Elio,
In the previous campaign there were some problems because rules were unclear and it was not always that easy to get a clarification from you. IMO this is the most important thing to change. If everyone agrees to the rules before no one complains when they are applied.
The quarrel between the Eire player and the French player in the 17th century was based upon different views on what was allowed and what was not.
The 2nd most important thing is to get reliable players. The previous campaign failed in that, at the end it was ruined by a bunch of Russian players whose "Russian Series"-day was changed from X to Friday (which was the day of Rush of Titans) and they just decided to quit the campaign because of that (without telling anyone, it was pure coincidence I ICQed them 30 minutes before the game started and got to know it).
-----------
Now some suggestions how to improve the suggested rules.
1. Map trading
I believe map trading between humans is an interesting feature, it involves diplomacy, economy and skill to handle. Everything that involves skill should be encouraged, not stopped.
2. Autosend merchants
If anyone is so stupid he chooses to austosend merchants: well all the better for his opponents. And I do think one should avoid using the word "please" in rules.
3. Your lists of things you will edit
IMO this was the 3rd problem in the previous campaign. You edited too much. Only edit clear breaks of a rule would be my recommendation.
a) Your rule about editing back manus burned by an enemy army is doubtful, it is a game feature after all. Of course start-and-stop orders for an army with an objective to destroy the manu should be forbidden. And then the manu should be given back.
b) ToT violations
This I simply do not understand. Are you saying that if a nations (a catholic nation?) colonises in the ToT area you will edit the colonies/TPs to SPA or POR? I see no reason whatsover for this.
c) "suddenly religious changes to get bonuses"
This is unclear; all religious changes gives bonuses, else no one would change her religion, and all changes are sudden, they take place when you press the button for it
d) sending loans to AI nations
This one is very hard to police, only if the host sees it you can detect it; rules that cannot be supervised should be avoided.
e) not paying loans;
There is a penalty for not paying loans (a CB), why should we have a rule about it? Do not interfer with game play too much, if anyone wants to make another player mad at him (and surely get a DOW sooner or later) let him do it, it is up to him.
f) releasing vassals during a losing war
While I agree with your intention it the inclusion of the word "losing" opens up a can of worms, because two person may disagree what is a losing war; better to have a rule like "you are not allowed to release a vassal during a war", simple as that.
g) abuse about War Exhaustion
I do not understand this; rules like this is absolutely forbidden. Rules must be crystal clear!!!!! I assume that what you mean is that it is forbidden to DOW a player that suffers from high WE. Well, if so say so and be specific about what "high" is, and do note that WE is different in cores and non-cores and when you are DotF it is different in state religion provinces and other provinces. And I don't care much for this rule anyway. And neither do you Elio, you remember when you as Morocco DOWed me in RoT when I had been in war with Austria, Eire and SPA for some 10 years IIRC? So just skip this rule. You won't follow it yourself.
h) one galley pirate-guard, galleys in the three Oceans
I do not understand this, do you say that galleys are forbidden in the three Oceans? If so you must explicitly define what "Ocean" means. For example it is common practice to use galleys in those parts of the Atlantic that includes coastal provinces in Europe. And I see no reason to forbid that nor pirate-guards either, if people believe it is smart play, then let them play like that.
i) ruining a Country: I’ll accept badboy till 50 and inflation till 35 %.
Unclear rule again. If you refer only to BB and inflation then say so, if not say what you mean. And what happens if they go above? How will you penalise them? If they exceed BB 50 will you give them extra inflation? Be clear. Do not give yourself a blank editing right, say exactly what will happen (e.g. if you go above 50 BB the action by which you got above will be cancelled) and if you are above 35% inflation at a session's end you will get your inflation edited down to 35% and get your present monarch's ADM skill changed for e.g. -3 the rest of his life).
j) Everyone should clean own coasts from sighted pirates;
I strongly disagree, it is up to each one to chose if he wants to fight pirates or not. Assume e.g. that a nation do not trade much, then he mostly helps his opponents if he fights pirates
k) Vile aggressions, backstabbings, lies, war fierceness, quarrellings could be discussed by GM;
You got advised about the wiseness of this rule before you started the previous campaign as well. Now you intend to have it again. The error is simply that is to vague. What does it mean? And why should backstabbing or "war fierceness" be disallowed and edited? I am a peaceful player myself but I certainly won't critisise anyone who whises to waste his money on wars. Much better for me if he does. This rule should be deleted. The "quarrel" part can be left in, it says the selfevident: that the GM should intervene in quarrels.
The important thing to understand is that quarrels normally occur only because of unclear rules. The few other cases where quarrels occur are caused by players who insult other players. And that should be dealt with harshly by the GM.
If you have a rule like this there is bound to appear someone that believes another player displays "vile agressiveness" or whatever and another who disagrees, and then you may well have your quarrel. It it rules lökes this that creates the quarrel.
4. Special dynamic missions can be discussed with GM.
I strongly dislike if someone makes a secret deal with the GM and gains some favour if he does this or that. I wonder if anyone likes it.
5. No human alliances, but possible agreed wars; 1 vs 1 war is favourite one by GM at the same tech ranking (edited by GM before session).
Do not say what is favourite of yours. Say what is allowed and what is not. And what about GM editing tech levels? I would never enter a game where you would have the right to edit the tech levels of a perm. The only situation when that can be done is if a player leaves the game after ruining it and a new player enters and
all agree to the edit.
6. Peace offers: 3 provs rule from enemy (5 from an alliance) always and everywhere (colonies count for ½, CoT for 2):
core provs as first.
a) I assume you mean "one must ask for core provinces before any other provinces", then write so.
b) No turbo-annexion.
Well, turboannexation is the final punishment to the player who do not give up when his nation is in severe danger. To risk is that is similar to ruining your nation. Note: it is not the turboannexer who does something bad (if we are talking about two human players) it is the one being turboannexed. You need to be more clear here
- do you only refer to turboannexation between humans
- what will you edit? I can envisage many situation when the turbonnexer strongly wants an edit because the provinces he gains are of the wrong religion or so, and then you can be kind to him and edit them back to his opponent, but never edit if the annexer likes the situation, he simply outplayed his opponent who choose to destroy his nation and thus that player should immediately be thrown out of the game because his ethical standard is not high enough to be allowed to take part in the game
c) War claims can be declared before DoWing.
But why, are there any consequences of declaring war claims? Is it if you declare it at some other time? Simply do not interfer with war claims. If anyone changes his mind let him do so. It is up to the rest of the players to balance this out if he asks for too much
7. NAP (max 15y) or fixed borders must be declared and respected.
What is a "fixed border"?
8. Human player must accept GM’s peace offer at stab -3 with 99 % WS: don’t ruin a Nation.
It is not the GM that should offer peace, it is the player. In a situation like this the one offering the peace simply pauses the game and says: WS is now -99 and my opponent is at -3 stab, do you agree opponent? And better add a third requsite: that the war has been going one between these two nations for at least X years (say 3), else quick wars when opponent already is at -2 or -3 at the time of the DOW can result in what we would consider unfair wins.
9. With forced vassalization you must wait for 10y to cancel it (maybe with a new war too).
No "maybe"'s in a rules.
10. Gangbangs can be declared by GM if the competition seems killed.
This rule should simple be deleted. Comments unnecessary after what happened in hte previous campaign. If one nation gets too strong because the rest of the players are too timid then he simply won the game. It is imperative that you understand that we do not play this game because we wish to fulfil your dreams of having a full campaign of your own played from start to the end: we play if for our own joy, you are our servant, we are not your puppets.
11. You can’t DoW human player that already fights with 4 enemies.
What if that human player has 5 allies? So he is actually 5 to 4 in the current war? Or say it would have been a normal campaign and he is mighty FRA making war together with ENG, OE and AUS vs Venice, Holland, Portugal and Poland... would not I as say SWE be allowed to DOW France?
What is it you mean? Say exactly that and nothing else.
Good luck!
