[PON] Conflict in Europe - General Thread

[lukasberger]

Wondering, would anyone like to take over Austria? I just don't have the time or energy to play two major nations in two different games right now. Fun as it is and as much as I enjoy playing both nations, I just can't do it and GB has suffered for it in CIE.

I've been spending more time and energy in this game, so tried to give up GB in the other game but didn't get any interest. So I'm offering Austria here. If you'd be interested in taking over, let me know. You'll have the largest and most powerful land army in the world, an impressive fleet, a strong economy and good relations with just about everyone.

[Kensai]

Jonathan, it is not your fault, it is a bug in the game. When a model is created, even if you explicitly ask for a previous generation model it will autoupgrade to the latest. Indeed, you should have not taken ironclads from the Dutch, but the ships we despawned. Anyway, this is not your fault, but it stems from our rush to implement scripts not very well tested. I was really lucky I had a few minutes yesterday to test the script in an offline turn and read the script log. If we had run this, China would have taken out of the blue a supermodern fleet of ironclads (with the latest American tech!) of almost 5K worth of power.

I do not know if Pocus can fix this in time or if he has a command to add in the script language to force a model NOT to autoupgrade. The rest of the issues are open to discuss depending on what we want to abstract: I find it completely outlandish that the USA can sell such a huge fleet without accounting for Prestige or NM losses. In all the "ship sale" templates we used in the past, the ships sold were many elements less than this. There is need for some thinking, we didn't even add the diplos in the screen and in Philippe's email I even saw that the Admirals got stranded!

The correct course of action for all requested scripted events should be:

1) discuss what you want to abstract
2) see what has been done in the past if we already have templates and how we used them
3) adapt or create scripts that abstract realities with all the necessary penalties to avoid abuse (for example: inflation in loans)

I'm not sure exactly how ship prestige is handled, is the prestige penalty for ships lost in combat the same as for those that are voluntarily disbanded? In any case, the prestige loss for the USA (and the gain for China) could be temporary, because I promised the USA that he can have those ships back any time he wants. I wonder if the USA in real life lost any prestige when they lend-leased 50 obsolescent destroyers to the UK. I made arrangements for the USA to be compensated with modern ships from a 3rd party who has already agreed to sell them, but the construction of those ships has not yet been completed.

Indeed, in this game, if you voluntarily disband any unit (land or sea) you will get a Prestige loss. Ships even more as they need "Prestige" to be built/repaired and cost a lot if lost. When transactions are small (or scripted by the designers as it has already happened for some nations like China and Greece in the past through events in the 60s) we can neglect these considerations*, but when they are huge as in this case we should either (1) not allow them all at once or (2) allow them but make them with some penalty for the seller or buyer so they will not abuse it.

You introduce a new mechanism with this lend-lease. Although I am not against it, it has to be applied carefully otherwise I am afraid it will be abused in the future. Anyway, the real problem in this case is the bug that autoupgrades the models, otherwise we could have run them already.

*heh, too bad you didn't meet one of our oldest players (sagji) who made Greece pay even for the coal in its single ship sale transaction!

[Jonathan Pollard]

I added up the prestige value of all of the individual ships, it's 54. The prestige points value of all of the ships is 407. The total combat power of the US Second Fleet (it now has a 35% penalty because the admirals have moved away, this should also prevent any admiral stranding problems) is 2810. If the auto upgrade bug will not be fixed soon, I'm willing to accept an auto-upgraded fleet with less ships than what the US wants to give me but with a total CP of 2810 minus an appropriate deduction for the reduction in experience my units should have.

Maybe the easiest way to avoid the fleet transfer problems is to simply script in a CB for the USA against Japan, in which case the fleet transfer would not be needed. The USA officially has a defensive alliance treaty in effect with me, and it's quite possible that the landing of Jap troops on the Chinese mainland would have been sufficient reason for the US Congress to vote a declaration of war.

[Kensai]

Well, upgrading your ships to the latest model (again!) will be some sort of unqualified advantage to the Chinese side, even if you decrease the number of ships sold. Trust me, the generational gap can make the difference: steaming a 2810 fleet of ironclads against a 2810 fleet of (many many more) sail boats is no match for the ironclads. The first will deliver atrocious hits to the second.

The prestige value is 407 for all ships sold? Is the USA ok with that? Then we need to abstract some NM loss for the gargantuan sale (counting the ships, it sounds to me almost as the complete US naval force pool) as well and we are done. Is -10 NM enough? Given the USA is at peace, atm, it will be quite easy to rise again soon. But the autoupgrade problem remains, as well as China's naval force pool limits..

Last, there is no need to script a CB to the USA. If the USA wants, it can take forge a CB through the F9 interface, taking obviously the necessary consumption of Diplomats and Prestige. The mechanism is already there.

[Jonathan Pollard]

Then we need to abstract some NM loss for the gargantuan sale (counting the ships, it sounds to me almost as the complete US naval force pool) as well and we are done. Is -10 NM enough?

How much NM would the US have lost if that entire fleet were voluntarily disbanded? I don't think they should lose any more NM than what they would lose if they disbanded their ships, but maybe the US is OK with -10 NM.

[Boernes]

Just passed Italy in the rankings, now Sweden is on #9 and steadily steaming on. You're next, Belgium!

[Jonathan Pollard]

I have agreed to lease Hainan to the French for 10 years. I know it's probably too late to include a script to transfer Hainan to French control for today's processing, but please do so for the following turn if you can't do it today.

[De_Spinoza]

I have agreed to lease Hainan to the French for 10 years. I know it's probably too late to include a script to transfer Hainan to French control for today's processing, but please do so for the following turn if you can't do it today.

Don't worry, I still have to write (and test) the script, which I will do tomorrow.

[Kensai]

We cannot script that, obviously, you know Japan is invading the darn island.
Early April 1878

Just passed Italy in the rankings, now Sweden is on #9 and steadily steaming on. You're next, Belgium!

Way to go, Boernes. Is this normalized (overall) rankings or Prestige only?

[Jonathan Pollard]

Actually I wasn't sure you would invade there, I did see the ground forces carried by your transports in the sea zone but I thought they might be headed for somewhere else like Canton (would the presence of the neutral US troops in Canton have prevented you from attacking there?)

[Kensai]

Anyway, this as close as to "gaming the engine" as it can get. We should add a rule to allow for leasing of land only if the countries are at peace. Otherwise the engine cannot cope with it. If that land was to pass to French my troops would have... teleported!

[De_Spinoza]

We cannot script that, obviously, you know Japan is invading the darn island.

Why not? Selling or lending territories to semi-neutral third parties - during or just before wars - to prevent enemy occupation is perfectly plausible from a historic point of view. And it makes more much sense than the way 'peacekeepers' are now still allowed to be used.

[bjfagan]

Anyway, this as close as to "gaming the engine" as it can get. We should add a rule to allow for leasing of land only if the countries are at peace. Otherwise the engine cannot cope with it. If that land was to pass to French my troops would have... teleported!

Or at least allow for the leasing to be part of a peace treaty. Now that Kensai agrees to leasing national provinces, I would like to lease Suez as part of Germany's peace treaty with Egypt. We can say a lease term for 99 years, kinda like what Britain got from China for an extension of their Hong Kong territory.

[Jonathan Pollard]

No need to transfer the US ships now that the US has CB against Japan. I was worried that the US might be unlucky and not get CB for a long time, but now I'd rather have the US control the fleet. I'm still interested in going ahead with all of the naval purchases that I have agreed to from other countries, you should get details of those purchases soon.

[Boernes]

Way to go, Boernes. Is this normalized (overall) rankings or Prestige only?

Prestige ranking, that is. Overall it is #11, all fields within the top #20 and three within #10. Sweden is going places man, not especially top-notch, but places ^^
No idea where Italy or Japan are in that ranking, as both disappeared from F10 screen for me

[Jim-NC]

Italy lost a ton of prestige due to not DOWing countries attacking the Ottoman Empire.

[Kensai]

No need to transfer the US ships now that the US has CB against Japan. I was worried that the US might be unlucky and not get CB for a long time, but now I'd rather have the US control the fleet. I'm still interested in going ahead with all of the naval purchases that I have agreed to from other countries, you should get details of those purchases soon.

This is the best course of action indeed. But do not agree to any purchase until you know the exact force pool of China for naval units. No country should go over them.

Prestige ranking, that is. Overall it is #11, all fields within the top #20 and three within #10. Sweden is going places man, not especially top-notch, but places ^^
No idea where Italy or Japan are in that ranking, as both disappeared from F10 screen for me

Unfortunately, Prestige alone is almost useless unless you shoot for a knockout (goals reached!) victory. If I recall correctly, in the end screen the nations are placed on the podium according to overall ranking (and shown in the other categories as well). Japan is 13th in the raw Prestige ranking, but in the normalized (corrected) ranking it jumps to 8th. And that's the one that really counts.

[Kensai]

Why not? Selling or lending territories to semi-neutral third parties - during or just before wars - to prevent enemy occupation is perfectly plausible from a historic point of view. And it makes more much sense than the way 'peacekeepers' are now still allowed to be used.

Because the game engine cannot cope with that. And used like the way you propose is like cheating. You wanted to do it in the mid of the conflict to force Japan hit moving targets and be forced to declare war on its "new owner". That is somehow uncool for a game at this level, cause it opens the door for huge future abuses, like say Japan DOWs France, France leases the region to UK, Japan DOWs UK, surprise, the region is magically decided to be leased to Italy, and so on.

We already have an approved mechanism of "obstructionism", why add more? You can park units at regions you don't want the rivals to seize. Unless you do that in a gamey way as well (say parking a single damaged supplies cart) the attacker should be forced to oust you.

Or at least allow for the leasing to be part of a peace treaty. Now that Kensai agrees to leasing national provinces, I would like to lease Suez as part of Germany's peace treaty with Egypt. We can say a lease term for 99 years, kinda like what Britain got from China for an extension of their Hong Kong territory.

I have no problems with leased territories, but we should set it at very limited extensions, like 5-10 years. And of course add huge anti-abuse mechanisms against the one you openly propose, otherwise it's like playing with extended claims. The nation that agrees to lease its region(s) should get a huge penalty in Prestige and NM, so big that these agreements do not stick, the leaser will never agree. If we don't have a player to defend Egypt's rights I can always jump in and do it for you.

There you go. Enjoy your 99 years.
(anyway, your example does not apply cause Hong Kong is considered a colony by the game engine, Suez not)

[Jonathan Pollard]

This is the best course of action indeed. But do not agree to any purchase until you know the exact force pool of China for naval units. No country should go over them.

I currently am allowed to build 18 additional naval units, so I guess the 25+ that the US wanted to transfer to me is a no-no. Would the Chinese naval force pool expand if I successfully decree partial mobilization?

[bjfagan]

Late April 1878

[Kensai]

18 additional of what type? There are types of ships. I believe China is allowed only junk ships. In other words, without any extra concessions you are allowed to have 25x (pun intended) of junk!

[Jonathan Pollard]

18 additional of what type? There are types of ships. I believe China is allowed only junk ships. In other words, without any extra concessions you are allowed to have 25x (pun intended) of junk!

I guess in that case the Chinese in real life must have been cheating when they obtained by 1894 the German-built steel turret battleships Dingyuan 定遠 and Zhenyuan 鎮遠, a squadron of eight protected or armoured cruisers, most of which were built in either Britain or Germany, the armoured cruiser Pingyuan, a product of the Foochow Navy Yard, six steel but unarmoured British-built gunboats, and an array of small torpedo boats.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beiyang_Fleet

[Sir Garnet]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beiyang_Fleet

I am pretty sure that is covered by the naval Events in the 1890s. I have not seen any turns in the folder....

[PhilThib]

We have not implemented this as far as I know to such an extent...this said, it should be allowed in PBEM to buy ships to other nations.

FYI, in the other PBEM (World in Conflict 1880), this has happened through player interraction (no event): I (Germany) sold a stell battleship squadron to Matto (China) that pretty much looks like what Wiki says

[Kensai]

Force pools and structure pools have to be respected. If a nation historically was not having a significant navy (Mexico, China, etc) then of course they can buy but at very limited amounts. This is what we've done in the past. China has already got some ships thanks to a scripted event of not long ago, they have been all sunk. A few turns back it got some more again, with a wrong script that gave them ships of better generation than they were supposed to have. We already screwed the balance of the South American nations with the oversized Brazilian naval force pool (which was erroneously adapted from out-of-the-game accounts and not taking into consideration balance, which is important in the game), let's not go over this again.

We need to learn to play the game according to the strengths and limits of each nation. The reason I started this war as Japan was because I knew China was not supposed to have a navy to challenge me. I calculated this fact. You cannot expect to change the rules on the fly in a multiplayer game. I feel already cheated by the generational upgrade of the Chinese ships (which if I hadn't run the script myself I wouldn't even know) and other proposals on the fly: for example when Jonathan somehow "sensed" I was gonna land on Hainan again and tried to propose a lease of the island (!!) the moment I was landing.

Get a grip, please, fair play is paramount at this level. I have my own list of "imperfect abstractions" (some of which are even applied to the current situation) but I do NOT propose them while in a conflict out of respect for my fellow players.

I guess in that case the Chinese in real life must have been cheating when they obtained by 1894 the German-built steel turret battleships Dingyuan 定遠 and Zhenyuan 鎮遠, a squadron of eight protected or armoured cruisers, most of which were built in either Britain or Germany, the armoured cruiser Pingyuan, a product of the Foochow Navy Yard, six steel but unarmoured British-built gunboats, and an array of small torpedo boats.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beiyang_Fleet

Sure, then you can wait for 1890s for the limited scripted units you will take. Btw, what's your take on the fact I cannot build anything on Korea and Formosa as long as Japan does not formally have the "ownership"? As I said, there are some imperfect abstractions, some go against your avatar nation, some against mine, but I did not change the rules on the fly, so please stop changing them yourself too. We are far from an impasse that cannot be dealt with IN game. If we reach that, we can discuss again.

Play the game with its limitations.

[bjfagan]

Force pools and structure pools have to be respected. If a nation historically was not having a significant navy (Mexico, China, etc) then of course they can buy but at very limited amounts. This is what we've done in the past. China has already got some ships thanks to a scripted event of not long ago, they have been all sunk. A few turns back it got some more again, with a wrong script that gave them ships of better generation than they were supposed to have. We already screwed the balance of the South American nations with the oversized Brazilian naval force pool (which was erroneously adapted from out-of-the-game accounts and not taking into consideration balance, which is important in the game), let's not go over this again.

We need to learn to play the game according to the strengths and limits of each nation. The reason I started this war as Japan was because I knew China was not supposed to have a navy to challenge me. I calculated this fact. You cannot expect to change the rules on the fly in a multiplayer game. I feel already cheated by the generational upgrade of the Chinese ships (which if I hadn't run the script myself I wouldn't even know) and other proposals on the fly: for example when Jonathan somehow "sensed" I was gonna land on Hainan again and tried to propose a lease of the island (!!) the moment I was landing.

Get a grip, please, fair play is paramount at this level. I have my own list of "imperfect abstractions" (some of which are even applied to the current situation) but I do NOT propose them while in a conflict out of respect for my fellow players.



Sure, then you can wait for 1890s for the limited scripted units you will take. Btw, what's your take on the fact I cannot build anything on Korea and Formosa as long as Japan does not formally have the "ownership"? As I said, there are some imperfect abstractions, some go against your avatar nation, some against mine, but I did not change the rules on the fly, so please stop changing them yourself too. We are far from an impasse that cannot be dealt with IN game. If we reach that, we can discuss again.

Play the game with its limitations.

Selling ships to another country, even in the middle of a war, would be a perfectly legitimate strategy in real life or our game. The magical upgrade is an issue that needs to be corrected, but selling/transferring of ships in the first place, is not a problem.

[Kensai]

I did not say anything different. I simply said respect the FORCE POOLS. This goes above and beyond any other added script. The same applies to the structure pools (in case you want mega amounts of coal) and leased regions (which is the recipe for extended regions). Otherwise, we have invented a magnificent way to circumvent every rule we ourselves placed in the game. And this is only part of the problem, the rest in the imperfect openly abusable nature of these scripts.

[Savoyard]

I want boats. Take my money and give me boats. My capital is being thrown around $1500 at a time. I don't need more tobacco!

[Citizen X]

I think this is the right script for adding diplomats for the Ottomans. Can it be run one of these days, please.

StartEvent = Five Diplomats arrive at Istanbul (starting pool)|1|1|NULL|NULL|$Constantinople|NULL
Actions
SelectFaction = TUR
ChangeResStock = $merDiplomat;5
EndEvent

[Kensai]

Early May 1878
Citizen, it is safer to run and rerun this script when needed. We can always set it as a multi-turn event with conditions, but it is better this way. Adding it now.

Code: Select all

SelectFaction = $CMN
SelectRegion = $Constantinople
StartEvent = Five Diplomats arrive at Istanbul (starting pool) (1868)|1|1|NULL|NULL|$Constantinople|NULL
Actions
SelectFaction = TUR
ChangeResStock = $merDiplomat;5
EndEvent