Some games have as a house rule that the land slider needs to be locked at position 5, what do you think about such a rule?
-
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.
I like it. Another way to limit the benefits of going naval is the rule I saw somewhere where two naval nations were not allowed to have TA's with another naval nation. But it wont make the slider balanced in itself.
Norrefeldt said:
That's the rule I have in my games, but that's mostly to promote heavy trade wars and dows because people get annoyed because of it
The locked land slider is there to give otherwise traditional land countries like France and the OE the possibility to build a fleet and become competitive at the oceans, this is nice and makes the game less repetitive.
There are a few countries which are hurt by this rule though, like Portugal, Poland and the Netherlands. So, I am neutral.
I am neutral as well. For the exact same reason FAL mentioned. I think the nations profiting from this are mostly OE, France, Spain, Venice and Sweden... these are nations that can use both a fleet and an army, and will benefit from not being disadvantaged in either area. Nations that mostly use armies or mostly use navies will be disadvantaged I think.
against, we all have the right to choose if we want to specialize in land/naval in order to have additional advantages.
I have only played in one campaign with a locked land-slider and it was Tfg. What was remarkable was that all nations had a fleet, a huge fleet. At least during the latter part of the game. Now this game was played until the year 2030 or so and thus the comparison to a normal EU game is not the best.
I suppose people may be interested to hear more arguments and less statements. Therefore I take the liberty of quoting HoG from another thread where this question was discussed
---------
The link to this post is http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?t=227271&page=5&pp=25
I suppose people may be interested to hear more arguments and less statements. Therefore I take the liberty of quoting HoG from another thread where this question was discussed
---------
HolisticGod said:
The link to this post is http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?t=227271&page=5&pp=25
Oz,
Not true.
Russia, England, Spain, France, Sweden, Venice, the OE, Austria and Brandenburg all benefit, albeit to varying degrees. Those that lose out a bit-such as England-only lose out insofar as advantages they ought not have had to begin with, and as Drake has proven more than once so far England can be a massive beneficiary, developing significant continental possessions and engaging on the continent in a meaningful way, which is more fun for English players and more historical. No, it's not as easy to sit on the island invulnerable to all-comers, but I consider that a great argument in the rule's favor.
The land nations, on the other hand, are hurt not at all. Why? Because Russia, Austria and Brandenburg are all perfectly capable of developing trade and naval resources, even becoming dominant in them (see my BB-Prussia in TfG I, see John's and my Austria in BoP, and Drake's Russia for that matter), and because France and the OE almost always went 10 land, or nearly 10 land, anyway. You can argue that, say, Sweden and the Turks, by being so easily multifaceted, becoming greater threats-but them's the dice. It's possible-and has been widely proven-for one to make these other countries multifaceted in a competitive game, and it's not all that big a challenge either.
The three losers, as has been said, are Portugal, Poland and Holland. If it weren't for morale, I'd be fully in favor of letting Portugal and Holland go 0 to fix another problem, that being England's huge support advantage under recent patches. I may be anyway. It's worth debating.
And Poland? If Poland's in a game, it may deserve a little compensation. But I was willing to play it straight in Battlefront III, and that's the way I think it ought to be. It's a hard country, any way you slice it. This doesn't make it all that much harder.
Not true.
Russia, England, Spain, France, Sweden, Venice, the OE, Austria and Brandenburg all benefit, albeit to varying degrees. Those that lose out a bit-such as England-only lose out insofar as advantages they ought not have had to begin with, and as Drake has proven more than once so far England can be a massive beneficiary, developing significant continental possessions and engaging on the continent in a meaningful way, which is more fun for English players and more historical. No, it's not as easy to sit on the island invulnerable to all-comers, but I consider that a great argument in the rule's favor.
The land nations, on the other hand, are hurt not at all. Why? Because Russia, Austria and Brandenburg are all perfectly capable of developing trade and naval resources, even becoming dominant in them (see my BB-Prussia in TfG I, see John's and my Austria in BoP, and Drake's Russia for that matter), and because France and the OE almost always went 10 land, or nearly 10 land, anyway. You can argue that, say, Sweden and the Turks, by being so easily multifaceted, becoming greater threats-but them's the dice. It's possible-and has been widely proven-for one to make these other countries multifaceted in a competitive game, and it's not all that big a challenge either.
The three losers, as has been said, are Portugal, Poland and Holland. If it weren't for morale, I'd be fully in favor of letting Portugal and Holland go 0 to fix another problem, that being England's huge support advantage under recent patches. I may be anyway. It's worth debating.
And Poland? If Poland's in a game, it may deserve a little compensation. But I was willing to play it straight in Battlefront III, and that's the way I think it ought to be. It's a hard country, any way you slice it. This doesn't make it all that much harder.
What a coincidence HoG. You make your post almost the same time as I write mine quoting you
Land 5 is great for France, Ottoman Empire, Sweden, Spain and Venice.
It's okay for England, Austria, Russia and even Brandenburg.
It sucks for Portugal, Netherlands and to a lesser degree Poland.
Who of the land 5-lovers have played Poland, Portugal or the Dutch with the rule? And how was it?
I played Russia with land 5 and didn't like it at start. Too expensive troops. But later on it was quite okay. But in that game there was no Poland, so I could keep up with Sweden and her leaders in the early centuries only because of that.
It's okay for England, Austria, Russia and even Brandenburg.
It sucks for Portugal, Netherlands and to a lesser degree Poland.
Who of the land 5-lovers have played Poland, Portugal or the Dutch with the rule? And how was it?
I played Russia with land 5 and didn't like it at start. Too expensive troops. But later on it was quite okay. But in that game there was no Poland, so I could keep up with Sweden and her leaders in the early centuries only because of that.
FAL,
I played Holland for a couple sessions, in a land locked game. I was first in income still, without breaking a sweat, but it did require some tight diplomacy and some well-placed conquests to maintain a reasonable navy.
The thing to remember is that both of these countries are extremely vulnerable in a regular game, to the countries that, with land 5, are still the most likely to hit them. The only difference with land 5 is that they do have a greater opportunity to build anti-English alliances. But France doesn't need a navy to beat the shit out of Holland and Spain doesn't need a navy to beat the shit out of Portugal. And England would be land 0, just like Holland and Portugal, and so would easily beat the shit out of both of them as well.
To be honest, while I do agree that they lose some income edge against the continentals and their colonies are vulnerable to a greater number of countries, it's hardly a damning rule. They have to survive on good diplomacy and superb economics as it is.
I played Holland for a couple sessions, in a land locked game. I was first in income still, without breaking a sweat, but it did require some tight diplomacy and some well-placed conquests to maintain a reasonable navy.
The thing to remember is that both of these countries are extremely vulnerable in a regular game, to the countries that, with land 5, are still the most likely to hit them. The only difference with land 5 is that they do have a greater opportunity to build anti-English alliances. But France doesn't need a navy to beat the shit out of Holland and Spain doesn't need a navy to beat the shit out of Portugal. And England would be land 0, just like Holland and Portugal, and so would easily beat the shit out of both of them as well.
To be honest, while I do agree that they lose some income edge against the continentals and their colonies are vulnerable to a greater number of countries, it's hardly a damning rule. They have to survive on good diplomacy and superb economics as it is.
The land/naval slider is bad for the game, as others has mentioned so many times before. However i'm not entirely in love with this solution either.
I voted "Aye" on the locked landsliders, though I do not really know which is better. Still, I voted Aye because I like to experiment and try out new things every once in a while.
I voted yes.
The more choice you give to nation, the more solution it involves, which creates more possible state in the system. Increasing the range of possibilities is always, always good in almost any circumstances.
by choice i doesn't mean : "I have more choice if I can chose either land 0 or 10"
It's more about : "I now have the choice to do more in my game. Instead of sitting there with my land army, I could build a nice little fleet without being doomed by the morale".
The more choice you give to nation, the more solution it involves, which creates more possible state in the system. Increasing the range of possibilities is always, always good in almost any circumstances.
by choice i doesn't mean : "I have more choice if I can chose either land 0 or 10"
It's more about : "I now have the choice to do more in my game. Instead of sitting there with my land army, I could build a nice little fleet without being doomed by the morale".
votes yes
currently play russia and china and it definatly has its benefits
and if you think landpowers can't compete at sea even with locked sliders think again we got countrys with big fleets in bop among them are austria, bb and russia
oh and its possible for england to reach 4-500mp late game with this rule
currently play russia and china and it definatly has its benefits
and if you think landpowers can't compete at sea even with locked sliders think again we got countrys with big fleets in bop among them are austria, bb and russia
oh and its possible for england to reach 4-500mp late game with this rule