New game - some thoughts

[Therion]

I'm thinking of starting a new MP game with some rules that encourage historical growth and domestic policies. Generally everyone goes for plutocracy, centralisation, offensive and quality, no matter the nation. This obviously shows that the respective bonuses are unbalanced. Some remedies could be: severe penalties if BB goes beyond a particular value (to encourage aristocracy and slow down ahistorical growth), penalties for every successful revolt (which could perhaps encourage decentralisation). I have yet to think of something that can encourage defensive warfare. The same applies to quantity. Players usually acquire enough manpower without the need for more manpower bonuses making the quantity option purposeless.

Anyway, feel free to contribute.

 

[unmerged(63809)]

Not sure how you can get a group of players to abide by such rules since certain nations would or would not benefit from these policy settings. But if you can, all the more power to you.

On another note, look into the House of Cards MP thread. We could use an extra player for perm or sub. Chime in and see what the GM (Fnuco) can set up for you.

 

[unmerged(34338)]

The point with some sliders is that the best position depends on the year you are in. While going plutocracy in the lategame is better for most countries, I don't think many people will go pluto in the 16th century. Losing BB and having cheap cavalry are way too good at that point.

And while I prefer centralisation myself, keep in mind that it's the position hardest to stay at. Lots of random events will try to push it back. And decentralisation has a few advantages (though one is considered an exploit due to a bug). Lower max WE, more extra MP from vassals and IIRC more research bonus from vassals.

Only offensive and quality seem to be seen as better than their opposites during the whole game. Not sure what you want to do about that, without making defensive or quantity much better than offensive and quality.

 

[Therion]

Not sure how you can get a group of players to abide by such rules since certain nations would or would not benefit from these policy settings. But if you can, all the more power to you.

The point is that of balancing policy settings so that are too disadvantageous in relation to others.

The point with some sliders is that the best position depends on the year you are in. While going plutocracy in the lategame is better for most countries, I don't think many people will go pluto in the 16th century. Losing BB and having cheap cavalry are way too good at that point.

You are right, although naval powers like England, Portugal and Sweden tend to go pluto from the start. And I've also seen land powers like Austria and France already fully plutocratic by the 16th century.

And while I prefer centralisation myself, keep in mind that it's the position hardest to stay at. Lots of random events will try to push it back. And decentralisation has a few advantages (though one is considered an exploit due to a bug). Lower max WE, more extra MP from vassals and IIRC more research bonus from vassals.

Well, there might a few advantages, but I have rarely seen players going decentralized.

BTW, which bug is that?

Only offensive and quality seem to be seen as better than their opposites during the whole game. Not sure what you want to do about that, without making defensive or quantity much better than offensive and quality.

How can they be made better?

 

[unmerged(34338)]

You are right, although naval powers like England, Portugal and Sweden tend to go pluto from the start. And I've also seen land powers like Austria and France already fully plutocratic by the 16th century.

Sweden tends to go there by events IIRC. And I agree it's not that bad for these countries.
But France and (especially) Austria fully plutocratic in 1600...I would be interested in seeing that. IMO it's a bad choice for them.
The advantages are:
Cheap warships, but galleys are far more popular in early game naval warfare
Higher PE and TE: TE is the one that matters most, and Austria will not be trading much..France may be better, but will only have started succesful trading after solving the religious problem.

The disadvantages:
Expensive cavalry: Cavalry rules in early game land warfare. Especially in plains, making it very useful for fighting in France.
More BB-loss: France and (especially) Austria will have been very busy expanding against the AI. Which means their BB will need lowering.

Well, there might a few advantages, but I have rarely seen players going decentralized.

In the last sessions I would pick decentralized over centralization.
And check Austria here:
http://www.europa2.ru/cgi-bin/leagu...season=Valkyrie.net XI&lang=eng&yearsave=1636

BTW, which bug is that?

Don't know the details. I believe the extra MP you get from your vassals is based on your MP instead of your vassals' MP

How can they be made better?

Good question...especially as the first things that come to mind would need a change in the code. Making the difference in MP bigger in quantity-quality-slider would be the best idea IMO. What could be interesting is giving full defensive a +1 shock bonus in assaults and full offensive a -1 shock penalty there.

First you'll have to understand what makes people go offensive and quality. I have to admit I have just been following the others on this.

In early warfare morale is very important though. And +1 shock is very very nice. I am not sure quality is really worth it at that point.
In late game warfare defensive may be interesting for poor countries. Cheap artillery is nice then. But going defensive will not take priority then I guess.

 

[BurningEGO]

Whoever went fully plutocratic as Austria by 1600's must had lost his mind. OE and Austria are imo the ones that benefit the most from aristocracy. Higher DIP is just too good to miss, and cheaper cavalry is always nice. Higher DIP means higher chances of DAing, and lowers your BB faster.

Don't know the details. I believe the extra MP you get from your vassals is based on your MP instead of your vassals' MP

I dont know it either but from what i heard, every vassal, suposing you are at full decentralization, gives half your MP plus half of that same vassal's MP.

I remember Mulli's Poland at full decentralization with a couple of 1 province minor vassals - from a base 90 MP managed to have 330 MP.

And tbh, i dont see this as a bug - it gives you tremendous MP - true. But it lowers your tech speed insanely compared to other players. A player at full centralization will tech a lot faster then one at full decentralization, and will get significant extra profit.

It might be considered more of an exploit, though, specially when players abuse it to the bone - check drake's kickassing Russia on Battlefield Europe with more then 2000 MP.

 

[unmerged(36826)]

I think the exact vassal bug is that instead of getting half of each of your vassal's manpower at full decentra you get half of your own manpower.

You get progressively less for each step towards centralisation and it is only the first vassal that really contributes anything, vassals after that (and vassals on different continents) do not have nearly so much of an impact.

(remembered from an old thread, where this effect was tested by Tonio and/or someone on the Russian forums)

I also agree with ego here, it is perhaps a bug, but it helps gameplay in my opinion, otherwise centralisation is a complete no brainer.

 

[Terminator]

I'm thinking of starting a new MP game with some rules that encourage historical growth and domestic policies. Generally everyone goes for plutocracy, centralisation, offensive and quality, no matter the nation...

What version of EU2 is it going to be, 1.09 ? Is it the last one ?

 

[unmerged(80795)]

What version of EU2 is it going to be, 1.09 ? Is it the last one ?

yes, it is. Don't confuse this with mods.