IGC 2.0k balance problems

[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.

 

[Doomdark]

Crook,

At the end of such a negative post, "Somehow, I see Doomie's hand in here......" simply cannot be constituted as a joke; it is a direct attack on my objectivity.

I wouldn't call it nonsense. I played Sweden, it's hard the first 10 years, just don't go to Russia, take care of Denmark. I didn't notice anything particularly hard about it in the first 50-60 years. I absorbed most of Denmark. Then your good leaders show up. I played Denmark as well. Hard, but very manageable.

You are avoiding the issue. You accused us (implied: me) of having made the Swedish "monster" into a "supermonster". We all know that all of the major nations are pretty easy to play... so? Do you perhaps think Russia is suddenly extremely challenging for a human player?

I stated my opinion, yet I am being accused of all kind of sins. So, apparently stating a negative opinion is equivalent to whining?

Stating a negative opinion is perfectly ok as long as it comes in the form of polite suggestions. Please remember that in the future, and if you want to accuse me of something you are welcome to send me an e-mail.

Russia has to have more leaders because it's supposed to be a great empire. It's ridiculous, if Russia would have less leaders than some minor. At the moment, Russia barely has 2 at a time.
Besides, knowing how AI uses them, I doubt that cutting leaders will achieve anything.

Now this is more in the form of a civilized discussion. Let me begin by saying that I would love to have the Russian leaders back. The more the merrier, and we will certainly strive to find alternative solutions.

You argue that Russia is supposed to be a great empire. Here is the core of our disagreement I think, for while I agree that Russia was certainly powerful back in 1492 it was hardly a superpower. Case in point: it was consistently unable to defeat "some minor" like Sweden in the 16th (and 17th) century. We have only cut Russian leaders in the 16th century (and one in the 17th), which, in this light, is pretty reasonable IMO. Most importantly, Russia still performs well in our tests.

Although I might have agreed with you a couple of months ago that leaders don't make much difference to the AI, the new Russian leaders did have a clear effect in our numerous test runs. The effect was most obvious with Sweden, which was consistently demolished by Russia in 2.0f. I cannot even fathom how you could conceive of Sweden in EU as a "monster".

Now, the new Swedish leaders all deserve being added, just as the new Russian leaders did. No new leaders were of course added to the 18th century (when Sweden was a weak and beaten nation). Stats can always be debated however. In addition to the new leaders, the Swedish leader file has been cleared of numerous errors, and some insignificant or fictional leaders have been removed or replaced.

In conclusion, I really don't get your problem with Sweden, but I would like to hear you explain it (in a polite way).

 

[Doomdark]

Very well Crook, apology accepted.

Trust me, I will always attempt to keep the game balance in the IGC historical. For example, there is important work to be done for Denmark now that Sweden has some new leaders... and we would like to have the new Russian leaders back. (In regard to the Swedish siege specialists: Note the number of leaders with siege values in the new Russian leader file.) Also, I hope you don't blame us for removing Russian leaders just because your own personal Polish leader file contains more leaders.

I sense that there are many issues we could go on arguing about; pre 17th century Swedish-Russian wars (yes, they were wars ), the "Swedish monster" you referred to, etc. Perhaps it would be for the best if we let them drop though.

 

[Doomdark]

If we're talking about early 1600s, that's not surprising, Sweden had better generals in that time period, plus Russia was in turmoil, or slowly getting out of it. Morale of Russian army was also an issue. If we're talking about the early stages of Northern War, this is not surprising either, Russia didn't have a regular army until 1699-1700, troops were commanded by foreigners who were not trusted by soldiers.

Sorry Crook, Sweden fought many other wars with Russia. In the period 1492-1699 Sweden fought no less than six outright wars with Russia, which were all either Swedish wins or stalemates. That's two thirds of the game period...

A quick summary:

1493-1497: Union King Hans entices Ivan III to start a war against Sweden under Chancellor Sten Sture. Ivan wants to adjust the borders of the Peace of Nöteborg from 1323. The war is a pretty chaotic affair, with the usual numerical superiority of the Russians. The staunch defense of the fortresses Viborg and Olofsborg, aided by the mysterious "Blast of Viborg", scares the Russian troops under Ivan III away and the borders of the Peace of Nöteborg are reaffirmed.

1554-1557: Border conflicts escalate into fullblown war with Russian forces numbering around 54000 marching on Viborg, including a force of Tatars under the Astrakhan Prince Kaibula. The Russians are again beaten soundly by grossly outnumbered Swedes, with the decisive battle raging near Viborg.

1570-1595: Sweden, Denmark and Russia duke it out for control of Estonia and Ingermanland. It is a long and bitter affair with cities changing hands every year. Sweden eventually triumphs and gains control of the entire Estonia (when the Order collapsed the province was divided between the three nations) and parts of Ingermanland at the Peace of Teusina.

1609-1610: Swedish intervention in the Time of Troubles. Initially successful attempt at installing a Swedish-friendly Russian Czar fizzles due to low morale among the troops and Polish intervention. The Swedes withdraw to Novgorod but remain determined to gain something out of the whole debacle.

1611-1617: What started out as a dynastic intervention becomes a pure war of aggression. The new king Gustavus Adolphus realizes how important it is to have natural borders with Russia and campaigns to gain Ingermanland, Karelia and/or possibly Kola and "Far Karelia". Jakob De La Gardie and Evert Horn seize all Russian forts and cities in Ingermanland and retake Novgorod, but the siege of Pskov fails and the half-hearted attempts to take Kola likewise. Sweden gains Karelia and Ingermanland in the peace.

1656-1661: The Russians try to take advantage of Sweden's wars with Denmark and Poland. Battles are fought along the entire border, but the attempt fails and peace is again signed in 1661.

For that matter, Swedes were beating others too, and not only Russians.

Indeed, but the other enemies were considered much more dangerous. Denmark won several wars, and the Poles at least won many decisive battles. Indeed, Charles XII had such a low opinion of his Russian foe that he completely underestimated the tenacity and determination of Peter I.

 

[Doomdark]

Crook,

We seem to have a different concept of the meaning of the word "war", but suffice it to say that Sweden was in an official and active state of war with Russia for roughly 30 years in 16th century. The fact that the goal of these wars was usually control of Baltic ports is only relevant to this discussion when the outcome is considered (I.e. that Russia failed to achieve her goals). It is true that Russia was usually (but not always) engaged elsewhere, but:

a) So was Sweden and ...
b) ... most of these wars were started by the Russians.

 

[Doomdark]

I've played Sweden twice in the GC. It was fun and no way do I want to play Sweden another time.

Why not?