Hi folks, I don’t know if this is of use to anyone but I thought I would post my attempt at understanding the rather baffling requirements for decisions. I would have thought they would all require at least 1 EP as this is the basic currency of decision making.
[ATTACH]21525[/ATTACH]
MC: Range of Military Control required
Loyalty: Loyalty Range required
Name: (T) Troops required or (C) Must be Capital
M: Money required
VP: VP required
EP: EP required
M: Money gained
VP: VP gained
EP: EP gained
XX – N/A or M+ Morale gain
XX – N/A or MC+ Military Control Gain / - loss or D+ Development gain
XX – N/A/ or L+ Loyalty gain / - loss
It is me who did the initial costs, following this logic:
a) when the state is involved, it costs EP. It can give you some back sometime (ROI)
b) when military apparatus is involved, it costs VP
This was to provide a sense of logic, it could have been done otherwise right. Plus there are exceptions, because in the end you want to have the players being able to get resource X in exchange of resource Y, with several combinations and possibilities...
PLUS some alterations were perhaps made without following a specific rule.
a) when the state is involved, it costs EP. It can give you some back sometime (ROI)
b) when military apparatus is involved, it costs VP
This was to provide a sense of logic, it could have been done otherwise right. Plus there are exceptions, because in the end you want to have the players being able to get resource X in exchange of resource Y, with several combinations and possibilities...
PLUS some alterations were perhaps made without following a specific rule.
Hofstadter's Law: "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's law."
-
Taillebois
- General of the Army
- Posts: 603
- Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2008 8:09 pm
- Location: Nr GCHQ Cheltenham
First post updated to show new VP cost for several decisions. Tradepost cost of 5 VP is strange as there is no military involvement at all.
It would be interesting to know what decisions players use. Are there some that nobody uses I wonder?
Anyone ever use triumph for example? I can't see that I would use Enslave & Plunder now that it costs 20 VP.
Cheers,
Chris
It would be interesting to know what decisions players use. Are there some that nobody uses I wonder?
Anyone ever use triumph for example? I can't see that I would use Enslave & Plunder now that it costs 20 VP.
Cheers,
Chris
As Pompei I used Triumph very often - its costs are minimal, and the morale is welcome. The strange thing there is that you can't hold a Triumph if your popularity in your capital is to high.... so now I am on the other side of the scenario, Ceasar can't hold Triumph's in Rome - not even (or maybe especially not) after winning a battle against Pompei (while Pompei could hold a Triumph in Utica after loosing a btlle, even while camping in Asia).
Bertram wrote:As Pompei I used Triumph very often - its costs are minimal, and the morale is welcome. The strange thing there is that you can't hold a Triumph if your popularity in your capital is to high.... so now I am on the other side of the scenario, Ceasar can't hold Triumph's in Rome - not even (or maybe especially not) after winning a battle against Pompei (while Pompei could hold a Triumph in Utica after loosing a btlle, even while camping in Asia).
Yes - I didn't understand the logic of that either. You would expect to be able to hold a triumph if you have high popularity.
-
jimwinsor2
- Lieutenant
- Posts: 105
- Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 12:07 am
jimwinsor2 wrote:Do Development increases do anything besides lowering movement costs in a province? The Clearing/Works/Urbae group don't seem to be worthwhile in this game (unless there's more to Development).
I think they increase supply in a region as well but I'm not sure. Public Work and Urbae do give a VP gain. For me the decisions would be much better if they were simplified - instead of tracks, roads, water for example just have one decision to improve infrastructure up to road level. And I still see no benefit in having both money and EP in the game. Can anyone? It just adds confusion.
poweraxe wrote:EP sort of represents political influence, to get alliances, etc. It wouldn't be realistic if these things would have to be bought with money alone; such agreements often involved more than just that.
I just don't get a feel of that. Why does building tracks give me more political influence for example (and also cost EP to build) and tradeposts do not?
Cheers,
Chris
Fair enough, I guess that does make little sense. Nevertheless, removing EP wouldnt be a good solution to this, because that would make a number of decisions like calling in (minor) alliances either too cheap (with no changes) or too expensive in Dinarii. Perhaps the price and benefits of these decisions should be changed.
The restriction on high loyalty for Triumph should probably be removed, it has no real logic indeed.
For EP, yes as poweraxe says, it represents political influence and the might or will of the state, so the design was that decisions that involved directly the state cost EP. Also, as a fun mechanism (or so I thought) plus as a mean to get EP, when the road is finished, you get back EP, as the state succeeded in developing the Republic, with a 'state program'. Tradepost on the contrary are private initiatives.
The aim here is to give to the player the feeling that the Pax Romana is done by the state, and the strength of the state comes from EP it can spend, and EP it can get back when something build by the state succeed.
VP/moral represents the will/strength of the army, that's why sending a retaliation expedition should cost VP.
I admit this is difficult to perceive right now and things can be probably streamlined and made clearer. Chris, if you now feel more confident in doing or tweaking decisions, then don't hesitate to propose stuff. As you say yourself, you are a bit lost in the usage of the resources... Because there are several. That's why my aim was to imprint an 'usage signature' on each resource: EP is the state, VP is the military, money is private initiative plus round the costs when needed... If you can keep this philosophy while making it clearer and simpler, that would be awesome. And you can even propose new decisions etc.
Ideally I wanted to make a picturial PDF of the decisions, showing the ones from the state, the ones done by the army and the private initiatives one, with a chain of progression etc. so that people are less lost.
For EP, yes as poweraxe says, it represents political influence and the might or will of the state, so the design was that decisions that involved directly the state cost EP. Also, as a fun mechanism (or so I thought) plus as a mean to get EP, when the road is finished, you get back EP, as the state succeeded in developing the Republic, with a 'state program'. Tradepost on the contrary are private initiatives.
The aim here is to give to the player the feeling that the Pax Romana is done by the state, and the strength of the state comes from EP it can spend, and EP it can get back when something build by the state succeed.
VP/moral represents the will/strength of the army, that's why sending a retaliation expedition should cost VP.
I admit this is difficult to perceive right now and things can be probably streamlined and made clearer. Chris, if you now feel more confident in doing or tweaking decisions, then don't hesitate to propose stuff. As you say yourself, you are a bit lost in the usage of the resources... Because there are several. That's why my aim was to imprint an 'usage signature' on each resource: EP is the state, VP is the military, money is private initiative plus round the costs when needed... If you can keep this philosophy while making it clearer and simpler, that would be awesome. And you can even propose new decisions etc.
Ideally I wanted to make a picturial PDF of the decisions, showing the ones from the state, the ones done by the army and the private initiatives one, with a chain of progression etc. so that people are less lost.
Hofstadter's Law: "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's law."
What desicions do you use most often? I am an old AACW player, and wanted to try myself in different era on AGEOD engine. But I found myself confused with multiple desisions, most of which where not too useful, some were too repetitive (merchants)...
I am trying to get better in this game, so any suggestions are welcome...
I am trying to get better in this game, so any suggestions are welcome...
Upping civilization level augments supply and move speed, which is indeed not that important in most scenarios. Ideally some meta events would trigger if you have good civilization levels in key regions.
Hofstadter's Law: "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's law."
-
jimwinsor2
- Lieutenant
- Posts: 105
- Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 12:07 am
(are you a politician Jim?)I setup a few tradeposts in my game a year or so ago and I now notice that they are all back in the decisions view. This always seems to be the case.
They never seem to last long and I never see any money reported to have been generated by them. I also never see any reports that they have been removed - it's
always just a resigned nod that they are back in the pool after a few months. Now they cost 5 VP I don't think I will bother with them again.
Merchants last OK but I still don't get any reports of money generated (or am I somehow missing this?) Does anyone see benefits from tradeposts or merchants?
Cheers,
Chris
They never seem to last long and I never see any money reported to have been generated by them. I also never see any reports that they have been removed - it's
always just a resigned nod that they are back in the pool after a few months. Now they cost 5 VP I don't think I will bother with them again.
Merchants last OK but I still don't get any reports of money generated (or am I somehow missing this?) Does anyone see benefits from tradeposts or merchants?
Cheers,
Chris
Hobbes wrote:I setup a few tradeposts in my game a year or so ago and I now notice that they are all back in the decisions view. This always seems to be the case.
They never seem to last long and I never see any money reported to have been generated by them. I also never see any reports that they have been removed - it's
always just a resigned nod that they are back in the pool after a few months. Now they cost 5 VP I don't think I will bother with them again.
Merchants last OK but I still don't get any reports of money generated (or am I somehow missing this?) Does anyone see benefits from tradeposts or merchants?
Cheers,
Chris
I always get reports if tradeposts are destroyed or if they are succesful. Messegaes for merchants are just there the turn after you've placed them or if they are destroyed. In the meantime they just generate money. So for me they both work fine ...
cwegsche wrote:I always get reports if tradeposts are destroyed or if they are succesful. Messegaes for merchants are just there the turn after you've placed them or if they are destroyed. In the meantime they just generate money. So for me they both work fine ...
I'll have to play closer attention!
Thanks,
Chris
cwegsche wrote:I always get reports if tradeposts are destroyed or if they are succesful. Messegaes for merchants are just there the turn after you've placed them or if they are destroyed. In the meantime they just generate money. So for me they both work fine ...
I had four messages last turn saying that I'm setting up trade posts and that was it - no other messages. All four trade posts are now back in my decisions inventory.
I assume it is because I am trying to set them up in regions with an enemy garrison but there is no way of knowing if a garrison is present if the region is in fog of war? (I would hope the merchants could supply this info before going to the trouble of trying to build a trade post
) It seems this will cost me 5vp for each failed attempt? It might be no bad thing if the little box with the number showing a garrison was visible even for regions in FoW - there would probably be some limited intelligence as to enemy strength.
[ATTACH]21813[/ATTACH]
EDIT: I thought I should check if a garrison was present. There wasn't in three of the four locations I tried to set up a TP - so TPs remain a mystery to me.
Cheers,
Chris
- Attachments
-
If I recall correctly (since the patch I don't use tradeposts anymore, too high VP cost imho) then this "have started setting up" actually means "the tradepost has been set up and you have received your money". I was confused by the wording myself.
Of course if you have set up the tradepost the turn before then my explanation doesn't make any sense.
Of course if you have set up the tradepost the turn before then my explanation doesn't make any sense.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests