Game Preference Poll

[Birdjaguar]

The problem isn't that big economies get to spend more, it is that when EP spending levels get too high it breaks the game. For example in BirdNES the strongest nations were regularly getting to spend 15-25 EP per turn. Unrealistically, they could buy and do anything they wanted. It was apparent that it would soon be difficult to even spend that quantity of EP in a turn. There should be rich and poor nations but being rich shouldn't exempt that nation from the consequences of squandering and wasting its wealth. Maybe I need a "national upkeep" cost that represents the increased expense of holding a rich nation together and functioning. Great national wealth should have an element of precariousness to it.

 

[alex994]

I obviously wasn't part of those nations that could spend 15-25 PPs a turn...

 

[Birdjaguar]

I obviously wasn't part of those nations that could spend 15-25 PPs a turn...

But as soon as your colonies got rolling, you would have been.

 

[JosefStalinator]

Big nations have even bigger problems. Just because a nation can spend alot doesn't mean its invincible, if anything it just opens it up to an even greater number of vulnerabilities. As mod it's your job to capitalize on these.

And remember, this is pre-Keynsian economics . Ancient governments didn't really prime the pump of the economy, most they did for centuries was build infrastructure and conquer land.

 

[Perfectionist]

The problem isn't that big economies get to spend more, it is that when EP spending levels get too high it breaks the game. For example in BirdNES the strongest nations were regularly getting to spend 15-25 EP per turn. Unrealistically, they could buy and do anything they wanted.

That's because you didn't give us enough problems, and what problems there were could be solved with relatively little expenditure. For an OTL example of the sort of thing that should happen, take the Dutch Revolt. In the late sixteenth century, the governor general of the Spanish Netherlands had an annual stipend larger than the entire English budget, and even that wasn't enough to suppress the revolt. That sort of thing didn't happen in BirdNES, but if it did, I think it would be a better check on the superpowers than any arbitrary economy limit. Also, and this is really specific to BirdNES, a problem is that the enormous cost of warfare, and particularly European warfare, wasn't represented. Maintaining the Army of Flanders, never more than 90,000 strong and usually much less, strained Spain's resources to the breaking point, and even that army, the largest and best in the world, wasn't enough to make consistent, significant progress. Meanwhile, in BirdNES France had no problems sending nearly 200,000 men across the Rhine and seizing enormous amounts of territory.

Economic growth would be "funded" by spending on things that drive growth

Economic growth effectively does not exist in any pre-industrial setting. The population may grow, or the ability of the government to siphon resources from the economy may improve, but economic growth is effectively zero.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Big nations have even bigger problems. Just because a nation can spend alot doesn't mean its invincible, if anything it just opens it up to an even greater number of vulnerabilities. As mod it's your job to capitalize on these.

And remember, this is pre-Keynsian economics . Ancient governments didn't really prime the pump of the economy, most they did for centuries was build infrastructure and conquer land.

Your points are valid and noted. BirdNES was a huge learning experience about how to mod such a complicated game with so many players.

That's because you didn't give us enough problems, and what problems there were could be solved with relatively little expenditure. For an OTL example of the sort of thing that should happen, take the Dutch Revolt. In the late sixteenth century, the governor general of the Spanish Netherlands had an annual stipend larger than the entire English budget, and even that wasn't enough to suppress the revolt. That sort of thing didn't happen in BirdNES, but if it did, I think it would be a better check on the superpowers than any arbitrary economy limit. Also, and this is really specific to BirdNES, a problem is that the enormous cost of warfare, and particularly European warfare, wasn't represented. Maintaining the Army of Flanders, never more than 90,000 strong and usually much less, strained Spain's resources to the breaking point, and even that army, the largest and best in the world, wasn't enough to make consistent, significant progress. Meanwhile, in BirdNES France had no problems sending nearly 200,000 men across the Rhine and seizing enormous amounts of territory.


Economic growth effectively does not exist in any pre-industrial setting. The population may grow, or the ability of the government to siphon resources from the economy may improve, but economic growth is effectively zero.

Again excellent observations. I tried to make warfare expensive but clearly it wasn't expensive enough. I would say that, pretty much, there were hardly any problems beyond war issues to solve and you are correct they had cheap fixes. I can fix that this go around.

What I want to create is an interdependence among things that players can do. Doing X will add to Y and subtract from Z, where Y may be good and Z very bad. I would rather not have to resort to arbitrary (mod decided) events to control nations thet get too strong or who unbalance play through mastery of rules weaknesses. I am trying to build in those checks anbalances into the rules and stats.

EDIT: I agree that there shouldn't be any natural growth to economies. I plan on having changes driven by population, size and internal expenditures. Tradew ill be determined by connections to other nations.

 

[alex994]

New spin on history! The great dynasties of China were all brought down by arbitrary Godly decisions!

I don't believe anything should truly be "arbitrary." Nothing happens spontaneously in the sphere of politics; problems slowly grow up to become issues, not happen overnight. Problems shouldn't be noticed (mentioned) in the update for a while for example so players wouldn't try to zoom in and eliminate it instantly.

I agree with Perfectionist on the armies except I would choose the example of Portugual and Mali landing tens of thousands upon Persia

 

[Lord_Iggy]

Ugh. No, no, no, no, ten thousand times no.

Do not, for the love of god, restrict cradles to "themes." Don't even suggest themes. "European," "Asiatic," "Mesoamerican," and every other culture is a result of its environment; without the environment, the culture would be different. Themed cradles screw over those of us who actually like to create our own civilizations. If people can't be mature enough to pick the cradle that their nation would be more similar to, then they quite frankly deserve to be booted; don't "theme" them.

I'm just saying that nations in each cradle should have vaguely similar themes, so we don't have the equivalent of Portugal starting right next to Korea.

This is actually an idea that I've tried before on a random map NES. It actually worked beautifully, and people seemed pleased with the results; there were only one real problem: I hadn't concentrated environments enough, so people were spread all over the map. If you did a better job than I did in terms of concentrating climates (which wouldn't be hard, as the map was deliberately somewhat splayed about: probably not the best place to have used this idea for the first time ).

Ah, Tallas, I miss thee...

 

[alex994]

I'm just saying that nations in each cradle should have vaguely similar themes, so we don't have the equivalent of Portugal starting right next to Korea.

But you made Trinlin/Magland (Germanic) start next to Guangfei! Kinda

 

[Lord_Iggy]

Yes, but I didn't have anywhere else to fit it into the proper climate zone. And LINESII isn't known for having similar cultures starting near each other. Nurmafer was Central Asiatic, Khemri Egyptian, Veritas, Eldrania and Emor Graeco-Roman, Mogul (duh) was itself (Mughal), Nkondi tribal African, Kalmar Viking, and others unique. All of this was in one cradle. It was a big cultural mishmash.

 

[alex994]

Then why was there, all of a sudden, a massive blob of East Asians living south of the Cultesian area ?

 

[Symphony D.]

I'm just saying that nations in each cradle should have vaguely similar themes, so we don't have the equivalent of Portugal starting right next to Korea.

I believe NK's point is that cradle dictates theme, theme does not dictate cradle. In practice though, the moderator would almost certainly have to enforce it actively ("No, sorry, rewrite it"), which is the same net effect as making a stipulation as to what range appears in the cradle.

 

[Birdjaguar]

If in creating their nations, players gave them a vague label and said that their nation was similar in its roots to X (East Asian, Mediterranean, Sub Saharan Africa, Northern European, Ancient Middle Eastern, Steppe, North American, Mesoamerican, South American, South Asian, other). Nations that do not fit would called "other" and either grouped together or spread amonst the named groups. I would place the nations in appropriate cradles.

 

[Lord_Iggy]

Then why was there, all of a sudden, a massive blob of East Asians living south of the Cultesian area ?

You misinterpreted my statement at the time. I though I clarified what I'd meant!

 

[The Strategos]

Again excellent observations. I tried to make warfare expensive but clearly it wasn't expensive enough. I would say that, pretty much, there were hardly any problems beyond war issues to solve and you are correct they had cheap fixes. I can fix that this go around.

I thought overall you did warfare fairly well, except for three things that really bugged me 1) Colonies were fine being undefended, 2) There was an unlimited supply of mercenaries (at least that was my impression, never using mercs myself, I didn't really pay all that much attention to it), and 3) Fought over regions should have experienced some penalty (loss of infrastructure, agriculture, etc) to show the effects of looting and general destructiveness. I think your colony system would have been much less broken if you actually had spend money to defend your colonies against the threat of natives. For the second point, (in my opinion) there should be X number of mercenaries available to a given region, which would be announced at the end of each update for the next turn. Once all the mercenaries have been used up, you should be reduced to using levies (which should itself have some penalty).

 

[Birdjaguar]

I thought overall you did warfare fairly well, except for three things that really bugged me 1) Colonies were fine being undefended, 2) There was an unlimited supply of mercenaries (at least that was my impression, never using mercs myself, I didn't really pay all that much attention to it), and 3) Fought over regions should have experienced some penalty (loss of infrastructure, agriculture, etc) to show the effects of looting and general destructiveness. I think your colony system would have been much less broken if you actually had spend money to defend your colonies against the threat of natives. For the second point, (in my opinion) there should be X number of mercenaries available to a given region, which would be announced at the end of each update for the next turn. Once all the mercenaries have been used up, you should be reduced to using levies (which should itself have some penalty).

You are correct. A lot of the subtle things mentioned by you and others did not happen because the update process was already very complicated (for me) and there was no easy built in way to apply or track such things.

I did have war affect the economy, but it did very little to infrastrucure or anything else.

I built in a small auto defense for colonies, TP and other holdings as a way to minimize people having to write orders for all that every turn. I guess I should have just had it cost to maintain such places.

Limiting the number of mercenaries would have been very nice. I did not think of it. Purchase priority could go to those who get their orders in first.

I do not see using "one turn mercenaries" in the next rules. Standing armies seem more applicable to an "ancient" setting. I am trying to build in various "boxes" to accommodate unplanned changes that stem from update events.

 

[The Strategos]

I do not see using "one turn mercenaries" in the next rules. Standing armies seem more applicable to an "ancient" setting. I am trying to build in various "boxes" to accommodate unplanned changes that stem from update events.

Ancient Egypt used mercenaries. So did the Persians, Greeks, Macedonians, Carthage, to name a few off the top of my head.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Ancient Egypt used mercenaries. So did the Persians, Greeks, Macedonians, Carthage, to name a few off the top of my head.

They did, but not in the same way as they were used in 16th C Europe. Europe did not have standing armies. In the ancient world mercenaries were adjuncts to standing armies. Those kinds of mercenaries would be fine. A Carthegenian player could have an army comprised of Africans, Spaniards, slingers, Celts etc.

 

[North King]

Standing armies seem more applicable to an "ancient" setting.

Ancient armies, except for a few (most notably, the Romans), preferred levies on the whole. Standing armies were peculiar to only a few states that could afford them.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Ancient armies, except for a few (most notably, the Romans), preferred levies on the whole. Standing armies were peculiar to only a few states that could afford them.

I can work in small standing armies and levies or mercenaries raised for war. A long turn solves some of these issues.