Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In

Conversion and EU4 rules discussion thread Options · View
King of Men
Posted: Wednesday, November 15, 2017 7:59:39 AM
 Legatus legionis

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 11/23/2007
Posts: 8,486
Location: Nowhere
It's perhaps not too early to begin thinking about those idea sets. I don't know if we can make everyone design three idea sets; some people apparently like to show up on the Sunday and otherwise not think too much about the game. Still, perhaps something like that can be made to work: Suppose we ask everyone to submit at least two idea sets, but only use the first two from each player; except that if someone doesn't submit any sets, they are assigned number three and four from one of the diligent, zealous people. Then, for added balance, we don't allow anyone to buy their own idea sets in the auction.

Example: I submit four ideas, say Archer, Barbarian, Champion, Dragon. Golle drinks too much vodka for even his mighty Finnish liver, and doesn't submit any. We therefore assign Champion and Dragon to Golle. In the auction, I'm allowed to bid on Champion and Dragon, while Golle is allowed to bid on Archer and Barbarian.

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: Wednesday, November 15, 2017 8:44:55 AM
 Generalmajor


Joined: 1/16/2014
Posts: 1,153
Since Clonefusion dropped, it isn't much of an issue, but ill ask regardless: what system are we using for the ideasets? the ingame one or the spreadsheet?

And what restrictions are there on the ideasets themselves?
Vaniver
Posted: Wednesday, November 15, 2017 6:25:48 PM
 Lieutenant Colonel


Joined: 1/19/2014
Posts: 662
King of Men wrote:
Suppose we ask everyone to submit at least two idea sets, but only use the first two from each player; except that if someone doesn't submit any sets, they are assigned number three and four from one of the diligent, zealous people. Then, for added balance, we don't allow anyone to buy their own idea sets in the auction.
This seems decent, except for that I will only get the chance to bid on the idea set that I made that I want if someone else doesn't make any, which seems sort of weird.

I think we benefited from having one person design almost all the idea sets last time, and the problem of designing idea sets for other people seems sort of weird, which makes me suspect that we should again have one person do it, probably with an AAR reward like we sometimes do for mod work. The main thing that I suspect that we should change is having tiers, so rather than there being two similar sets (like Viking and Raider) there's a tier 1 Viking set that's 300 points, and a tier 2 Viking set that's 250 points, and a tier 3 one that's 200 points, and the auction goes through all tier 1 sets, then all tier 2 sets, then all tier 3 sets.
The Professor
Posted: Thursday, November 16, 2017 2:34:29 AM
 General of the Army

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 11/17/2007
Posts: 8,434
Location: Time
Does the Republic Family Palace convert to added dev? And what about trade posts?

It'll be an interesting dynamic if TP's also help peoples conversion prospects.

Their game can only exist to be won.
Then so be it who else can see it done.
King of Men
Posted: Thursday, November 16, 2017 4:29:09 AM
 Legatus legionis

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 11/23/2007
Posts: 8,486
Location: Nowhere
The Professor wrote:
Does the Republic Family Palace convert to added dev? And what about trade posts?

It'll be an interesting dynamic if TP's also help peoples conversion prospects.


Yes, those all count towards dev, same as other holdings. This does mean that trade posts don't count very much, since they're cheap (relative to baronies) and can't be upgraded that much. A fully-upgraded family palace, however, should give a significant boost to your capital province.

Quote:
I think we benefited from having one person design almost all the idea sets last time, and the problem of designing idea sets for other people seems sort of weird, which makes me suspect that we should again have one person do it, probably with an AAR reward like we sometimes do for mod work. The main thing that I suspect that we should change is having tiers, so rather than there being two similar sets (like Viking and Raider) there's a tier 1 Viking set that's 300 points, and a tier 2 Viking set that's 250 points, and a tier 3 one that's 200 points, and the auction goes through all tier 1 sets, then all tier 2 sets, then all tier 3 sets.


Ok, this is also an option.

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: Thursday, November 16, 2017 4:25:25 PM
 General of the Army

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 11/17/2007
Posts: 8,434
Location: Time
Actually a fully upgraded trade post is probably on par with a township; it's like a thousand gold at least.

Their game can only exist to be won.
Then so be it who else can see it done.
Ranger9000
Posted: Thursday, November 16, 2017 7:16:22 PM
 Captain

Joined: 4/11/2013
Posts: 333
The Professor wrote:
Actually a fully upgraded trade post is probably on par with a township; it's like a thousand gold at least.


They are fairly expensive to upgrade, they just don't have as much buildings to upgrade.
King of Men
Posted: Thursday, December 07, 2017 6:47:04 AM
 Legatus legionis

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 11/23/2007
Posts: 8,486
Location: Nowhere
With a conversion vote coming up, it's time to finish the EU4 ruleset. I will buy CoC and make any necessary updates to the converter. If someone wants to do a public service they could check whether the Pdox version works with CoC, it was nice to have a mod with converted flags and country names. (When EU5/CK3 comes along I might finally give in and adopt Idhrendur's produce-a-mod approach, if I write a converter.)

These are my suggestions:

  • Coalition Wars: Players may declare a coalition war against one or more allied players, who are not allowed to bring in additional allies (including by separate wars; players not in either coalition may not declare separate wars against either side). The attacking coalition must not have more than 10% more development than the targets. If the war does not have casualties commensurate with its size, or otherwise appears fake (a judgement call by the GM team) after three years, it will be considered a fake war, and separate wars against either side will be allowed. The peace treaty cannot transfer land to the winners except for regaining cores.

    The purpose of this rule is to encourage limited wars by making them less risky, and discourage permanent Great-Power alliances by making them less useful. The prohibition on gaining non-core territory should make wars slightly less destructive, in that they can weaken one side without necessarily strengthening the other by the same amount. The limit on allies reduces the risk of a small war expanding to bring in every player, and also makes Great-Power allies less useful since they can't necessarily be used for defense. Note that you can still declare a conventional war if you're prepared to take, or even court, the risk of sparking a global conflict. Note also that two Great-Power allies can still wait for the peace treaty after a coalition war to run out, and then declare a conventional offensive war together against the coalition, to get their revenge; I have not thought of a way around this. Perhaps it just means that coalitions will need a Great-Power sponsor to be practical. Another point is that a "coalition" war (perhaps it should rather be called a "limited" war) can be used to make sure you get a 1vs1 war against someone of roughly equal size, which is fun but usually impossible due to alliances. The casualties-within-three-years limit, obviously, is intended to make sure that people don't make themselves immune to attack by "fighting a coalition war" for the whole game.

  • Idea sets: We currently have about 10 players; let's hope to recruit at least 5 more for EU. Then we need minimum 15 idea sets, 24 would be better. Let's have two designers, who will each receive an AAR reward for their work; they should make at least twelve idea sets each. (If you have this One Awesome Theme for an idea set, feel free to pitch it to one of the designers and ask them to include it, they can have more than twelve if they want; however, so as not to make the auction unbearably long, let's have at most 36 idea sets in the end.) The designers may make "tiered" ideas if they choose, e.g. one Awesome Viking Raider set and a weaker Pirate-Ninja set with similar mechanics; if they do, they should make clear which are the weaker ones. Additionally, each designer may veto one set from the other designer's submission. The auction and trade mechanics seemed to work well last time, so we'll keep them as they were.

  • HRE: Up to three players may become HRE electors, with these auction mechanics: All three positions will be auctioned at the same time, with the three highest bids winning, and each winner paying the next-lowest bid, and the highest bidder becoming the first Emperor. For example, I bid 500, Dragoon bids 300, Golle bids 200, Blayne bids 100; I pay 300 and am Emperor, Dragoon pays 200, Golle pays 100. All countries of these players' dynasties become part of the Empire. AI countries will be added to the empire if they will make its borders look better and if they are not ruled by a non-empire player's dynasty.

  • Same-dynasty kingdoms: Up to three countries may become marches. We'll use the same approach of bidding for all three slots at once, but in this case you may submit more than one bid. For example, I bid 500 and 200; Dragoon bids 300 and 150. I get two of the march slots for which I pay 300 and 150, Dragoon gets one, for which he pays 200. These marches are limited to 75 development; if necessary, converted countries can be split apart to make a 75-dev country.

  • Colonies: The system we had last time seemed to work reasonably well, so let's keep it: The New World will be colonised in stages. Trade zones will open in this order: Caribbean, St Lawrence, California, Mexico, Panama, Amazon, Brazil, Hudson Bay, Rio de la Plata, Lima, Rio Grande, Cuiaba, Mississippi, Chesapeake, Patagonia, and Ohio. The first three will open in 1500, then we will open new nodes when an already-open one is 50% filled, with a backup of opening at least one per two sessions.

  • Playable area: I want to ensure some player density. If we cannot get enough players to have a good amount of rivalry in an area, then we should not put any players there at all. In order of priority the non-European areas are APAC (China, Indochina, Japan and Korea), India, Persia/Russia, Africa. I suggest that areas without players should be off-limits until a specified time, as with colonies.

    Discussion until late this week, ruling before the conversion vote.

    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: Thursday, December 07, 2017 1:35:54 PM
     Generalmajor


    Joined: 1/16/2014
    Posts: 1,153
    No marches please. The kingdom sub CB has made dynastic propangation in Europe a nightmare. Adding that option in now would be very destabilizing in general.
    Gollevainen
    Posted: Thursday, December 07, 2017 5:14:29 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 agree

    also a question, what is the starting year in Eu4?



    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.
    dragoon9105
    Posted: Friday, December 08, 2017 12:12:48 AM
     Lieutenant General


    Joined: 8/25/2014
    Posts: 2,152
    1444

    Also I'll second No marches the Personal Unions skewed the Balance of Power far too much last game. Marches being better vassals would affect things even more.
    King of Men
    Posted: Friday, December 08, 2017 4:58:15 AM
     Legatus legionis

    One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

    Joined: 11/23/2007
    Posts: 8,486
    Location: Nowhere
    We will convert to 1444.

    dragoon9105 wrote:
    Also I'll second No marches the Personal Unions skewed the Balance of Power far too much last game. Marches being better vassals would affect things even more.


    That's why I limited them to 75 dev, which seems pretty small?

    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: Friday, December 08, 2017 6:14:26 AM
     Generalmajor


    Joined: 1/16/2014
    Posts: 1,153
    I dont think size is the issue here, its that some people have had way more success landing dynasty than others. Mainly because some people fervently stick to the realmsize limit.

    Even by limiting their dev to 75, 3 marches still make for 225 dev total. About 15-20k vassal army stack that
    dragoon9105
    Posted: Friday, December 08, 2017 10:13:36 PM
     Lieutenant General


    Joined: 8/25/2014
    Posts: 2,152
    Alright now that finals are over im going to compose my thoughts, some of these i've already mentioned on Discord and such.

    Slot Balance:
    This is perhaps the most important thing to get right for Eu4, and generally dictates how the game is played in Eu4. The Entire Meta of the game develops around where this is AI and where there are players. To a point that players are incentivised to make their neighbors or targets simply quit the game becuase nobody will defend an AI and slots are hard to refill for various reasons. Oddman wrote a fairly in depth post in this regard a few years ago.

    First off the Slots, Its important to establish what is important and the regional powers that are at least expected to exist.



    With our America-Less Game I've divided Afro-Eurasia into a bunch of slots, These are not equal in the very slightest nor do I expect them all to be filled. However it provided a good visual aid for what im going to talk about.

    The Stars and their color are what I'm recommending as player slots to be filled. Black of course being the Most Important. Though I'll be covering each color in detail.

    Black: European Slots, In my Opinion these slots should be filled at a minimum, IE, One Spain, One France, One Britain, One Germany, One Scandinavia, One Italy, One Balkan and One Eastern Europe player at a minimum. This keeps a nation like Mark's from last game from just running away with the game due to a lack of Germany/France. With our Current Map and player distribution we need Eastern Europe and the Balkans but are doubled up for Italy and Britain.

    Red: This are the Main ROTW Slots, China, Japan and Indochina. We need a Minimum of at least 3 people here with potentially more in Manchuria and South China Sea. Personally I'd be fine locking these as slots to be taken later but clearly that idea isnt going to fly, So for Balance Sake if One of these slots has a player ALL of them must have a player at a minimum. I'd prefer to have all 5, but the Stars in my opinion should be Mandatory.

    Purple: Fringe Slots of North Africa, Middle East, Persia and Russia. I do think these are a fairly high priority slots to fill as they can still be incentivised to direct their expansion into each other or Europe rather than outwards. I'll get into more details on that later.

    Orange: India I grouped up with itself with the same assumption as the Red Slots. If we have one Indian Player we should have a Second Player on the other half of the subcontinent. Though overall I'd rate this the lowest priority becuase of the Absent Slot expansion Ideas I have for use to use.

    Overall this leaves us with ~17 Slots we need to Fill. 20 If we Fill Asia-Pacific to a level I would find acceptable. Considering we have 10 at the Moment We would need to double our number of players to reasonably fill every slot. For most Eu4 games picking up 10 players can be done with enough searching but we seem to have been running into difficulty, so I've come up with a solution for our absentee Player Problem.



    Previously on Ederonball Z James proposed a solution to the Colonization Problem, Namely locking trade zones in America to be uncolonized able until certain Dates, I'm going to expand on this idea. But first, Visual Aid.


    This is the current trade zone map of Eu4. Theres a few things I'd like to bring attention to, First is Africa, and how the trade is layed out. The Ivory Coast and Zanzibar and Yemen trade nodes are explicitly built with European Colonization (But not Conquest) in Mind.
    Extending from this many of the Trade zones in Asia-Pacific are laid along where colonized land is and where it is not.

    My proposition is that AI in all Trade Zones not in Europe, and the Immediate Starting Locations of ROTW players will be locked for expansion and colonization and Unlocked at a certain date, with different dates for conquest and simple colonization.

    This is to prevent a situation where Japan is the only ROTW player and so can just eat all of China, Indonesia and Indochina at his leisure.

    Similarly we can use this to railroad ROTW interest in Africa, India and Asia to historical dates. Meaning only the African Coast will be colonized in our game (Leaving the interior for Vicky as it is in vanilla Vicky). India would only unlock for straight conquest late in the game, meaning that everyone will have an opportunity to take a bite out of the Pie instead of the Subcontinent going to the nearest Land Power that just happens to border India. Players under certain levels of development playing in these regions could also be protected as if they were AI.




    This is not a definitive map but a general Guideline of how this will Work. A Quick Explanation, Red is the Date Conquests are opened for specifically Asia (Though I used red in Africa to just becuase I was too lazy to switch to black).

    0 Means this region never opens for conquest unless A player has a capital in a trade region bordering it or Within it. So If someone Plays and has their capital in Timbuktu, All the regions bordering that trade zone unlock immediately(Or we simply apply Adjacency on GM discretion both work for me), Otherwise we operate on the numbers. The Conquest Clock and Colonization Clock can be different, IE Conquest 1 might open in 1600, Colonization 1 might open 1492. Stars mark Trade Nodes likely to be open for conquest from the start due to the Adjacency rule.

    So the first Regions under this map that unlock are: Ivory Coast, Philippines, Yeren(Kamchatka). The First Regions that Unlock for Conquest Are the Russian Regions, South India, Indonesia and Bagdad.

    Next Brazil, Canada, Indonesia and California open up for Colonization, ect ect.

    With a Map like this, the rather unrealistic Siberian Race between China and Russia does not happen, Europeans and Asians are effectively blocked from each other by a wall in Central Asia. Central Africa can wait for Vicky and Nations within Europe or Asia-Pacific will be more incentivised to attack each other or wait for locked regions to open up.

    Similarly, If ROTW slots are filled and then go missing, the slots are re-protected. Say we Fill Japan, Canton and Vietnam, And Vietnam gets bullied into quitting, Then Bengal and Indonesia both lock (And potentially Vietnam as well) Preventing Canton from just being able to inherit the entirety of the ROTW for free.



    Snowball Prevention: The Other Main Issue, and this is one that all games of Eu4 tend to struggle with sometimes is Snowball and Hugbox Prevention.

    The Main problem with Snowball prevention is that nobody wants to be the person in front of the Snowball. We've all been there, and when nobody comes to help you just get crushed. Similarly People particularly in the ROTW or with certain setups in Europe can sometimes be so terrified of a foreign interloper that the Hugbox, essentially killing the Diplomacy in the region entirely which just turns warfare into massive world wars long before they reasonably should have happened.

    Its a multifaceted problem and there's no real way to railroad player diplomacy. First off, while it limits diplomacy, I think we should Ban Sleeper Agents straight up. Its scummy as hell, and it just breaks any attempt at coalition formation into 'Find the Traitor'.

    Second, I think we should introduce GM protected Wars ingame. Highly moderated wars that are declared to the GM before they are declared ingame, In the Case of a Coalition this might be declared well in advance of the session. I'll list my suggestions below.

    1. Limited Wars: These Wars are for a single or a small number of minor Demands, Either A Province, Humiliate whatever. They are time limited (~3 Years) and allies cannot be called in. Annul Treaties with X Nation demands will be Enforced. Similarly, Humiliate will force a stop to things like Piracy, Enforce Rebels, Spy networks, Raiding their lands, ect until the Humiliate Expires(10 Years). At the end of the time limit if a nation has above 15% WS their demands must be accepted.

    2. Coalition Wars: At any time a player can demand a coalition war vote for the Top player in the game. All Players relevant to the war will be given a vote. Abstaining from the Vote allows you to avoid the War if it fires but you can only abstain if you are allied to the Target or too far away, Voting Yes or No will lock you in to participating in the War if the Vote Passes. If a plurality of Votes end on Yes, Then all Nations that Voted will be honorbound to attack the Coalition Target provided the Development of the combined nations is equal or more to the Target.

    The Coalition is only allowed to return Cores, release nations on the Border, Take Gold and do things like humiliate/War reparations etc. Upon Success of the Coalition all Players that participated receive Monarch points equal to the development lost by the Coalitioned Nation and a predetermined amount of score. If the Coalition Leader(Or anyone) Believes that someone is not participating in the war they can alert the GM, and they will not only not get the reward but may be penalized.

    If the Target wins the War he will be allowed to extract a 100% peace from the attacking Alliance, The Peace cannot contain any transfers of land. The Defender also receives a predetermined amount of Score. (The 100% Peace is to enforce the maximum possible truce time)

    3. Colonial Wars: You can only declare a Colonial War for territory not on the same continent as your Capital that would be considered overseas. So Britain attacking Japan for Colonies in Australia, France attacking Spain for Mexico, etc. They are announced beforehand. For these wars the Homelands of all participating countries are considered off limits, and the War is to be centered around the War Goal. Peace Terms can only be for overseas territories on the continent the war was declared. If the Defending Player believes the land being attacked is their homeland they can appeal to the GM.

    The Point of this is to give Naval Nations some actual power on the board as Navies not armies will be the primary means these wars will be fought.
    Examples of Acceptable Colonial Wars: Britain and France fighting over Canada, Spain and Italy fighting over Colonies in Africa, Japan and China fighting over the Philippines.
    Example of a rejected Colonial War: Italy and Spain fighting over Morocco, Britain and France Fighting over Denmark, India and Britain fighting over Bengal.

    4. Total War: The Default war of Eu4, When two players at war (Or a player is at war with an AI'd player/One without a Microphone) the ATTACKER will need to declare if its a Total War or a Limited War. The point of this is to stop sneaky declarations on missing players, people without a Mic, etc. Thus alerting everyone that there is in fact PVP going on, including other players. There are no rules beyond this declaration its simply for make it so you cant try to blitzkreig down an AI'd player without making it clear to everyone exactly what your trying to do. Rapid Germany Style Annexations of entire countries did not happen in this time period.

    With the List out of the Way I'm going to propose something we lacked last time around, Actual War Rules. Fairly simple, but ultimately I think is necessary.

    1. If someone asks for terms they need to be given, immediately. If they are still being worked out, Pause. Yes it disrupts the Flow of the Game, it can also be highly abused to keep fighting the war saying "Oh know we are still thinking" Wrecking countries in the process. Everyone should be expected to be angry at the person/alliance who declared war without working out proper terms beforehand, not the Defender who paused to find out what hes fighting for.

    2.No Joining Wars under false pretenses. If you are in a Player Vs Player Total War as an ally you are expected to fight in it. If you are suspected of 'Throwing' A war becuase your secretly allied to one of the attackers/someone else you can be penalized. Especially if it becomes a common occurrence. This applies to coalition wars.

    3. No Offensive Truce Breaking. Self Explanatory. Note the offensive, You are allowed to join a defender in a war against someone you have a truce with.

    4. No artificially dragging out wars for Events/Bonuses/War Taxes.

    5. Only 1/4 Of your Force Limit may be deployed in overseas wars.






    Ranger9000
    Posted: Friday, December 08, 2017 11:18:35 PM
     Captain

    Joined: 4/11/2013
    Posts: 333
    Honestly I like everything that's been presented by dragoon, though I do have to ask given I'm already into the Timbuktu Trade Zone, I'm fine just not pushing to gain any further territory (come EU4, all Mali CK2 is going to be taken or I'll die trying Tongue), but I'd prefer not losing the land I'll have at transfer unless it's put into a vassal of some sort (Which might run the risk of the Vassal taking over the place)
    KhanXLT
    Posted: Saturday, December 09, 2017 12:46:42 AM
     General


    Joined: 1/22/2013
    Posts: 2,616
    Vassals do no external diplomacy in eu4
    Ranger9000
    Posted: Saturday, December 09, 2017 2:59:20 AM
     Captain

    Joined: 4/11/2013
    Posts: 333
    Right forgot that so I'd be fine spitting off a vassal Hellenic Mali if needed. Though the other comment I'd have is that I think my state would more accurately count as the Northwesr Africa spot then as you listed it 'doubled up in Italy' for all I started there and do control some areas like Sicily. The majority of my territory is in the Africa spot at this point. That's just me nitpicking though Tongue
    LordSauronOfHertfordshire
    Posted: Saturday, December 09, 2017 2:59:56 AM
     Optio


    Joined: 5/22/2017
    Posts: 234
    first question that comes to mind, when you say 1/4 of forcelimit for colonial wars, is that solely army forcelimit or army and navy?

    Why conquer when diplomacy is just so much easier.
    KhanXLT
    Posted: Saturday, December 09, 2017 8:17:03 AM
     General


    Joined: 1/22/2013
    Posts: 2,616
    Does home territory include naval sea zones? Can you blockade core lands?

    Also, I would like to claim intrest in a Balkans slot come eu4 if you end up going with that map.
    King of Men
    Posted: Saturday, December 09, 2017 8:41:07 AM
     Legatus legionis

    One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

    Joined: 11/23/2007
    Posts: 8,486
    Location: Nowhere
    Thoughts on Dragoon's suggestions:

  • I like your idea about opening areas at specific times. (In fact I suggested the same; great minds.) However, it does require a good deal of tracking what's currently open and what isn't. Some people - I know this is really weird, but it's ok, people are different - some people apparently don't? Check the forum every day? To find out the latest rulings and what's going on?
  • Basically agree about the slots and their priorities.
  • Sleeper Agents: I didn't like what Jacob did under the corrupting influence of the Jackal any more than you did; but this seems hard to enforce. Are we also going to ban changing sides in exchange for a fat bribe? Because that would be hard to distinguish from "was a traitor from the beginning". And clandestine information feeding is both a time-honoured diplomatic tradition, and hard to detect. Is the intention to go by the honour system?
  • Protected wars: We seem to have similar ideas here, but I have to say I like mine better because it's way simpler. You've got three different kinds of wars here, that's a lot of infrastructure to keep track of. At most I could see adding colonial wars, which are a neat idea. I do like your idea of Humiliate putting a rule-enforced stop to raiding, privateering, and whatnot, though; EU4 really, really needs some mechanism for actually stopping that sort of thing, other than "annex the offending country".
  • I'm ok with your proposed war rules, although I note that keeping track of what is one-fourth of your force limit could get annoying to adjudicate. If someone sends 30 regiments of his 100 forcelimit, it might not be very obvious even to the victim, if they're in two stacks of 15; and the GMs might not be able to see the stacks at all. Also, what about mercs?

    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: Sunday, December 10, 2017 6:08:17 AM
     Lieutenant General


    Joined: 8/25/2014
    Posts: 2,152
    The Clarify, The Force Limit Rule only applies to armies. Its also usually isnt a hard rule. More or an enforceable guideline. If Spain has a FL of 100 and deploys 30 divisions to the New World, No big deal. If Spain turns up with 80% of their army. We have a problem.

    Sleeper Agents are similar in that its only an enforced rule if it becomes apparent, and eventually it does become apparent. I think it'd be nice to just establish that it is indeed frowned upon and not the intended way diplomacy should be undertaken. Nations did not do this sort of underhanded dealing until the Cold War, If you were Pro France, everyone knew it, ect. Basically if Player A is being conditioned by a group of players and Player B feeds them info. Player A threatens C with info he got from C about how he knows X and X, Well C can appeal to the GM or VGM that someone is in the coalition under false pretenses. A Warning will be given, and if the behavior continues, History and diplomacy going forward will be evaluated more closely.

    An Example would the Coalition against Baron last game. Blayne, Me, Jacob and Kom, are all assembled, Jacob leaks vital info to Baron who then uses this information to bully Blayne, Well instead of Blayne having to play who's the traitor he will now have an out to say "Someone is actively being an asshole and ruining the game" to the GM. Who can take note of it. If it happens again with the same people involved, its noted, If a pattern develops, Then at that point the diplo rooms are cracked open and there's an actual investigation.

    As for the War Types, I don't think its too difficult to track limited vs Total Wars. Simply put if you declare war on a player who is currently absent or is a actually here, you declare plainly in chat and on Mic. This War is Limited/Total/Colonial. Done, Then the rules take affect from there. We play at speed 1-2 most of the time its not hard to keep track of. The Total War declaration is just that, so people know there is pvp going on. Limited Wars I suppose we could toss, Colonial Wars I do think we should keep though. Lets Colonizers fight without completly full annexing each other at home. Also lets navies be relevant to nations that aren't Great Britain and Japan.

    Also I did some testing, The Ingame converter does work, but the new provinces in the middle east make an awful mess of the conversion. A bunch of provinces are given to the Ottomans, mamluks, Iraq, Timmy etc by default, But this is obviously something we can fix in post. Especially becuase only Hadogei is the one affected by this at the moment.



    Vaniver
    Posted: Sunday, December 10, 2017 6:53:48 AM
     Lieutenant Colonel


    Joined: 1/19/2014
    Posts: 662
    King of Men wrote:
  • I like your idea about opening areas at specific times. (In fact I suggested the same; great minds.) However, it does require a good deal of tracking what's currently open and what isn't. Some people - I know this is really weird, but it's ok, people are different - some people apparently don't? Check the forum every day? To find out the latest rulings and what's going on?
  • It's a little bothersome to manage, but it's possible to have a province modifier that says "off limits" and stick it on all the relevant provinces, removing it in the save when those provinces unlock.
    Ranger9000
    Posted: Sunday, December 10, 2017 8:18:03 AM
     Captain

    Joined: 4/11/2013
    Posts: 333
    Vaniver wrote:
    It's a little bothersome to manage, but it's possible to have a province modifier that says "off limits" and stick it on all the relevant provinces, removing it in the save when those provinces unlock.


    If your going that far you could possibly just put a timer on the modifier and make one for each 'teir'
    dragoon9105
    Posted: Sunday, December 10, 2017 4:12:28 PM
     Lieutenant General


    Joined: 8/25/2014
    Posts: 2,152
    Its alot of work, but for every trade node you can build a modifier and an event that applies them until a certain date.

    Basically "Not currently open" -100 Settlers -100 Settler Chance +100% Coring Cost +100 Revolt Risk"
    dragoon9105
    Posted: Wednesday, December 13, 2017 7:21:18 AM
     Lieutenant General


    Joined: 8/25/2014
    Posts: 2,152
    Going to bring this up. I ran the Conversion a few times (And talked about the results with ranger on Discord. Now Kom's converter will have differences but the Paradox was roughly approximate to the sort of Balance of Power Kom's own converter produced last time so I see no reason why it wouldn't this time.

    Simply Put the Elephant in the Room is the Middle east. At the moment the CK2-Eu4 converter does not account to the ~50 new provinces added and Kom's converter needs to be updated to account for them. Now, From the results The middle east converts with a staggering amount of development, Basically Equal to all the European Majors combined. Which means even with conquest dates me and Hadogei are in an ideal location to devour Hundreds of free development without much resistance.

    Because of this I'm going to propose we sort of Nerf the middle east a bit after conversion (And Perhaps even Greece and Egypt) and half the total development in the region. Save Persia which can be left alone as a Potential Player slot. Nobody actually developed the region So I dont think its too out there. Similarly Because Russia is mostly Tribal and Steppe Horde (Due to our early conversion date, lets face it we aint making it till 1300-1444 range, I feel we should probably buff the development there somewhat to Offset russia no longer being allowed to go into Siberia as easily and to counterbalance the overdeveloped middle east.
    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.