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

[BiB]

I found it an intriguing suggestion as there is something not working all that greatly about that slider but I thought it through a bit and in the end voted no and this mainly for 3 reasons.

First of all for gameplay reasons. As already established, I would say so anyway, this rule benefits some countries and penalises others. The thing is that IMO it benefits the big, strong and popular nations while penalising the smaller, weaker and less popular nations. Smaller countries already are not as popular to play as, well, they are smaller and weaker whereas does France or the OE or Spain really need to be made more attractive to play? Holland really isn't going to beat France but at least it could have a powerful navy to make France take it into more consideration, aka make it more powerful, give it more options and thus making it more fun to play.

Secondly, and building on the first: historically small countries were important. This is a bit of an issue with EU, the big, strong countries have too much of an edge about the small ones. This rule takes away at least some edge the small nations can lay on the big nations. So this rule makes historical countries even less powerful than they historically were. So instead of increasing historicality with this rule as it apparently intends to achieve, it makes it less historically accurate. Before Holland was toast on land versus France but could at least get somewhere navally, now that edge is taken away, creating an even weaker Holland.

Thirdly, the basic premise of the problem this rule wans to fix is wrong. France should aparently be able to beat Portugal's navy. Well, you know what, they can do that already! The thing is that (as with almost all issues) this is mstly again a player mentality issue. When does France ever even try to have a large navy or get somewhere navally? It's just not a common player choice just like it is often not a choice for England to be involved on land. I'm not saying it is easy but it is possible.

(I'm not including admirals here as they can seriously tilt results - France gets a lot more btw so that makes it even easier.) If France builds up to its support limit and is on par technologically with Portugal navally (which France almost never is, so no surprise they never get anywhere navally), then in a naval encounter in the end France has a very good chance of winning, it can simpl have a much larger fleet, another advantage of large nations in EU2.

Now if this slider is not locked, France will have a lot more ships but Portugal will at least have a beter quality ships, giving it a chance. Both sides can win it and I have often seen the France in this premise prevail. Now if you lock the slider at 5 than France will have a lot more ships as Portugal and Portugal's ships will be just as good (or as crap) as France's, no guessing who will win his one.

If you limit anything with this slider (and I'm not saying nothing is wrong with this slider, on the contrary, but the solution is worse IMO) than you should limit the slider for big nations while letting it be free for small ones. It's already a drag to play a full naval Denmark versus a land 10 Austria but even more so as a land 5 DK and a land 5 Austria. And it should become harder for Austria, not Denmark.

(And on a sidenote, if I play DK or so, this rule on the new map means I get -20% tax on all my provs, I can't get randm explorers by event and mss out on teh colonists I would normally use to colonise)

 

[arcorelli]

Smaller countries already are not as popular to play as, well, they are smaller and weaker whereas does France or the OE or Spain really need to be made more attractive to play?

Well, at least Spain could receive something to make it more attractive. Is one of the last countries to receive a player in several games. And smaller nations are attractive (is very common that at least someones wants to play Portugal, or Venice)

Thirdly, the basic premise of the problem this rule wans to fix is wrong. France should aparently be able to beat Portugal's navy. Well, you know what, they can do that already! The thing is that (as with almost all issues) this is mstly again a player mentality issue. When does France ever even try to have a large navy or get somewhere navally? It's just not a common player choice just like it is often not a choice for England to be involved on land. I'm not saying it is easy but it is possible.

Now, the thing about French fleets is not about their good admirals or the fact that they can build a lot of ships (since they got a nice naval limit). Is ducats if you go land 10 or land morale is you go land 0

Go to land 10 and then you will have: More Expensive warships than the naval nations, so at equal losses you lost a lot more than them (and since your sea morale sucks, prolly you will lost more). Even more, given than at land 10 you trade less well, you will get less income -trade is the way to go rich, there is a reason why in every single game the rich, advanced countries are the ones that control trade-. And with less income, fighting against cheaper warships is even most damaging than you. And with less income, the rich trading-naval nations will out-tech you, not that difficult getting a CRT on France as, let say, Portugal; so you will lose even more ships. In the end? Naval warfare is bad for you: your enemies can build cheaper, more advanced and with better morale ships. The end of the french fleet will always be to be sunk (as in the Nappy scenario).

Go to land 0, then you can build a fleet, but your land morale sucks so Austria assasinates you.

And going land 5, well, then you will be crushed at land and at sea.

 

[unmerged(18418)]

From something of an outsider's perspective: I started reading this thread opposed to locking the slider, but one post in particular convinced me that locking it makes more sense.

The reason I think it makes sense is that nations can still focus on an army or a navy, in terms of which they spend their money on and which they research, but their dominance in either area is not predetermined by an artificial machination of the game. The land slider simply gives way too much of an advantage in cost and morale in a way that is not historical. England can still build a better navy than Austria because she has a better economy and is inclined to do so by geography, but not because some magic fleet-fairy gave her a huge inherent morale boost and half-priced ships.

It is preposterous to assert that a land power could never build a powerful fleet or that a sea power couldn't build a formidable army. Britain built armies at several points in history that were victorious on the continent against the most powerful land powers of Europe. Likewise, the traditionally land-based Germany built Europe's second best navy prior to WWI. Later on Russia (Soviet Union) built the world's 2nd best navy.

So basically I think even with the land slider locked, you will still see things turn out more or less historically (why would Austria or Russia waste money on a fleet, except late in the game? and why wouldn't England and Portugal still focus on navy considering their colonies and geographical location?) without an unrealistic and ahistorical aspect of the game making historically plausible situations impossible.

 

[BiB]

Well, at least Spain could receive something to make it more attractive. Is one of the last countries to receive a player in several games. And smaller nations are attractive (is very common that at least someones wants to play Portugal, or Venice)



Now, the thing about French fleets is not about their good admirals or the fact that they can build a lot of ships (since they got a nice naval limit). Is ducats if you go land 10 or land morale is you go land 0

Go to land 10 and then you will have: More Expensive warships than the naval nations, so at equal losses you lost a lot more than them (and since your sea morale sucks, prolly you will lost more). Even more, given than at land 10 you trade less well, you will get less income -trade is the way to go rich, there is a reason why in every single game the rich, advanced countries are the ones that control trade-. And with less income, fighting against cheaper warships is even most damaging than you. And with less income, the rich trading-naval nations will out-tech you, not that difficult getting a CRT on France as, let say, Portugal; so you will lose even more ships. In the end? Naval warfare is bad for you: your enemies can build cheaper, more advanced and with better morale ships. The end of the french fleet will always be to be sunk (as in the Nappy scenario).

Go to land 0, then you can build a fleet, but your land morale sucks so Austria assasinates you.

And going land 5, well, then you will be crushed at land and at sea.

Yet, you'll rarely see a game without Spain and often a game in which Denmark is not thetre, Poland gets dropped quickly, ... But mostly that is for reasons that are of another nature like for example the fact you have to multitask a lot as Spain early on and not everyone likes that or can pull that off.

Yes, there's a large difference in price when it comes to ships from full naval to full land but there's also one for land units and in the end I think you'll spend more money on those than on ships. In games I was full land, I often found I easily won back the money I lost because I had to pay extra on ships in the money I won on the money I paid for armies. Furthermore you also have the aristocracy slider and the offensive slider vastly affect prices of warships, cavalery, cannons and forts. Not to even mention other effects like the one on stab from free subjects-serfdom.

And the Nappy scenario is not really a good scenario to judge any conclusions on, in this case even if only because Nelson is there.

But I have seen quite a few times a (full) land nation beat a nation that was (full) naval.

 

[BiB]

From something of an outsider's perspective: I started reading this thread opposed to locking the slider, but one post in particular convinced me that locking it makes more sense.

The reason I think it makes sense is that nations can still focus on an army or a navy, in terms of which they spend their money on and which they research, but their dominance in either area is not predetermined by an artificial machination of the game. The land slider simply gives way too much of an advantage in cost and morale in a way that is not historical. England can still build a better navy than Austria because she has a better economy and is inclined to do so by geography, but not because some magic fleet-fairy gave her a huge inherent morale boost and half-priced ships.

It is preposterous to assert that a land power could never build a powerful fleet or that a sea power couldn't build a formidable army. Britain built armies at several points in history that were victorious on the continent against the most powerful land powers of Europe. Likewise, the traditionally land-based Germany built Europe's second best navy prior to WWI. Later on Russia (Soviet Union) built the world's 2nd best navy.

So basically I think even with the land slider locked, you will still see things turn out more or less historically (why would Austria or Russia waste money on a fleet, except late in the game? and why wouldn't England and Portugal still focus on navy considering their colonies and geographical location?) without an unrealistic and ahistorical aspect of the game making historically plausible situations impossible.

1) You could apply the very same logic to the quantity-quality slider for instance to just name one. There's also a magic morale fairy there that gives out free morale. All sliders give certain bonuses.

2) With the slider unlocked a land power CAN still build a navy and be succesful with it. It's preposterous to suggest they can't.

Locking the slider does make it so though that just about every nation has the same quality of ships and crewmen and that historically was very much not the case. Some nations had more naval training and a naval tradition or a shipbuilding tradition, and so on ... than others. The sliders represent such facts in EU2.

 

[Prince Eugene]

I'd say no to locking the land slider, since that would remove historical advantages/disadvantages that certain nations had at land and sea.

That said, does the slider still affect morale? I think it's kind of silly that England's troops morale would be hurt by them being completely naval. I know that wasn't the case in history. . .

 

[unmerged(27108)]

I'd say no to locking the land slider, since that would remove historical advantages/disadvantages that certain nations had at land and sea.

That said, does the slider still affect morale? I think it's kind of silly that England's troops morale would be hurt by them being completely naval. I know that wasn't the case in history. . .

yes sadly it affects morale.

 

[Gaius Marius I]

I always oppose blatant determinism outside of changeable diplomacy... which to me, locking the slider is.

But i'll learn to either deal with it, or play in a game that doesn't have it...

 

[King John]

Another one who doesn't understand why the slider rule was invented in the first place. Sigh.

 

[King John]

Hey, is there any way to make it so people can change their votes? I suspect a lot of those who have voted for no, or picked undecided(maybe you can change from that one, but i don't know) have since seen the light .

*Takes a deep breath, and stretches out the fingers*

BiB, the quality slider, as well as offensive are maximised generally by all players. Ever since the betas gave morale a purpose in battles, this has been the rule. To be competitive, both land and naval powers go 9-10 offensive, and 9-10 quality. A morale difference can still be made up by going full left on the serfdom slider, but at the cost of expensive stability, and this only really makes up for it if your opponents go for serfdom. Though it often helps quite a bit. However, I'm not sure whether it, or for that matter the other morale sliders, affect naval morale at all anyway.

And yes, of course a nation can still build a navy and be successful with it if their sliders aren't configured for it, but it shouldn't be so difficult. It should be a matter of what you choose to put your money into during any given period. A France with roughly the same income as England should be able to compete with England navally. It shouldn't need to have double England's income to keep up with its build capacity, and have conquered several Dutch and Italian ports to keep up with its naval support. It should be a matter of what is their priority of investment and deployment.

Because of such differing priorities, England should generally have higher naval tech than France, as should the Netherlands, Portugal, and Denmark. Historically they did have more efficient crewmen, better built ships and such, but what does technology represent, to large extent? That very thing, so let it take care of that problem. They will most often have more ships as well, as said before, they will have a tendency to prioritize shipbuilding more than nations like France or Austria which must prioritize land defense first(i.e., forts, land tech, and large standing armies).

 

[K'shar]

This is a most grave travesty . I demand a recount .

 

[BiB]

Hey, is there any way to make it so people can change their votes? I suspect a lot of those who have voted for no, or picked undecided(maybe you can change from that one, but i don't know) have since seen the light .

*Takes a deep breath, and stretches out the fingers*

BiB, the quality slider, as well as offensive are maximised generally by all players. Ever since the betas gave morale a purpose in battles, this has been the rule. To be competitive, both land and naval powers go 9-10 offensive, and 9-10 quality. A morale difference can still be made up by going full left on the serfdom slider, but at the cost of expensive stability, and this only really makes up for it if your opponents go for serfdom. Though it often helps quite a bit. However, I'm not sure whether it, or for that matter the other morale sliders, affect naval morale at all anyway.

And yes, of course a nation can still build a navy and be successful with it if their sliders aren't configured for it, but it shouldn't be so difficult. It should be a matter of what you choose to put your money into during any given period. A France with roughly the same income as England should be able to compete with England navally. It shouldn't need to have double England's income to keep up with its build capacity, and have conquered several Dutch and Italian ports to keep up with its naval support. It should be a matter of what is their priority of investment and deployment.

Because of such differing priorities, England should generally have higher naval tech than France, as should the Netherlands, Portugal, and Denmark. Historically they did have more efficient crewmen, better built ships and such, but what does technology represent, to large extent? That very thing, so let it take care of that problem. They will most often have more ships as well, as said before, they will have a tendency to prioritize shipbuilding more than nations like France or Austria which must prioritize land defense first(i.e., forts, land tech, and large standing armies).

So if tech represents such training and tech also laregely decides your basic infra and trade efficiency amongst others, why not also lock the sliders that change those efficiencies because efficient countries should just have higher tech then?

And naval countries get cheaper ships but naval countries also get more expensive armies and most of the times you will spend more on armies than navies if you add it all up.

And yes, most people go quality but you aren't removing their choice to go quantity. A maximized side is far superior just like the land-naval slider though in that case both extremes can work very nicely. Why lock this slider and not others?

The serfdom slider severly alters stab costs. Massively even. Why should sliders have that effect? Stable nations should be nations who invest a lot in the stab "tech". Why not lock this slider too?