Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In

Song of the Dead Take II Discussion Thread. Options · View
KhanXLT
Posted: Wednesday, February 28, 2018 3:34:21 AM
 General


Joined: 1/22/2013
Posts: 2,617
1) couldnt care less either way.

2) you'd think we'd collectively be better at this by now but we aren't, make it a rule

3) I am against additional restrictions on idea groups.
Ranger9000
Posted: Wednesday, February 28, 2018 3:45:12 AM
 Captain

Joined: 4/11/2013
Posts: 326
1) Works for me
2) Makes sense
3) 3/4 Rule would be the one I think would work better. It also allows people to still take the non 'core' mil idea sets if they want to.
dragoon9105
Posted: Wednesday, February 28, 2018 4:42:18 AM
 Lieutenant General


Joined: 8/25/2014
Posts: 2,150
1) Generally a Broken slot wont recover if the original player leaves it or its not subbed right away so Im fine with this
2) Fine with making this a rule
3) The 3/4 rule seems to be more popular, The Buff to Aristo we talked about in discord today, Switching Local Nobility's bonus out with +10% Shock Damage seems like it will be enough to equalize with Pluto.
King of Men
Posted: Wednesday, February 28, 2018 6:16:19 AM
 Legatus legionis

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 11/23/2007
Posts: 8,482
Location: Nowhere
So there's been some discussion of moving provinces around by edit. For provinces actually held by players you can just use Sell Province ingame, so edits seem redundant; the prestige cost is OK as a disincentive to move things around at random. However, for colonial and vassal nations things aren't so convenient. So I'll allow edits of colonial provinces for the purpose of straightening out bordergore like we have now. For just moving an otherwise-reasonable border a hundred miles you can go to war, mobilise three continents, and spill a river of blood, like civilised people.

Read my blog.
Norway Rome The Khanate Scotland Scotinavia Christendie the Serene Republic has always been at war with the Bretons False Empire Caliphate Persians Russians English Hungarians Oceanians Saracen Jackal! Death, death, death to the Frogs barbarians infidels necromancers vodka-drinking hegemonists Sassenach nomad menace Yellow Menace heathen Great Old One!
Vaniver
Posted: Wednesday, February 28, 2018 10:02:20 PM
 Lieutenant Colonel


Joined: 1/19/2014
Posts: 662
1) I think we should stop protection on shattered slots.
2) I am in favor of the rule I proposed Wink
3) I am opposed to restrictions on idea slots. I think we should not buff Aristocracy.

If we do restrict idea slots, I think it should be to limit the number of MIL slots as opposed to preventing people from picking the best 4 MIL slots. There's really not that much difference between world A, where Alice and Bob both feel they need to take Off/Def/Quan/Qual, and world B, where Alice feels the need to take 4 MIL and gets to choose between 12 options that all contain 3 of the top 4 and something unique and Bob also feels the need to take 4 MIL and gets to choose between the same 12 options. World C, where Alice and Bob can only take 3 MIL idea sets and thus have 5 adm/dip instead of 4 adm/dip seems like it gives much more interesting variation.
King of Men
Posted: Thursday, March 01, 2018 6:23:29 AM
 Legatus legionis

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 11/23/2007
Posts: 8,482
Location: Nowhere
Added these clauses to the rules:

  • If a country is damaged beyond viability (as judged by a panel of three players as far from the country as practical) and the player quits, it will not be AI-protected.
  • First Punch rule: A new player, whether taking up a previously played country or a previously AI one, may not be attacked for a certain period, usually one session, except by players he first attacks. Alliances will work as normal; attacks on a subject nation count as attacks on the overlord. The intention is to give some grace period for a new player to find their feet, do some diplomacy, and undo any AI idiocy. The protection period may be lengthened for weaker slots, and shortened if several players join close to each other and with no established nations nearby, as for example in the case of Asian players upon conversion.
  • Divine Wind rule: In some cases the First Punch rule may be extended to place a new player's whole sphere of interest off-limits, not just the player himself; the canonical example is Japan after conversion.
  • To make the meta somewhat more diverse, you may choose at most three of the Big Four military ideas: Quantity, Quality, Defensive, Offensive. Because Plutocratic is a reasonable substitute for Defensive, Aristocratic will be slightly buffed for balance. If you have already chosen any military ideas when this rule is introduced, you may request an edit to change them.

    Read my blog.
    Norway Rome The Khanate Scotland Scotinavia Christendie the Serene Republic has always been at war with the Bretons False Empire Caliphate Persians Russians English Hungarians Oceanians Saracen Jackal! Death, death, death to the Frogs barbarians infidels necromancers vodka-drinking hegemonists Sassenach nomad menace Yellow Menace heathen Great Old One!
  • The Professor
    Posted: Sunday, March 04, 2018 10:18:09 PM
     General of the Army

    One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

    Joined: 11/17/2007
    Posts: 8,435
    Location: Time
    So it actually seems like taking the Mandate of Heaven is a game breaking decision, it's basically impossible to get rid of, is impossible to maintain good mandate points in multiplayer, and dooms you to a failcascade; I'd like the Mandate edited away.

    Edit: Testing in singleplayer and I think something is bugged, something like a permanent -0.6 malus from "non-tributaries" even after using cheats to tributary everyone in the world.

    Their game can only exist to be won.
    Then so be it who else can see it done.
    Vaniver
    Posted: Monday, March 05, 2018 3:40:33 AM
     Lieutenant Colonel


    Joined: 1/19/2014
    Posts: 662
    The Professor wrote:
    Edit: Testing in singleplayer and I think something is bugged, something like a permanent -0.6 malus from "non-tributaries" even after using cheats to tributary everyone in the world.
    That's weird; I checked the save for your neighbor list to see if there was something weird like Shu still stuck there, and it looks fine to me. Can you upload a save post-cheats? (I'm traveling so don't quite want to do all of the savegame editing / etc. now.)
    The Professor
    Posted: Monday, March 05, 2018 3:47:19 AM
     General of the Army

    One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

    Joined: 11/17/2007
    Posts: 8,435
    Location: Time
    Vaniver wrote:
    That's weird; I checked the save for your neighbor list to see if there was something weird like Shu still stuck there, and it looks fine to me. Can you upload a save post-cheats? (I'm traveling so don't quite want to do all of the savegame editing / etc. now.)


    Where's the neighbours? I'll post to discord.

    Edit: Posted a test save to discord. I only have five neighbours, all tributaries, but still -0.56 mandate loss.



    In this save, every neighbour is accounted for as a tributary, with no vassals. But Mandate loss from non-tributaries is still at -0.56.



    Their game can only exist to be won.
    Then so be it who else can see it done.
    King of Men
    Posted: Tuesday, March 06, 2018 5:48:39 AM
     Legatus legionis

    One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

    Joined: 11/23/2007
    Posts: 8,482
    Location: Nowhere
    Ok. I'll try to fix the bug, if I can't, then it seems we'll have to edit out the Mandate or perhaps find a compensating edit.

    On a different subject, it occurs to me that with player colonial nations, perhaps some clarification is needed on colonial wars. I suggest this addendum to the rule:

    Attacking a colonial nation counts as attacking its overlord for purposes of determining what is overseas; however, the CN's troops do not count against the overlord's 25% limit on sending troops to overseas regions. (If either overlord has another player colonial nation on a different continent, then the rule applies to that CN as usual). If a colonial nation gains independence, it becomes an entirely separate nation and its home territory will be protected in colonial wars, the same as anyone else. For example, suppose France is in Europe and has Quebec as a colonial nation; Prussia declares colonial war on Quebec. Then Prussia and France may not attack each other in Europe (except blockades); France may send one-fourth of its force limit to the Americas regardless of how many troops Quebec has; and Prussia's colonial nation Prussian Guyana may send 25% of its force limit to fight in North America. If Quebec gains full independence, then colonial wars against it could only be for the colonies it would (obviously) promptly acquire in Africa, the Quebecois homeland would be protected. In this case, to invade Quebec proper would require a regular, non-colonial war.

    Anyone object?

    Read my blog.
    Norway Rome The Khanate Scotland Scotinavia Christendie the Serene Republic has always been at war with the Bretons False Empire Caliphate Persians Russians English Hungarians Oceanians Saracen Jackal! Death, death, death to the Frogs barbarians infidels necromancers vodka-drinking hegemonists Sassenach nomad menace Yellow Menace heathen Great Old One!
    LordSauronOfHertfordshire
    Posted: Tuesday, March 06, 2018 7:09:06 AM
     Optio


    Joined: 5/22/2017
    Posts: 234
    I don't object to that addendum, but as requested, my proposition:

    In the Americas, any nation can have a subject, free of a diplo slot. In the past, the same was true in other parts of the world, with some other factors. Now, Asian nations have that, sort of, but no one else.

    Therefor, I propose one of two things:

    1) that any nation in the world be allowed to make tributaries, or

    2) protectorates be reintroduced as a way to essentially have a colonial nation in the Old World that any nation be able to make on any other nation not in their continent

    The reasons I suggest this are as follows:
    1)It encourages diplomacy in other parts of the world
    2)Especially if the second one is gone with, it allows for more players to have far-flung colonial empires much more in line with actual history
    3)It means that your options for playing a more historical empire aren't either never advance in diplomatic technology ever again or suck it up and play strictly to the meta

    I think that that last point is a problem because the impression I've always gotten is that this isn't a group that is designed around strictly playing to the meta, and punishing people even more for not doing that seems pointless and debilitating, and there is a precedent just recently of making a rule specifically not to punish people that don't want to play to a combat focused meta. Why not continue that and give more playstyles the opportunity to be even the slightest bit viable?

    Things to consider:
    1) The criticism has been brought up that this disproportionally benefits Europeans. I attempted to alleviate this problem by proposing the second solution, but more input would be helpful, particularly from Asian nations who actually have some stake in it and not just Khan naysaying because he wants his combat meta to be the only relevant one. (sorry Khan but that's what it read as).
    2) The other one is that it encourages dividing the world in two. While I fundamentally disagree with that, I'd be interested in hearing more opinions on that matter. I'd be happy to explain why I disagree if people want, but this is already too long.

    Why conquer when diplomacy is just so much easier.
    The Professor
    Posted: Tuesday, March 06, 2018 7:36:21 AM
     General of the Army

    One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

    Joined: 11/17/2007
    Posts: 8,435
    Location: Time
    I don't think adding a +0.56 is ideal because of knock-on issues. We have a situation where, due to some bizarre reason Paradox didn't implement a means to determine which nations are giving which bonuses/malus's, it basically makes it difficult to properly track and plan around my malus in the future should any future and unforseen issue occurs.

    Additionally the issue has a flipside; not only am I getting an incorrect malus, I think I am also getting an incorrect amount of positive tributary mandate; I don't think it's correctly calculating the amount of mandate from Yue/Etc.

    There's also the issue that *apparently* and this was unknown to me, but apparently you no longer need a direct land border to cause mandate loss, Latin Empire/Etc taking Taiwan/Hong Kong may also be sufficient to cause -0.6 mandate loss per tick which is basically unplayable. The wiki claims otherwise but apparently it's in the patch notes.

    Their game can only exist to be won.
    Then so be it who else can see it done.
    Ranger9000
    Posted: Tuesday, March 06, 2018 8:28:12 AM
     Captain

    Joined: 4/11/2013
    Posts: 326
    I think Dragoon or Van actually did end up finding the source of the problem. It seems the game thinks Shu (or Shi, or one of the other minors) still exists, and for some reason is counting them as having ~2200 development (more or less thinks they own all of china) but they aren't on the map so you can't actually tributary them.
    Vaniver
    Posted: Tuesday, March 06, 2018 8:40:53 AM
     Lieutenant Colonel


    Joined: 1/19/2014
    Posts: 662
    LordSauronOfHertfordshire wrote:
    3)It means that your options for playing a more historical empire aren't either never advance in diplomatic technology ever again or suck it up and play strictly to the meta
    Expansion, Influence, and Diplomatic ideas all give +1 diplomatic relation; you also can reduce the number of other players in Europe you're allied to. The one player nation in Asia with tributaries--Jinshi--is not using its cap of diplomatic relationships, such that if both tributes became vassals they would still be under limit.

    It seems to me like if you want to have six non-CN vassals scattered throughout the world, you need to take ideas to enable that or pay the dip power costs. (Never advance in diplomatic technology again is a pretty serious overstatement; you need something like 600 mana every 13 years, which is something like 4 mana a month, which you can get if you have any advisors or monarch diplomatic ability.) And if you want to have a commonwealth, well, that's what the CN system is for!
    James Craig
    Posted: Tuesday, March 06, 2018 1:41:37 PM
     1st Lieutenant


    Joined: 2/1/2013
    Posts: 171
    Location: Scotland
    I do NOT understand how that clarification applies to me and would appreciate further explanation. Can I wage my own same continent wars or do I need ranger to declare colonial wars? Am I beholden to the overseas continent forcelimit rule when fighting colonials in SA? In NA? What of the carribean? Thank you for the clarifications in advance. I don't mean to come off badly, Im just concerned about how this ruling will effect how I play.

    Vae Victis!
    LordSauronOfHertfordshire
    Posted: Tuesday, March 06, 2018 3:54:54 PM
     Optio


    Joined: 5/22/2017
    Posts: 234
    Vaniver wrote:
    Expansion, Influence, and Diplomatic ideas all give +1 diplomatic relation; you also can reduce the number of other players in Europe you're allied to. The one player nation in Asia with tributaries--Jinshi--is not using its cap of diplomatic relationships, such that if both tributes became vassals they would still be under limit.

    It seems to me like if you want to have six non-CN vassals scattered throughout the world, you need to take ideas to enable that or pay the dip power costs. (Never advance in diplomatic technology again is a pretty serious overstatement; you need something like 600 mana every 13 years, which is something like 4 mana a month, which you can get if you have any advisors or monarch diplomatic ability.) And if you want to have a commonwealth, well, that's what the CN system is for!
    I find two problems with that: First of all that the CN system is relegated to about a third of the world only, and the second one is that in multiplayer, according to three seperate people when I mused about taking them, taking Influence and Diplomatic is near suicidally a bad choice. And, let's be honest, Expansion is crap, always and forever. Being forced to take an entire idea group for the sole purpose of getting one more relation slot so that you can actually have historical overseas empires seems ridiculous to me, especially since it isn't the "meta" thing to do. Imagine if I told you, Korea, that you would need three at best mediocre idea sets taken to be able to use militarism, one of the core components of your government type, if not necessary for your nation's success. You'd tell me that was ridiculous and stupid and that shouldn't be a thing. Why then should people whose only real expansion option is making far-flung empires be forced into the same choice?

    Why conquer when diplomacy is just so much easier.
    The Professor
    Posted: Tuesday, March 06, 2018 4:07:36 PM
     General of the Army

    One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

    Joined: 11/17/2007
    Posts: 8,435
    Location: Time
    Ranger9000 wrote:
    I think Dragoon or Van actually did end up finding the source of the problem. It seems the game thinks Shu (or Shi, or one of the other minors) still exists, and for some reason is counting them as having ~2200 development (more or less thinks they own all of china) but they aren't on the map so you can't actually tributary them.


    Right but I'm saying that unless the underlying issue is fixed, I'm uncomfortable with putting my nation's playability in the hands of a mere bandaid.

    Their game can only exist to be won.
    Then so be it who else can see it done.
    Vaniver
    Posted: Tuesday, March 06, 2018 6:55:30 PM
     Lieutenant Colonel


    Joined: 1/19/2014
    Posts: 662
    King of Men wrote:
    If Quebec gains full independence, then colonial wars against it could only be for the colonies it would (obviously) promptly acquire in Africa, the Quebecois homeland would be protected. In this case, to invade Quebec proper would require a regular, non-colonial war.
    Nations whose capitals are in colonial regions do not spawn colonial nations, regardless of location. (And Africa doesn't have any colonial regions anyway.)

    LordSauronOfHertfordshire wrote:
    Imagine if I told you, Korea, that you would need three at best mediocre idea sets taken to be able to use militarism, one of the core components of your government type, if not necessary for your nation's success.
    I would say that as a matter of principle, any modifications to something priced at auction should be made before the auction to determine its price.

    LordSauronOfHertfordshire wrote:
    Why then should people whose only real expansion option is making far-flung empires be forced into the same choice?
    It is not obvious to me what playstyle you're trying to enable, here. There's Europe, India, Africa, Asia, the Americas, and Australia. The first three are all full of huge nations, such that one doesn't need many diplomatic relations to be a major force there (basically the only African nations left are Afer Ultima and Kilwa, and likewise India is a buinch of majors plus one minor at the tip). The last two are entirely CN territory, and thus irrelevant for the discussion. All that leaves is Asia, where one might be looking at the collection of minors in Indochina and Indonesia, and hoping to have many of them as vassals. But there it's not obvious why you wouldn't instead sponsor a particular player in the region, helping them eat up the AI and only using a single diplo slot.

    If you wanted to be present on every continent--European homeland, North American CN, South American CN, Kilwa as vassal, Bihar as vassal, Brunei as vassal, Japan as vassal, Australian CN--you could do it with just the basic four diplo slots. And that's assuming you insist on having vassals, instead of having Latin Egypt or Occitanian Levant or so on; if you just conquered Kilwa, you'd be pointed towards an eventual commonwealth without taking a diplo slot.
    LordSauronOfHertfordshire
    Posted: Tuesday, March 06, 2018 8:18:51 PM
     Optio


    Joined: 5/22/2017
    Posts: 234
    So your suggesting that the only two diplomatic playstyles are encourage vassals or encourage allies, and either way encourage blobbing across the map? Is that a playstyle we want to encourage? And I'd remind you that colonial nations are not priced at auction, however they are a gameplay mechanic central, if not essential, to living on a coast.

    Why conquer when diplomacy is just so much easier.
    Vaniver
    Posted: Tuesday, March 06, 2018 8:48:49 PM
     Lieutenant Colonel


    Joined: 1/19/2014
    Posts: 662
    LordSauronOfHertfordshire wrote:
    So your suggesting that the only two diplomatic playstyles are encourage vassals or encourage allies, and either way encourage blobbing across the map? Is that a playstyle we want to encourage?
    I still don't see the alternative you're proposing, or to the extent that I do see it it seems better suited for another game (like the spheres of influence in V2 or the factions in HoI4).

    If it weren't the case that countries with capitals in colonial regions can't form colonial nations of their own, I could see an argument for turning everywhere into a colonial region to represent the difficulty of a central government that spans further than a continent. (You would need it to be the case that colonial regions could, say, expand into adjacent regions but further than that spawns colonies.)

    But the way in which CNs and vassals make expansion easier is by having a separate mana pool, overextension budget, and accepted cultures list, such that you can conquer natives without spending any of your own mana, or hand off provinces that you don't want to deal with yourself to some AI that has to deal with them.

    Basically, I see the question as something like "should there be more nations, or fewer nations?". As is, Leon can have provinces in SE Asia or a vassal in SE Asia just fine, and the primary question is something like "should Leon have one vassal in SE Asia that they throw all their provinces into, or trade company provinces that they own directly, or many vassals / protectorates / tributaries spread across many islands?", and I don't see how the third is that different from the other two / how opening it up in general doesn't just lead to blobbing spheres of influence which funnel more power to people on top.
    KhanXLT
    Posted: Tuesday, March 06, 2018 8:55:29 PM
     General


    Joined: 1/22/2013
    Posts: 2,617
    Pardon my bias, but Leon is just asking for a way it seems to me to have the benefits of trade charters without having his color everywhere. The desire for more AI is an admirable one, but not something to be changed half way through a phase.

    Eventually client states become an option, but yes the idea of this phase is 'Consolidation' so AI going extinct is not something I will lose sleep over.

    You guys seem to be talking past each other re: auctions
    King of Men
    Posted: Wednesday, March 07, 2018 6:35:56 AM
     Legatus legionis

    One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

    Joined: 11/23/2007
    Posts: 8,482
    Location: Nowhere
    James Craig wrote:
    I do NOT understand how that clarification applies to me and would appreciate further explanation. Can I wage my own same continent wars or do I need ranger to declare colonial wars? Am I beholden to the overseas continent forcelimit rule when fighting colonials in SA? In NA? What of the carribean? Thank you for the clarifications in advance. I don't mean to come off badly, Im just concerned about how this ruling will effect how I play.


    You can declare any wars that the game engine will allow you to declare. You may use your entire army to fight in South America and the Caribbean (I judge that the Caribbean can reasonably be considered part of either SA or NA for 'overseas' purposes, and nations from either continent can fight at full strength there). If you send troops to North America, Eurasia, or Africa, send at most one-fourth of your force limit.

    If you declare a colonial war against a player, as defined in rule 1.1, then you may not attack the heartland of your target, nor may they attack yours. You will then be limited to fighting in and for areas that are overseas with respect to both of you; probably this means Africa in the current player setup.

    My clarifications were mainly intended for the case that someone declares a colonial war against you or Ziro. In that case, as long as you are still subject nations, I would consider the war to be against your overlord, so that your territory is overseas and can be fought in and for.

    I will add that a subject nation cannot declare its independence war to be colonial, that would be clearly absurd. Smile

    Does this clarify your concerns? If not, perhaps ask about some specific examples of hypothetical wars.

    Vaniver wrote:
    Nations whose capitals are in colonial regions do not spawn colonial nations, regardless of location. (And Africa doesn't have any colonial regions anyway.)


    Right. But if Quebec, in my example, acquired provinces in Africa, I would refer to them as "the Quebecois colonies" whether they spawned a CN or not; and they would be overseas with respect to Quebec, for purposes of the Colonial War rule.

    Read my blog.
    Norway Rome The Khanate Scotland Scotinavia Christendie the Serene Republic has always been at war with the Bretons False Empire Caliphate Persians Russians English Hungarians Oceanians Saracen Jackal! Death, death, death to the Frogs barbarians infidels necromancers vodka-drinking hegemonists Sassenach nomad menace Yellow Menace heathen Great Old One!
    dragoon9105
    Posted: Wednesday, March 07, 2018 7:58:01 PM
     Lieutenant General


    Joined: 8/25/2014
    Posts: 2,150
    I'm pretty sure James was using the Vanilla Colonial War cb that all Cn's have access to that allows them to declare war on another CN without calling in the overlord so long as its a CN in the same colonial nation as him. This is not covered by the rules nor does it really need to. All the Overlord needs to do in the event of colonial nation interwar is enforce peace on the instigator, which calls the overlord in and escalates the war.

    As for wanting Non American CN's. No. The game has unique mechanics for Africa, Asian and Oceanic Territory in the form of Trade Companies. The reason why CN's exist only for America and Australia is becuase there are so few natives and they are so isolated from the rest of the world they cant really say much about european settlement (And becuase of this, historically mother countries took a very hands off style of ruling their American possessions provided the gold flowed in the right direction) Outside of Australia and Americans the Natives do not want you there even if the game does not properly represent that. It you gave them local autonomy, they'd be functionally independent almost immediately.

    If you expanded the tributary mechanic you could force dependencies but expanding the tributary mechanic has a host of balance concerns, it contributes to hugboxing for one and completly negates the diplomatic relations system among other things.

    I understand some players dont want to war or feel boxed in but remember, that is what Eu4 is about. The rise of Empires. The time to form a liberal commonwealth or a unified absolutist empire is in Victoria and HOI. Right now, Conquest and Colonialism Rules the day.
    King of Men
    Posted: Thursday, March 08, 2018 5:00:17 AM
     Legatus legionis

    One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

    Joined: 11/23/2007
    Posts: 8,482
    Location: Nowhere
    Quote:
    I'm pretty sure James was using the Vanilla Colonial War cb that all CNs have access to that allows them to declare war on another CN without calling in the overlord so long as its a CN in the same colonial nation as him. This is not covered by the rules nor does it really need to. All the Overlord needs to do in the event of colonial nation interwar is enforce peace on the instigator, which calls the overlord in and escalates the war.


    Let us distinguish between Colonial War, as defined in our house rules, and war using a CB called 'colonial', which is a thing in the game mechanics. They are not the same. If James declares a war using the "Colonial War" CB, that is an ordinary "total war" for purposes of our house rules. James can then fight it with all his army in South America and the Caribbean, and 25% of his army limit on other continents, as usual; if he calls in allies from a different continent, they can send 25% of their FL to South America. However, James may, by declaring at the time of the DOW that "this is a Colonial War", make the war colonial by the house rules. In that case he cannot attack the heartland of his target, nor can they attack his; otherwise the 25% rule applies as before. This is very likely to mean that the colonial CB is useless for purposes of fighting colonial wars, unless the target CN has acquired provinces in Africa; but that's a separate point.

    To be completely clear, in case anyone was wondering, the war that James fought against Golle's CB was entirely within the rules. It was a same-continent total war declared using the Colonial CB.

    There is some ambiguity in what parts of Atlassia should be considered overseas. It is a "European" nation in that its capital and heartland are in the Med; as noted in the rule, the north shore of Africa is considered as being the same continent as Europe. The question is how far south "the north shore" extends. I would say that if Atlassia acquires colonies in South Africa, those are overseas even though there is technically a land connection - the land connection goes through perma-off-limits areas and even if that weren't so, realistically all actual traffic would be by sea. (Similar comments apply to Medina). But with the Ivory Coast the situation is not so clear. The land connection is through some seriously bad infrastructure; economically speaking that area is nowhere near being part of the Mediterranean sphere. Still, there is a land connection. I see a case for the Ivory Coast being overseas for Atlassia; I see a case for it not being so. Anyone care to comment? It's probably good if everyone is on the same page here before any wars start. Smile

    I observe, without ruling at this time, that there is considerable pushback against the tributaries-everywhere idea. Anyone who thinks it a good idea would be well advised to speak up. Smile

    Read my blog.
    Norway Rome The Khanate Scotland Scotinavia Christendie the Serene Republic has always been at war with the Bretons False Empire Caliphate Persians Russians English Hungarians Oceanians Saracen Jackal! Death, death, death to the Frogs barbarians infidels necromancers vodka-drinking hegemonists Sassenach nomad menace Yellow Menace heathen Great Old One!
    Ranger9000
    Posted: Thursday, March 08, 2018 5:33:13 AM
     Captain

    Joined: 4/11/2013
    Posts: 326
    It'd be a bit weird that I could station 100,000 troops in Timbuktu (which has one of my most developed proviences atm) but couldn't march them 100 kilometers south to the Ivory coast, or west (given the Ivory coast includes the western coast of Africa to.) I can understand South Africa counting as overseas but Ivory coast at least I actually have a land connection to the western parts of it at least (admittedly, the central and southern parts I have to go through 'off limits' territory to get to by land so not sure there. It'd really make defending timbuktu from the atlantic very hard though if I could only station a 20,000 man force on the coast line to the west though.

    Also my capital is going to move to the North African mainland soon. Sardinia I find it to easy for someone to slip around and siege Tongue
    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.