Die Zieten wrote:Do you have any ideas about possible house rules to make PBEM more historical?
Im personally toying around with the idea of separete diplomacy and treaties as being possible between different factions, could it work?
loki100 wrote:I think there is a fundamental issue with MP. If you want to play a historically restrained game you are better off sticking to SP, the problem with MP is yes it can be done in a fun way, yes you both enjoy the historical details but at the end, its about winning, so its hard to play with too much restraint. You can see that in the last 6-8 turns as reported, I had Narwhal (unusually) on the ropes and I was not going to let go- and it became more like Feb-May 1945 than the Seven Years War.
We did have a chat about multinational forces and as I mentioned I agreed to be reasonable with the Swedes. I do think its unrealistic for anyone but a Russian to command Russian troops and its pretty unrealistic to combine Austrians and French - but then in a game they can end up operating together, in the real war they fought separate campaigns. So I'm not sure that being too restrictive is that realistic, who knows what would have happened if the French had forced their way to the Elbe. On the Prussian side it would be better if the Anglo-Hannoverian forces were poorly aligned to the Prussians and so on.
How to model that is a challenge. I do think making RoP 3 faction (say Austria, Prussia and France-Russia) would help, but if you play say RUS, you'll see the 2 white players co-operate as opposed to compete. So it would be a very different game and my guess is any flaws in the 2 alliances (which were there) would only really come to a head at the point of victory. As in this game, its easy to see Austria as a as much a loser as Prussia, it might get Silesia back but those losses would mean that France and Russia were now the dominant powers.
But I'd love to play a RoP mod that treated intra-factional diplomacy properly.
as to the other question - we used the medium delay.
Stuyvesant wrote:Looks a bit sparse without the comment, but I understand your urgency, loki. One quick point I'd like to make: it looks like you copy-pasted the posts wholesale, so the hyperlinks in the text still point to the Paradox site (as opposed to the relevant posts over here). Probably not very urgent right now, but perhaps something you want to keep in mind to fix at a later time.
loki100 wrote:this aar was originally on the paradox aar forum but given some uncertainty about the future of that, i've decided to copy it over to here.
This was a mp aar between myself and narwhal, using 1.04 and was our second go. From the last game, we've learnt a bit and come up with some modifications that suit us or address problems we encountered. Some of this is house rules, some have been modded. These include:
- no bateaux to pass under a fort or through a sea province under blockade
- no using hussars/cossacks to take mc (using the attack-retreat on contact orders) unless led by an officer (last time i'd riddled prussia like a swiss cheese with this stunt)
- no exploitation of the manpower bug
- we've heavily modded the leader death chances. The base die roll is 10 times higher and the individual chance to die for brigadiers is 15, 2/3 star is 5. After a discussion we left fred & daun as unkillable (they can be wounded) as loss of either will really unbalance the game. Unlike all the other age games, officers are just not a constraint in rop (indeed from about 1758 onwards you can't even be bothered to promote people), this should cure that.
- narwhal found that the 'northerner' trait for the swedes was acting oddly. It meant that in pommerania they were hampered but if i put them in say hannover they got very enthusiastic. We've modded out the trait to remove this, and i've agreed to some restraint as to their deployment.
- of the game options, we have historical attrition, activation that gives a malus to combat & movement
there may be more but those are the main ones. Not too intrusive on the game, or hard to remember when putting together orders (we discussed more complex things such as limits on multinational forces etc), but they address things we felt were unbalanced one way or another. Thanks to narwhal both for the research and coding. If the leader loss rate becomes too extreme, we'll mod back to a mid-point between these changes and the default settings.
Krot wrote:These house rules and modifications are great.
As far as I can understand you and/or Narwhal have modded default leader death chances and Swedish generals traits defined in the Models directory of GameData.
Is it possible to publish or send privately changed files to let lazy player like me use your excelent work.
Baris wrote:Thanks for re-writing.
I wonder if there is manpower bug still. And how was the house rule for non exploitation?
loki100 wrote:...but then who wants to play PBEM and not be able to trust your opponent?
Stuyvesant wrote:I realize I'm getting dangerously close to trolling here, but I must admit having to do a double-take at that. Or perhaps a triple, or quadruple-take. I guess there's the difference between 'trust' in that all will abide by agreed-upon rules and 'trust' in the veracity of the emails you send out between turns.
loki100 wrote:I'm afraid I don't have the code changes any more, Narwhal did the original work and may still have the modded files so maybe best to PM him? The 'northener' trait is now sorted by the latest patch (as I found to my cost in my latest PBEM when they gave my Prussians a very hard time of it). In truth, as in the AAR, leader loss is still not a problem in RoP so I think its a deeper problem than just the base chance ratio. In this game, the only real loss I had was Von Bilberstein (& that so late it didn't really matter), but in my PoN game they drop on a regular basis.
Shri wrote:Really amazing AAR LOKI and i think Narwahl deserves some credit too for hanging on despite your 4 pronged battering ram.
I think only way- Prussia can survive in MP after going through several AAR's is to be 'Historical', now what do i mean by this-
1. No Inter-Allied Commanders-- no 'Ferdinand Foch style' "1918 combined offensive" to be done, all 4- Sweden, Russia, France, Austria/HRE had their own ideas.
So only Austria and HRE can combine no others, no combination on Austrian side ( i mean cross of Austrian - Russian or something like that) of commanders or troops ever. No cossacks in other theaters also.
2. Saxony should die, no escapes. Will unbalance. Either Player assaults Saxony and gains free cannon as Prussia or not- can be decided, but Saxony must die.
3. MTSG only in same region, allow Prussia to use their mobility and leaders and also troop advantage. This is not Napoleonic War with several corps MTSG and multi- day battles. More single day or even half- day battles were the norm in this time period and the troops you have are having political considerations if lost. This is my Arpaksin was punished. But Arpaksin also had supply problems as it was not so easy as in game to march across Poland into Prussian territory for the Russians.
4. Toughest Activation level, will make the ALLIED Armies- Russian, French-, Austrian etc inactive 1/3 of the times, thus more losses in winter (if retreat not done), lesser MTSG attack and more confusion.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest