Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In

Conversion and EU4 rules discussion thread Options · View
Gollevainen
Posted: Thursday, October 19, 2017 5:43:10 PM
 Legatus legionis

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership MedalAuthor of 50,000th Forum Post

Joined: 4/5/2008
Posts: 4,234
Location: "I need zoo love!"
I belive that all these artificial rules to try to restore gamebalance are bad. Let the ingame means sort things out. IMO ending the the first attempt of this game prematurely was a bad call. All blobs gets taken down, they always will if the is enough will and patience. Remember Fasquardons Gigablob Georgia back in the day? It was taken down, Baron's England was taken down in the last campaign even if ment 1 vs all. The in-game dynamics and diplomacy is enough to mimic the real life power-balance.



Irsh Faq wrote:
I've noted with Golle a trend of stirring up as much drama publicly as he can whenever he's up to something shady in the background. Presumably its a smokescreen strategy.
The Professor
Posted: Thursday, October 19, 2017 5:56:54 PM
 General of the Army

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 11/17/2007
Posts: 8,434
Location: Time
Gollevainen wrote:
I belive that all these artificial rules to try to restore gamebalance are bad. Let the ingame means sort things out. IMO ending the the first attempt of this game prematurely was a bad call. All blobs gets taken down, they always will if the is enough will and patience. Remember Fasquardons Gigablob Georgia back in the day? It was taken down, Baron's England was taken down in the last campaign even if ment 1 vs all. The in-game dynamics and diplomacy is enough to mimic the real life power-balance.


It got taken down because Fasquardon eventually left and was replaced by a less skilled, less aggressive player who I managed to defeat in war to reclaim lost Chinese lands; this has never happened ever with anyone 'like' Baron; skilled, aggressive, and *consistent* players don't ever get taken down except very rarely; probably countable on one hand over 10 years of megacampaigning.

As for why have rules; I think its basically really shitty that the game can end before Europe even discovers Asia or something and in effect a de facto minority of players can just decide and arbitrarily end the game.

We don't want to "end" blobbing in EU, but we do want a means to make it more manageable and bypass the fact that players in general just aren't good at being flexible in their diplomacy as a general rule and such players are the exception rather than the norm.

Which is why I'm focusing on a rule suggestion that still largely keeps all and most of the elements of dynamic diplomacy in the game while also allowing an easy guilt free way to let people take down an emerging blob before it's a problem without significant short term consequence.

The largest problems tend to me that smaller nations have too much to lose to risk it all trying to knife the King Crab; and the nations large enough to do so tend to have too much to benefit from maintaining such an alliance.

It's better to just try to weigh our thumbs on the scale such that taking down the King Crab becomes the most benefitial action to take, and avoiding becoming King Crab is the new skilled meta.

Their game can only exist to be won.
Then so be it who else can see it done.
LordSauronOfHertfordshire
Posted: Thursday, October 19, 2017 6:34:17 PM
 Optio


Joined: 5/22/2017
Posts: 234
Perhaps participating in a “Crab War” should provide some extra non-diplomatic bonus for winning, to encourage people to take a risk. Achievement points, or a bit of yearly prestige for 50 years, or something not game breaking but still enticing as incentive for more cautious players to jump in without risking everything for something that may not seem like it’s worth it to them. Say, as an example, we are playing this game, and Yami gets absolutely monsterously large. We vote to take him down, but I have little incentive to march my armies halfway across Europe just because the Germans didn’t do their job. Spending my manpower and money seems frivolous to me, without some kind of incentive.

Why conquer when diplomacy is just so much easier.
The Professor
Posted: Thursday, October 19, 2017 6:51:22 PM
 General of the Army

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 11/17/2007
Posts: 8,434
Location: Time
The main incentive is that by winning you've pulled down whoever was starting to snowball and gained something presumably for yourself out of the war.

But sure, we can add achievements to it, be on the winning side of 5 coalition wars or something, and avoid being the target of all coalition wars etc.





Their game can only exist to be won.
Then so be it who else can see it done.
LordSauronOfHertfordshire
Posted: Thursday, October 19, 2017 6:54:54 PM
 Optio


Joined: 5/22/2017
Posts: 234
Well say it’s my example, what could Leon possibly get from a war with Bohemia?

Why conquer when diplomacy is just so much easier.
The Professor
Posted: Thursday, October 19, 2017 7:12:00 PM
 General of the Army

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 11/17/2007
Posts: 8,434
Location: Time
LordSauronOfHertfordshire wrote:
Well say it’s my example, what could Leon possibly get from a war with Bohemia?


The system isn't meant to entirely replace all diplo, some amount of wheeling and dealing would still be expected; but sure if we want to hand out the equivalent of an AAR reward for winning as incentive that works for me.

Their game can only exist to be won.
Then so be it who else can see it done.
King of Men
Posted: Friday, October 20, 2017 7:45:16 AM
 Legatus legionis

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 11/23/2007
Posts: 8,486
Location: Nowhere
Quote:
When a player has more development than his or her development multiplied by one over the total number of players


You missed something in this sentence, and ended up with a rule that's either always true or always false for every player. Suggest you drop 'his or her' in favour of making it clear who the player's development is to be compared to.

Quote:
If there are 12 players in Europe. The percent max dev is 1/12. So if the total player dev is 6,000, if a player has over 500 development (out of 12 players), then the rule is triggered.


As written, this would trigger the rule if one player had 511 dev and the other eleven had 499 each. That can't possibly be the intention. You probably meant to trigger if one player is 500 ahead of the next one?

That aside, it's not a bad idea to make a Tallest Poppy rule dependent on some threshold of advantage (whether measured in dev, forcelimit, income, or some combination) over the next biggest player.

Quote:
Did not think of meta allies. Thought people had matured enough at this point to forgo them entirely.
Then again, same can apply to the tallest poppy. Where meta allies can deliberately throw in the towel against the coalition target etc.
So there's little to be done against meta, unless you want to either ban it completely or ensure that they're not worthwhile to have.


A ban on meta is not enforceable. But I disagree that there is little to be done; banning anyone from helping the target of a coalition war, as in both Blayne's and my suggestions, seems to make meta alliances much less useful. You suggest that a meta ally could surrender, but I don't see how that helps the target unless the ally were warleader, which seems like it can be avoided. And anyway if we use the ingame Coalition War mechanic, then separate peaces are not available. The best 'help' in that case would be to just not fight, and that's the same as staying out of the war. If it's reached the point where the coalition can't win without the active participation of the target's meta allies, then the trigger threshold was clearly way too low anyway.

Gollevainen wrote:
I belive that all these artificial rules to try to restore gamebalance are bad. Let the ingame means sort things out. IMO ending the the first attempt of this game prematurely was a bad call. All blobs gets taken down, they always will if the is enough will and patience. Remember Fasquardons Gigablob Georgia back in the day? It was taken down, Baron's England was taken down in the last campaign even if ment 1 vs all. The in-game dynamics and diplomacy is enough to mimic the real life power-balance.


I disagree with this; it seems to me that perma-alliance blocks are the main failure mode of these megacampaigns, and that they very often prevent both major wars to take down a hegemon (because they can't be won as long as the hegemon's allies help him) and also fun one-on-one wars (because they'll escalate into world wars unless very carefully arranged). Worse, the perma-alliances occur because the incentives for the human players are a little bit off - we stick with alliances far past the point where actual ruling elites would have said "meh, you're on your own".

I further opine that Baron could have won that if both he and Jacob had stuck around to fight it out, and also if he hadn't relied on rules manipulations to defend his African empire.

Quote:
Perhaps participating in a “Crab War” should provide some extra non-diplomatic bonus for winning


I feel like this is somewhat adding insult to injury - not only did six people combine to take the leader down, they got an achievement for doing so. It also adds another epicycle of complexity to the rule. I would prefer to use the ordinary mechanisms of diplomacy to entice people into the coalition; if there's someone who can't be convinced that the target is a direct threat to them, well then, perhaps the alleged dominance is not so hegemonic as all that. The rule I've proposed just attempts to reduce the effects of meta in making a coalition war unwinnable; it's not intended to replace diplomacy.

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: Friday, October 20, 2017 8:08:02 AM
 Lieutenant General


Joined: 8/25/2014
Posts: 2,152
If someone is a mole and in the war against his true ally he can inform troop positions and stability details about his war partners to his ally.

IE "Dragoon is debasing currency and out of manpower, His armies are here"


Also, That game was won in CK2. The only reason it didn't end then was quite literally becuase Me Baron and Jacob wanted to continue it.

In HOI though, Even if Baron stayed, Baron/Jacob/Fivoin lost the second there was a landing in Africa. They didnt have the numbers to hold back the Tide of Fox, Japanese and South American divisions down there, if they overcommit, Fox just starts taking Islands in the North Atlantic for the inevitable nukathon in 1944, If they dont the hundreds of factories and potential factories in Africa flip sides and push the Production edge even further in favor of the allies.
Yami-Yagari
Posted: Friday, October 20, 2017 8:40:17 AM
 Generalmajor


Joined: 1/16/2014
Posts: 1,153
On another note of import to the conversion, is the auction.

Dont know how the rest feels about it, but it can definitely use alot more 'generalized' ideasets as opposed to the highly specialized ideasets of last game.
King of Men
Posted: Friday, October 20, 2017 9:17:47 AM
 Legatus legionis

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 11/23/2007
Posts: 8,486
Location: Nowhere
Quote:
"Dragoon is debasing currency and out of manpower, His armies are here"


Ok, that would be aid and comfort to be sure, but I think it would rarely be decisive. It's certainly not as bad as just fighting on the target's side! Additionally, in any lengthy war such activity cannot be hidden - at some point it must become clear that the mole's armies are not actually fighting. Then there might be a revenge plot for after the war, when the target is at truce.


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: Friday, October 20, 2017 4:57:52 PM
 General of the Army

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 11/17/2007
Posts: 8,434
Location: Time
Baron and Jakob staying would've at least allowed the war to last a hell of a lot longer than it did as James basically was playing to lose after Spain fell. The whole struggle for Africa probably would've taken much longer; Achab did his best but Baron probably would've been more aggressive in trying to contest it, possibly bringing over German armor to do so.

We fucked up *multiple* times in the landings trying to find a soft underbelly before we figured out how to do landings correctly and Baron could've exploited it better.

Checking the Wiki:
Quote:

The war leader always negotiates for the entire coalition; unlike alliances, countries in a coalition cannot make a separate peace. The coalition members can only take cores in a peace deal.


I don't know if you can do additional controls when in a coalition war; but we can maybe adjust the rule that the non-war leader cannot declare additional wars. This would mean any nation that votes yes to become a mole then is stuck unable to exit the war, and unable to expand, until it is over.

Additionally whoever is assigned war leader perhaps can be also deputized with the authority to decline certain Yes nations; making them No nations until he changes his mind; so if you KNOW someone is likely going to become a mole, then you can decide to not have them; and they can't help the target either way.



Their game can only exist to be won.
Then so be it who else can see it done.
Vaniver
Posted: Friday, October 20, 2017 11:06:59 PM
 Lieutenant Colonel


Joined: 1/19/2014
Posts: 662
King of Men wrote:
That aside, it's not a bad idea to make a Tallest Poppy rule dependent on some threshold of advantage (whether measured in dev, forcelimit, income, or some combination) over the next biggest player.
This allows duopolies free reign. (Comparisons to the mean also have problems that it encourages you to kill / exile small players, as they're dragging down the mean.)

King of Men wrote:
I feel like this is somewhat adding insult to injury - not only did six people combine to take the leader down, they got an achievement for doing so.
Agreed--I continue to maintain that we should compensate people who are the target of blue shells (be it events or coalition wars or whatever) in HoI, which both gives incentive to solve the issue normally and reason to not take it personally / focus on the silver lining / etc.
The Professor
Posted: Friday, October 20, 2017 11:31:55 PM
 General of the Army

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 11/17/2007
Posts: 8,434
Location: Time
How would it allow a 'duopol'? I feel like my suggested formula wouldn't allow for it.

Quote:

(Comparisons to the mean also have problems that it encourages you to kill / exile small players, as they're dragging down the mean.)


Sounds like a quick way to trigger the modifier.

Look at the formula I proposed again, basically AI expansion also has the effect of increasing the total amount of player owned dev; so 'going above the mean' is slower expending into AI's than it is into players. Expanding into a player skyrockets this on top of increasing player BB, making a yes vote more likely to succeed.

Their game can only exist to be won.
Then so be it who else can see it done.
dragoon9105
Posted: Saturday, October 21, 2017 12:04:07 AM
 Lieutenant General


Joined: 8/25/2014
Posts: 2,152
Vaniver wrote:
Agreed--I continue to maintain that we should compensate people who are the target of blue shells (be it events or coalition wars or whatever) in HoI, which both gives incentive to solve the issue normally and reason to not take it personally / focus on the silver lining / etc.


I would love to be able to sort of set up HOI to be a bit more Vanilla Esq, A Major issue with Mega Campaigns(and alot of HOI multiplayer games) is WW2 feels less like WW2 and more like Starcraft. Which isn't the point of the game.

Beyond me how you can realistically provide bonuses to people who get tallest poppied in Eu4, bonuses in HOI.
The Professor
Posted: Saturday, October 21, 2017 1:40:41 AM
 General of the Army

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 11/17/2007
Posts: 8,434
Location: Time
The Blue Shell idea strikes me as very problematic in a lot of ways; like, sure the hegemon gets arbitrarily cut down to size, but in that time he's already wrecked your nation beyond recovery.

Our goal is to prevent the game being called because of player psychology being fundamentally unable to cope with runaway success by sufficiently motivated skilled players.

Blue shell I feel is fundamentally flawed because just like some of my CK-EU suggestions NO ONE likes having shit arbitrarily taken away through no fault of their own except "Playing really well"; even if we try to couch it in terms of bonuses, it's just a really weird meta way of playing at best and I fear like, if its Dragoon for example, he'll find ways of avoiding the blueshell as much as possible.

This is where I feel like, in so far as we're seriously considering a Tallest Poppy/Crab Bucket rule; at the very least firmly places agency in the hands of the player, and potentially still rewards skill; a potential hegemon becoming the King Crab at least may possibly still fight it off; but still being contained as a result. By triggering it at the earliest possible fair threshold we allow for the possibility that the hegemon can win one war but then lose the next as more players vote yes.



Their game can only exist to be won.
Then so be it who else can see it done.
The Professor
Posted: Saturday, October 21, 2017 1:51:32 AM
 General of the Army

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 11/17/2007
Posts: 8,434
Location: Time
James Craig wrote:
Is that how it went down? Please tell me more abut how I didn't do my due diligence i fighting that HoI game. I had to overhaul barons divisions. Dragoon mentioned I had the most well put together and deadliest divisions by the end. With those divisions I stalled out the Balkan push and made some headway in pushing it back.

As for north africa, you guys had taken it out with over 80 divisions IN NORTH AFRICA! You were taking massive attrition and just shrugging it off as a multinational force. When I took the reigns it was down to northern Morocco. In that case I had 40 divisions in North Africa who were also being murdered by attrition. Rather that watch all my war materials and manpower drain from a bleeding wound (And this isn't even mentioned that baron's navy sucked ass and couldn't hold open shipping lanes to the area even if it did have enough ports) I reduced that down to a single army of 24 divisions.

I set civilian factories to build ports to help hold the place, and I put a huge air-force over it (Not enough in the end) I held onto that land as long as I could. I didn't let you take it, you took it because it was untenable to hold. By that point Greece had fallen and that front was grinding back and forth. In the meantime I was trying to get enough equipment to pump out garbage divisions with only a few brigades BECAUSE MY COASTLINE WAS MASSIVE!

I was actively fighting a stupid HoI game where the war started in 1936 because people cant wait for countries to set themselves up after a rough conversion. And while I don't believe I would have allowed Africa to fall, I wasn't playing at that point. I will also point out that you guys were playing with an old version in which the garrison function didn't work (Unbeknownst to me)


1. I am referring to the vaguely defined period between after we successfully landed in Spain with 50 divisions across multiple states and my tanks crossing the Pyrenees mountains. You have stated multiple times the moment you took over that you wanted us to start over in CK2 already, and comments to the effect that you'd *try* to keep things together, but not much more than that. At some point in the above, there was a notable degradation in your abilities; I don't have the full picture and don't remember very well but it seemed like that once we crossed the mountains your troops just kinda just faffed off.

2. I don't deny that you tried to hold Morocco; there was another player before you, Achab; both of you tried to hold it; but it was Achab, who took over the session after Baron's Rage Quit, who was in a position to contest the landings across Cape Verde and was in a critical position of trying to hold Africa. It is at *this* phase, before Fox's and Peru's forces linked up and started advancing North (Mostly unopposed) that had Baron been there it would have been a much closer call and a much more difficult struggle.

You took over a situation that was well beyond recoverable with the division compositions you inherited and there isn't much better anyone could've done.

Quote:

I was actively fighting a stupid HoI game where the war started in 1936 because people cant wait for countries to set themselves up after a rough conversion.


Technically this isn't true as the conversion was "rough" enough for Baron to demand we rollback because I got too many factories.


Quote:

And while I don't believe I would have allowed Africa to fall, I wasn't playing at that point. I will also point out that you guys were playing with an old version in which the garrison function didn't work (Unbeknownst to me)


We're not suggesting you are culpable for inheriting Baron's bad strategic decisions (He ungarrisoned his West coast intending to rules lawyer his way to not have to defend his coast); and most definately not to blame for Achab just not being able to get up to speed on figuring out how to manage a 1984 style nation.

...

There was probably more I wanted to respond to but you deleted it or something.

Their game can only exist to be won.
Then so be it who else can see it done.
James Craig
Posted: Saturday, October 21, 2017 3:03:44 AM
 1st Lieutenant


Joined: 2/1/2013
Posts: 174
Location: Scotland
I thought better about the post mostly. It was massive and probably unfair to you in the long run. I wrote it in a knee jerk reaction and I apologize.

Vae Victis!
dragoon9105
Posted: Saturday, October 21, 2017 6:37:48 AM
 Lieutenant General


Joined: 8/25/2014
Posts: 2,152
Achab is a more of a seasoned player tham probably anyone in that was in that game to be Honest Blayne. If he couldn't hold Africa then its more than likely Baron couldn't. Nevermind that apparently Baron completly lost his advantage to Fox in Vicky, As there's no reason England-Germania should have lost that war given the dominant position they had in Eu.
King of Men
Posted: Saturday, October 21, 2017 9:53:43 AM
 Legatus legionis

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 11/23/2007
Posts: 8,486
Location: Nowhere
I approve of deleting posts one thinks better of. I also suggest we move all discussion of previous games to an off-topic thread, except when directly relevant to the conversion.

Quote:
This allows duopolies free reign.


True; I did consider adding "and two biggest players over the third", or some similar formulation, but it gets complex quickly.

Quote:
Dont know how the rest feels about it, but [the auction] can definitely use alot more 'generalized' ideasets as opposed to the highly specialized ideasets of last game.


No doubt we will tweak the idea sets in view of our experience. You can propose some more general idea sets.

Pulling together several ideas about a Tallest Poppy rule, I come up with a proposal something like this: We will mod in a CB that triggers when 'coalition' and 'target' flags are set, and that limits the peace treaty to return of cores, end of treaties, release of nations, and suchlike - no direct annexations except cores. A coalition may be formed by any four or more players in roughly the same region, against a target player, the King Crab, also in the same region. The coalition may also declare as Lesser Crabs anyone who is ingame allied to the King. The total development of the founding members of the coalition must be less than the total of the crabs, and no coalition member (founding or otherwise) may be larger than the King Crab. The coalition may invite other players (subject to the constraint of nobody being larger than the King), who become associate members, but is not obliged to accept help they don't want; only the founding members may be war leaders. The Lesser Crabs may opt out of the crab side, declaring neutrality; non-Crabs may not join the crab side of the war, nor attack the coalition while the war is in progress. Associate members may not gain territory, even cores, from the war; and founding plus associate members must not exceed twice the King Crab's development. The King Crab gets achievement points if the war ends with a peace treaty worth at least 50% - whichever side won.

The limit of at least four players and in the same region is intended to make the mechanism be used against, at least, regionally dominant powers; it means that four players in one area have to agree that the King Crab is a major threat. The requirement of no coalition member larger than the King Crab is intended to avoid gangbangs where a Great Power with four small allies declares a coalition war against a smaller country. The ban on associate members gaining territory is to try to avoid opportunistic joining of coalitions for gain; the idea is to restore a balance of power. Likewise the cap of 2X the King Crab's dev is to avoid total walkover coalition wars.

If we consider the situation in Europe in the last game, we had (rough numbers from memory, don't correct if they're not accurate, it's just an example):

Mark: 1500
Golle: 900
Dragoon: 800
KoM: 600
James: 500
Hoonter: 500
Yami: 400
Hadogei: 200
Zirotron: 200

Additionally there was Andalusia at maybe 400, which was AI and allied to Mark. AI nations are not bound by the rules and can do whatever!

So we see that a coalition could have been formed by, for example, KoM, Yami, Ziro, and Hadogei, total 1400 dev. They could have invited Hoonter and Golle for a total of 2800, but not James in addition, as that would go over the cap of 3000. If the coalition had been willing to declare Dragoon as a Lesser Crab, then the founding members could have been Golle, KoM, Hoonter, and Yami, for a total of 2400 versus the crabs' 2300 - something like a fair fight. Dragoon could declare neutrality (though for such close numbers he likely wouldn't, trusting in his skill and idea set to see him through) making it 2400 against 1500.

Notice that with these numbers there's only one legal individual coalition target, namely Mark; the four smallest players are at 1300 dev together, and cannot form a coalition against any other individual. They could form a coalition against, for example, me and Golle, if we were allied, with Golle as King Crab; then they could invite Hoonter to make 1800 dev - but they couldn't invite Dragoon, that would go over the cap.

The worst situation I see in these rules occurs with four very small players and some roughly equal ones; suppose we had:

Mark: 1000
Dragoon: 900
KoM: 800
Golle: 700
Blayne, Yami, Hadogei, Zirotron: 50 each

Suppose Golle is Mark's ally. The four small players form a coalition against Mark; they invite Dragoon and me, making a total of 1900 dev against 1000. If Dragoon and I had just allied against Mark, he could have called in his ally Golle and it would have been a fair fight. Of course, since this is true, maybe the small players won't agree that Mark is a coalition-worthy target; then again, perhaps Dragoon and I will threaten them with annexation if they don't; on the gripping hand, perhaps they'll declare the coalition against me and invite Golle! (Not Mark, as he's larger than me and not allowed to join). But in any case this relies on having four quite small players, who don't contribute much to the 2X cap. On further thought this is a particular case of a more general bad outcome, which is that coalitions can be used to arrange wars with a 2-vs-1 ratio of dev, you just need a bunch of players smaller than the target.

Ugh, it's late. The above may not be the worst problem with the suggested ruleset; if you see a bigger issue, speak up. It may be patchable. It may be acceptable. Thoughts?

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!
Yami-Yagari
Posted: Saturday, October 21, 2017 11:30:27 AM
 Generalmajor


Joined: 1/16/2014
Posts: 1,153
Well, clone liked this idea, so might aswell post.

If every player currently playing pitches in 3 ideasets, we'\ll have a pool of 45 ideasets to bid on in the auction.

Ideasets under scrutiny of strict regulations imposed, and checked, by gms.
dragoon9105
Posted: Saturday, October 21, 2017 7:01:19 PM
 Lieutenant General


Joined: 8/25/2014
Posts: 2,152
In a effort to provide more Variety I like that Idea. Let everyone make some proposals, so its not just 1-2 players making the sets and secretly deciding favorites after they've done so.

I think we should expect 1 Mixed Set, 1 Military set and 1 Specialized Set that isn't military of their choice.
The Professor
Posted: Saturday, October 21, 2017 8:32:20 PM
 General of the Army

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 11/17/2007
Posts: 8,434
Location: Time
The funniest thing about the Auction is that I kinda had the exact same feeling of suspense as I did when rolling the gacha for my FTP mobile games! And then Golle keeps bidding the same way someone rage rolls the gacha making it even funnier.

Their game can only exist to be won.
Then so be it who else can see it done.
Vaniver
Posted: Sunday, October 22, 2017 4:39:54 AM
 Lieutenant Colonel


Joined: 1/19/2014
Posts: 662
King of Men wrote:
Ugh, it's late. The above may not be the worst problem with the suggested ruleset; if you see a bigger issue, speak up. It may be patchable. It may be acceptable. Thoughts?
The thing I notice is that it encourages killing small players, because the minimum of 4 is set in stone--if I'm 1k dev, then any player below 250 dev helps enable a coalition against me, and the smaller the are, the more space they leave for other players. The 50 dev meme nation becomes a threat to the security of everyone on the top, which is really not the position the 50 dev meme nation wants to be in.

A patch is to allow 'ghost' founding members--anyone who got game-overed in Europe can choose to count as one of the coalition spots, taking up 0 dev, for up to two sessions after their nation is crushed. (Their new nation, if they're playing one, has to join via the normal rules.) That way removing Saarland doesn't make one better off in the short term, tho it does in the long term, and makes it slightly better for top players to ensure no one is below a quarter their dev size by helping tiny nations grow instead of eating them.
King of Men
Posted: Wednesday, October 25, 2017 7:41:28 AM
 Legatus legionis

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 11/23/2007
Posts: 8,486
Location: Nowhere
Quote:
The 50 dev meme nation becomes a threat to the security of everyone on the top, which is really not the position the 50 dev meme nation wants to be in.


This is true, but while we do strive to allow different playstyles, I suggest that the 50 dev meme nation is really pushing it. Saarland was twice that size, and I think even Leon and Aquitaine were bigger; and anyway they certainly weren't that size by free choice.

Reading back over what I wrote, I get a bit concerned with that 2-to-1 maximum ratio in dev. Hegemon or not, that might feel like a gangbang that's only a gangbang because the rules prevent you from calling in your friends. Perhaps the ratio should instead be 1.25, or even 1.0 +- 0.1; alternatively, perhaps the king crab should be allowed to call in lesser crabs if it doesn't make the crabs superior in overall dev. On the gripping hand, maybe dev is the wrong metric here - combat ideas matter, skill matters, coordination difficulties in an alliance of seven small players matter, attention constraints in fighting seven different fronts matters. Dev does have the advantage of being quantifiable.

I had another idea along similar lines: We could introduce duels, one-vs-one wars in which neither player is allowed to call in allies. The intent is to allow some dynamism and small wars, and avoid the freezing effects of large alliance blocks. To prevent duels being used as kill shots against small players, we can require that the challenging nation be smaller in dev (or forcelimit or whatever) than the target. Probably they should be time-limited, to prevent people from declaring duels, not fighting, and being protected by the rules of duelling from anyone else DOWing them for arbitrary periods. Thoughts?

On the subject of same-dynasty realms: A possibility is to auction off N HRE electorships, and anyone who gets one automatically enters all his dynastic realms into the empire. Alternatively, the N players with the largest number of independent realms become the HRE. Either way N is probably between one and three. Not sure how this would interact with non-Christian religions and MRs, both of which we have a few of. However, it may mitigate the poison-oak effect Vaniver mentioned in the other thread: Multiple-kingdom dynasties don't become a player surrounded by vacuum, they become part of the HRE - increasing that player's power at the price of having to share the increased power with other HRE members.

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: Wednesday, October 25, 2017 4:14:28 PM
 General of the Army

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 11/17/2007
Posts: 8,434
Location: Time
You can also just substitute a dead player with the next largest AI.

Their game can only exist to be won.
Then so be it who else can see it done.
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.