Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Test Of Skill

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Show only dev responses
Daniel A said:
My dear Absolut. The info about rewards are in post 1 of this thread, under the well-chosen title "REWARDS" :D

For your convenience I also dupliacted that info in post 1 of the AAR thread :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

now i understand why i got cookie. What a sudden suprise to read :cool:
 
lol, Porto got two 5-5-5-2 generals, max possible :rofl:
that is shock 6 for him :p

Well, Daniel, square root rules ;)
 
Good Tonio!

Save dled to stats site.

New leaders generated.

John's reward changed from money to BB.

----

About Archmede's view that the MP pool cap at the end could be manipulated by the player by letting rebs/opponents control provinces at the end of the session, that is a distinct possibility. Although rare I'd say. Should we / could we do anything about it?

And me must do something about the fact that three nations got all 555 leaders.

I am not at all as sure as Archmede, was it?, that thougth this would be more rare in the future. You do not know John Archmede :D A session without a couple of human-human wars is not a real session for him. ;)

We will look at the MT values after this session and then make a new decision. As I wrote earlier: perhaps we need to use the square root function. At least I have found that button on my calculator now :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
lol, Naples hires mercs generals: Bischoffshausen and MagFlannagain :rofl:
 
Daniel A said:
My dear Absolut. The info about rewards are in post 1 of this thread, under the well-chosen title "REWARDS" :D

For your convenience I also dupliacted that info in post 1 of the AAR thread :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Why thank you dear Daniel, perhaps I should reward you by not annexing you this session, although I will have to think about that. ;)
 
Daniel A said:
Good Tonio!

Save dled to stats site.

New leaders generated.

John's reward changed from money to BB.

----

About Archmede's view that the MP pool cap at the end could be manipulated by the player by letting rebs/opponents control provinces at the end of the session, that is a distinct possibility. Although rare I'd say. Should we / could we do anything about it?

And me must do something about the fact that three nations got all 555 leaders.

I am not at all as sure as Archmede, was it?, that thougth this would be more rare in the future. You do not know John Archmede :D A session without a couple of human-human wars is not a real session for him. ;)

We will look at the MT values after this session and then make a new decision. As I wrote earlier: perhaps we need to use the square root function. At least I have found that button on my calculator now :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

My reason for expecting it to become less common, is that it becomes more difficult to set up, as countries get larger.
A and B could agree a fake war with each taking the others provinces at the end of a session, but they would be taking a grave risk of a backstab, if the other called in an ally. It would have to be blatant to give significant advantage and so all that is necessary is that the GMs forbid it.

I think the main effect this time is actually due to vassals at 5 centra , and reb control has had little or no effect.
 
stats - http://www.europa2.ru/cgi-bin/leagu...ason=Valkyrie.net VIII&lang=eng&yearsave=1455

XX-1455a.jpg


XX-1455b.jpg
 
LOL, MT is weird.

Saxony MT = 2 + (39*20)/(21*90)=2,41

That is what i got for +17 provinces :rofl:
 
Elio must be crazy: -2 Aristocracy, -2 Serfdom, over BB limit in 14xx...
 
it is
Formula: 2 + (number of military units lost in battle during the session * 20) / (number of military units in manpower pool cap at the end of the session * number of whole years of session).
 
Aladar said:
Ain't it 2 + (39/20) / (90/21) = 2,45

Not much but still :D
Click to expand...

I got 2.15 so stop complaining. :mad:

Other than that, it was a rather enjoyable session, I have the most powerful fleet in the game, perhaps I will get to use it next session. :)
 
SOME OBSERVATIONS

MAKE SURE YOU KNOW THE START UP RULES

Please read post 1 and get acquainted with our very specialised rules for the start up procedure. Some players, at least one, was surprised that Brabant lost their reward when they were 5 minutes late. That this would happen was obvious if you knew the rules.


BRABANT AND HELVETIA NOT PRESENT AT TIME

Brabant and Helvetia was not present at the start. They will therefore not get any reward for being on time. This according to the rules.

Elio was surprisingly present and we had to choose between Brabant and Helvetia. For three reasons Helvetia was choosen

1. Helevtia had announced he could not play, Brabant had not

2. We could hope Cicero in Brabant was just late (which in fact was the case) and would come later on

3. Elio wanted to join the game and the only possible open spot is Helvetia since Adam has written he was thinking about leaving.

Note the fact that a sub, who has not come on the order of the perm, is put in one or the other nation does not mean the missing player for that specific nation is considered to be in vnet on time. Either you yourself or your assigned sub is there on time, then everything is OK, or neither of you are and then it is not OK and then you will not get the reward.


TO ADAM AND ELIO

Discuss a transfer of the permanent player slot for Helvetia and come back and tell us the result. I want a quick decision about this. Other players may need some time for diplomacy.


MT

Follow the MT discussion and say what you think. The silence on this matter, besides a few, is rather surprising.
It will be interesting to see the projected numbers for the next session. So please hurry up with the AARs.


VASSAL

I have thought more about this vassal problem. As I have written I am not satisfied with the current rule which is difficult to interpret and enforce. As always simple and fairly fair rules are preferable to very fair but complicated rules. My suggestion is the following

If a player nation is vassalised he must stay vassalised for at least 10 years and he cannot join any alliance than that of his master (Tonio said that in MP it was possible for a vassalised nation to do so). At the end of a session were a player nation got vassalised by another player nation X base MP is transferred from the vassalised to the vassaliser. This is done by editing and regardless if the vassalship is still existing or not. We move MP from the capital province of the vassalised to the capital province of the vassaliser. of the vassalised. If there is not enough MP in the capital of the vassalised we take it from the one with the highest MP (and so on), if two or more have the same we take them it in alfabethical order.

Thus the vassalised may do anything the game allows him to do during the vassalship -we need no supervision at all. The only reward/penalty, besides the automatic tax money transfer, is the MP transfer.

What do you think about this idea? As it is we only need to substitute X with a number, e.g. 5.
 
Last edited:
as i mentioned before, i think that 10 years period is too short - only 5 years more than truce. Imho it should be 20 years.
 
LOST SUB DURING PLAY

I have been told that at the next to the last rehost we lost Lyko's sub (Ghouma was it?) just after the rehost. At the last rehost he was in the lobby but did not respond when I tried to talk to him. Probably he got tired of waiting and watched the Eurovision Song Contest Qualification instead.

It is important that the GMs get to when people crashes. As it was I unfortunately did not see this happen and perhaps neither did Aladar. The one who saw the sub crash forgot about it.

Therefore I suggest that in the future we do like this:
Anyone that sees another player crash immediately pauses the game and keeps it paused until a GM has written a message indicating he has understood what happened.

Now we got a mess. The sub is not responsible for this and we must make edits. Edits in this kind of game is very delicate. Anyhow, any uncertain things will be judged in favour of the innocent, that is Lyko.

Lyko, please state what edits you want. Obvious things could be DP slider moves, fortresses/armies/fleets/manus built by the AI. He probably sent a few worthless merchants as well.

I want that list fast so that the other players get a chance to comment on your list and we can reach a final decsion before I make the edits next week.

------------

Ghouma, we are very sorry for what happened. We are ashamed :eek:o we were so sloppy that we did not notice you crashed. I hope you can accept our apology and we look forward to play with you again. :)

Lyko, if Ghouma does not read this then please tell him about our apology.
 
Well i did see him crash right after the last rehost and noted so. But since Daniel didn't comment, i presumed that we didn't want a new rehost again. After that i kinda forgot about it thou, till Sicily revolted from Naples atleast, when the subject were brought up again.
 
About the MT, I think it should be changed, as it is now, I, and a few other nations, will get slightly above 2 in MT, even though one of them (Saxony) more than doubled in size. Perhaps we could change the number of men that has died in battle to the size of your army when we end?
 
Besides current MT system will make another bug.

Imagine situation when one country is completely beating another one. The second country doesn`t sign the peace and being stabhitted -> rebels. So at the moment of the session end MP of second country is decreased a lots.

And because such war should be bloody and big losses, that means automatically that second country will get two maximum possible (5-5-5) generals.
 
one question to the GMs:
what kind of intersession edits are allowed?
i agreed a pact with tonio that includes province and vassall swappings. are these allowed to be done by edit?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back