Satan, I think your idea has a lot of merit. It would be nice if we could get a bit more clarity on the 1.06 changes rather than just these vague rumours.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Problem with "suportable number of ships"
Since this looks like a forum to suggest changes for 1.06, I would like to make a contribution.
In my current game I am playing England and have a problem that in my opinion isn't realistic. English navy is really large, as it should be, but my naval maintenance costs are therefore really high. It is because of the «supportable number» of ships. Since it very much depends on manpower the result is France having larger supportable number than England, even when England owns all Scotland and Ireland and their ports. I also have 22 naval manufactories and control significant production and trade of naval supplies.
In my opinion, supportable number should be modeled in such a way that England controlling more or less her historic territories has higher number than for example France or Austria. The same should apply on Netherlands and Spain. So first of all, it should really be much less dependable on manpower, and much more on number of shipyards and naval manufactories. For example, look at Venice with her Arsenalle: she maintained the largest navy in the Mediterranean with very limited territory and manpower.
Since this looks like a forum to suggest changes for 1.06, I would like to make a contribution.
In my current game I am playing England and have a problem that in my opinion isn't realistic. English navy is really large, as it should be, but my naval maintenance costs are therefore really high. It is because of the «supportable number» of ships. Since it very much depends on manpower the result is France having larger supportable number than England, even when England owns all Scotland and Ireland and their ports. I also have 22 naval manufactories and control significant production and trade of naval supplies.
In my opinion, supportable number should be modeled in such a way that England controlling more or less her historic territories has higher number than for example France or Austria. The same should apply on Netherlands and Spain. So first of all, it should really be much less dependable on manpower, and much more on number of shipyards and naval manufactories. For example, look at Venice with her Arsenalle: she maintained the largest navy in the Mediterranean with very limited territory and manpower.
I'd suggest 10 for furs and 8 for slaves, but I haven't tried it out to see what the reverberations would be in practise.Originally posted by Medicine Man
What would you suggest then, Peter?
Should I use a base value of 10 for furs and 7-8 for slaves? 10 for both? Or should I stop editing the excel files and just play the damned game?
However, it is fairly obvious that Northern America and Siberia would increase significantly in value, leading probably to stronger English, French, and Russian nations.
However, to quote BiB selectively (and what better way is there to quote?),
I think I will suspend any and all speculation on this topic until the arrival of the much anticipated v1.06 patch.Originally posted by the smurf admin
Those values are pretty much spot on and were changed accordingly
My God!
We got the ai flag for events, and the possibility to switch ai's by event, and the possibility of playing with custom flags so useful in event-making, and new WE rules, and new peace rules, and, and, and....
Thank you, Johan & Co & Betatesters.
....I look forward to finding the weak spots
We got the ai flag for events, and the possibility to switch ai's by event, and the possibility of playing with custom flags so useful in event-making, and new WE rules, and new peace rules, and, and, and....
Thank you, Johan & Co & Betatesters.
....I look forward to finding the weak spots
Some REALLY GREAT changes in 1.06!
I am looking forward to see how monthly income and everything else will influence supportable number of ships for naval nations comparing to more land oriented nations.
Everything looks soooo gooood! Thanks guys !
in 1.06!I am looking forward to see how monthly income and everything else will influence supportable number of ships for naval nations comparing to more land oriented nations.
Everything looks soooo gooood! Thanks guys
!From that discussion I would say that I can get a suggested rule set for my next game down to just this for V1.06.
I dont think there is anything obvious missing.
1) You may only convert to CRC once.
2) You must answer peace offers within one month
3) Manufactories may only be built at the end of a session. For each one you build you must have 1,000 D that can be deducted from the file as a tax. After 1700 this rule no longer applies.
4) Players are not allowed to force conversions of pagans through peace treaties in the ToT
6) You may only have 4 colonies in development at any one time
7) If at any time your BB goes over 35 then you must release vassals until it goes below 35. If the French revolution or American revolution happens then the max limit is increased to 45. You receive 3BB per province for exploiting inheritance events.
8) Playable countries cannot be attacked when not played, and when attacked by one a white peace must be gained.
9) All gold producing provinces in America are reduced by 1/2 in 1600.
10) If a country has inflation over 60% (Spain 80%) then the country is vassalised by the last country it went to war with or controls the most of its territory. Peace must be instant. Inflation is reduced to 10%, and 3 vassals are released and those vassalisations cancelled.
11) New starting countries after the initial start gain one infra level and 2 military tech levels, but not above the leading country. Plus 8K
The ones I question are
7) the BB ruling. Is 35 enough or too much or about right?
9) Does Spain need this further gold event?
Nothing has changed on the manufactory front. But note I dropped quite a lot of rules from my previous set.
What do people think of rule 10? A good idea? And is rule 11 well implemented?
I dont think there is anything obvious missing.
1) You may only convert to CRC once.
2) You must answer peace offers within one month
3) Manufactories may only be built at the end of a session. For each one you build you must have 1,000 D that can be deducted from the file as a tax. After 1700 this rule no longer applies.
4) Players are not allowed to force conversions of pagans through peace treaties in the ToT
6) You may only have 4 colonies in development at any one time
7) If at any time your BB goes over 35 then you must release vassals until it goes below 35. If the French revolution or American revolution happens then the max limit is increased to 45. You receive 3BB per province for exploiting inheritance events.
8) Playable countries cannot be attacked when not played, and when attacked by one a white peace must be gained.
9) All gold producing provinces in America are reduced by 1/2 in 1600.
10) If a country has inflation over 60% (Spain 80%) then the country is vassalised by the last country it went to war with or controls the most of its territory. Peace must be instant. Inflation is reduced to 10%, and 3 vassals are released and those vassalisations cancelled.
11) New starting countries after the initial start gain one infra level and 2 military tech levels, but not above the leading country. Plus 8K
The ones I question are
7) the BB ruling. Is 35 enough or too much or about right?
9) Does Spain need this further gold event?
Nothing has changed on the manufactory front. But note I dropped quite a lot of rules from my previous set.
What do people think of rule 10? A good idea? And is rule 11 well implemented?
7) Depends, it might be good to encourage inter player wars and colonial wars. Though if u have to get to file editing it gets cumbersome. Utopia would be other players intervening when badboys cross the line and not having to depend on a hard limit.
9) IMO it doesn't. The bankrupcy events do hurt and gold does decrease in importance quite a bit. Let's also not forget the starting pops are quite lower now.
10) When a country gets to 60% inflation it is in really bad shape, it shouldn't get to that stage at all. Xure, a rule to fix messed up countries is nice but 60%, that's really messed up
Ad hoc fixing isn't popular but nations getting fucked up liek that is very rare I think it requires ad hoc treatment as u will rarely have teh same sort of case.11) This should help Russia the most. The ai doesn't do too bad but tech wise they are close to sucking. In that regard even an extra trade level would be nice. On the other hand u have Holland, which usually doesn't require much tech. Unless of course it breaks free from Austria then it's usually far behind in naval tech and trade tech isn't an Austrian priority either. I really didn't like being set free from Austria in MGC3 instead of Spain
The BB rule is designed to protect minor nations and to get ride of the unfairness of the the 3 province rule. The ruling certainly hasnt effected the level of wars we had in the MGC4. Indeed there have been alot of wars despite the ruling. It was only now that the 35 limit has been reached repeatedly by some countries.
Peopel tend to get alarmed when file editing is mentioned.
You might well be right, it could well be worth running some tests, Archduke has done some work on this but I would like to run some more as well. He iniatially indicates that Spain is substantially weaker.
Originally posted by BiB
10) When a country gets to 60% inflation it is in really bad shape, it shouldn't get to that stage at all. Xure, a rule to fix messed up countries is nice but 60%, that's really messed up
It happened 3 times in the current game and it caused fractures in the players and I guess this rule is designed to deal with that complication.
Originally posted by BiB
11) This should help Russia the most. The ai doesn't do too bad but tech wise they are close to sucking. In that regard even an extra trade level would be nice. On the other hand u have Holland, which usually doesn't require much tech. Unless of course it breaks free from Austria then it's usually far behind in naval tech and trade tech isn't an Austrian priority either. I really didn't like being set free from Austria in MGC3 instead of Spain
I chose Russia this time as I was disappointed by its performance last time and wanted to check if it needed help as was suggested by the MGC3 player. He was right, I spent 150 years trying to get to L5 infrastructure and it has meant that I couldnt do anything else all game. And now its too late to have a meaningful impact.
I feel if my system of bringing new countries in then it needs to work better. Holland does well repeatedly, which is interesting. But Russia hasnt achieved much again.
Yeah, but I am teh kind of player who would risk war to protect an ai minor, more players should have that attitude. IF there was a 35 BB rule in MGC3 though I would have been quite a bit limited colonial wise, and I didn't even get into much player warring.
That's my point, it happened 3 times, it shouldn't be happening 3 times, u need to intervene much sooner. And if it then still happens then some ad hoc measures. It could be quite handy to rely more on regulars than standins, IMO those are oen of the reasons u get such situations.
Russia is in teh orthodox techgroup, it needs good managment from teh start to have halfdecent techs otherwise they will fall too much behind.
I think more people are thinking that way now than they used to. Its fairly easy to get CB's by protecting the AI and issuing warnings against players at a low cost, thus you can avoid the BB hit.
With regards to state collapse. It happens very quickly and normally out of the blue. By that point there are normally a host of vested interests that make getting a solution together difficult. This way you have a prepared solution that everyone is clear on and there are no arguements.
Mowers, do not for a moment belive that just because it is only now that nations are hugging the border, it hasn't restricted them before!
Rather, nations, except for the truly desperate, have been forced to stay quite a bit below, or they would be without some much needed strategic clout in conflicts. (Dow wo CB is 4 BBs, so If you want to retain the option to intervene, you should stay below 31. If you want to retain the option to actually threaten an opponents possessions in a war, rather than merely destroy his armies, you should realistically stay below 25). Now, achieving this has been very easy for the nations that could grow great by colonising or by conquering Pagans early, but all others have been severely restricted.
Which is not, in itself, a bad thing.
I could just wish for a different BB system for colonial provinces changing hands, to encourage colonial rivalry.
As for the BB, a maximum of 35 is infinitely inferior to a maximum of 34. If the rule is 34, it is much easier for a player to see when he is in violation, since 35+ means dishonourable scum.
I tell you this truly, there would have been more wars if that limit had not been in place.
If nothing else, the Swedish wish for a larger "Little Sweden" in China would have seen to that. Either in China or in Europe
Indeed, there would have been more wars, but would there have been significantly more player on player wars? Not just one or two but alot more? I dont think so, I cant see how we could have fitted that many more in, although I could see some more at least happening.
Is a global 3 province ruling the best? Or is a BB rule with editing best? Should colonies be only half their cost to take? People hate editing and thus if a rule can be found that doesnt have it then its normally better for all. But there again if its just player on player wars that its for then it would only happen a handful of times in a game. So perhaps that would be a good solution?
Is 34BB right? Or should it be increased to 44?
Is a global 3 province ruling the best? Or is a BB rule with editing best? Should colonies be only half their cost to take? People hate editing and thus if a rule can be found that doesnt have it then its normally better for all. But there again if its just player on player wars that its for then it would only happen a handful of times in a game. So perhaps that would be a good solution?
Is 34BB right? Or should it be increased to 44?
Rule 7 Does Austria lose bb when it gives up Holland and Franche Comte if this brings it below zero does it bank those points.
The Hungarian inheritance should be decided by conference between players as it's date is known. obviously Turkey is entitled to some or most of the provinces. But decide it by conference as the game stands.
Rule 8. A player should be free to regain his cores of his nation if the target country is not being played, at a reduced rate maybe but for some countries this rule totaly limits them.(especially losing the cb's on bohemian provences with my bb) (I am so unsure of this rule as in MGC4 France now has Holland OE could expand into Persia and whats the position with Poland?)
Rule 9 until there is another MGC we are not sure leave the gold alone there are other tweaks especially the increased govenor costs
Rule 10 Will total war terms be able to be enforced with 1.06 and players who understand the spirit of the game it is not a Zero sum game players should understand that fact. If a country is destroyed, again there should be a conference to suggest the best course it maybe just a victim of history (like it seems Poland) or it may be deemed worth a Congress to rebuild but any resourses given have to come from the player countries not the bank.
Rule11 if Russia is deemed backward it should be brought into play earlier
The bad boy never effected anyone in Europe outside Austria so i suggest it worked but in the colonies it obviously did not (limiting countries European play)especially with tp's, editing after session may be the only solution.
The Hungarian inheritance should be decided by conference between players as it's date is known. obviously Turkey is entitled to some or most of the provinces. But decide it by conference as the game stands.
Rule 8. A player should be free to regain his cores of his nation if the target country is not being played, at a reduced rate maybe but for some countries this rule totaly limits them.(especially losing the cb's on bohemian provences with my bb) (I am so unsure of this rule as in MGC4 France now has Holland OE could expand into Persia and whats the position with Poland?)
Rule 9 until there is another MGC we are not sure leave the gold alone there are other tweaks especially the increased govenor costs
Rule 10 Will total war terms be able to be enforced with 1.06 and players who understand the spirit of the game it is not a Zero sum game players should understand that fact. If a country is destroyed, again there should be a conference to suggest the best course it maybe just a victim of history (like it seems Poland) or it may be deemed worth a Congress to rebuild but any resourses given have to come from the player countries not the bank.
Rule11 if Russia is deemed backward it should be brought into play earlier
The bad boy never effected anyone in Europe outside Austria so i suggest it worked but in the colonies it obviously did not (limiting countries European play)especially with tp's, editing after session may be the only solution.
BB cannot go negative so if you lose provinces when your BB is zero you've lost them. Having said that, you don't gain BB for getting core provinces so it's not really an issue.
Don't understand your point here? Surely either Turkey or Austria conquers tracts of Hungary and whatever's left gets assigned via the event?
I disagree. If a regular country is under ai control for a session it has to be sacrosanct, I mean lets face it anyone can take provinces off the ai.
Completely agree.
Completely agree.
Ditto.
You don't get BB for TP's or unfinished colonies unless you diplo-annex a nation that has such provinces, in which case you gain 1 BB as per any other province. I doubt this has changed in 1.06 though I guess it's possible.
Mowers is suggesting that you get 3bb per province for inheritance, I am suggesting that since the Austria loses Provinces to Spain by event does it get credited 3bb points?
The date of the Hungarian inheritance is known and open for exploit as the MGC4 game proved. What I suggest is what Turkey and what Austria recieve of Hungary is decided by the players whether before the game or by the relative strength of the all the nations at that time a consensus This avoids Austria getting all the inheritance (ahistorically like MC3) or Austria getting shafted like MGC4. Off course I suggest that the OE get the substansial amount to help the games dynamic but maybe those two scenarios will not happen again.
Yes i understand what your saying but knowing Holland drops if say your playing MGC4 and being allowed to take it's provinces wheras parameters were put on austria as relation to Brandenburg because it was going to become playable and the OE., In the spirit of the game I fully understood Brandenburg or countries that missed one session but taking one of your core every ten years back of the OE if a country is absent or 50-100years is hardly ai bashing especially with conversion costs but was not to be allowed.
With the current BB rules you try the peaceful approach and tp's cost the same as colonies which cost the same as European provences it does not add up
The date of the Hungarian inheritance is known and open for exploit as the MGC4 game proved. What I suggest is what Turkey and what Austria recieve of Hungary is decided by the players whether before the game or by the relative strength of the all the nations at that time a consensus This avoids Austria getting all the inheritance (ahistorically like MC3) or Austria getting shafted like MGC4. Off course I suggest that the OE get the substansial amount to help the games dynamic but maybe those two scenarios will not happen again.
Yes i understand what your saying but knowing Holland drops if say your playing MGC4 and being allowed to take it's provinces wheras parameters were put on austria as relation to Brandenburg because it was going to become playable and the OE., In the spirit of the game I fully understood Brandenburg or countries that missed one session but taking one of your core every ten years back of the OE if a country is absent or 50-100years is hardly ai bashing especially with conversion costs but was not to be allowed.
With the current BB rules you try the peaceful approach and tp's cost the same as colonies which cost the same as European provences it does not add up
The big problem was that I did not stick to my own rules regarding countries. If I had done so then we wouldnt have had half of the problems that you are talking about. The country set up was good but I should not have allowed both Poland and Sweden at the expense of the Ottoman Empire.
Regarding exploiting inheritances- 3BB is a substantial cost. Any country would think twice about this I think as its more than the usual cost. Indeed it would be better to avoid the inheritances and just do a normal attack and subsequent peace deal.
I think a halving of BB for taking player colony provinces would be a good idea. It means editing- but not a great deal and not very often.
Regarding exploiting inheritances- 3BB is a substantial cost. Any country would think twice about this I think as its more than the usual cost. Indeed it would be better to avoid the inheritances and just do a normal attack and subsequent peace deal.
I think a halving of BB for taking player colony provinces would be a good idea. It means editing- but not a great deal and not very often.
