i suppose that MT needs correction. Couple of days ago i thought a bit on this, but didn`t finish this process really to offer more detailed balanced system.
First of all, i believe basis of wars points should be changed by meaning the rating of wars. For example, in Victoria the war inside top8 called Great War and WS there can be upto +200 and it gives more prestige.
I didn`t read ****69`s
Power and Prestige system carefully, which is a bit other area, but wars value is too different from time to time. We all know there are very short wars (not phoney), rather usual wars, long wars (usually stubborn sides
), and world global wars.
There can be different method to mark the value of wars
- subjective by decision(s) of GM/players
- WE (wartax can be counted as well, coz from 1500 it is more damage than benefit surely), but WE had limit +10 on cent=5, inno=5, range from 6 to 14 depending on DP
- period of the war (years), close to WE
- land losses (though stats gives overall losses for the session), corrected by MP, and naval losses
Well, we all saw multiplie short wars, each one of which can`t be the basis for much gaining militaty traditions points. At the same time long 10 years wars between continental fighters are deserved around 2 points imho.
Secondly, i saw only limitted number of times, when countries could reach 8 MT points, which means 5-5-5 leader. And the country should get much luck to get such maximal leader at the required moment. In all cases, such high MT was deserved because of multiplie short wars or alliance stopping big country (usually naval alliance, each of naval country produce limitted amount of troops). Of course it happens only after infra 5 and usually from 1650 years
Meaning what i describe in point 1, it is very hard to gain such amount of points in really prestige wars, like winning 2-3 rather big wars each session.
So i believe regression of points from last session shouldn`t be 50%, it should produce higher remaning points.
And finally, third point. Mostly happened before infra 5, when war is not needed for list of countries, and they are stuck with 0 MT points and start wars only later. But anyway base MT as 7 as sum of param, which mean 3-2-2 or 2-3-2 or 2-2-3 is too low imho. You shouldn`t drive very hard in wars to get at least average leader. And for example cap 10 (which means 3 MT points, most popular for the countries) produce like 3-4-3 leader only at best luck. Usually this luck doesn`t happen.
And minor notice. Many GMs like to increase random leaders average from 1700 (though 1685 is much better date for this - or even 1650), but current basic MT system doesn`t count that, it still have same limits. Of course you can tell that there are more wars after 1700, but being Spain in Unleashed and having only 1 land enemy for last sessions - France, i could have 2 big costly wars per session, which would give me only 2 points (cut down from 2.5 if one war won) or 3 points, if two wars won.
3 MT points, as we know, is only 3-4-3 max, hardly to compare french leadership. Most probably 2 points, when you have only 1 enemy, is only 3-3-3 or 3-4-2 as best.
