Poll: Locked land slider at 5, what do you think?

[admiral drake]

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.

land5 is great for any player that uses it to full potential really only sucks for port and dutch since there mp is so low it barely makes a difference

poland has no problem with this you more expensive troops less land morale but so do all your neigbors

 

[admiral drake]

Drake,

Austria's presently being the larges...

only cause i have a severe lack of shipbuilding capacity but i'm stil close to 200ships as russia in 1567 or so

 

[DSYoungEsq]

I think you will find that opinion on this will differ depending upon what type of MP game the person wants to play.

For those who play a LOT of MP (HoG being a prime example), and have done so for a long time, I can understand the frustration of repetitively replaying the same tired old strategies. If you are Austria, you are totally Land, if you are England you are totally Naval, and England (straits or no) will never be on the Continent without massive help from an ally, and Austria will never be colonizer overseas (unless protected by an ally).

I disagree with HoG that this means the game becomes ahistorical; indeed, look at who DID colonize: Spain (until the Armada was destroyed, after which they were just hanging on to their original claims of mostly not such great land), England, France, Portugal and the Netherlands. And to say that France colonized is a bit of a misnomer: France claimed lands in which they engaged in trading, but they never were true colonizers like England or Spain, until after our period is over and the focus shifted to Africa. This is one of the primary reasons they lost their North American possessions in the series of 18th Century wars fought in Europe with colonial side-fights.

But, what it DOES do is take the choice away from the situation. You can't create a different colonizer with a different country through your Domestic Policy settings, without being at a serious handicap in the process. Thus, while there were good reasons that the Swedes failed in their colonization efforts, it wasn't through a choice to support land forces over naval forces. Yet, in the game, this is precisely where the trouble can lie. And THAT is quite ahistorical: it wasn't pre-ordained that the French wouldn't be as powerful colonially as England and Spain, nor was it strategically the only reasonable result.

But there will be a camp of people who will not see this as a problem. Why? Two possible reasons: One, they don't engage in much war. When you boil the Land/Naval slider debate down, it comes down to the effect upon Land Troop morale, and the effect THAT has upon the ability to compete in a game involving lots and lots of warfare (which, I might point out, is a historically accurate game ). No warfare, no worries about morale. Two, they haven't yet tired of the "normal" situation, enjoying still the spread of red and yellow (and maybe green) across the globe while White and Blood Red and Blue fight across the European landscape. For them, the creation of this situation, a dull repetition for the "old hand," won't cause any concern.

My opinion is this: I don't like locking the slider for the simple reason that I don't think the morale issue should cause people to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Yes, the slider is loaded with wayyyyyy too much effect, but some of that should be available to the player. Perhaps the slider shouldn't be locked, but allowed some room (say 3-7). But if the trouble with your games is that England is always full Naval, and you see this as an issue, then what you really need to do is change the diplomatic situation.

 

[saskganesh]

voted no, but would like more data.

my big problem is the too large fleet limits. and immortal warships.

 

[arcorelli]

But there will be a camp of people who will not see this as a problem. Why? Two possible reasons: One, they don't engage in much war. When you boil the Land/Naval slider debate down, it comes down to the effect upon Land Troop morale, and the effect THAT has upon the ability to compete in a game involving lots and lots of warfare (which, I might point out, is a historically accurate game ).

Ship cost actually. People likes the rule because (as smn said) it allows France to have a decent fleet, as they did in RL actually. Fighting with 70-80 ducats warships against 30 ducats warships is a losing proposition (and there is no reason for the difference). So basically, the rule allows for everyone to get a navy if they want. And that is nice.

And the losers are NL and POR, and -as HG- said, they survive -anyway- in good diplomacy. That is true before and after the rule.

 

[BiB]

I'm a conservative if you wish (I have refused to install patches or play anything with a Calais-Kent landbridge), I just call it being opposed to changes that fix something by introducing new problems

This is one of those changes IMO. As has been pointed out HOL and POR for example suffer. But has anyone ever pondered about having such a locked slider but allowing HOL for example to go for full naval anyway?

I got the idea after reading this thread of what about having this rule in place but allowing Holland to go full naval and BRA/Prussia to go full land? Both those nations usually enter the scene somewhat later than from the start and can have it somewhat hard to achieve what they historically did because of this. This would give them a nice edge and woudl make for a fun game dynamic, I was thinking.

(As for determinism, I rather like somewhat historically going games so I am going to think in that direction.)

It's an intriguing thread.

 

[BiB]

Oh, and as for me replying late, it's the same reason as to why I can't play MP during the weekend sadly.

 

[unmerged(10915)]

This is one of those changes IMO. As has been pointed out HOL and POR for example suffer. But has anyone ever pondered about having such a locked slider but allowing HOL for example to go for full naval anyway?

That would work as long as the rule is dropped when Prussia had gained Germany-shape and Holland can build a fleet to match England's.

 

[unmerged(11287)]

we just can't lock it, it's absurd. Russia for example has to pay more for her troops, She'll have less MP. what would be the compensation? a more active Russia at the sea? same on Poland, Brandenburg/Prussia, Austria.

the same reason works for Naval nations, they'd have more MP, but their fleets won't be as effective as they should be to have chances of success in the game. NL, Portugal and England would have little gain of MP. Add tradding is less effective too.

it's supposed we use nations in a historical way (if we're playing historical nations of course) exploiting their natural advantages and avoiding high costs due to disadvantages. We don't have to prove we're better than others by playing from an equal position, this game has a lot of different countries with more or less advantages/disadvantages. This is not like Chess where everyone starts with 16 pieces against other 16 (the opponent). some countries have less pawns than others. Now, if we let every country to especialize in land/naval, they'll have chances in what it's got more strengh. Finally, diplomacy helps us to cover our weak points.

 

[BiB]

That would work as long as the rule is dropped when Prussia had gained Germany-shape and Holland can build a fleet to match England's.

Well, unless there's a extremely large Holland and a very small England, England's support limit will always be a lot higher. I just don't see either happening, nor a Germany sized Prussia.

Furthermore, Holland gets good leaders (very good ones!) for about a century, then it runs out. Even with full naval it won't be a match for England's larger fleet and leaders.

(And no, I haven't played in a game with random leaders )

I guess I just happen to like Holland bursting onto the scene, becoming more and stronger than it really should be for its size and then declining, which this would seem to help to accomplish.

 

[HolisticGod]

Pibe,

Except the slider is ahistorical.

And there have been a large number of extremely powerful Brandenburger, Austrian and Russian navies, and British armies.

 

[Chaingun]

I think many of the sliders have overly large effects in general and make the game too deterministic (have fun trying to fight land battles in the early years as fully naval). And as pointed out there's little to no historical justification for this particular slider, so having it neutral is a great rule.

 

[Hive]

The only winners of such a rule are nations like Spain and OE imo - while nations like Portugal and Austria suffer.

 

[Seen]

I think many of the sliders have overly large effects in general and make the game too deterministic (have fun trying to fight land battles in the early years as fully naval). And as pointed out there's little to no historical justification for this particular slider, so having it neutral is a great rule.

The dutch invented a crucshaw (krukas?) for cheaper boats, not for cheaper guns And its hard to not say porto was orientated on the sea instead of invading madrid Otherway around for Poland. For now im against since i see the nations that are naturally strong get stronger and the medium powers lose their edge on the one area they we specialising in.

 

[arcorelli]

The dutch invented a crucshaw (krukas?) for cheaper boats, not for cheaper guns And its hard to not say porto was orientated on the sea instead of invading madrid Otherway around for Poland. For now im against since i see the nations that are naturally strong get stronger and the medium powers lose their edge on the one area they we specialising in.

It is not ahistorical that POR or NL are naval (or that Austria is land-oriented). But the effects of the slider are not historical. Currently is near impossible that France get a large fleet, and for a long time the french fleet was one of the most important of Europe. A France forced to buy expensive and low-morale ships is most unhistorical.

 

[King John]

The dutch invented a crucshaw (krukas?) for cheaper boats, not for cheaper guns And its hard to not say porto was orientated on the sea instead of invading madrid Otherway around for Poland. For now im against since i see the nations that are naturally strong get stronger and the medium powers lose their edge on the one area they we specialising in.

Portugal loses its edge against who? NL? England? Sweden? This rule doesn't single out one nation, it applies to all(unless you were to go with the idea BiB highlighted). All other naval powers lose the same unbalanced advantages that Portugal would, and vice versa for land nations. Poland loses it's land advantage, sure. But so does every nation that it competes with on the continent; Russia, Brandenburg, Austria, the OE. So who is actually being unproportionately disadvantaged here?

It's possible that some nations do lose more, for example Russian troop cost increases are more of a big deal at the beginning than say Austrian, because the difference between 3D troops and 5-6D troops, a cost increase of 2x is larger than a difference of 5-6D to 7-8D, 1.5x cost increase for Austrian infantry. It's valid, but not very earth shattering. One might argue that Russia having troops costing almost half of that of its neighbors is unbalancing anyway, in light of how important money is at the beginning of the game.

The line of argument against locking the slider seems to be oriented around the assumption that the balance in a vanilla setup is absolutely perfect. It is pretty good, but considering how many different versions of 1492s and 1520s there have been, no it's not perfect, and there's really no way of determining perfect balance, because the minor balance issues in tweaking scenarios will always be drowned out by varying skill levels and personalities of players. Therefore, refering to those kinds of problems seems like crying over spilt milk.

Nations that traditionally focus on naval can continue to be naval oriented by investing in naval tech, and investing in ships. What determined which nations were naval historically? Money. And that doesn't change in the game. A nation with little money like an average Austria isn't going to waste it on a fleet, it will spend it on troops, while a country with money like Portugal will continue to be able to float a bigger, more modern fleet than any land country because of its monetary advantages.

Geography continues to push nations like England, Portugal, Venice and Denmark into being stronger navally also. They simply don't have to invest a lot into land power, by building forts, land teching, and having to periodically raise tons of expensive troops fighting wars on the continent. They still have the luxury of hanging back and relying on their ships to protect them.

The difference is that by locking the land slider, they don't necessarily get a free hand in this. If a France builds up a strong income and decides to compete navally, it can do so. It still has the disadvantage of being far more vulnerable on land, and thus having to divert its attentions to land defense more than the traditional naval powers, but at least it isn't handicapped by its ships costing almost twice as much while being half as effective. And vice versa, traditional naval countries can now build armies that can compete with continental armies. But geography and common goals of players in those countries + mp problems will normally prevent them from doing so. All historical conditions, which are more than enough to model RL dynamics at play without a duex ex machina like the land slider.

 

[BiB]

It is not ahistorical that POR or NL are naval (or that Austria is land-oriented). But the effects of the slider are not historical. Currently is near impossible that France get a large fleet, and for a long time the french fleet was one of the most important of Europe. A France forced to buy expensive and low-morale ships is most unhistorical.

France under Louis XIV also was very offensive yet also had Vauban who built the best forts. What about the defensive-offensive slider then?

Oh, and I agree that the land-naval slider has its faults, some arguments to defend this solution I don't buy though.

Evidently this change favours some nations while hurting others. If not locked Portugal will be shit on land versus France but at least France can't touch it navally. With the slider locked Portugal still can't dent France on land whereas France can beat Portugal on sea if it wants to. I do certainly see a few nations getting benefitted and others getting screwed.

The problem is not gone, it's just another one that comes into its place. People just prefer one problem over the other.

 

[King John]

France under Louis XIV also was very offensive yet also had Vauban who built the best forts. What about the defensive-offensive slider then?

Oh, and I agree that the land-naval slider has its faults, some arguments to defend this solution I don't buy though.

Evidently this change favours some nations while hurting others. If not locked Portugal will be shit on land versus France but at least France can't touch it navally. With the slider locked Portugal still can't dent France on land whereas France can beat Portugal on sea if it wants to. I do certainly see a few nations getting benefitted and others getting screwed.

The problem is not gone, it's just another one that comes into its place. People just prefer one problem over the other.

In your Port-France example, I think you're favoring the status quo over history. Historically France's naval might was much greater than Portugal's in the latter part of Eu2 history, which is indeed a trend we would see in game.

 

[arcorelli]

Evidently this change favours some nations while hurting others. If not locked Portugal will be shit on land versus France but at least France can't touch it navally. With the slider locked Portugal still can't dent France on land whereas France can beat Portugal on sea if it wants to. I do certainly see a few nations getting benefitted and others getting screwed.

Well, I do not have a lot of doubts that the XVIII century french fleet could had defeated the XVIII century portuguese fleet without that much trouble. So basically, a Portugal that can be defeated on a 1-v-1 both in land as in sea by France strucks me as quite historical.

 

[unmerged(27214)]

we just can't lock it, it's absurd. Russia for example has to pay more for her troops, She'll have less MP. what would be the compensation?

Why would Russia need compensation? It's not like Russia is being handicapped with respect to its enemies; the OE, Austria, Prussia, and Sweden all have to bear the additional troop costs and morale reduction in the exact same way, and if Russia is lucky they can benefit from their neighbors splitting their priorities between land and naval forces. In my mind, it seems as though Russia loses nothing and gains an option as to how they choose to play their game, though it doesn't mean much.

EDIT: Ditto for the naval powers, as DS covered.