healtcare. The modifier for all countries is capped to 1.0200 but that is without the life-rating I think. Then we have the poor french who has a growth of 0.9924 unmodified...

You can't say civilization don't advance - for in every war, they kill you in a new way.
Valdemar
Posted: Saturday, August 11, 2007 11:21:18 AM
 Corporal
One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 7/24/2007
Posts: 87
Location: Orlando, Florida, U.S.A.
Ooops, I forgot to include the eastern Europeans flooding into Germany. So in 2100 the name will be Germanogradistan. UK will be Englandabad. Italy will be Italbanarably (Italy + Albania + Arabs). And my own beloved nation will be U.S. of Amexica.

Anyone have a figure for what the full growth rate can be for European nations in Vicky? Keep in mind that Germany's 2.3% annual was an average. If you only go upto 1914, it is more like 3%. Germany's population suffered from war deaths, disease, and massive emigration during and after WWI, so that brings the average down considerable for the 100 year period.

Regards,
Valdemar

"Tell my mother that, when you found me, I was with the only brothers I had left. She'll understand that." - Private Ryan Saving Private Ryan
sonofliberty
Posted: Saturday, August 11, 2007 11:37:58 AM
Free Man

Forum Supporter Medal 1st ClassOne Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership MedalBiggest Spammer '08 Award

Joined: 3/5/2007
Posts: 4,329
Valdemar wrote:
Ooops, I forgot to include the eastern Europeans flooding into Germany. So in 2100 the name will be Germanogradistan. UK will be Englandabad. Italy will be Italbanarably (Italy + Albania + Arabs). And my own beloved nation will be U.S. of Amexica.

Anyone have a figure for what the full growth rate can be for European nations in Vicky? Keep in mind that Germany's 2.3% annual was an average. If you only go upto 1914, it is more like 3%. Germany's population suffered from war deaths, disease, and massive emigration during and after WWI, so that brings the average down considerable for the 100 year period.

Regards,
Valdemar
I disagree with your name for the future usa. USA will not exist as a single nation by 2100, we are already seeing the effects of the "balkanization" of this nation. As more and more immigrants refuse to assimilate our culture will die and breakdown into at least 4-5 sub-nations. This would be the stuff of a different topic however.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. -- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

There is a new game on the way Project Blitzkrieg
Hytzon
Posted: Saturday, August 11, 2007 11:52:47 AM
 Brigadier General

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 3/8/2007
Posts: 1,199
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
By the way I think that Socialists are too powerfull in late game, I mean the only way to really expand the industry late game is going socialist.. (Though the UK is proud to be able to remain Liberal, with interventionism). Socialists are forced to fund social reforms a bit higher, I mean the minimum is pushed a bit. But I think to try and balance the fact that the Socialists are so powerfull, it would be a good idea to force them to always fund 100%. If UK was a socialistic state now, I would be able to fund my reforms 100% - but at a huge cost. It would certainly put a strain on my diplomatic and military spending. What do you think about that?

Btw. You could just try to enact low reform standards, but then you wouldn't get as many immigrants and your POPs would probably be more angry with the 50% taxation. I hope so at least...

You can't say civilization don't advance - for in every war, they kill you in a new way.
Ederon
Posted: Saturday, August 11, 2007 1:09:52 PM
 Field Major


Joined: 2/28/2007
Posts: 5,949
Location: Heart of Europe
Hytzon wrote:
By the way I think that Socialists are too powerfull in late game, I mean the only way to really expand the industry late game is going socialist.. (Though the UK is proud to be able to remain Liberal, with interventionism). Socialists are forced to fund social reforms a bit higher, I mean the minimum is pushed a bit. But I think to try and balance the fact that the Socialists are so powerfull, it would be a good idea to force them to always fund 100%. If UK was a socialistic state now, I would be able to fund my reforms 100% - but at a huge cost. It would certainly put a strain on my diplomatic and military spending. What do you think about that?

This sounds good to me. Is there any way to tweak behavior of capis?
Hytzon
Posted: Saturday, August 11, 2007 2:07:39 PM
 Brigadier General

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 3/8/2007
Posts: 1,199
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
You can change the cost for them building railroads and factories, but I dont think you can change much else. As I said earlier we should increase the cost of everything in late game, and I think forts needs a huge prize increase. Level I-III should be affordable, but trench systems should be really expansive and in fact they should decrease the efficiency of the provinces... (we can't really mod the latter I think, but higher price will do).

You can't say civilization don't advance - for in every war, they kill you in a new way.
Gen.Schuermann
Posted: Saturday, August 11, 2007 7:01:43 PM
 Generalfeldmarschall

Forum Supporter Medal 1st ClassOne Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership MedalAuthor of 9000th Post

Joined: 3/5/2007
Posts: 3,505
Location: guarding Democracy
I agree with Hytz's last point. 1-3 forts should be semi-affordable, but no more, tbh. The big trenches systems should really hurt you, but hey they will protect you.

All in all, i agree to those Rules.

About pop modifiers: I would see the German Population, with 1936 borders, today at 140+ million, if it wasnt for the 2 WWs. So 100-120 million germans in 1936 should be a realistic number, if no WW occured in the Vicky timeframe. We should adjust the growth of the population accordingly:

FP/(SP x T) = R

100,000,000 / (30,010,700 x 100 ) = 0.0336 -> 3.36% a year.

As a fun sidenote, wacky Polish Prime Minister posted the figure of 70+ million poles (iirc) if it wasnt for hitler...

In Soviet Russia, Schuermann defeats YOU!
Virtokaii
Posted: Tuesday, August 21, 2007 7:38:24 PM
 Legionarius
One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 8/6/2007
Posts: 21
Location: Germany
My 2 cents:

Army Rules

- I recommend keeping the army maintenance rule as is; it serves it's purpose well enough and introducing more levels will just serve to make things such as management and enforcement unpleasant.

- However, I think it would be nice to include the navy maintenance rule used in BTF; Transports and Steamers are excluded from the maintenance rule alltogether and wooden ships are excluded until 1865.

- About the regular/native divisions rule I suggest a 2:1 ratio as is currently employed by most B&I games. I believe the main reason noddy introduced this rule to APS3 was due to his experience in a late game hyper-war in in another B&I game, however in my opinion it is absolute overkill and tries to fix the problem three times over. Barring native divisions from artillery attachments already solves half the problem as it, a) removes some gameyness and b) decreases total army size anyway. Furthermore, the APS mod reduces mobilization increments to only ONE division. Both measures taken together deal with the problem nicely without being too restrictive on the players.

- Someone was asking about the relevance of the culture capacity/division rule. The point here is if you exceed the cap in just one of the cultures, you can't build ANY more divisions until you've matched the culture capacity again. The reason behind this is fairly easily explained, in the current game I built 100 Manchu divisions and then gave Manchuria to Japan. The result was, I didn't have a single Manchurian soldier pop anymore and hence, any losses these divisions took had no effect on my population.


General

- Tech trading should be forbidden amongst human players for the simple reason that it is RP free! If you're playing a nation like Russia or Austria, or even Japan or China, it's kinda the point to begin with, that you're at a technological disadvantage. This where your skill as a player comes in in trying to mitigate this disadvantage.

- Concerning bankruptcy, I think the current rules are sufficient. I've never seen anyone go bankrupt anyway and the current rules are already quite severe.

- Concerning growth rates, I think it's a mistake to mod the game with only the late stage of the game in mind. To me, everyone profits from the high population growth and that's that!

- About the concerns for socialist governments, they're really not much better than conservative governments and their full citizenship policy is only a boon to some nations, so no need to mod.

- To me the modding of fortress costs, seems more like a nuisance than to serve any real purpose.

- I had this idea that we should introduce "real" naval bases to the game, in that ships can only be stationed there. In my opinion this will serve to to give the naval aspect of warfare more weight. In a current MP game as UK I was attacked by France and Russia, but thanks to my naval superiority I managed to blockade their entire fleet in Brest, Marseilles and St. Petersburg. I think this would bring an interesting as well as realistic new aspect to the game.

- The B&I community usually uses a POP Mod to more accurately represent population levels at the time(like repopulating Poland!). I think this generally makes a nice addition to any MP game. If we were to use one, we would have to decide on which one, as GM's most recent version includes a KILLER liberal revolution and some nice scripted events in China.
Ederon
Posted: Tuesday, August 21, 2007 8:04:09 PM
 Field Major


Joined: 2/28/2007
Posts: 5,949
Location: Heart of Europe
Virtokaii wrote:
- However, I think it would be nice to include the navy maintenance rule used in BTF; Transports and Steamers are excluded from the maintenance rule alltogether and wooden ships are excluded until 1865.

Did you mean after 1865?
Quote:
- Someone was asking about the relevance of the culture capacity/division rule. The point here is if you exceed the cap in just one of the cultures, you can't build ANY more divisions until you've matched the culture capacity again. The reason behind this is fairly easily explained, in the current game I built 100 Manchu divisions and then gave Manchuria to Japan. The result was, I didn't have a single Manchurian soldier pop anymore and hence, any losses these divisions took had no effect on my population.

But how do you measure it? And I though that when you release countries, divisions with their culture are given to them. It happened to me when I released Portugal, some 4 divisions became Portuguese.
Quote:
- Tech trading should be forbidden amongst human players for the simple reason that it is RP free! If you're playing a nation like Russia or Austria, or even Japan or China, it's kinda the point to begin with, that you're at a technological disadvantage. This where your skill as a player comes in in trying to mitigate this disadvantage.

Forbidding tech trading altogether is too much prohibitive. If your main concern is that it is RP free, then let's allow humans to ask for tech (from AI or another human), but don't allow accepting ones.
Quote:
- Concerning growth rates, I think it's a mistake to mod the game with only the late stage of the game in mind. To me, everyone profits from the high population growth and that's that!

But if we reduce it, we reduce it for everyone so everyone will lose. Only purpose is to have the game reach somewhat more historical outcome when it comes to population as I understand it.
Quote:
- To me the modding of fortress costs, seems more like a nuisance than to serve any real purpose.

The purpose it to prevent building trench systems in too many provinces. As trench systems and higher level forts in essence change province economic potential, it should either hinder province's output or be substantially more expensive. Does it make sense? Wink
Quote:
- I had this idea that we should introduce "real" naval bases to the game, in that ships can only be stationed there. In my opinion this will serve to to give the naval aspect of warfare more weight. In a current MP game as UK I was attacked by France and Russia, but thanks to my naval superiority I managed to blockade their entire fleet in Brest, Marseilles and St. Petersburg. I think this would bring an interesting as well as realistic new aspect to the game.

This is good one.
Quote:
- The B&I community usually uses a POP Mod to more accurately represent population levels at the time(like repopulating Poland!). I think this generally makes a nice addition to any MP game. If we were to use one, we would have to decide on which one, as GM's most recent version includes a KILLER liberal revolution and some nice scripted events in China.

I don't know what POP Mod is, so please educate me Smile
Mr.G
Posted: Tuesday, August 21, 2007 11:51:35 PM
 Major

Forum Supporter Medal 1st ClassOne Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership MedalAuthor of 8000th post

Joined: 3/6/2007
Posts: 504
Location: New York City
I don't mind the population growth too much. My fear is what will happen to countries like France, I believe they lose men in the beginning? If they do then when they pass reforms will they still lose population?

If you find someone who does it or you know what your doing (Which you probably do) then go for it.

As for tech trades, a simple rule I think is to allow tech trades on the 5 and 0. Meaning January 1850 and January 1855 etc, a country can receive only 1 tech period at these times. It is silly that the Ottomans can suddenly become level with the British because of an alliance but it is silly that the said alliance can benefit the Ottomans with slow tech gain. 20 free techs in a game is not too shabby.

And for native divisions I think 50% is fine with no artillery although I would rather have 33%.

Edit: And I'm all for making things more expensive. It shouldn't be the technological limits that stops forts, it should be the financial situation. Just don't make it too high. ;-)
M&M
Posted: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 2:58:44 AM
 General

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 3/8/2007
Posts: 2,335
Location: Cairo, Egypt.
Quote:
The big trenches systems should really hurt you, but hey they will protect you.

I kinda disagree, tanks quickly erode those forts. When the french broke through torino all they needed to do was just march uncontested across north italy and all the forts were simply wiped off. I'm still reconstructing the forts from an invasion almost 11 years ago. However I do agree that the price should be raised somewhat, just not enough to really hurt you.

Quote:
- I had this idea that we should introduce "real" naval bases to the game, in that ships can only be stationed there. In my opinion this will serve to to give the naval aspect of warfare more weight

Its hard to willfully order the navy to retreat to the appropriate port, it happened during my war with france & the fleet kept getting intercepted before it reached port and had to retreat back to a portless province each time. Both were in the same sea zone.

Quote:
As for tech trades, a simple rule I think is to allow tech trades on the 5 and 0. Meaning January 1850 and January 1855 etc, a country can receive only 1 tech period at these times. It is silly that the Ottomans can suddenly become level with the British because of an alliance but it is silly that the said alliance can benefit the Ottomans with slow tech gain. 20 free techs in a game is not too shabby.

Well I'm not sure about the whole tech trading thing. It usually has very legitimate uses, for example I bought a few provinces (hong kong...etc) from china with techs, that seems to me like a legitimate use since money won't have made much of a difference to china.

I do realise that tech trading can be exploited, but if we do find legitimate reasons to do it I don't see why it should be restricted.
noddy102
Posted: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 3:19:38 AM
 Decurion

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 7/10/2007
Posts: 47
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Lord Ederon wrote:
But how do you measure it? And I though that when you release countries, divisions with their culture are given to them. It happened to me when I released Portugal, some 4 divisions became Portuguese.


When you hover your mouse cursor over the manpower icon/value in the game toolbar, a drop down screen appears, showing how many soldier pops of each culture you have and how many you may in fact support.
So say I am France and I have 40 French divisions and can support 60, it will display like such:

French - 40/60

Also let me explain further the 'exploit' of giving land to another human player, in order for him to make that state/colony 'statehood'.
Say I am France and the other person is Japan. Say I own all of modern day Vietnam and Japan wants money from me to develop his own industry. In return, I want him to do something, so I would ask him to take my Vietnamese provinces to make them into states, thus I will be able to build factories there (especially useful if I have full citizenship).

Tech trading should be prohibited between humans because some nations should hold an advantage over others (like Virtokaii explained). Otherwise, in theory OE can simply catch up with what UK has very quickly, by befriending a French player or whatever. Tech trading with the AI has also been a taboo issue in some B&I games, but I do support this since there has to be some common ground between being able to catch up and also for other nations to keep their advantage. Also, by only being able to trade with the AI, you have to also consider your BB score, which adds another element of interest to the game. Devil

Regarding Hytzon's argument on socialist parties, I agree that the socialists (and communists) are somewhat over-powering and unbalancing choices as parties. Perhaps instead of 100% social funding (cause that could be one hell of a game killer) they should be 50% minimum.
However, its fair to say that there are some countries who have social parties, which aren't all that good (France for example has a socialist party which is limited citizenship and pacifist, both problems in their own right).

Regarding pop growth, I am of the opinion that the default values that Paradox have set are actually the best. Although I must also admit that Kristjan on the B&I forum (he's the guy who has made this 'pop mod') has made some extra changes to the pop growth modifiers for some countries which adjust growth for some countries (I cannot remember exactly) which are a good alternative.
My opinion is that extensive testing is needed before any values are set with regard to pop growth modifiers, since any changes could result in drastic balancing changes. The way that Paradox have the growth modifiers setup allows for a historical balancing in Europe.
I do however concede that pop growth gets ridiculously overgrossed later in the game, but thats due to the player knowing how to make best use of pop growth. So should we really punish ourselves for knowing the game inside out? There are really only two alternatives, tone down the pop growth for each important nation proportionately OR create random events for high populated nations that result in the loss of pops or population (due to famine, weather events, city overcrowding, blah blah blah). If provinces could have a maximum population (a la EU2) that would even be a good solution, since in that case, pops would theoretically speaking 'migrate'. Unfortunately I think this isn't possible.
On a sidenote, I know somebody on the B&I forums did a test to find out the population needed in a province, where the annual increase in population would outpace the speed by which you could increase ALL types of factories, meaning that even if you were constantly expanding all factories, you still couldnt employ everybody. I can't remember the exact value, but its in fact possible to achieve with some nations.

Regarding releasing a satellite while at war, consider this situation.
In APS2 I was playing Prussia and another player (clampen) was playing France. He had annexed Belgium. This meant he had a huge border to protect and I had plans to dow him in order to become Germany. I dowed him and my plan was to march my 10 Cavalry army corps through Netherlands (my ally) and straight to Paris. Once he saw I was doing this, he released Wallonia, thus preventing me being able to march to Paris. Furthermore he was able to completely destroy those 10 divs, since they couldnt retreat to my allies land (it was a defensive alliance and thats the way the game mechanics work). To make matters even worse, he could attack me through Wallonia, but I couldnt attack him through Wallonia because they were in a defensive alliance with him, had been created while at war and thus weren't called up to war by him. It was extremely annoying game exploit that he made which almost made me inflict a punishment on him (since I was GM) but I hadn't any real grounds to do so, since it wasn't a recognised exploit.
I did get my own back by releasing Baden in that war though, which pissed him off extremely. And yes I did get Paris in the end. Cool LOL

Changing the price of forts is a non-issue. Regardless of what price is set for the improvement or upgrading of a fort, the player will still build it.
Forts can be bypassed anyway and once tanks come along, they are next to worthless.

Other things I would like to add;

firstly, regarding the naval maintenance and what Virtokaii has added. I personally am 50-50 whether or not to include steamers in the maintenance rule. If we are to try and tie the game to some sort of realistic situation, then yes they should be included under the maintenace rule. At no time in history (unless we go back to the Classical era) was any nation able to create an armada of transport ships and maintain these at a low level. Furthermore, can anybody point out any period in history where the transporting of hundreds of thousands of troops, even in fact millions of troops was a cheap operation!?
This is my argument for why transport ships should be included in the ship maintenace rule (if it is to be implemented). However I do see why in game terms they shouldn't be included. But for heavens sake, if you have a navy of 100 steamers, your naval maintenance at FULL naval spending is going to be cheap anyway so what is the real problem?

finally, the whole point in implementing all these ARMY maintenance rules is in order to try and limit the amount of divisions that can end up slowing down the game in latter times. However, you guys play at a very slow pace (which may I add, I personally enjoy) so I'm not sure if this is very necessary. Thus, this is why we have implemented a strict native rule in APS (10:1), why we changed the mobilization pool addition (1 div every 6 months) and why we added the army maintenace rule. The only other step that can be taken after these, would be to change the maintenace per division type, but in B&I we haven't done enough testing to be satisfied to introduce such a thing. It has however been discussed and its quite possible that it may be introduced in the near future.

So thats all I have to say for now. Please don't feel I'm dictating any rules or whatever here. Personally I think its great that you are all showing an interest in this topic, especially since it seems to be a fresh debate. On the B&I forums it hasn't stirred a proper debate for a long time now which is quite unfortunate. All I have given you is my personal opinion from playing Victoria MP games for the last 2 years.

'Bloodshed is a cleansing and a sanctifying thing, and the nation which regards it as the final horror has lost its manhood.'
P.H. Pearse (1879 - 1916)

Tenim un nom el sap tothom: Barça , Barça, Baaarça!
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.0 (NET v2.0) - 10/10/2006
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.
Copyright © 2005-2007 Daniel "Lord Ederon" Scibrany. All rights reserved.