High and Dry! Tweaked leader/events game...

[juv95hrn]

High and Dry!

I'd like to know what interest there would be for a campaign with severely limited leader and random events influence with the intent to limit the luck/bad luck factor?

The idea would be to limit all leaders, historical as well as any potential random ones, to have less impact on the game. Say maximum stats of 333+1. Making a difference but still not important enough to decide the outcome of a conflict. Or for that matter screwing a nation if he dies in the first battle.

One idea would be to only allow a limited number of simultaneous random leaders and give each historical leader an extra chance to spawn a random one in the year of that leaders creation.

As for events there must be some but the should rather spice things up, give CB, minor effects, etc. but not distribute thousands of ducats into or away from a nation without any justice whatsoever. No more deflations, -3 stab or dp slider changes with nothing to do about it.

Chance will still play a great roll as to colonial/missionary success rate, battle rolls, fortress/manufactory destruction after invasions etc, etc. This would only be an attempt to stop the worst excesses of the lottery effects of the game.

Maybe the concept of rewarding skill more than letting luck/bad luck decide things sounds boring but I still like the idea of the concept. In my opinion the players in the campiagn should stand for the surprises, not the random events. I'd like to have some feedback from the community as to the interest for this idea.

 

[HALNY (HAL)]

I'd like to know what interest there would be for a campaign with severely limited leader and random events influence with the intent to limit the luck/bad luck factor?

The idea would be to limit all leaders, historical as well as any potential random ones, to have less impact on the game. Say maximum stats of 333+1. Making a difference but still not important enough to decide the outcome of a conflict. Or for that matter screwing a nation if he dies in the first battle.

I like this idea very much. Random events influence in EU2 is to big, all players will say you that. Also statistics of some leaders have nothing to do with strenght, size of army and players fighting skills.

For example when I play Poland (what I do very often ) in XVII century, I have hordes of leaders (333 etc.) but I am unable to defeat stupid, smaller, austrian armies just because they have a little better generals.

As for events there must be some but the should rather spice things up, give CB, minor effects, etc. but not distribute thousands of ducats into or away from a nation without any justice whatsoever. No more deflations, -3 stab or dp slider changes with nothing to do about it.

Another good invention. Deflations are nice, but have any economists heard about such thing?! Deflation is long process not some random surprise event as it is in EU2.


So, if you will start this game and will play on weekdays evenings I would like to join.

 

[unmerged(27108)]

I tend to disagree with this aim. IMO, I rule the kingdom, I don't necessarily do the battles even if I say to this army "go there and fight". That's for leaders.

For events, I do agree that they are bad, but they reflect some random difficulties that arise in kingdoms that can't be controlled by the king himself.

So, my view is that I give general directions to internal politics, I do strategy but I can't do everything, I just sit (often) on my throne with the benefits (luxury) and the disadvantages (not able to be everywhere). I just find the events and leader to be a realistic modelisation of this.

 

[HALNY (HAL)]

I tend to disagree with this aim. IMO, I rule the kingdom, I don't necessarily do the battles even if I say to this army "go there and fight". That's for leaders.

Yes that is true, but difference beetwen nations which have leaders and those which haven't is too big. All nations had some strategy geniuses but it was random which one of them get into army and became general. When in EU2 only majors (ENG, SPA, FRA, AUS) have good leaders during most of them game.

For events, I do agree that they are bad, but they reflect some random difficulties that arise in kingdoms that can't be controlled by the king himself.

So, my view is that I give general directions to internal politics, I do strategy but I can't do everything, I just sit (often) on my throne with the benefits (luxury) and the disadvantages (not able to be everywhere). I just find the events and leader to be a realistic modelisation of this.

Deflation, gifts, sliders changes are all things controlled by king and his goverment. I can agree that random conversion or plague is out of control, but politics and economics depends from decisions made by rulers. Why do I have to randomly loose centralisation if all my efforts concentrate on rising it?

 

[unmerged(27108)]

Yes that is true, but difference beetwen nations which have leaders and those which haven't is too big. All nations had some strategy geniuses but it was random which one of them get into army and became general. When in EU2 only majors (ENG, SPA, FRA, AUS) have good leaders during most of them game.

I do agree that the gap is large.

Deflation, gifts, sliders changes are all things controlled by king and his goverment. I can agree that random conversion or plague is out of control, but politics and economics depends from decisions made by rulers.

I disagree with that. While it may be true in the beginning of the game where ruler had a good control on their revenue, I think that in the end of the game it was more and more difficult with the upgraded complexities of the financial system developped around the beginning of the 17st century.

Why do I have to randomly loose centralisation if all my efforts concentrate on rising it?

Because you have some rebels Barons that tries to push it in the other direction? You can't control their mind afterall. or maybe because you have some push from the population in some regions of the empire that wants a more flexible governement? I think that you misinterpret the meaning of random in this case. There is a random dice roll but it tries to represent some internal dynamics.

 

[HALNY (HAL)]

Because you have some rebels Barons that tries to push it in the other direction? You can't control their mind afterall. or maybe because you have some push from the population in some regions of the empire that wants a more flexible governement? I think that you misinterpret the meaning of random in this case. There is a random dice roll but it tries to represent some internal dynamics.

Hm, maybe you have a point. But still, this random events should depence from some factor (kings stats? stability?), when there was strong ruler and country was in good condition not many rebeling aristocrats have popularity among people.

 

[unmerged(7276)]

(ENG, SPA, FRA, AUS)

Nah if you play well enough there are far more nations than that. Ive seen brandenburg, holland, burgundy, poland, russia, sweden, OE all super uber without leaders. By suer uber i mean taking on 4-5 nations and holding their own.

 

[HALNY (HAL)]

Nah if you play well enough there are far more nations than that. Ive seen brandenburg, holland, burgundy, poland, russia, sweden, OE all super uber without leaders. By suer uber i mean taking on 4-5 nations and holding their own.

It is true. Me myslef had uber uber uber Poland in XVIII/XIX without leaders, but still I think very good leaders give huge advantage.

There is also one more issue - example: in last DofG I, I had huge Poland from Pacific to Baltic and Black Sea, but for 200 years I had only few weak leaders. Don't you think such huge country should have more chances to gain good general?

 

[juv95hrn]

Although many arguments are very valid so far and there are some disadvantages of removing leaders and events I don't find any that makes it totally unreasonable to play a campaign without them. Potentially it will help nations with lots of MP but diplomacy can even such things out. I have had soem interest for this concept show up over ICQ so if there are enough players, a day that they can agree on and someone that's willing to remove leaders and random events (leaving the 8 mandatory ones in) I think this could be an interesting concept.

 

[Norrefeldt]

What takes some thought is how to remove/change the random events, or unwanted side effects might occur. Removing all stab hitting events surely benefit large powers over homogenous smaller ones, since the former will suffer less from outrageous stab costs, and only take stab hit's when they can afford to (at +3).
Removing goodies like free manus will also affect innovative countries and removing free forts from defensiveness make offensiveness even better. All this might be minor points though, but the stability issue is probably not.

 

[King John]

You might want to check out some of the random scenario's out there for an even playing field.

 

[HALNY (HAL)]

I have had soem interest for this concept show up over ICQ so if there are enough players, a day that they can agree on and someone that's willing to remove leaders and random events (leaving the 8 mandatory ones in) I think this could be an interesting concept.

In my case these are only late evenings (after 21CET) on weekdays. But of course icq me if you will start.

 

[juv95hrn]

The idea of locking the naval/land slider at 5 also appeals to me to make the game more fluid.

I agree that positive events are fine excpet the deflations but stab shouldn't drop 2 or 3 as often as it does. Rather more -1 events then.

Maybe its possible to combine this idea with the DBD3 campaign group playing wednesdays?

DBD3:
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?p=4108826#post4108826