With Cross, Quill and Sword IV: It Came From the Ocean Floor!

[HolisticGod]

All,

The game is now closed to new members. We are, however, always open to subs and may need replacements down the line. Sign up with your ICQ number and I'll keep you in mind.

Scenario: Bocaj's 1453, found here
Time: 5:30 PM (0130 CET) Pacific Standard on Wednesdays
Start Date: Wednesday, November 10
GM: HolisticGod (273839083)
Host: Fred (83278192)

Rules
-No maptrading before 1600
-No human-human diplomatic vassalizations without GM permission
-Force-vassalized countries must remain vassals for twenty years, at least, and must DOW their lieges in order to break the vassalization after that time
-A force-vassalized country may be liberated, even against its will, after twenty years of subjection if a foreign power liberates and occupies itscapital for three years or until a truce, whichever comes first (the liberator may choose not to liberate). Vassals must behave like vassals.
-All the usual prohbitions on lagging, turbo-burning, etc., apply

The details of the military tradition/hero system can be found here: http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showpost.php?p=3475658&postcount=349

Editing Policies
-All the usual edits will be done upon request at least 24 hours before session start (less might be doable, but isn't guarunteed)
-Players are expected to supply province IDs themselves for province swaps
-Map knowledge is only tradable for traded provinces (sea zones are not at all) prior to 1600
-Ships may be sold between sessions. However, this is a test-case fraught with potential problems-I reserve the right to abolish this practice and undo all recent effects if I deem it necessary, so if you incorporate it into your strategy be prepared
-Leaders may be rented out between sessions. Same as above, though, and we won't do mid-session edits. If your own leader is used against you, that's too damn bad

Playerlist:
China (HG): 273839083
Denmark (Elijah): 16585690
Brandenburg (John): 255570338
Persia (Tom): 166646656
Austria (Dago): 264408355
France (Fred): 83278192
Spain (Dave): 158284690
Venice (TPC): 270336496
Muscowy (Drew): 268794154
Poland (Frank): 296507272
Portugal (Arco): 199215417
Timur (Oda): 192747449
England (Drake): 280012044
Ottoman Empire (Bocaj): 173703186
Sweden (Duma): 36104496
Burgundy (Lady Europa): 224444767
Genoa (Taelyn): 259893403

Regular Sublist
DSYoungESQ: 260292257
Veilwalker: 24694233
JTU: 265730343
Magyc: 223091156

 

[Count Drew]

I would likely volunteer for Hosting unless another individual steps up. Haven't had Monday Night actually acquire the 'players' or 'help' involved to get off the ground. I would like something like this, especially with 'some experienced hands!'

I promise not to bish and moan myself either <ROFL, yeah right>

 

[HolisticGod]

All,

Oh, and I'm assuming we'll use the old list-and-roll system for country assignments.

 

[Adam B.]

Brave Europeans ??

Crazyly sick and mentally disturbed Europeans !

 

[unmerged(17563)]

Hmm

I can play any time on Fridays or Saturday nights and if you start in about 5-6 weeks I can play on Wednesday nights as University will be finished (yay ). Thats if you dont mind an Australian in your group and a woman at that

I am a big fan of PEs 1492 scenario or Bocajs 1453

Oh and you have my ICQ alright....

 

[HolisticGod]

LE,

Well, damn. I'll have to stop using gendered speech.

You're certainly welcome. Especially as you're voting for the scenarios I'd like to play.

 

[unmerged(17563)]

LE,

Well, damn. I'll have to stop using gendered speech.

You're certainly welcome. Especially as you're voting for the scenarios I'd like to play.

I have just checked the term dates and I finish in the first week of Novemeber which is about 5 weeks away so hopefully I will be able to play. Though I will have exams but the chances of those being on a Thursday are slim so Wednesday nights US time are fine

And I dont work more then 2 days a week so no probs there :rofl:

 

[unmerged(1631)]

These are my current ideal game ideas:

Ideal Game #1

* Age of Randomization with proper player setup - Well spaced with no bunching (2 Italians :wacko. The furthest east would be a line from the Golden Horde down to Egypt (No Bukhara).
* All Player nations in Muslim Tech Group
* Some ai nations out there in the ROTW but with Latin Tech
* Randomized Leaders/Monarchs/Goods etc...
* No map trading

I'm having a blast with the current game that we're playing and can't see going back to a historical game. Knowing when all the leaders and events are coming is pretty weak now. Same goes with knowing exactly where the gold and other decent provinces are.

Ideal Game #2

* Historical GC setup but with randomized leaders/monarchs/and ROTW goods
* Historical Events in
* Player nations in Muslim Tech Group
* Some ai nations out there in the ROTW but with Latin Tech
* No map trading

We did start playing this scenario at one point and we were having quite a good time with it. It gives you that historical feel without the drudgery of knowing exactly what's coming next.

I seem to recall a certain player... oh lets call him/her.. "GH" joined in part way through this paticular setup, convinced the group to start a new game then promptly disappeared ..... thereafter we called this manuvere "Pulling an "HG"...er "GH"

Since we're taking over the Wed night time slot I would hope that the current Wed night gang have a good say in determining the new game.
I enjoy playing with the gang that we have now and I hope they will want to continue playing. New faces are good and these guys are reliable and for the most part, a good bunch of Joes .

I would like to get playing with HG again. I still remember in the last CQS game when around the mid 1700's, he pointed out to me that his Ottoman Empire and my France pretty much fought THE ONE BIG ALLIANCE (every other nation) for the entire game. He was always able to see the big picture

............ah the good ol days.

 

[HolisticGod]

Dave,

As you know, I was in favor of going to a randomized model. However, experience is the great teacher-in the two longterms I did (CQS III and A Revolution) a country always came out heads and shoulders above the others. I'm thinking this is because the very freeform nature of it allows maximization-that is, the natural limitations in the historical setup curb even the best players to some degree, whereas AoR and Fantasia are so anarchic it's only natural that somebody takes a huge lead. Whereas a normal EU II game is like playing King of the Mountain, a random game is getting to the top of the mountain and gunning everyone else down.

In the GC you mention, for example, the real problem was not my bad influence (always a problem, of course ) but the fact that Drew's England had already won decisively. He was just hanging out. The LT disparity had gotten too big (and 9 is a huge difference-he was going to be at 14 before anyone else got a fire phase).

The answer you say? Randomizing historical scenarios? Nope. I mentioned how BiB (I believe) described it-the leader/event files are like any other national attribute. Culture, location, cores, tax, manpower... They should be studied and used in the same way. Which is why I've become convinced historical setups are the way to go.

But, moreover, just like culture, location, cores, tax, manpower, etc., leaders and events are central to the very careful balance between countries created by A. Paradox, B. the Beta team and C. (obviously most importantly ) the fine folks in the MP community. Randomize leaders and countries like Prussia, Portugal, Sweden, etc., lose out completely.

I understand the argument, but I don't think random is the way to go. I will of course defer to the majority, because like I said I'd play SE Asian minors with this group, but that's my take.

Oh, and this applies to Fantasia too. My Ukraine in Hivetasia was a monster. As was, I believe, Catalonia or some place in Venice. And that was after just two sessions.

 

[Adam B.]

Dave,

As you know, I was in favor of going to a randomized model. However, experience is the great teacher-in the two longterms I did (CQS III and A Revolution) a country always came out heads and shoulders above the others. I'm thinking this is because the very freeform nature of it allows maximization-that is, the natural limitations in the historical setup curb even the best players to some degree, whereas AoR and Fantasia are so anarchic it's only natural that somebody takes a huge lead. Whereas a normal EU II game is like playing King of the Mountain, a random game is getting to the top of the mountain and gunning everyone else down.

In the GC you mention, for example, the real problem was not my bad influence (always a problem, of course ) but the fact that Drew's England had already won decisively. He was just hanging out. The LT disparity had gotten too big (and 9 is a huge difference-he was going to be at 14 before anyone else got a fire phase).

The answer you say? Randomizing historical scenarios? Nope. I mentioned how BiB (I believe) described it-the leader/event files are like any other national attribute. Culture, location, cores, tax, manpower... They should be studied and used in the same way. Which is why I've become convinced historical setups are the way to go.

But, moreover, just like culture, location, cores, tax, manpower, etc., leaders and events are central to the very careful balance between countries created by A. Paradox, B. the Beta team and C. (obviously most importantly ) the fine folks in the MP community. Randomize leaders and countries like Prussia, Portugal, Sweden, etc., lose out completely.

I understand the argument, but I don't think random is the way to go. I will of course defer to the majority, because like I said I'd play SE Asian minors with this group, but that's my take.

Oh, and this applies to Fantasia too. My Ukraine in Hivetasia was a monster. As was, I believe, Catalonia or some place in Venice. And that was after just two sessions.

Historical leaders + A few random ones is IMO the way to go.

 

[Count Drew]

To add to some of what was discussed so far:

The game is a bunch of little decisions in the end that comprise a Massive Power or weakened Nation... Poor Decisions and Tactics get you where you're at whether historical or not. The few problems that are there in place of Random is the Fringe Nations get UberBonuses from Colonization as they can Max out MP. There are certian culture rules that are out of this world. Flanders always end up doing a bit too well if a competent man is in charge. England is the Nation to be if you're EcoMan and one of the few 100% Eco Nations, unlike Dutch-Portuguese-even bit of Swedes in Historical. The fact that you may never get an Explorer in time to find SouthWest African Sheep farms can make you want to pull your hair out. Random is fun though, you can bet that any minute the poor defenseless SOB you're beating up on may get a Wellington or Napoleon and you're dead in the water even with great advantages... Of course there are a few factors that are unbeatable. There is somewhat of a Fantasia like atomsphere to Random but inside of Europe it's more like MinorVille to me and a bit of Pole Position where you're at dictates if skill is the same a lot of what will happen. You can decide a bit more easily in Historical Scenarios where to place people to get a more predictable outcome.

If we do go Historical.. I would like some interesting Events. Portugal/Spain/OE are completely Boring as hell by EndGame.. I go to sleep with all of them, it's a challenge to build up enough Cash and Warships to try some sort of Miracle!
Sweden and Prussia are made Fun by their Extensive LeaderFile and Venice could do with something as well. Or some sort of Italian Unification... I think that giving Italy away to France-Austria or Spain is a bit off...

 

[arcorelli]

Well, I definitely want to play.
What scenario? Any
What time? Any

As you can see, I am very little demanding

Randomized scenarios are fun, but an historical one could be nice (at least for me, for the most selfish of all reasons: I never had played a normal historical game with you guys, only randomized )

 

[admiral drake]

Brave Europeans ??

Crazyly sick and mentally disturbed Europeans !

i'm in finaly cqs lets see if this can be more fun then the good old cqs2

1453 bocajs is prefert otherwise i suggest we use the good old scenario of pe again

and plz no randomised game , cqs2 was fun

 

[admiral drake]

If we do go Historical.. I would like some interesting Events. Portugal/Spain/OE are completely Boring as hell by EndGame.. I go to sleep with all of them, it's a challenge to build up enough Cash and Warships to try some sort of Miracle!
Sweden and Prussia are made Fun by their Extensive LeaderFile and Venice could do with something as well. Or some sort of Italian Unification... I think that giving Italy away to France-Austria or Spain is a bit off...

give those countrys that have no or few leaders randomised leaders

for example give venice amount of randomised generals we use normally in a aor scenario
give spain , port some leaders in the last century ect

and give everybody else some randomised leaders ontop of there historicle ,

this way there is a element of suprise and not knowing howgood the enemy general really is , the historicle +random has been tryd and worked fine in dbd games and monday game

 

[unmerged(17563)]

I'm with drake with the leaders

 

[unmerged(10894)]

I should be able to play.

 

[Taelyn]

The peanut gallery

A few comments from the peanut gallery:

1) Using muslim tech only exacerbates the technology differential. Why? Because it reduces the effect of the ahead-of-tech curve. With muslim tech, noone is going to easily get to the point where they get the ahead-of-tech penalty. Thus, the maximizers will end up way ahead of everyone else. I used to think reducing the tech would help too, but other games have shown that the true effect is the opposite effect of what you would think, it increases the gap between the haves and have nots and doesn't appreciably slow the best players down.

2) I was working on a MP scenario before my terrible short attention span got me. I was planning to have all leaders capped at 4. Why? Because anything over 4 is honestly game breaking. The 5+ leaders are basically unstoppable in MP, especially if there's noone at the time to stop them (examples: Suvorov and the Swedish generals). I also added a few random generals and admirals and 2 explorers and a conquistador for each player nation. Also in my MP scenario I moved all of the non-European CoTs to capitals to avoid the typical CoT grabbing that takes place in MP.


An idea for something a little different (I'm better with ideas, they don't require a long attention span).

Have everyone start out in the west. Granada, Portugal, Aragon, Spain, (maybe a 2nd muslim nation to balance as well) and the HYW nations (Burgundy, Brittany, France, England, Scotland). As nations are defeated (or become unplayably weak), have the players move east into Italy and Germany and finally further east into the usual nations. Why do this? It keeps the game exciting and full of conflict and forces short-term planning and makes longer-term planning difficult. Plus, the supposedly backwards nations of the East will be backwards due to being played by the AI. You'll probably need to set a few rules to prevent people from grabbing easy territory in unplayed places. And, of course, England and allies need to be toned down a bit at the campaign's start. Could be interesting though.

At any rate, good luck on your next iteration.

*goes back to lurking*

 

[unmerged(1631)]

Dave,

As you know, I was in favor of going to a randomized model. However, experience is the great teacher-in the two longterms I did (CQS III and A Revolution) a country always came out heads and shoulders above the others. I'm thinking this is because the very freeform nature of it allows maximization-that is, the natural limitations in the historical setup curb even the best players to some degree, whereas AoR and Fantasia are so anarchic it's only natural that somebody takes a huge lead. Whereas a normal EU II game is like playing King of the Mountain, a random game is getting to the top of the mountain and gunning everyone else down.

In the GC you mention, for example, the real problem was not my bad influence (always a problem, of course ) but the fact that Drew's England had already won decisively. He was just hanging out. The LT disparity had gotten too big (and 9 is a huge difference-he was going to be at 14 before anyone else got a fire phase).

In our current game there is no nation coming out "head and shoulders" above the others. There is a pecking order for sure but no uber nation.
Nations usually come out ahead due to darned good gameplay (HG's Random games) and also some poor short term decisions or timid play of the surrounding nations.

In the last CQS game that I played in. Your OE could have sat back and teched to victory but you choose to war which made the game fun and interesting. I think your nations are going to be Uber in all the games you play so blaming the random setup isn't right. Lets watch your France in the Friday night game I subbed
(That game was just creepy btw - Playing Russia and knowing that Drake had all those Swedish 30 year war leaders + Gustav... bleh)

In the GC that was abandoned, yes Drew's nation had the tech lead but he was far from assured the victory. If he went on a conquering rampage his tech would naturally down due to the extra cultures and then of course he would have pissed off his neighbours. When they did catch up in tech, then look out.
I was in favour of starting anew since I wanted to play another game with you. I was having a blast duking it out with TAF's Lithuania and Duma in Byzantium.

 

[Fredrik82]

I'm interested if it is a old fashion powermonger game

 

[HolisticGod]

Fred,

It'd be terrific to have you.

Can you handle the times?

All,

Things to say later.