FAL said:
So, most of you agree the military tradition should be used, with countries getting better leaders if they are military active and worser leaders if they don't fight wars for a long time.
The details need of course to be worked out, but the basic should be clear.
I'm not sure what you mean with getting "worser" leaders, you shouldnt punish medium powers like Brandenburg, Portugal and Venice etc for not fighting wars.
They dont have the potential to fight as much as France etc.
And i foresee that any such system will increase the amount of gang bangs.
FAL said:
Dp sliders
DP sliders should be in line with your ingame actions. If you convert a lot of provinces, it would be silly if you push your dp slider towards innovativeness. The GM will watch these sort of things.
It depends on what nation, Brandenburg can easily be 5 inno and convert successfully. Be careful not to make rules that generalize too much, as every nation is played differently.
FAL said:
Explorers:
As for explorers, I have the idea to make a bidding system. At start of each session, there is an amount of (historical) explorers available. Countries can bid on them. In that way, the explorers will be hired by countries who are willing to spend money for it. However, for the first session it will be assured Portugal and Spain get the advance (ie, the first explorers), to at least enter a historical path. After that, we will see how it will develop in the game..
What kind of payment do you have in mind? Ducats?
It'll force nations to mint alot the last years to save up cash, those less wars.
Also, such rule would benefit some nations alot, like Spain and England.
While France that have much more normaly to attend to in Europe, they might not afford to "buy" explorers like that.
I think some kind of leader system for this would be better, were people can choose there preferences. Like the system we use in BF.
You should also be careful in any changes regarding historical leaders, especially if you use a military tradition system.
FAL said:
Events
As for events, I do plan on altering those if there is a good reason for in game. Some events will not make sense anymore if the orginal historical reason for it is no longer present.
Some events can be changed to affect other countries, or give different effects. And possible new events will be created.
Could be interesting, but it means *alot* of work between session for the editor.
FAL said:
Such a sort of game recquires a lot of trust in the GM to shape things and therefore I plan to make it before each session known to the public what will happen. This has the disadvantage that there are no 'surprises', but the advantage that everyone can help spot errors.
Actually, how the discussion look so far you will need atleast two, three Co-Gm/Editors.
FAL said:
Example of how things could work:
Before a session start I could give information like this:
Starting year of next session: 1670
Missions
France: Louis XIV sees the Dutch Republic as a primary enemy, especially since the occupy the rich provinces of Flandern and Artois. France wants those provinces.
Declare war on the Dutch Republic with the war goal of taking those provinces.
Reward at making an attempt: Receiving an investment in military tech and cores on those Dutch provinces.
Effect on other countries if France accepts:
The Netherlands: You fear the new expansions of Louis XIV. Try to create a strong alliance against France and prevent him from expanding.
Reward at success: France loses cores on Dutch cultured provinces. You will keep De Witt as a monarch.
I dont like strict orders like that, "attack B and C and you will be rewarded" etc. you should rather give them guidelines in that case. But always let the player decied themself in the end.
FAL said:
I have written the above from the top of my head, so it is possible there are some errors in it. For the real game I will of course do some basic research first, but expect players to keep an eye on their own history at well.
It should give a good idea of how countries get missions each session.
Encourage players to play historical is a good idea, but it require a rather experience player setup to make this successful. Preferably, give out nations to players that know them best. Historicly and gamewise.
