AGEOD Forums

Again I have to say that our epic MP game is a great place to catch inconsistencies...
We have found out that perhaps there is an oversight (or bug or intended rule) on how to attribute the results of a crisis that is NOT consistent with the "written" results.

Pocus, you can see more here. The thing is, I like to formally propose to change this aspect in the next patch to match the written result, as it makes more sense and gives extra fascination to crisis playing.

We propose that finishing a crisis with Just Cause should always give the stake (remember that the crisis initiator starts always -1) and Domination will only be used to (a) end the crisis earlier (if -3 or +3) and/or (b) attribute the prestige according to who has the most.

Essentially, since the closing remarks are already "inconsistent", the only change that needs to be done is to consider winner of the crisis the nation with the Just Cause, regardless of the Prestige attribution.

I'm not against this change. Also I'm rather willing to, in due time, invest hours in patching again PON. But first, it will have to be concentrated with several others changes, and second, I can't assure you it can be done before october at least (and this would be essentially a quick fix, no full patch before 2013).

Please send me by mail, so I can archive it for further use anything related to what you speak about, including saved game and reference to this thread. phmalacher@ageod.net

OK, deal!
No worries, our MP game will go at least up to 2015 so no hurry.

I will create you (together with Sir Garnet, Jim-NC, etc) a list of all problems or inconsistencies we encounter so you can work on them relaxed on due time. My hope is indeed for quickfix(es) on urgent (or "urgent") matters and a comprehensive patch later when you feel you can add functionality that is in (can see it in the Game Files) but not yet implemented (ie elections, loans, mediation in crises, embassies, etc).

Philippe, since in two years we're gonna have the anniversary of the start of the Great War, I am openly proposing next official version of PON to be named v1.1 and include all aforementioned missing (but designed already) functionality together with a nice dedicated DLC of the Balkan Wars and World War I, essentially a 1910 GC...

Last, some of us (moi!) live only a couple of hours away from Grenoble, if you arrange an "open day" at the studio with the other Philippe I would love to come and visit and discuss tet-a-tet how else I/we can help!

Prussia lost because it played relatively pacific cards thinking the house rule prohibited red cards (at least up front). Italy played red cards in haste without thinking much about it and won, with a strange report up top that contradicts the resulting facts on the ground.

It is an interesting idea since Just Cause should mean something more than just an ancillary path to Dominance. In the original conception the other players could become involved as well, where Just Cause I imagine would affect the effects of local support, mediation etc.

Often territory is to the strong and swift rather than the weak with Just Cause, so having Just Cause decide who gets the stake may be too simplistic.

The key thing to make the crisis a useful game of skill, chance, (and third party support someday) is that there be different logical paths to follow. That the initiator does not win the protectorate stake if there is a war is an interesting constraint and potential reason to keep things under control - but unfortunately the red "nuclear option" style cards dominate Dominance-goal play. t would be nice if each of those 6 pre-planned AI strategies was able to have a shot at its intended purpose. Placing a stake to pull prestige out without getting into a fight or seizing the stake is a valid type of goal, but not realistic now I think. If the other side talks tough you are out of luck.

One limitation is that all cards are played in one turn rather than more interactively over multiple turns (which was what I expected when I first bought the game). This means each side is shooting blind and can't respond to the other. But a lot can be done in just building a "hand." There is a lot of game theory and practice out there in the field of strategic card games, of which I am relatively ignorant - however, I do know that a lot of it is rock/scissors/paper relationships, card synergies, and sequencing strategies in aid of building a strategic position.

With 6 cards to play in sequence we ought to be able to find a way to have players layout the cards and have the sequence matter and serve different potential strategies. E.g., the owner keeps the protectorate but is drained of prestige due to the steps taken to do it because the stake player set it up that way.

The red cards, for example, need not have the same value if played at the start as they do later when groundwork is laid for them - whether a certain level of intensity that magnifies their impact, a dominance advantage to press, just cause being established as the foundation, or specific cards setting forth the country's pretext.

Just some ideas.

Sir Garnet wrote:Often territory is to the strong and swift rather than the weak with Just Cause, so having Just Cause decide who gets the stake may be too simplistic.

Considering that the contender starts with -1 Just Cause in all cases, this is not a problem. Actually, what happened in our case is that Italy made some empty threats and got the territory. Actually, if it had gone to war it would probably have ended losing Somalia as well, as the Germans were much stronger in East Africa and could simply steamroll them.

It is always an advantage to start a crisis if you are a nation with high Domination (I don't know what counts exactly to this: Imperialism? Prestige?) as you simply need to focus on Just Cause. On the other hand, a low dominating country must focus on both just cause AND reversing the domination game.

I believe the stake player who starts -1 must do anything to convince that he is either a bully (winning through Domination) or has a case (winning through Just Cause) or going to war (winning through arms, after losing though the crisis that spiraled out of control). But winning depends... if you win Domination you show off us the bravest, if you win Just Cause you show off as the most diplomatic. Obviously the goal is to win both!! But in the end, who gets a recognition over what is decided either by the other nations (who acknowledge) or through war. The Prestige in these cases is for the selection of actions that might lead to that.

Btw, It is normal that the receiving part of the stake (especially if having a higher Domination, as in our case) should be advantaged. If Germany knew that Italy would mobilize and make an ultimatum, it could have done the same ending in a war with Italy that Italy couldn't win... losing both the Prestige allotted AND its colonial territories.

One limitation is that all cards are played in one turn rather than more interactively over multiple turns (which was what I expected when I first bought the game). This means each side is shooting blind and can't respond to the other. But a lot can be done in just building a "hand." There is a lot of game theory and practice out there in the field of strategic card games, of which I am relatively ignorant - however, I do know that a lot of it is rock/scissors/paper relationships, card synergies, and sequencing strategies in aid of building a strategic position.

With 6 cards to play in sequence we ought to be able to find a way to have players layout the cards and have the sequence matter and serve different potential strategies. E.g., the owner keeps the protectorate but is drained of prestige due to the steps taken to do it because the stake player set it up that way.

The red cards, for example, need not have the same value if played at the start as they do later when groundwork is laid for them - whether a certain level of intensity that magnifies their impact, a dominance advantage to press, just cause being established as the foundation, or specific cards setting forth the country's pretext.

Just some ideas.

Well, that would have been cool but most crises had historically their culmination in just few days (a single turn in our game is already 15 days). Remember that it's already a multi-month project as you play the stake several turns (possibly) before the crisis erupts. So you could say that the crisis already takes a couple of months growing in steam. It might be possible to adjust the system in the future, but I don't find this imperative. There is already a combination of luck and agenda playing even if you cast your choices all at once.

If we separate Just Cause from Domination it's already pretty close to perfect. Add to that mediation of third nations (an advertised/designed but not yet implemented feature) and it IS perfect!

Kensai we can probably arrange something in October or November, but let me talk with the Grenoblois (Philippe Thibaut is in Grenoble, but I work from Lyon).

Hehe, I believe Lyon would be even better!
Whatever you arrange, it will be awesome. Count me in!!

October is better, as September has a huge workload for us. Lyon can be nice, although the office is in Grenoble (but we could make good use of a nice typical restaurant)

Sounds awesome! October no problem. Truth to be told, if there is an "office" I would love to pay a visit to it, see how you work, buy a signed AGEOD t-shirt ( ), etc. But a nice French restaurant between Lyon and Grenoble would be fantastic too! OK, in a month or so I'm gonna append this thread to remind you!