Lessons learnt so far in the MGC4

[Mowers]

Well I can certainly say that the MGC4 experience has definitely been alot better from what I learnt from the MGC3.

The rules for the MGC4 were hotly debated and I am still out on some and they were very experiemental but I can report back with some preliminary findings.

What did work?

I can say that the 20% inflation rule and the manufactory tax ruling have been an outstanding success. I am extremely pleased with this, it effectively stopped a large gameplay problem dead in the water.

I was also pleased with the maximum 4 colony rule. This stopped alot of exploiting. I am tempted to add a rule for trading posts as well.

The BB rule seemed ineffective for a long time but I do believe that it works, although the last century of our current game will show us if it works effectively or not.

What didnt work or what mistakes did I make?

I wouldnt suggest dropping a country when it does badly. There needs to be a ruling when a country is utterly knackered for whatever reason. I would suggest that inflation over 60% counts as knackered and the country is vassalised by the last country it went to war with or countrols the most of its territory for a minimum of 10 years. Peace must be instant. Inflation is reduced to 30%, and 3 vassals are released and vassalisation cancelled.

With the 20% inflation and manufactory tax there was no need for a lot of the other little rules I added such as fortification and tech reduction.

I didnt get the Spanish rules sorted effectively. I believe there is going to be a change in V1.06 but I have some new rules worked out. My inflation penalty rules didnt work at all.

I also have found the tax free manufactory ruling confusing for me. A very good list needs to be kept and a regular check must be made.( thats really a 'mowers get more organised point') Its important as the sums involved are significant.

I am also unsure if the free manufactory ruling actually had an effect as individual gameplay has been very different in this game. Whilst I still believe that there needs to be a way of implementing the economic development that followed in the wake of the reformation I am not sure how to do it.

New rules

After 1730 there is no manufactory tax. (Thanks to Peter E's maths)

I would suggest that for event inheritance exploit that it is allowed but that 3BB is given per province gained.


1) You may only convert to CRC once.
2) You must answer peace offers within one month
3) Manufactories, tax them or just ban or cap them. I use the tax rule, 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. For every mutiple of 10 thereafter the price increases by 1000 D. After 1730, everyone shifts a level down on the manufactory tax scheme.
4) Players are not allowed to force conversions of pagans through peace treaties in the ToT
5) You may only take 3 provinces from any European AI in a peace. Trade posts and unfinished colonies count as half. You receive 3BB per province for exploiting inheritance rules.
6) CC's are limited to 10 builds per country until the French revolution occurs when you can implement as many as you like.
7) You may only have 4 colonies and 4 TP's in development at any one time
8) Portugal and Holland may not be politically annexed.
9) You may not transfer money to other countries in the last 10 years of your rule.
10) If at any time your BB goes over 35 then you must release vassals until it goes below 35. If BB is over 35 during a break it will be reduced by by 1BB for every stability point lost. If the French revolution or American revolution happens then the max limit is increased to 45.
11) Playable countries can not be attacked when not played, and when attacked by one a white peace must be gained.
12) REMOVED
13) All gold producing provinces in America are reduced by 3/4 in 1570.
14) Holland, Russia, New German state and any new world power recieve a one off bonus of 7000K upon starting as that country.
15) All playable countries start with a one off 20% inflation increase. You may not reduce inflation below this level. If reduced by event then it must subsequently be altered.
16) If any countries are protestant or Reformist post 1600 they pay only 70% of the manufactory tax. If you the country in question stops being Protestant or reformist then they must pay back the difference within 10 years unless they change again.
17) If a country has inflation over 60% counts then the country is vassalised by the last country it went to war with or countrols the most of its territory for a minimum of 10 years. Peace must be instant. Inflation is reduced to 30%, and 3 vassals are released and those vassalisations cancelled. No territory exchange may occur.
18) When a country is totally occupied, it must accept vassalisation as a single option.

PLAYABLE COUNTRIES FOR SIMULATION PURPOSES

France
England
Spain
Ottoman Empire
Austria
Portugal (1492-1600)
Holland (Emergence-1700)*
Russia (1600-1820)
USA (Emergence-1820)
South American State (Emergence-1820)
Any German state (1700-1820)
Mameluks OR Venice (1492- Emergence of Holland)
Poland OR Sweden OR Denmark (1492- Emergence of New world power)

*Players choice to be Holland or any German state thereafter..

 

[Blade!]

Can you explain the rationale behind the manufactory taxes?

 

[Mowers]

Originally posted by Blade!
Can you explain the rationale behind the manufactory taxes?

Manufactories are an exploit, they are by far the best way to spend money as the returns are just amazing. Indeed the best way to win the game is to just build lots of manufactories- believe me I have witnessed it in action.

Thus the manufactories tax is designed to make other investment opportunities just as valuable. It also has the added effect of soaking up some of the vast sums of excess and totally ahistorical cash that some players generate.

 

[Norrefeldt]

I must agree with Mowers and support this rule for multiplaying. In the game I'm currently in Dedicated European Game, cash is flowing as well, and have been for some time, we're now in 1699.

 

[unmerged(3571)]

Originally posted by Mowers
Manufactories are an exploit, they are by far the best way to spend money as the returns are just amazing. Indeed the best way to win the game is to just build lots of manufactories- believe me I have witnessed it in action.

Thus the manufactories tax is designed to make other investment opportunities just as valuable. It also has the added effect of soaking up some of the vast sums of excess and totally ahistorical cash that some players generate.

While I know what you are saying, I think that strategy can be (to some extent) defeated by capturing manufacturies off of a nation whenever they build them. In very warlike (between player nations) games I've never seen this become a problem.

 

[Prince Eugene]

I agree with a 1/2 rather than a 3/4 reduction of gold mines. It is nice to keep Spain from dominating the game, but I think it takes a lot from the game when they are even further powerless. Spain funneling money to other countries (to a smaller extent of course with their mines cut) makes it possible for nations like Austria (which are weak due to the bb rule) to take down France.

Maybe you should be more specific on the cash sending rule. If a player is substituting a nation and will not be playing that nation then there should not be anything prohibiting them sending money to friends and allies.

 

[unmerged(9191)]

1000 D? It cant be that high before say 1550 because you just dont have that much cash. Maybe a limit on manufactories you can build (or a cap in build in the amount of time)...capturing is a different story....

I also think a cap on RM's/Millitary Access/Cavalry should be implemented in future ones. Say millitary access through 3 AI countries...no more then say 10 RM's with AI and no more then half (or 3/4) cavalry in your army...

Caps could also be implemented on CC's and Shipyards...

I like the colony cap but not for TP...atleast make it higher (7 or 8) so you can work on say 12 territories at once...Or have it so you can build up 12 at a time (colonies or TP)

 

[BiB]

Originally posted by Mowers
7) You may only have 4 colonies and 4 TP's in development at any one time.
16) If any of the following countries are protestant or Reformist post 1600 they recieve a number of tax free manufactories. USA or Protestant new world power- Unlimited, England- 9, Holland- 7, Any German minor, Sweden or Denmark- 6. Any other Protestant or Reformist country- 4. You must be protestant or reformist for 10 years before you can claim the bonus and if you are not protestant or reformist for more than 80 of the next 100 years then you lose the bonus.

These rules baffle me. First of all the TP limit. When I play, say Holland, one of my colonial plans is to set up a trade connection in as many as possible places in Africa and have one trade center to benefit of it. Colonising further is just not worth it there. A lvl 1 tp is as far as I want it fully developped as it's all I want. But this is not ok? Btw it's also not historically correct as there should be many tps and considering u claim to base a lot of these rules on exactly that I wonder?

Esp as unlike with colonies TPs can be burned with a single click, colonies have to be signed over in a peace treaty and fix culture (and that only from 500 on), tps don't. That's why the rule was originally brought in for colonies. Extending it to tps makes no sense IMO, apples and oranges.

Secondly, we've already had the discussion about the so-called supiority of protestantism as a religion and so on. Been there, never going to agree on it. I don't think it's historically accurate, u do.

But gamewise, the fact is that protestantism already is easily far superior to any other religion in the game, noone in his right mind will stay catholic when his realm consists of a sizeable amount of protestant provinces, so why do u have to add even more unbalancing measures?

Apart from the fact it's unbalancing, what makes me wonder even more is the fact it's not a rule which benefits protestant nations an sich but that there are many special cases and rules for certain nations, which just doesn't stroke with ur earlier explanation as it being a goodie for being protestant. Either u are protestant and u get the bonus, the same one each, or u don't. IF that isn't the case, there must be another reason. Which may very well be but it'd be nice to know it.

It looks like nothing more than a simple ploy to prop up certain nations and force some rigid historical accuracy on certain nations thru certain means no matter what, regardless of how historically accurate they are.

Like England. It is supposed to be great, so let's say they get 9 free manufactories. Holland wasn't too bad either, they get 7 (I would think that if u were to make any case for religion being a driving economical factor the Netherlands would be a better example than England and thus consequently should get more than England if u are clinging to a differentiated goodie pack for being protestant rule) and so on. Apparently being protestant as Sweden is not as good as being protestant as England for some reason.

Now if u want to give England or so a hand in becoming the nation they were then just say so. We've seen quite a few times already that u have a knack for trying to get rigidly close to certain historical situations And that's fine, just put it in the open.

Now, I pretty much made the religion.csv file for 1.06 but u won't find any big changes because I don't think it's the time or place place to add controversial (should have seen ur reaction when someone dared challenge ur statement about protestant superiority ) changes (the same principle I use on all things from event changes to leader files) in there and gamebalance is always a key issue. On both those counts I think u are taking it too far.

First there's the overly stressing of protestant superiority and secondly, but more importantly, it kills quite a bit of gamebalance. Why would anyone who doesn't have a realm of 100 catholic provinces not change to protestantism? This also decreases overall historicity when u will see a protestant Poland, France and Austria pop up (it's more beneficial for all those nations to convert). A key ingredient in balancing religions is making xure that nations are usually best of with their historical choice. Just think back to EU1 where protestantism was so overrated too that the best way to play was convert to reformed even if u played a Spain loaded with catholic provinces.

So u don't have to reply about how it is historically accurate that protestanism gets a bonus, I know u think that, I disagree, but it just doesn't matter as in the game protestantism get a bonus and u don't see me complaining about that, I think it works quite nicely. However I was wondering why u have country specific exceptions and why u insist n undeniably stretching gamebalance issues in the process?

Not that manufactory taxes will be much of an issue come 1.06 anyway.

 

[Smirfy]

Re: Re: Lessons learnt so far in the MGC4

Originally posted by BiB
These rules baffle me. First of all the TP limit. When I play, say Holland, one of my colonial plans is to set up a trade connection in as many as possible places in Africa and have one trade center to benefit of it. Colonising further is just not worth it there. A lvl 1 tp is as far as I want it fully developped as it's all I want. But this is not ok? Btw it's also not historically correct as there should be many tps and considering u claim to base a lot of these rules on exactly that I wonder?

Esp as unlike with colonies TPs can be burned with a single click, colonies have to be signed over in a peace treaty and fix culture (and that only from 500 on), tps don't. That's why the rule was originally brought in for colonies. Extending it to tps makes no sense IMO, apples and oranges.

Secondly, we've already had the discussion about the so-called supiority of protestantism as a religion and so on. Been there, never going to agree on it. I don't think it's historically accurate, u do.

But gamewise, the fact is that protestantism already is easily far superior to any other religion in the game, noone in his right mind will stay catholic when his realm consists of a sizeable amount of protestant provinces, so why do u have to add even more unbalancing measures?

Apart from the fact it's unbalancing, what makes me wonder even more is the fact it's not a rule which benefits protestant nations an sich but that there are many special cases and rules for certain nations, which just doesn't stroke with ur earlier explanation as it being a goodie for being protestant. Either u are protestant and u get the bonus, the same one each, or u don't. IF that isn't the case, there must be another reason. Which may very well be but it'd be nice to know it.

It looks like nothing more than a simple ploy to prop up certain nations and force some rigid historical accuracy on certain nations thru certain means no matter what, regardless of how historically accurate they are.

Like England. It is supposed to be great, so let's say they get 9 free manufactories. Holland wasn't too bad either, they get 7 (I would think that if u were to make any case for religion being a driving economical factor the Netherlands would be a better example than England and thus consequently should get more than England if u are clinging to a differentiated goodie pack for being protestant rule) and so on. Apparently being protestant as Sweden is not as good as being protestant as England for some reason.

Now if u want to give England or so a hand in becoming the nation they were then just say so. We've seen quite a few times already that u have a knack for trying to get rigidly close to certain historical situations And that's fine, just put it in the open.

Now, I pretty much made the religion.csv file for 1.06 but u won't find any big changes because I don't think it's the time or place place to add controversial (should have seen ur reaction when someone dared challenge ur statement about protestant superiority ) changes (the same principle I use on all things from event changes to leader files) in there and gamebalance is always a key issue. On both those counts I think u are taking it too far.

First there's the overly stressing of protestant superiority and secondly, but more importantly, it kills quite a bit of gamebalance. Why would anyone who doesn't have a realm of 100 catholic provinces not change to protestantism? This also decreases overall historicity when u will see a protestant Poland, France and Austria pop up (it's more beneficial for all those nations to convert). A key ingredient in balancing religions is making xure that nations are usually best of with their historical choice. Just think back to EU1 where protestantism was so overrated too that the best way to play was convert to reformed even if u played a Spain loaded with catholic provinces.

So u don't have to reply about how it is historically accurate that protestanism gets a bonus, I know u think that, I disagree, but it just doesn't matter as in the game protestantism get a bonus and u don't see me complaining about that, I think it works quite nicely. However I was wondering why u have country specific exceptions and why u insist n undeniably stretching gamebalance issues in the process?

Not that manufactory taxes will be much of an issue come 1.06 anyway.

I agree with you bib that the tp limit is unrealistic especially when a tp counts exactly the same as a colony for bb purposes when you diplo-annex a country, could this be tweaked?

Now not having played EU II to anywhere near the degree of yourself or have the indepth knowledge of the engine that you possess. I have though noticed the way EUII generally gets played and have reached the conclusion that there is some degree of imbalance.

The problem is that the game presently and I can't speak for 1.06 suits a player to set up a country as Soviet Russia

1/quantity/quality this comes with the penalty of a lower morale which in no way addresses the problems a country of the period would have with such large numbers of men under arms and their lack of discipline because of inferior NCO's and lower grade officers. Full quantity with the large recruitment that invariably goes with it should have incremental increase in stability costs as in a time were barracks were few and far between and soldiers had to be billeted with the populace a large undisiplined army would hardly help stability. Conversly countries possessing smaller quality armies should have decreased stability costs.

2/Plutocracy/Aristocracy now I don't pretend to know whether these bonuses are the correct but could I suggest that another factor is taken into account. As most of the aristoracy lived in castle or strong houses in ther own district they would be loathed for the state to have a strong artillery corps for obvious (to me anyway) reasons. Wheras the plutocracy would feel that a strong artillery corps would guarantee their freedom against having their rights denied by the upper classes. So i suggest cannon is cheaper for plutocracy and dearer for Aristocracy. The beauty I see in this idea as time marches on and cannon becomes more effective it might represent the historical shift towards a more franchised society.

3/ Free Trade/merchantilism Now having read Peter's post on War Exhaustion I agree that it would sensible if this erodes rather than evaporates instantly. Now I believe Free trade should give a decrease in war exhaustion or if Peters idea is implemented it should speed up the rate at which it evaporates as opposed to merchatilism. No country ever suffered much war exhaution if it could continue to trade and would recover quickly with high volume trade as opposed to the small state subsidized merchant companies.

4/ Free Subjects/Serf. this is a thorny one and I will digress from explaining my prefered option. But in the mean time as well as the bonus to production Free subjects should give a bonus to trade as they would have disposable income to spend on imported goods and the freedom to set up as traders themselves.

5/ Narrowminded/Innovation Another one were i will not put forward my prefered option. The way players set up a country with narrowminded and serf is a no brainer totaly! Going Innovative gets punished to much so I suggest that again that another sop is given to innovative like reduced naval or cannon costs. This would reflect better manufacturing techniques of engineering orientated countries.

6/ Naval/Land Could I ask for an increase in trade bonus for naval to reflect for example that land orientated countries required Countries like Venice Portugal Holland and England to carry there trade and was a substantial income bonus to these countries.

7/ Decentralised/Centralized I cannot figure this one out we always end up with a decentralised Sun King ????????



The thinking behind this idea is I would like the sliders not just to be set to extremes which is the case now.

Example: fair enough the Ottomans and Russians suit the extremes the Austrians a little less so and the French should benifit from having their sliders centrally placed


Thank you

Did not say Jehovah once

 

[Wyvern]

Originally posted by Mowers
So my current suggested listings for future games.

1) You may only convert to CRC once.
2) You must answer peace offers within one month
3) Manufactories, tax them or just ban or cap them. I use the tax rule, 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. For every mutiple of 10 thereafter the price increases by 1000 D. After 1730 there is no manufactory tax.
4) Players are not allowed to force conversions of pagans through peace treaties in the ToT
5) You may only take 3 provinces from any European AI in a peace. Trade posts and unfinished colonies count as half.
6) CC's are limited to 10 builds per country until the French revolution occurs when you can implement as many as you like.
7) You may only have 4 colonies and 4 TP's in development at any one time
8) Portugal and Holland may not be politically annexed.
9) You may not transfer money to other countries in the last 10 years of your rule.
10) If at any time your BB goes over 35 then you must release vassals until it goes below 35. If BB is over 35 during a break it will be reduced by by 1BB for every stability point lost. If the French revolution or American revolution happens then the max limit is increased to 60.
11) Playable countries can not be attacked when not played, and when attacked by one a white peace must be gained.
12) The largest gold producer pays an additional 50% manufactories tax
13) All gold producing provinces in America are reduced by 3/4 in 1570.
14) Holland, Russia, New German state and any new world power recieve a one off bonus of 9000K upon starting as that country.
15) All playable countries start with a one off 20% inflation increase. You may not reduce inflation below this level. If reduced by event then it must subsequently be altered.
16) If any of the following countries are protestant or Reformist post 1600 they recieve a number of tax free manufactories. USA or Protestant new world power- Unlimited, England- 9, Holland- 7, Any German minor, Sweden or Denmark- 6. Any other Protestant or Reformist country- 4. You must be protestant or reformist for 10 years before you can claim the bonus and if you are not protestant or reformist for more than 80 of the next 100 years then you lose the bonus.

For the average player and game, rules in MP need to be fairly simple if they're to be commonly applied. Rules 1, 2, 4, 5 and 11 I like and should probably be used in more regular MP games as a matter of course. Rules 6 and 7? Perhaps, the 4 colony rule anyway has merit and should slow down a rabid Spanish colonisation of the new world, BiB has pointed out though that it's pointless to apply it also to TP's and I have to agree with him.

Regarding rule 3 I'm very glad to hear it will be unnecessary with the new patch. The more snipits I hear about 1.06 the more I want it now . Regardless, under 1.05 I favour editing a players tech group down one notch which accomplishes much the same thing of reducing tech growth and removes most of the need for these elaborate and generally unworkable manufactory and inflation rules and follows my dictate that rules have to be easy to apply and administer if they're to work.

Rule 10 (BB rule) - this one I actually like the spirit of and in essence it should help to foster more intelligent play, but (and Peter pointed this out to me so credit goes to him) when a country reaches the 35BB point limit there is effectively nothing to scare a country from dow'ing you as you are effectively stopped from taking much if anything off them in revenge (ie they are safe knowing that failure is not going to cost them anything). Still the idea is good, but probably falls under the impractical heading for most games which is a bit of a shame.

The other rules apear all to be based on pre-deterministic ideas about what should happen which I would reject. Let the players determine what happens rather than inflicting rules that such and such a country must apear at this date and be played through until another time when your pre-deterministic ideas dictate it should decline.

BiB hit it pretty much on the head this time with one of his more eloquent posts

 

[unmerged(3571)]

I think Mower's rule 7 is to try and prevent the rapid ahistoric colonial sprawl that most nations accomplish.

England, Spain, France et al ALWAYS have far too many colonies, and far too much of a New World presence compared to history. The best way to limit this is to reduce the number of colonists that nations get I think, and to do something to limit the number of ready-made cities available in the New World.

But face it, the new world is explored and filled up far too quickly. Something should be done about it, and limiting the number of trading posts and colonies is one (albeit imperfect) option.

 

[BiB]

Re: Re: Re: Lessons learnt so far in the MGC4

Originally posted by Smirfy
I agree with you bib that the tp limit is unrealistic especially when a tp counts exactly the same as a colony for bb purposes when you diplo-annex a country, could this be tweaked?

Now not having played EU II to anywhere near the degree of yourself or have the indepth knowledge of the engine that you possess. I have though noticed the way EUII generally gets played and have reached the conclusion that there is some degree of imbalance.

The problem is that the game presently and I can't speak for 1.06 suits a player to set up a country as Soviet Russia

1/quantity/quality this comes with the penalty of a lower morale which in no way addresses the problems a country of the period would have with such large numbers of men under arms and their lack of discipline because of inferior NCO's and lower grade officers. Full quantity with the large recruitment that invariably goes with it should have incremental increase in stability costs as in a time were barracks were few and far between and soldiers had to be billeted with the populace a large undisiplined army would hardly help stability. Conversly countries possessing smaller quality armies should have decreased stability costs.

2/Plutocracy/Aristocracy now I don't pretend to know whether these bonuses are the correct but could I suggest that another factor is taken into account. As most of the aristoracy lived in castle or strong houses in ther own district they would be loathed for the state to have a strong artillery corps for obvious (to me anyway) reasons. Wheras the plutocracy would feel that a strong artillery corps would guarantee their freedom against having their rights denied by the upper classes. So i suggest cannon is cheaper for plutocracy and dearer for Aristocracy. The beauty I see in this idea as time marches on and cannon becomes more effective it might represent the historical shift towards a more franchised society.

3/ Free Trade/merchantilism Now having read Peter's post on War Exhaustion I agree that it would sensible if this erodes rather than evaporates instantly. Now I believe Free trade should give a decrease in war exhaustion or if Peters idea is implemented it should speed up the rate at which it evaporates as opposed to merchatilism. No country ever suffered much war exhaution if it could continue to trade and would recover quickly with high volume trade as opposed to the small state subsidized merchant companies.

4/ Free Subjects/Serf. this is a thorny one and I will digress from explaining my prefered option. But in the mean time as well as the bonus to production Free subjects should give a bonus to trade as they would have disposable income to spend on imported goods and the freedom to set up as traders themselves.

5/ Narrowminded/Innovation Another one were i will not put forward my prefered option. The way players set up a country with narrowminded and serf is a no brainer totaly! Going Innovative gets punished to much so I suggest that again that another sop is given to innovative like reduced naval or cannon costs. This would reflect better manufacturing techniques of engineering orientated countries.

6/ Naval/Land Could I ask for an increase in trade bonus for naval to reflect for example that land orientated countries required Countries like Venice Portugal Holland and England to carry there trade and was a substantial income bonus to these countries.

7/ Decentralised/Centralized I cannot figure this one out we always end up with a decentralised Sun King ????????



The thinking behind this idea is I would like the sliders not just to be set to extremes which is the case now.

Example: fair enough the Ottomans and Russians suit the extremes the Austrians a little less so and the French should benifit from having their sliders centrally placed


Thank you

Did not say Jehovah once

I agree largely with the overall view on the slider situation but bearing in mind that all what is possible still is tweaking and not overhauling we are in some ways quite stuck with them. Even then though I like them a lot. It's being looked into how certain sliders can be made more viable as to prevent the superior soviet state So 1.06 will see tweaks towards that end but do not expect to see tis whole issue solved all of a sudden

 

[BiB]

Originally posted by satan
I think Mower's rule 7 is to try and prevent the rapid ahistoric colonial sprawl that most nations accomplish.

England, Spain, France et al ALWAYS have far too many colonies, and far too much of a New World presence compared to history. The best way to limit this is to reduce the number of colonists that nations get I think, and to do something to limit the number of ready-made cities available in the New World.

But face it, the new world is explored and filled up far too quickly. Something should be done about it, and limiting the number of trading posts and colonies is one (albeit imperfect) option.

If teh problem is teh new world being filled up too quickly with ready made cities then why prevent players from placing 10 traders in a province that can be burned at a whim? They're not ready made cities and colonies which is what u describe as the problem. Colonies and TPs are vastly different, which is my point. One is a few steps away from being a full province with fixed culture and all what being a province brings, teh otehr is a loose claim with some fur traders which does nothing more than just that.

 

[unmerged(3571)]

Originally posted by BiB
If teh problem is teh new world being filled up too quickly with ready made cities then why prevent players from placing 10 traders in a province that can be burned at a whim? They're not ready made cities and colonies which is what u describe as the problem. Colonies and TPs are vastly different, which is my point. One is a few steps away from being a full province with fixed culture and all what being a province brings, teh otehr is a loose claim with some fur traders which does nothing more than just that.

Ok, I wasn't very clear, lumping two problems together. One is the ready made cities, the other is the New World filling up.

I think Mowers is mostly trying to address the second of those problems - spamming colonizable areas with TPs as "place holders" very early, since they are cheap and most nations can't afford to spend the money to send lots of colonists. Plus they are more likely to succeed than colonists (usually).

The Dutch and Portugese are kind of exceptions, they have to send TPs. Anyway, Mowers limit seems to small to me, but I think the idea is sound, there should be some kind of limit.

Still, the vastly better solution is to reduce the number of colonists across the board.

 

[Smirfy]

Re: Re: Lessons learnt so far in the MGC4

Originally posted by Wyvern

Let the players determine what happens rather than inflicting rules that such and such a country must apear at this date and be played through until another time when your pre-deterministic ideas dictate it should decline.


I am not a fan of pre determined outcomes in any game, but with Spain there is a problem it just keeps on going

Now lets look at the problem with a major gold producing country and we will use a major gold producing country from history randomly picked.

Spain, yes the wealth from the America's certainly drove this country along but because other countries discovered accessable gold deposits the value of these America mines declined.
Spain based her economy on gold and at the start this was successful but as few people benefited from these riches the economy did not grow along with the disposable wealth of the privelieged the gap between class broadened quite sharply overtime.
Now as the population of Europe increased the demand for consumer goods, luxuries increased so the value of trade from these these items soared. The countries that were able to produce and transport these goods to market found that their revenue dramatically increased to a level far in access of Gold which then dropped in value as a essential resource.. Also because this was a broad based enterprise the money from it filtered through to every level of society and this further drove the trade dynamic creating more wealth. In the period trading superpowers of Holland and England this bridged the gap somewhat between the classes.

The rules are not there to try and have a pre determined outcome it is to try and bring Spain to the real world of market forces that we all live in and which it suspends reality in game

 

[Mowers]

Trading posts

I am glad that there has been some debate on this.
I am not convinced that having 4 Tp's is perhaps the answer, I think BiB's and others points are too good to ignore.

There is also the issue of Russia which would have problems.

However, I do think that there needs to be a ruling of some sort as when Satan says they are "Place holders" he has very aptly described the situation.

So if anyone has any solution to 'place holding'?

Perhaps TP's should be a minimum of L2? But you can have 2 L1 's at anyone time.

 

[unmerged(3158)]

I have always supported a player's right to decide what he wants to do with his nation and not restrict his choices. But if you feel these rules will help develop EU into a more enjoyable playable game for everyone, then I think you should keep trying to refine your rules.

I do wonder about what you consider exploits such as manufactories. I consider the best way for a nation to match nations such a Spain and France. There are many nation's that don't start of with a Center of Trade, nor the tech levels to match nations such as Spain. One important way for them to fight this disparity is to build manufactories. Unlike nations like Spain or a huge continental nation like France. Manufactories become that more important for them to attain.

Limiting manufactories only benifits the wealthy nations like Spain, while hurting smaller nations who couldn't afford the steep cost of the manufactories.

The 35 Badboy rule. I find this creates instances where instead of encouraging player conflict, players become more worried about their badboy rating and begin to conserve BB for future expansions. Why waste BB on a player war that you are not guarenteed to get any lands? In many instance's a player war would erupt but no lands would exchange hands but if you factored in BB and how much a player can sustain, you will get into the situation of, what will I gain out of this if I DoW and take 4 BB for the DoW?

Also what happens when a player is close to his limit? And a large continental war erupts. But the player has no CB on another player to DoW? Yet if he were to DoW the player, he would be forced to free provinces. An odd situation and something that could limit player interaction and wars.

Editing and whether or not you should. I usually tend to host all the games I am in. I have a fairly stable connection and when it comes to editing files, I am one of the few that can do it in my play group. I'm rapidly finding that editing is like openning up Pandora's box. If I edit, then it leads to situation's that players would ask for an edit because of an auto-loan or even situation's where players playing a small minor would ask for core's of certain provinces. And If I gave in and gave those cores, I've run into situation's where other player's would start demanding core's that they would normally not have.

I think when it comes to editing, one has to be very careful how you go about it. What should be edited and what shouldn't for game balance reasons. In the case of Mower's, he is the host and moderator of his sessions, as I am in my games. In my case though, I have had to lay down the law and limit how much of a save file that should be edited. There will be edit's but only limited to what historically happenned. And small edits to help players if they get into trouble that was not their fault. IE. If a player CTDed to a naval crash and we continued to finish colonists. If he suffered mass rebellions such in the case with LG when he was the Otto's, I am willing to help LG out since it was not his fault.

Mower's though goes in the opposite direction. If it provides more realism and a better grasp of the historical period then by all means, Mower's should keep refining his rules to make them more playable and fun for all.

For me I have only added a few provisions to our games. The Ottoman's have been given their 1419 shields, England starts off with shields in Scotland, Moskovy has a shield on Ingermanland and Austria gets a shield on Istria as they did in the 1419 scenario. As for any late game edit's, their is only 2 late game edit's that can happen. If Austria does not inherit Bohemia historically and loses out on the shields in Bohemia, Austria can gain those shields in 1619. The second late game edit is the Flander's CoT. If Holland appear's and recieves their Center of Trade, Flander's will be edited. Either it will be moved to a nation that can use it, IE Austria, if Austria does not have a CoT to replace Flander's. Or it will be removed totally from the game. Flander's can only be moved with a consenus from everyone, and if we can't get one, I will remove it from the game.

For me, I would like to believe that a player that warmonger's will be punished for it. Not by the game mechanic's but by other player's who feel threatened by the player's actions. You may not get historically wars, but then again in MGC4, the Ottos were conducting the brunt of the invasion on Spain, which I found intresting. Anyways, we have two different approaches to EU MP.

Duma

 

[Mowers]

Religious Debate (again)

I knew this would come up again and perhaps as much as I dont really want to go here again as I myself am questioning it means that further examination is important.

However, before we go on, I _still_ do not like you refering to my opinion as "supiority of protestantism as a religion". Nor do I like "should have seen ur reaction when someone dared challenge ur statement about protestant superiority". I am sure that you dont mean it but it translates very badly into English, along the lines of you are racist and your arguement is thus flawed, hence my previous irritation. Other than that I am happy to debate this again, mainly because some of your other points are actually rather good and need addressing.

I think the debate is thus more about whether it is too unbalancing. Its certainly not a simple ploy to prop up certain nations and nor is it attempt at a historical straightjacket.

Having got that out of the way.

You do have 2 convincing arguments.

"Apparently being protestant as Sweden is not as good as being protestant as England for some reason."

This is a good point and you are right. I need an ammendment.

" it kills quite a bit of gamebalance. Why would anyone who doesn't have a realm of 100 catholic provinces not change to protestantism?"

If the rule unbalances the game to that extent then I have got it wrong. I dont think that 9K ducats does this.

Pleased to hear that manufactory taxes will be much of an issue in 1.06

 

[Mowers]

Re: Re: Lessons learnt so far in the MGC4

Originally posted by Wyvern
Regardless, under 1.05 I favour editing a players tech group down one notch which accomplishes much the same thing of reducing tech growth and removes most of the need for these elaborate and generally unworkable manufactory and inflation rules and follows my dictate that rules have to be easy to apply and administer if they're to work.

Rule 10 (BB rule) - this one I actually like the spirit of and in essence it should help to foster more intelligent play, but (and Peter pointed this out to me so credit goes to him) when a country reaches the 35BB point limit there is effectively nothing to scare a country from dow'ing you as you are effectively stopped from taking much if anything off them in revenge (ie they are safe knowing that failure is not going to cost them anything). Still the idea is good, but probably falls under the impractical heading for most games which is a bit of a shame.

The other rules apear all to be based on pre-deterministic ideas about what should happen which I would reject.

The manufactory and inflation rule was easy to do and was a great solution. I bring it up as a personal mistake of bad admin.

The simple answer is dont get such a high BB. With regards to BB limits, you can still break up a country, conquer it, and vassalise it all off to keep BB down. There are options. What I want to know is if BB is enough?

I reject any notion that any of my rules are purposefully designed to form pre-deterministic paths.

 

[Wyvern]

Originally posted by Smirfy

I not a fan of pre determined outcomes in any game, but with Spain there is a problem it just keeps on going

Now lets look at the problem with a major gold producing country and we will use a major gold producing country from history randomly picked.

Spain, yes the wealth from the America's certainly drove this country along but because other countries discovered accessable gold deposits the value of these America mines declined.
Spain based her economy on gold and at the start this was successful but as few people benefited from these riches the economy did not grow along with the disposable wealth of the privelieged the gap between class broadened quite sharply overtime.
Now as the population of Europe increased the demand for consumer goods, luxuries increased so the value of trade from these these items soared. The countries that were able to produce and transport these goods to market found that their revenue dramatically increased to a level far in access of Gold which then dropped in value as a essential resource.. Also because this was a broad based enterprise the money from it filtered through to every level of society and this further drove the trade dynamic creating more wealth. In the period trading superpowers of Holland and England this bridged the gap somewhat between the classes.

The rules are not there to try and have a pre determined outcome it is to try and bring Spain to the real world of market forces that we all live in and which it suspends reality in game

Smirfy I agree with where you are coming from, Spain gets too rich. My pre-determined comments were more aimed at the rules saying such and such a country can only be played until a certain date at which point another country becomes playable, and also the classic example of straight jacket policy in the Austrian resurrection in MGC4 after it got stomped by the Ottomans. I don't want to sound too negative to the MGC because I'm not, it sounds like you're all having great fun which is the important thing and how Mowers runs his game is up to him and the players involved, I just think there are better ways to accomplish a balanced game and I personally dislike lots of restrictive rules that require lots of continual editing.

Regarding Spain, I prefer to see player action restrict Spanish expansion rather than fiddly rules. The players in MGC4 took Spain down a peg or two and that's what should be encouraged. With the limits on colonies and a lower tech group you accomplish much the same thing in a tidier and more maintainable way, in my opinion. Having 8 players also helps a lot in maintaining the BoP.