ITNES I - An Epoch of Change

[das]

OOC: Its a matter of dressing one's betrayal; the Dacoillyrians are good at that. As for trust on the highest political level, we all know that there prestige and formalities are generally not treated with as much respect and consideration. Dacoillyrians are nice to work with if you're a merchant or somesuch, and generally don't seem to be to horrible; but what statesman worthy of the name is going to trust them anyway, prestige stat or no prestige stat?

 

[Luckymoose]

Remember guys. My alt hist is always open.

Sorry das but if you do take a break they need to know.

 

[ThomAnder]

das, a reply to my diplo? i'm assuming Azale isn't active/playing the last i heard of him was about a week ago..

 

[MjM]

I want to stay with this one, not a new NES.

 

[Oruc]

Did Azale send orders? He was supposed to do something important.

 

[ThomAnder]

Did Azale send orders? He was supposed to do something important.

No he didn't... is that supposed to be a good thing for me now?

 

[Oruc]

No he didn't... is that supposed to be a good thing for me now?

I think it would have been a good thing for you considering this turns events.

To: Nordrike
From: Mordvin

My ally we call upon your aid. Please, we have been wrongfully assaulted. Help us defeat this satan that has assaulted my lands. Together, can we not fight as brethren and bring fear once more to our enemies?

We shall aid you, but we are already fighting in Alba, so the force we send will be quite small i'm afraid.

 

[Symphony D.]

but what statesman worthy of the name is going to trust them anyway, prestige stat or no prestige stat?

Then what is its purpose? If its to serve as a indicator of the attitude of others towards a nation then Dacoillyria's should be low because every lay person of a nation will remember being stabbed in the back by them as they were overrun by an enemy or whatever. It's not something you can "cover up" when the citizens aren't yours. Yet people still treat them nicely, and scorn the Chinese, who haven't actually done much of anything the whole IT? That's nonsense.

I would not be so opposed to if it were more relevent or reflective of events. As it is, mine for example has only changed once in ten turns. Same with Tieh China. Both powers have become generally more "talkative," or at least less cryptic. I myself have traded ambassadors with various powers, set up a "peacekeeping" operation (to assist Phoenicia), conducted trade just about everywhere, and lead a wartime coalition against a great power with several diverse groups.

But the thing that changed my Prestige is a story and some short domestic orders, not anything I did which would appear prestigious in international affairs. Hong Kong has done far less (of everything) and yet their Prestige is much higher. Phoenicia is generally disliked by everyone west of them yet their Pestige is Exemplary.

It does not reflect things very well at all as it is set up now, I think, and until it does it serves no real function.

I also think Trade and Economy is set up nonsensically as well. For example, I have 11 ECs, yet my trade is only 7 to Sri Dukunnugeya's 8, and they only have 5 ECs? What sense does that make? Then again I would generally prefer a return to the EC system no matter what follows this IT (and will gladly obliterate the arguments of anyone who insists it was unbalanced).

 

[Luckymoose]

I agree me and Symphony had a discussion about the EC system and truly it makes more sense.

 

[ThomAnder]

The whole spend 1 point to raise training of 100+ thousands makes little sense either... Btw, I'd like to ask something about the EC system. That system function on the basis that the larger and more EC's you have, thus leading to unbalance where the largest dominates to put it simply. Would the addition of a maintanance cost (too much Civ4 lately) help with this?

 

[andis-1]

I agree with symphony, the old EC system was far better when compared to current system.

 

[MjM]

Which old system? when we randomly got levels every turn? That system was imbalanced and unrealistic.

 

[Symphony D.]

Which old system? when we randomly got levels every turn? That system was imbalanced and unrealistic.

O RLY?

NES2 V / NES2 VI-type EC implementation. It can be made easier to manage by just reducing the prevalence of ECs instead of peppering them everywhere.

That system function on the basis that the larger and more EC's you have, thus leading to unbalance where the largest dominates to put it simply. Would the addition of a maintanance cost (too much Civ4 lately) help with this?

I've never understood the perspective of it being unbalanced at all. The FK was a fluke of poor coordination by the opposition. France/HRE was a simple case of the opposition being overwhelmed (and was itself outclassed economically by its allies at the end, though to be fair it absorbed far more damage).

Several examples of nations built from next to nothing, or nothing at all, and becoming world-dominating powers exist. I would know, because I created two of them: both Japan/GEAR in NES2 VI and Funan/Khmeria/Oceania in this NES started with about jack-all, and became the foremost powers in the world in their respective NESes. The EUA in NES2 VI started with literally nothing, and came to encompass a continent and a half.

The EC system itself is not inherently limiting if you know what you're doing. Anyone can take almost any country from zip to superpower with proper effort. I also think that properly instituted, size, random events, and rebellions are the upkeep, really--an explicit system would likely be both complicated and unnecessary.

 

[Wubba360]

To: Cernorus
From: Mordvin

We ask you, do not come into this war. Peace has blessed for so long, do not bring unneeded agression. We have commited no wrong to your ally, they merely assault with no reason.

 

[shortguy]

O RLY?

NES2 V / NES2 VI-type EC implementation. It can be made easier to manage by just reducing the prevalence of ECs instead of peppering them everywhere.

The EC system itself is not inherently limiting if you know what you're doing. Anyone can take almost any country from zip to superpower with proper effort. I also think that properly instituted, size, random events, and rebellions are the upkeep, really--an explicit system would likely be both complicated and unnecessary.

My main concern is the ease with which an economic advantage is translated into a military advantage. The system does not accurately reflect the role of population limits and other factors on raising military forces. In general, the size of one's military shouldn't have a 1 to 1 correlation with the ECs one has. I don't know that abandoning the EC system is necessary to make growing one's military harder--I think the easiest way would be making training hits for growing too much in a turn more serious--but I think this is a significant issue.

One system might work like this: for every 10 divisions you build in a turn, the training of the new divisions falls 1 more level below your current base training. So if you build 20 divisions they're 2 levels below, 40 divisions are 4 below, etc. This may be a bit steep, but you get the idea.

 

[Symphony D.]

And that hurts high-power nations more than low-power ones how? All that does is slow down nations with high output while completely screwing over ones with low output, because high output nations can pay those costs with only slight difficulty, while low powered ones can't, period.

Any system which integrates population and production and so on will also favor richer nations simply because those nations also tend to be bigger and more industrialized as well. That does nothing for solving the problem; it exacerbates it.

The system is neither accurate nor perfect, but historically it does work. The emergence of superpowers under it is a product of others being unable to stop a given side from becoming too powerful, which is accurate. The way to stop it is to play better, not to say it's broken.

 

[shortguy]

And that hurts high-power nations more than low-power ones how?

Because the marginal cost of well trained units increases, the more you build in a turn.

Consider the cost to make divisions at the same level as your current ones, at 5 divisions/EP:

With the divisions come in at 2 levels below rule: 3 EP for 10, 6 EP for 20, 9 EP for 30, 12 EP for 40, etc. (at some point training overall would drop, at the mod's discretion, but that's usually just one point)

Using my rule: 2.5 EP for 10, 6 EP for 20, 10.5 EP for 30, 14 EP for 40, etc.

For states that can't build many troops per turn, it's cheaper or about the same. For those that can pump out units like there's no tomorrow, it rapidly gets expensive.

 

[Symphony D.]

For states that can't build many troops per turn, it's cheaper or about the same. For those that can pump out units like there's no tomorrow, it rapidly gets expensive.

Except rich states can still afford to buy more troops, even if they are expensive, and poor states can't. All that means is poor states have no method to keep from being overrun by numbers because they can never, ever afford it. Again, it impedes richer states but it totally screws poor states in return. Rich states still have the decided military advantage because only they can pay for a decently sized, well-trained army. A solution that nerfs all sides is not a solution at all, and the method is even less realistic than the existing one.

 

[shortguy]

How does it screw poor states? They aren't the ones who are able to build 40 divisions every turn.

 

[Insane_Panda]

The EC system was far better! Of course, I was one of its main beneficiaries