If I'm understanding this correctly, Prussia was able to join the Coalition.
So should a French player expect to fight GB,AH,RU and PR right out of the gate? If I were on Coalition side, I'd want to beat France up pretty quickly and this is completely allowing it.
I need to add a bit to this. For PBEM play, Prussia should not be allowed to enter Coalition prior to 1806. It should be hard-wired. Prussia *might* be allowed to attack minors that are in French Alliance, though I think this is questionable also. At least with a DOW against a minor, France has an option to support the minor or take the diplomatic loss.
If Prussia is allowed to join in 1805, it removes all diplomacy from the game. Why bother? Coalition can AND SHOULD beat up France right at the beginning. If Prussia isn't allowed, then there are quite a few diplomatic options available to all powers.
If Prussia is allowed to join in 1805, it removes all diplomacy from the game. Why bother? Coalition can AND SHOULD beat up France right at the beginning. If Prussia isn't allowed, then there are quite a few diplomatic options available to all powers.
And last post until someone responds....
I would suggest that Prussia is not allowed to join the coalition until it is attacked by France or some much later date, either in 1806 or 1807 or whatever makes sense, whichever comes first. In addition, France cannot enter into a formal diplomatic agreement, proclaim defense, join French Alliance, etc., until 1806 or 1807 or whatever makes sense. Yes, this removes some diplomacy from the game, but the alternative is that in 99% of the PBEM games, France will be facing a 4 country coalition. And while speaking of this, what is to prevent Spain for doing a DOW against France also? Probably nothing. Leave the alliance, degrade the relationship. Forge a cassus belli and voila, DOW.
It's gamey to allow a Prussia DOW on the French Alliance minor also for the same reason. The French may choose to not support that minor, but takes a diplomatic hit in the process and if they support the minor, at war with Prussia. So it's a way for Prussia to circumvent the process. Same holds true to France. France cannot DOW a Prussian allied minor.
France is clearly the most powerful country in the game. Allowing everyone to attack France right out of the gate is far and away the smartest thing for everyone else to do. Not historical in the slightest. Difficult at best for France to defend against, especially considering the insane casualties taken during battles.
I would suggest that Prussia is not allowed to join the coalition until it is attacked by France or some much later date, either in 1806 or 1807 or whatever makes sense, whichever comes first. In addition, France cannot enter into a formal diplomatic agreement, proclaim defense, join French Alliance, etc., until 1806 or 1807 or whatever makes sense. Yes, this removes some diplomacy from the game, but the alternative is that in 99% of the PBEM games, France will be facing a 4 country coalition. And while speaking of this, what is to prevent Spain for doing a DOW against France also? Probably nothing. Leave the alliance, degrade the relationship. Forge a cassus belli and voila, DOW.
It's gamey to allow a Prussia DOW on the French Alliance minor also for the same reason. The French may choose to not support that minor, but takes a diplomatic hit in the process and if they support the minor, at war with Prussia. So it's a way for Prussia to circumvent the process. Same holds true to France. France cannot DOW a Prussian allied minor.
France is clearly the most powerful country in the game. Allowing everyone to attack France right out of the gate is far and away the smartest thing for everyone else to do. Not historical in the slightest. Difficult at best for France to defend against, especially considering the insane casualties taken during battles.
And el stompoed I will get. LOL. Ya know Michael, you really need to find some more humor. You are way too serious about all of this. But this is a game company that prides itself on historical accuracy. This isn't historical at all. But I understand. A smart move and one I would do every time.
There's imperialism, democracy and administration. Where are these values displayed? Are they the 3 values associated with each leader on the diplomacy screen?
Prussia starts the game with a 100 toward the English. They can enter the coalition at any point because of that. Now comes the tricky part. They start at -15 versus France, so that means that they can't DOW but they can degrade relationship 10%xImperialism (8 Imperialism for Prussia?) + 5% per Democracy (3?) = 95%. It doesn't say how much it degrades, but it costs 25 VP. They can forge a Cassus Belli (8x4% + 5x3%), so if math is right a 49% chance and costing 50 VP?
Since it looks like the diplomatic system IS being used, a few questions here.
1) If I remember my history right, the British and their allies declared war against France. For a neutral Prussia, one that remained neutra without knowledge of the next 10 years (which we all have), why do they start at 100% favorable towards the British? Reduce the 100 relationship towards the British, reflecting the fact that Britain went to war and not France, and force Prussia and Britain to build it up and by 1806, Prussia can join the coalition. Easy fix and resolves some of this.
2) I know the engine allows for DOW against Minors, but something needs to be done about a DOW versus a French Alliance Member as that's a clear way to circumvent. Since you aren't allowing a DOW against a Major a relatively easy fix is to consider Minors that are part of the alliance as Majors for the purposes of displaying available options ONLY. So when Prussia comes onto Diplomatic Screen, Bavaria, Holland, Switzerland are all considered Majors (simple check) and the declare option isn't available. This will allow Prussia to DOW minors (French or otherwise) that aren't part of the alliance and this change will enable the entire process to work a bit more historically.
There's imperialism, democracy and administration. Where are these values displayed? Are they the 3 values associated with each leader on the diplomacy screen?
Prussia starts the game with a 100 toward the English. They can enter the coalition at any point because of that. Now comes the tricky part. They start at -15 versus France, so that means that they can't DOW but they can degrade relationship 10%xImperialism (8 Imperialism for Prussia?) + 5% per Democracy (3?) = 95%. It doesn't say how much it degrades, but it costs 25 VP. They can forge a Cassus Belli (8x4% + 5x3%), so if math is right a 49% chance and costing 50 VP?
Since it looks like the diplomatic system IS being used, a few questions here.
1) If I remember my history right, the British and their allies declared war against France. For a neutral Prussia, one that remained neutra without knowledge of the next 10 years (which we all have), why do they start at 100% favorable towards the British? Reduce the 100 relationship towards the British, reflecting the fact that Britain went to war and not France, and force Prussia and Britain to build it up and by 1806, Prussia can join the coalition. Easy fix and resolves some of this.
2) I know the engine allows for DOW against Minors, but something needs to be done about a DOW versus a French Alliance Member as that's a clear way to circumvent. Since you aren't allowing a DOW against a Major a relatively easy fix is to consider Minors that are part of the alliance as Majors for the purposes of displaying available options ONLY. So when Prussia comes onto Diplomatic Screen, Bavaria, Holland, Switzerland are all considered Majors (simple check) and the declare option isn't available. This will allow Prussia to DOW minors (French or otherwise) that aren't part of the alliance and this change will enable the entire process to work a bit more historically.
On page 4, under "What if scenarios" thread there is a discussion about this as well with one of the devs, Resperus.
I had similar concerns based on previous pbems with the gang up on France thing.
I know there is a lot going on with bugs and patches, etc and there are many requests and wants (alternative scenarios, uniforms) but what I would really like to see when the dust settles is an improvement to diplomacy, to make it more robust.
I had similar concerns based on previous pbems with the gang up on France thing.
I know there is a lot going on with bugs and patches, etc and there are many requests and wants (alternative scenarios, uniforms) but what I would really like to see when the dust settles is an improvement to diplomacy, to make it more robust.
Honestly believe that Uniforms, Alternative Scenarios, etc., are secondary. Get the base game going. There are issues with blockade cohesion, supply into Gibraltar, moving into and out of the med and forts being able to pummel everything, plus casualties off the charts. Pressburg treaty doesn't work. This is all basic. Uniforms do not affect game play. These other things do.
This game as it stands right now IS the alternative scenario, allowing Prussia to get into the war early and the relationships are setup so that it's much easier for Prussia to go against France (early) than take the time to degrade relationships, forget cassus belli against others. This affects diplomacy as Russia and Austria are less likely to negotiate knowing that Prussia can get into the game early.
Honestly believe that Prussia should start absolutely neutral. 0 versus everyone. Russia, Austria and England start against France. Spain has a 60 with France. Ottomans are neutral also. This opens a political universe.
This game as it stands right now IS the alternative scenario, allowing Prussia to get into the war early and the relationships are setup so that it's much easier for Prussia to go against France (early) than take the time to degrade relationships, forget cassus belli against others. This affects diplomacy as Russia and Austria are less likely to negotiate knowing that Prussia can get into the game early.
Honestly believe that Prussia should start absolutely neutral. 0 versus everyone. Russia, Austria and England start against France. Spain has a 60 with France. Ottomans are neutral also. This opens a political universe.
Yes, but there's no option for that.
So if I have two choices, 1) ask France for Hannover or 2) join the coalition, DOW Hannover and take it anyway while France is busy in Austria and possibly take Holland in the process. Of the two options, which option would you choose?
Now, if you could DOW a Minor that's part of an Alliance ONLY if you can DOW the Major, that's another story. If Prussia started out more neutral and couldn't join the coalition so easily, would the Prussian player be more likely to negotiate with France?
However, within the game, Hannover isn't part of French Alliance. It's "occupied" so Prussia could still DOW and take it, but if everything else were in place, would the Prussian player do that since the Prussians wouldn't be able to move beyond Hannover and into Holland?
Yes, the diplomatic system needs a lot of work.
So if I have two choices, 1) ask France for Hannover or 2) join the coalition, DOW Hannover and take it anyway while France is busy in Austria and possibly take Holland in the process. Of the two options, which option would you choose?
Now, if you could DOW a Minor that's part of an Alliance ONLY if you can DOW the Major, that's another story. If Prussia started out more neutral and couldn't join the coalition so easily, would the Prussian player be more likely to negotiate with France?
However, within the game, Hannover isn't part of French Alliance. It's "occupied" so Prussia could still DOW and take it, but if everything else were in place, would the Prussian player do that since the Prussians wouldn't be able to move beyond Hannover and into Holland?
Yes, the diplomatic system needs a lot of work.
Well, yeah. See the thread I mentioned, goes over that ground ...the rational thing to do is for Prussia to join the coalition as the french are passing munich...so you're correct.
There should be options like that. There should be options to sweeten the pot...money, horses, provinces... to get a state visit or an alliance offer or mutual passage...and neutrality should be a category like alliance, defensive alliance or enemy.
There should be options like that. There should be options to sweeten the pot...money, horses, provinces... to get a state visit or an alliance offer or mutual passage...and neutrality should be a category like alliance, defensive alliance or enemy.
Yes, but I think anything extensive like trade agreements, horses, provinces, etc., is months away from development.
I'm looking for solutions that are easy to implement. Bringing Prussia down from 100 favorable to Britain to 15 and keeping Prussia at -15 versus France I believe would have a desire affect of making Prussia at least think, before joining Coalition and declaring war. The change for DOW against French Minors (and visa versa) though is probably a bit harder to implement. But something needs to be done.
I'm looking for solutions that are easy to implement. Bringing Prussia down from 100 favorable to Britain to 15 and keeping Prussia at -15 versus France I believe would have a desire affect of making Prussia at least think, before joining Coalition and declaring war. The change for DOW against French Minors (and visa versa) though is probably a bit harder to implement. But something needs to be done.
Yes, but I think anything extensive like trade agreements, horses, provinces, etc., is months away from development.
Agreed. Though diplomacy in a game such as this is as important as military so I would like to see it improve...it would make a good game with potential a world-class game...and make for very fun pbems. I do think improving it will require testing as you don't want to see unbalancing effects either such as Britain painting the map red through gilded diplomacy but there was a lot of horse-trading going on.
Yes, diplomacy was very important during this period. Even more important with PBEM.
Thinking about it, you are right in terms of trading, etc...but the question is how to handle it and how to handle it in a way that doesn't take months to code. For example, France wants to purchase horses but the limited horses that Prussia has are going to it's own forces. So do you 1) bump the Prussian horses to enable trade, or 2) provide an option that enables horse purchase. The horses do not count against Prussia, but Prussia does receive the money for it?
I could definitely see an economic "treaty" where you can select what you are will to give and what you want (which could be nothing). The other person accepts the treaty or declines it. A fully robust form of this could see how often and for how long as part of it. France agrees once per month to give Prussia 500 gold for 50 horses, for example. Treaty is accepted and each month it does the adjustments until the treaty runs out.
I could also see other "types" of treaties. Defensive, Non-Aggression and Alliances (or Offensive encompassing defensive and non-aggression as well). As part of entering into one of these treaties, something may be given (region, money, war supplies, etc..) with a duration as well (lasts 5 months).
These are real pie in the sky though. Doubtful Devs will have time for it, though it's seriously needed.
Thinking about it, you are right in terms of trading, etc...but the question is how to handle it and how to handle it in a way that doesn't take months to code. For example, France wants to purchase horses but the limited horses that Prussia has are going to it's own forces. So do you 1) bump the Prussian horses to enable trade, or 2) provide an option that enables horse purchase. The horses do not count against Prussia, but Prussia does receive the money for it?
I could definitely see an economic "treaty" where you can select what you are will to give and what you want (which could be nothing). The other person accepts the treaty or declines it. A fully robust form of this could see how often and for how long as part of it. France agrees once per month to give Prussia 500 gold for 50 horses, for example. Treaty is accepted and each month it does the adjustments until the treaty runs out.
I could also see other "types" of treaties. Defensive, Non-Aggression and Alliances (or Offensive encompassing defensive and non-aggression as well). As part of entering into one of these treaties, something may be given (region, money, war supplies, etc..) with a duration as well (lasts 5 months).
These are real pie in the sky though. Doubtful Devs will have time for it, though it's seriously needed.
I wasn't really referring to economic treaties per se, though I can see a use for some benefits accruing to the "commercial" proposal that is already in the game, maybe a couple horses a month, something small so as not to unbalance things which I think is very important.
I really mean trading in the political sense, more of what you reference in your fourth paragraph which is what happened very often in the era. Britain promising Malta to the Russians in order to get them to enter a coalition, Hanover for neutrality, etc. The French, based on the relationship score could have a good chance to entice Prussia into a Hanover for neutrality deal, let's say, but a very small chance of getting a defensive alliance for it. But mainly it would allow for a lot more fun because the diplomacy system right now, to me at least, is kind of bland and doesn't capture the excitement of the era.
Also, attacking French allies right now in the game should be fixed as you referenced. France is at peace with Prussia who then attacks Bavaria (a French ally) and France can't do anything about it.
I really mean trading in the political sense, more of what you reference in your fourth paragraph which is what happened very often in the era. Britain promising Malta to the Russians in order to get them to enter a coalition, Hanover for neutrality, etc. The French, based on the relationship score could have a good chance to entice Prussia into a Hanover for neutrality deal, let's say, but a very small chance of getting a defensive alliance for it. But mainly it would allow for a lot more fun because the diplomacy system right now, to me at least, is kind of bland and doesn't capture the excitement of the era.
Also, attacking French allies right now in the game should be fixed as you referenced. France is at peace with Prussia who then attacks Bavaria (a French ally) and France can't do anything about it.
I think these are pretty interesting ideas! But I do have a related question on PBEM etiquette. It seems like a lot- but most certainly not all- of these arrangements could be handled by emailing respective players and promising them certain things in exchange for support. I.e., (and poor example here of course, but at least an example) by emailing the player of Spain as GB and offering them Gibraltar or Valette in exchange for a quick end to their participation in the war and basing rights in Spanish ports, with an eye towards eventually wooing them over to the Coalition.
Granted, the Spanish player could lie and falsely agree, which would simulate the fickle nature of diplomacy. And then the British player could return the favor by crushing them later when the peace treaty expires. After all, that would certainly simulate a more diverse diplomacy system than the game as yet allows.
Or is that seen as cheating, to make backroom deals like that via email? It could certainly be gamed, but as you've all noted you can essentially all just gang up on France anyways.
Maybe something to tide you over as diplomacy is fleshed out.
Granted, the Spanish player could lie and falsely agree, which would simulate the fickle nature of diplomacy. And then the British player could return the favor by crushing them later when the peace treaty expires. After all, that would certainly simulate a more diverse diplomacy system than the game as yet allows.
Or is that seen as cheating, to make backroom deals like that via email? It could certainly be gamed, but as you've all noted you can essentially all just gang up on France anyways.
Maybe something to tide you over as diplomacy is fleshed out.
The problem with emails is that they are instant and exact and allow for precise coordination.
More importantly is that the information they contain is now "out of game." (In this Era very little was kept secret which is a historic reason for an argument against it). More importantly for game play is that the in game info I am receiving about Prussia for example could be telling me one thing while they could be doing something else or planning something else out of game. Right now, I am able to get an idea of where they stand generally because the game processes everything that comes across theor desk. I don't know maybe an option for secret proposals that would or could eventually leak...still think we need to keep an eye on prussian early intervention
More importantly is that the information they contain is now "out of game." (In this Era very little was kept secret which is a historic reason for an argument against it). More importantly for game play is that the in game info I am receiving about Prussia for example could be telling me one thing while they could be doing something else or planning something else out of game. Right now, I am able to get an idea of where they stand generally because the game processes everything that comes across theor desk. I don't know maybe an option for secret proposals that would or could eventually leak...still think we need to keep an eye on prussian early intervention
You may need to tweak the France/Prussia relationship as well. In a PBEM, Prussia may not be able to work its way into the 3rd Coalition (relationship with Britain) but could they degrade their relationship with France enough in order to declare on France unilaterally just in time for the launch of the 3rd Coalition?
In other words, for all intents, they are part of it and France is swamped.
In other words, for all intents, they are part of it and France is swamped.
Yes I read that. That's why I said "as well".
The point is that not being able to jump into the 3rd coalition would be moot if Prussia could just degrade the relationship with france enough to enter into a "unilateral " war the same time the 3rd coalition event fires. The result would be the same. Unless I am missing something which is quite possible which is why it is a question
The point is that not being able to jump into the 3rd coalition would be moot if Prussia could just degrade the relationship with france enough to enter into a "unilateral " war the same time the 3rd coalition event fires. The result would be the same. Unless I am missing something which is quite possible which is why it is a question
Yep. Diplomatic system allows for it. Prussia starts at -15. Would take some time and VP to degrade the relationship, forge a cassus belli, enable supply rights or foreign access to Russia and then be part of the 3rd Coalition, whether directly a part of it or otherwise.
This can be addressed via house rules. Within the game mechanics, if you want to create an open diplomatic game, figure Russia/Austria/GB want to go after France in August, 1805. Using the favorable numbers from August Scenario for all major powers versus each other, change the January Scenario numbers by starting with the August numbers and back track from August to January assuming every turn diplomatic options are being played. Set the favorable levels for all powers, both positive and negative. Now, all players can make choices during those 8 months of game play. Improve? Degrade? Create new deals?
The only change for the August Scenario that I would suggest is reducing Prussian relationship with England. That's all that can be done without a complete overhaul of the diplomatic system.
This can be addressed via house rules. Within the game mechanics, if you want to create an open diplomatic game, figure Russia/Austria/GB want to go after France in August, 1805. Using the favorable numbers from August Scenario for all major powers versus each other, change the January Scenario numbers by starting with the August numbers and back track from August to January assuming every turn diplomatic options are being played. Set the favorable levels for all powers, both positive and negative. Now, all players can make choices during those 8 months of game play. Improve? Degrade? Create new deals?
The only change for the August Scenario that I would suggest is reducing Prussian relationship with England. That's all that can be done without a complete overhaul of the diplomatic system.
-
ajarnlance
- General of the Army
- Posts: 623
- Joined: Wed Sep 11, 2013 8:40 pm
Drake001 wrote:The Prussia/France relationship should start at zero then. Not a complete overhaul. Or, for not open diplomacy, add some scripted events which follow history which enact the diplomatic moves of the time that kept Prussia neutral.
I think the key here is choice. There should be alternative scenarios that are possible and that were also historically plausible. Sort of a branching tree of events... you start moving towards one side and that opens up new events.. you move in the opposite direction towards the other side and that opens up different events and possibilities.
"I can anticipate no greater calamity for the country than the dissolution of the Union... and I am willing to sacrifice everything but honor for its preservation." Robert E. Lee (1807-1870)
Check out my 'To End All Wars' AAR: http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?38262-The-Kaiser-report-the-CP-side-of-the-war-against-Jinx-and-PJL
Check out my 'To End All Wars' AAR: http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?38262-The-Kaiser-report-the-CP-side-of-the-war-against-Jinx-and-PJL
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests