IGC 2.0k balance problems

[spite]

Is Russia powerful enough yet? Ryazan is friendly and large now. Russia gets Tula and while its relations to Sweden are pretty bad at the start, Sweden is hardly a power to be reckoned with in 1492.

Kazan is a Russian vassal and Poland gets robbed of easy access to Moscow since Tula is gone.

I'm all for more historically accurate starts, but why not just hand the Russians Eastern Europe on a silver platter? They have a ridiculously easy start. One religion (and it's easy to maintain that one religion status), a good CoT, only one real enemy but it can't attack for fear of being devoured by its neighbours, a swathe of vassals and weak, pagan countries to prey on... This ain't right.

Also, the worsening of relations against Poland in 1773 doesn't make sense. The reason Poland got partitioned in 1773 was because it was a weak country then, ripe for the picking and experimenting with ideas dangerous to its neighbours. 1773 in the game probably never looks like it did historically.

Don't get me wrong, I love the IGC and it is my preferred mode of play, but after 2.0k I'm scared of what Russia will do. In 1.8, I was fine with the way the game was, the only difference being that I chose to play P-L, Russia and Austria in the regular GC since those were more 'fair' starts. But now I'm worried about playing any other country in the IGC since it looks like Russia will steamroll the game.

 

[UnionBuster]

Well then, make that a challenge for yourself. Try to keep good relations with Russia or work to counter their expansion.


In all my GC games, with the exception of when they diplo-annexed Venice, Russia doesn't really get anywhere near central Europe.

 

[Hartmann]

"Is Russia powerful enough yet? Ryazan is friendly and large now. Russia gets Tula and while its relations to Sweden are pretty bad at the start, Sweden is hardly a power to be reckoned with in 1492."

You haven´t yet tried it, right? To maintain playbalance we have commented out some of the Russian leaders and added some Swedish ones. Also You now have the option to give Ingermanland to Sweden, which makes it easier for the AI to get "around" the Baltics.

"Kazan is a Russian vassal and Poland gets robbed of easy access to Moscow since Tula is gone."

But Poland now has Voronez, Bogutjar and Donetsk in recompensation!

"I'm all for more historically accurate starts, but why not just hand the Russians Eastern Europe on a silver platter? They have a ridiculously easy start. One religion (and it's easy to maintain that one religion status), a good CoT, only one real enemy but it can't attack for fear of being devoured by its neighbours, a swathe of vassals and weak, pagan countries to prey on... This ain't right."

Well, whatever we do, we do it wrong. Some say Russia is too strong, some say it´s too weak ,"never" gets beyond Kazan etc. Why do people always assume, that we are not testing our settings?

"Also, the worsening of relations against Poland in 1773 doesn't make sense. The reason Poland got partitioned in 1773 was because it was a weak country then, ripe for the picking and experimenting with ideas dangerous to its neighbours. 1773 in the game probably never looks like it did historically."

Maybe You´re right on this one. I will reconsider.

"Don't get me wrong, I love the IGC and it is my preferred mode of play, but after 2.0k I'm scared of what Russia will do."

Check it out, pal! But don´t draw hasty conclusions from *one* game. I did many testruns and things can turn out quite differently.

"But now I'm worried about playing any other country in the IGC since it looks like Russia will steamroll the game."

Seriously, we are not *that* careless! Again: check it out! Any feedback and recommendations are appreciated.

Hartmann

 

[spite]

Alright, maybe I'm just panicking. I saw a horrible game where Poland lost western prussia, posen and krakow to Bohemia, and Galicia to Hungary, 250o to Russia b/c Russia declared war after absorbing Ryazan, Horde and Kazan, while P-L got sucked into a war with Austria, Bohemia, and Hungary b/c of its alliance with France.

Let's just say that the Polish partition occured around 250 years early Russia basically bowled over the rest of Europe, annexing Sweden, T.O., east Prussia, Crimea, Hungary, and parts of Turkey and Austria before they were done.

And there I was, stuck on Rhodes - happy to get Crete and Cyprus while Venice was busy elsewhere.

Now I'm just going to watch a campaign play itself. Hmm, the readme.txt says that only Bogutjar went to P-L... I never even noticed the other provinces.

 

[Sidney]

Originally posted by spite
Alright, maybe I'm just panicking. I saw a horrible game where Poland lost western prussia, posen and krakow to Bohemia, and Galicia to Hungary, 250o to Russia b/c Russia declared war after absorbing Ryazan, Horde and Kazan, while P-L got sucked into a war with Austria, Bohemia, and Hungary b/c of its alliance with France.

Let's just say that the Polish partition occured around 250 years early Russia basically bowled over the rest of Europe, annexing Sweden, T.O., east Prussia, Crimea, Hungary, and parts of Turkey and Austria before they were done.

And there I was, stuck on Rhodes - happy to get Crete and Cyprus while Venice was busy elsewhere.

Now I'm just going to watch a campaign play itself. Hmm, the readme.txt says that only Bogutjar went to P-L... I never even noticed the other provinces.

Russia seems to be a bit of an all or nothing power. I've seen games where they roll over all kinds of powers and become a behemoth while in others she gets completely dismembered. In general, I'd say that overall expansion in the game is simply too fast from both the AI and humans.

 

[Elijah]

Listen to hartmann, im sure they did dozens of test runs before releasing the new version. I happened to try a Russia 2.0f game, around 1550 I hadnt made a ton of progress: annexed khazan and some of golden horde but not all. Admittedly I had concentrated on internal improvements and had turned all the northern russian colonies into full fledged cities (I dont like being tooo much the bad boy). Worse yet, I was facing an alliance of Prussia(combined prussia variant), poland, sweden, moldovia and couple other minors it was scary The game happened to crash then and I hadnt saved so guess I try once more with 2.0k...also I did a test run for a bit while running to post office and after 40 years golden horde had annexed ryazan and russia had lost tyver to poland. Hardly a steamroller. Just my 2 ducats

Basil

 

[unmerged(1302)]

To maintain playbalance we have commented out some of the Russian leaders and added some Swedish ones.

Gee, Hartmann, you use an old Polish leaders file. I use an updated one, and I tell you Poland isn't an easy walk through for Russia. So, give those leaders back to Russia, I'll give you an updated Polish file.

Your balance now is really screwed up in favor of Sweden:

between 1521 and 1575 Sweden has: 10 generals and 3 admirals
Russia has: 5 generals

Gee, looks like real balance to me. Since Swedish generals have higher stats as well, that makes it even more balanced.

Should I do it for 1600s?
Granted, I rarely see a war between Sweden and Russia during 1492-1520, so, what will this achieve?
If Sweden is played by AI, little will happen, as Sweden is programmed somehow to be very passive, however, if it's played by a human, it's a monster even without those additions/subtractions. So, what exactly will it change? Making Sweden a supermonster?
Somehow, I see Doomie's hand in here......

 

[unmerged(2235)]

Im goin back to 2.0f

I dont want major changes in how the game is played, just an improvement.(hence improved grand campaign

 

[unmerged(1302)]

They have a ridiculously easy start. One religion (and it's easy to maintain that one religion status), a good CoT, only one real enemy but it can't attack for fear of being devoured by its neighbours, a swathe of vassals and weak, pagan countries to prey on... This ain't right.

Believe it or not, in 1492 Russia was a local superpower. Large army, very capable monarch, good generals, one religion, only one REAL enemy (I suppose you meant Poland - actually it was Lithuania). Every one around them was their vassal (Ryazan, Pskov, Kazan) or allied with them (Crimea). Besides, until 1580s, Poland wasn't even thinking about attacking Russia, but rather tried to stay low. So, what's the problem with it? Fairness isn't part of history, the first 3 wars between Russia and Poland ended in Russia's favor. Besides, they'll have their problems later on (1580-1612).

 

[Savant]

I haven't played enough of 2.0k

to provide intelligent feedback, but my observations about Russia in the IGCs 1.9 - 2.0f were that is seemed somehow to have a hard time of it whereas Crimea, the Horde, and Khazan were able to hold it off rather well and even expand at both Russia and Poland's expense.

I see it much like you do Crook in that Russia was actually blessed for the first 70 years of gameplay and then had some challenges to surmount later on. Of course, if Russia doesn't gather some steam early on, it has awful consequences for those time of troubles where neighbors become hostile and Sweden looks East to expand. So Russia should do well early on as it is needed as some slack later in the game.

My observations were that this "slack" wasn't accruing to Russia with the earlier versions (1.9-2.0f) and that she had few instances of expanding to the east as a result. Perhaps the tweaks now allow Russia to do this a bit better. I recall folks playing the IGC were complaining about what a tear Russia was on in version 1.5 or so and though it may have been true, it actually more closely emulated the historical progression than we saw with 1.9 & 2.0f. So I think Hartmann is trying to reach a delicate balance with a very volatile major.. it's kind of like mixing chemicals to yield "generally" true and stable results without producing a conflagration.

As for Sweden, I dunno. I think Sweden is toned down from what I remember. Used to be folks would comment on the Swedish wunder-soldat and now (I've been playing 2.0f remember) they seem more balanced in comparison, yet still formidable to their neighbors (as they were and would be until the passing of Charles XII).

Despite Hartmann and Doomie's extensive playtesting, there are bound ot be significant variations in any game. I have run the game from the same "saved game" location on numerous instances and I am impressed at the variety of outcomes that occur. Also, it is quite difficult to map out all of the outcome "tendencies" for so many major players. Player feedback can only help with further fine-tuning.

Finally, if there are some features in the IGC that irk you, you can make changes yourself to some of the settings. I don't bother with provinces and nation settings myself, but have tooled with various "cost" settings. Also, if you are like me, you could have multiple IGCs available from which to chose from. Personally, and I'll say it again, my favorite IGC was version 1.5 (d or e) which had no New Spain but did have my coveted

...Sardinia.

 

[spite]

Originally posted by Crook


Believe it or not, in 1492 Russia was a local superpower. Large army, very capable monarch, good generals, one religion, only one REAL enemy (I suppose you meant Poland - actually it was Lithuania). Every one around them was their vassal (Ryazan, Pskov, Kazan) or allied with them (Crimea). Besides, until 1580s, Poland wasn't even thinking about attacking Russia, but rather tried to stay low. So, what's the problem with it? Fairness isn't part of history, the first 3 wars between Russia and Poland ended in Russia's favor. Besides, they'll have their problems later on (1580-1612).

I disagree. Poland was the local superpower at the time. It had just merged with the Lithuanians (who sought to protect their lands from Russia), spanked the T.O. down, expanded down to the Black Sea and Lithuania was still calling for expansion into Mongol lands. It was a nation well on the rise.

Meanwhile, Russia had just thrown off its Mongolian shackles, and had established itself just enough to have its ambitions feared by Lithuania and the Horde, but not yet having the power to back up its ambitions. Russia was just starting its rise into true power, while Poland was already there.

I know that fairness isn't a part of history, but there must be compromises for game balance. My problem isn't P-L's weakness at the start as much as Russia's overwhelming strength. I do agree that even in the GC, Russia is mainly an all-or-nothing power, ending up as either P-L's, T.O.'s or Sweden's puppet, or ruling the world. It's just that in the IGC it seems like Russia gets "all" quite a bit more often than "nothing". Then again, these are just my personal experiences... maybe a dozen campaigns (played and observed) each for IGC and GC.

 

[State Machine]

My problem isn't P-L's weakness at the start

I've never seen P-L do bad - GC, IGC of various versions. Even when, relatively, P-L has been beaten soundly by Turkey, or myself (blush).

That said, I completely agree with Spite and Savant (and Hartmann I assume), about variable outcomes and so on. My own experiences related above are irrelevant - no single player sees enough outcomes to truly be able to judge.

Now, if we could statistically analyze the posts to the forum...

 

[unmerged(1302)]

I disagree. Poland was the local superpower at the time. It had just merged with the Lithuanians (who sought to protect their lands from Russia), spanked the T.O. down, expanded down to the Black Sea and Lithuania was still calling for expansion into Mongol lands. It was a nation well on the rise.

Meanwhile, Russia had just thrown off its Mongolian shackles, and had established itself just enough to have its ambitions feared by Lithuania and the Horde, but not yet having the power to back up its ambitions. Russia was just starting its rise into true power, while Poland was already there.

Even though Russia just threw off the Mongolian yoke, the fact is that technically they did it a 100 years before that. 1480 is just an official date, Russia (Muscovy) was gaining power slowly for 200 years before that. Lithuania absorbed Russian lands after the Mongolian conquest, however those lands and people remained Russian essentially well into XVI-XVII century. A lot of nobles within Lithuania were unhappy with P/L rule, and defected to Muscovy's service, taking their lands with them. This especially sharpened after the death of Kaziemirsz. Kaziemirsz was a very good politician, who was able to keep Russia in check. Unfortunately, he died in 1492 . What followed is a mass defection of Lithuanians (with their lands) to Ivan III service. That was the reason for the first war, won by Russia. No peace was signed, but rather a truce. Russia kept what she gained (basically status quo). The problem wasn't solved, however. First of all, Ivan was always claiming his right to all Russian lands, which were mostly Lithuanian. On the other hand, Poland didn't quite absorb Lithuania, and both countries didn't really form a single state until about a century later. Expansion to the south didn't really mean anything, because only cossacks lived there. Due to animosity between Crimean khans and Golden Horde, Russia got a really powerful ally, who for a long time prefered to raid P/L, and not so much Russia. Cossacks were supposed to serve as a protection against Crimean raids, however, P/L eventually became disinterested, and area slowly drifted into Russian hands. The next 2 wars started for the same reason - defection of Lithuanians. Both were won by Russia, not convincingly, but yet Russia gained the land. No matter how much P/L was upset with defections, they never really wanted the war. I think, they understood quite well, that Russia can easily raise a huge army, while they couldn't. I don't see in this a great power just yet. The country was divided, they were losing the war, and should've lost it even more disastrously if not for stupid quarrels among Russian commanders. The era of Poland would start at the end of XVI century, with temporal decline of Russia.
The game (in IGC 2.0k) deals with this right. The situation was historically correct, and if Kazan is Russian vassal, then Russia has to look west, which she did historically. I don't see the problem with that. As for Tula, it was Russian and never been Polish. Kursk was Russian too, and it wasn't given to Russia for game balanace reasons. Russia could have fared a lot better in wars against Poland, and later on under Ivan IV when they could have possibly captured Livonia. It didn't happen, but it could have. Just like in the game.
If you play Poland, you face historically the same problems Polish kings faced. Hungarian attacks look suspicious if they happen in the beginning, but later on they are justified (somewhat). Truly, I rarely see Poland to get pummeled significantly early on. It's Russia that has quite a lot of problems, especially if Poland allied with Persia and Georgia which they quite often do.

 

[Doomdark]

Gee, looks like real balance to me. Since Swedish generals have higher stats as well, that makes it even more balanced.

Crook, game balance means that in most cases the AI controlled nations will make progress in a historical fashion. It does not mean that all nations should have equal--or as you seem to prefer, weighted--numbers of generals. In the great majority of test runs, Russia tended to steamroll Sweden in 2.0f (and earlier versions). This might be ok for you, since Russia is a "manifest destiny superpower", but the historical fact is that your "superpower" was defeated several times by grossly outnumbered Swedish forces in the 16th century, and it was Sweden, not Russia, that held on to Estonia (which was their primary bone of contention at the time).

Should I do it for 1600s?
Granted, I rarely see a war between Sweden and Russia during 1492-1520, so, what will this achieve?

There are no new Swedish generals for that period.

If Sweden is played by AI, little will happen, as Sweden is programmed somehow to be very passive,

Our tests show that an AI-controlled Sweden now actually manages to resist Russia, perhaps even gaining Estonia in the 16th century, just like she should. It is conceivable that our tests are wrong, in which case we are willing to admit it and adjust matters again. In any case, I see no reason for you to be this bitter.

however, if it's played by a human, it's a monster even without those additions/subtractions.

This is just the worst kind of nonsense. Excepting Denmark, Sweden is by far the hardest to play of the original majors in the game. Russia, France, Spain, England, Poland and Turkey are monsters. Besides, even you must realize that the IGC team cannot try to "balance" the game nations for human control.

So, what exactly will it change? Making Sweden a supermonster?

Hopefully, it will mean that Sweden should no longer lose half of Finland by 1620, and that she might even progress in a historical fashion more often than not.

Somehow, I see Doomie's hand in here......

Yes, I imagine you would. You have always been hostile to me for some reason I cannot fathom. I assure you that I and Hartmann always discuss our changes until we can agree on the best solution. The fact that I am Swedish has nothing to do with this latest balancing. For example, it was at my behest that Russia was given Karelia in this version.

Based on your general comments, I don't think you will ever be happy with the IGC. So, don't use it... And don't whine about it--go ahead and make your own Super Russia scenario.

 

[spite]

You've got a point, Crook. The Jagiellonczyk dynasty was quite weak. It's not that they were bad kings, it's that they were average kings in a time when everyone else seemed to have strong, dynamic leadership. But Russia still treaded with caution where Poland was concerned, at least up until the middle of the 16th century.

Oh, I just had a game playing while I was out to a movie, and it's quite interesting so far. Russia is quite powerful despite losing Novgorod to Sweden (I think this must have happened in the 17th century) - b/c it has conquered and colonized a bunch of Mongol and Pagan lands, with two CoTs forming. They also expanded into parts of Persia, gaining lands full of spices and chinaware. Ryazan is still around, totally surrounded by Russia, while Denmark has Estonia and Sweden took Ingermanland. P-L has Prussia and the rest of T.O., as well as most of Bohemia and all of Hansa (super Hansa), save Mecklenburg which is Dutch.

The West is really messed up though. Austria has most of southern and eastern France, Spain has western France, and France has nothern France and all of England. It basically rules the new world though... Turkey is the only competition, having taken Naples, Venice, Knights and Hungary, as well as its historical possessions (Persia excluded), and all of East Africa.

I'm pretty sure my fears of Uberrussia are unfounded now

 

[Hartmann]

First of all, mutually accusing each other of "favoring" one country over any other doesn´t lead us to anything constructive. I sincerely hope we will manage to stop this.

While for a time it was sort of funny receiving emails and private messages like this:

"What are the Russians paying You for favoring them all the time?!"
"Why did You make Poland even stronger, that´s not fair!"
"You´re totally minisculing Russia with Your latest changes!"
"Why do You favor the Turks so much - Austria is always dismembered!"
"Austria gets "special treatment" from You - I wonder why?!"
"You are neglecting Sweden!"
"You are much too pro-Swedish!"

I´m now, frankly, getting sick and tired of this constant accusations of being opinionated in every conceivable direction. I cannot work like this and I´m seriously considering doing something else instead.

In the IGC our concern was always to give every country it´s due. Anything else would be ridiculous. What fun would it be to have a "steamrolling" AI Sweden/Russia/Poland/[insert any other country here]? Right: no fun at all.

Crook: I´m as much responsible for the latest changes to Sweden/Russia as Doomie. We always discuss everything in detail, agree on some solution and then test it. Yes, this time the poor performance of Sweden was an issue. What´s wrong with this? For the commenting out of leaders I even asked Tanone (who made that file) for help. The commenting out always was meant as being a temporal solution only. Feel free to provide me with more Polish leaders.
You should be the first to know, that I always took Your suggestions seriously. I implemented many of them and Your help was always very valuable for me. But Your "I feel the hand of Doomie in this" - comment really wasn´t very helpfull and totally out of place. If there were differing opinions on issues, Doomie and me were always trying to find a compromise with which everyone can live. Because even this couldn´t always be achieved, Doomie deviced the IGCConfig so that everyone can set the game according to his own interpretation of history. He deserves trust.


Yeah, I think that´s exactly what we need and what I now sorely begin to miss: trust.

Hartmann

 

[Savant]

Mr.H we appreciate you and Doomie's work

but as you know all too well, leading an enterprise of this nature inevitably exposes you to second-guessing by users no matter what decisions you make.

I think you have been a fair arbitrator and I value your commitment to both maintaining high fidelity and good gameplay.

Stay in there pitch.

 

[Vandelay]

If you don't like the IGC try to make your points in the IGC threads in the scenario forum.

I, the great Vandelay, have there presented lots of ideas that have never gone into the IGC... This is perfectly OK as the IGC is a lot more accurate and funner than the GC, and besides genius-level IQ is not necessary in order to add or modify leaders, nations etc. E.g. I almost always remove Grenada and use it for something I find more interesting (Dul Qadr, fantasy nations like Salonika, Vinland or Chazaria, Benin etc.).

Having done some modifications of my own with wordpad I really, really appreciate that Hartmann and Doomdark has poured so many hours of work into the IGC. Kudos! Not to mention McGuinn's graphics...

If modifications aren't to your liking just modify them, is what I'm trying to say.

Cheers,

Vandelay

 

[Yasko]

But, what´s the problem with Russia now? I have been playing Russia with the latest 2.0k, and i am glad that its more challenging now. The year is 1647 and i still have not conquered all my CB provinces. In the earlier versions it was easy to make Russia a Superpower already in 16th century, so whats wrong with this version which things go little bit more slow as in history? But i have not tried the Russian AI. How does the Russian AI perform now?

 

[Sidney]

Originally posted by Hartmann
Yeah, I think that´s exactly what we need and what I now sorely begin to miss: trust.

What you need are folks to also realize a single game doesn't amount to much- and a single century in a single game amounts to even less.
Folks need to pay through a few times before deciding about the balance issues on anything.

If you've played EU (any version) over a long enough period you should see that in each game some odd things will happen. Some folks win and some folks lose. My first game ever I thought that there was no way to stop the Spanish but I've now seen games where they get pretty much eviscerated and I've seen others where they hold their own.

BTW, in my current version of ICG Russia is getting it's clock cleaned by a Polish/Swedish/Crimean alliance in the mid 1600's after what had been a promsing Russian start taking the Horde, Sibir and half of Finland by 1600.