Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: GoingAgain1792

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Napoleonics] >> Crown of Glory: Emperor's Edition >> Opponents Wanted >> RE: GoingAgain1792 Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: GoingAgain1792 - 11/17/2009 4:50:24 AM   
montesaurus

 

Posts: 489
Joined: 7/27/2003
Status: offline 		I noticed that there were diplomats in Russia, and I assumed that they were trying to cause insurrections! Sorry if mistaken!

_____________________________

montesaurus
French Player in Going Again II 1792

(in reply to gravey101)
Post #: 121
RE: GoingAgain1792 - 11/17/2009 4:52:28 AM   
montesaurus

 

Posts: 489
Joined: 7/27/2003
Status: offline 		"and I promise that I will not be the first to use insurrection against anyone else"

And technically it was "nesselrode" who accomplished the task before my guy did!

French Turn 12 posted!

_____________________________

montesaurus
French Player in Going Again II 1792

(in reply to gravey101)
Post #: 122
RE: GoingAgain1792 - 11/17/2009 1:48:57 PM   
Marshal Villars


Posts: 976
Joined: 8/21/2009
Status: offline 		By the way, there are changes coming in the next patch on insurrections. They will be made more difficult, because the playtesting team and Eric realized they were much easier than had been intended.

< Message edited by Marshal Villars -- 11/17/2009 1:49:15 PM >

(in reply to montesaurus)
Post #: 123
RE: GoingAgain1792 - 11/17/2009 6:13:18 PM   
MorningDew

 

Posts: 1170
Joined: 9/20/2006
From: Greenville, SC
Status: offline
quote:

So, what did the incursion into Poland get Russia and Prussia?


Clear enemies

_____________________________


(in reply to Marshal Villars)
Post #: 124
RE: GoingAgain1792 - 11/17/2009 6:14:26 PM   
MorningDew

 

Posts: 1170
Joined: 9/20/2006
From: Greenville, SC
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshal Villars

By the way, there are changes coming in the next patch on insurrections. They will be made more difficult, because the playtesting team and Eric realized they were much easier than had been intended.


Any word on an approximate patch time frame?

_____________________________


(in reply to Marshal Villars)
Post #: 125
RE: GoingAgain1792 - 11/17/2009 7:12:11 PM   
montesaurus

 

Posts: 489
Joined: 7/27/2003
Status: offline 		Hopefully the new patch will be compatible with presently running games, as I don't want to have to start over! This is too interesting!

_____________________________

montesaurus
French Player in Going Again II 1792

(in reply to montesaurus)
Post #: 126
RE: GoingAgain1792 - 11/17/2009 8:22:55 PM   
MorningDew

 

Posts: 1170
Joined: 9/20/2006
From: Greenville, SC
Status: offline 		As a country with almost no provinces left, what is the concensus on insurrections of conquered provinces of a nation homeland? I don't want to do anything gamey.

_____________________________


(in reply to montesaurus)
Post #: 127
RE: GoingAgain1792 - 11/17/2009 8:27:06 PM   
Marshal Villars


Posts: 976
Joined: 8/21/2009
Status: offline 		No word on timeframe. And if I knew I wouldn't be allowed to tell you. But the info on inurrections is available in the public forums.

I have no problem with the fact that an insurrection was used to remove Poland as a protectorate. Just realize some people's entire nations are like this. And anytime you conquer a province it is the same story. And this is problematic.

Again, this is probably something I need to add a house rule on for AltHist when it gets going again. One rule will definitely be (until the patch) no insurrection attempts allowed in conquered provinces. And I don't know what to do about protectorates. It's really kind of a mess since it is THAT easy to cause an insurrection.

Just remember that East Prussia (if conquered) is also a "protectorate" for insurrection purposes. And Lorraine. It's all "a bit" over powered. But since we're using it, then why not?

A recommendation I will take to Eric: Likelihood of an insurrection occurring should occur with the square root of the effort expended (so that adding 9x as many diplomats to do the job only gets a 3x likelihood of causing an insurrection).

< Message edited by Marshal Villars -- 11/17/2009 8:46:45 PM >

(in reply to MorningDew)
Post #: 128
RE: GoingAgain1792 - 11/17/2009 8:39:20 PM   
evwalt

 

Posts: 644
Joined: 11/14/2007
Status: offline 		Russia turn 12 posted.

While on insurrections, Russia makes a pledge to never use it on Conquered as opposed to Protectorates first.

Of course, Russia will retalitate against first use.

I certainly don't mind using on protectorates because at least in theory they have a government you can work on diplomatically. I never did like using on conquered provinces. There should some different mechanism there. Countries like Austria, Turkey and (once expanded into Germany) Prussia really suffer.

To answer Prussia's question, I thought you could NOT do an insurrection unless you were doing it in a "capitol" province. Isn't that right? Which would mean that home country provinces (ANYONE'S home country province) couldn't be done.

_____________________________

Russia in "Going Again II"
France in "Quest for Glory"
Prussia in "Invitational"

(in reply to Marshal Villars)
Post #: 129
RE: GoingAgain1792 - 11/17/2009 8:47:56 PM   
Marshal Villars


Posts: 976
Joined: 8/21/2009
Status: offline 		Home country provinces can't be done. That is the one thing I think is safe here.

(in reply to evwalt)
Post #: 130
RE: GoingAgain1792 - 11/17/2009 8:48:05 PM   
evwalt

 

Posts: 644
Joined: 11/14/2007
Status: offline 		Marshal Villars,

I would make that recommendation PER COUNTRY not per diplomat. I can see why 2 French (or Prussian, British, etc.) diplomats talking to a government in a country on behalf of France (or whoever) would have a lessening effect. HOWEVER, certainly the fact that ONE country is doing diplomacy shouldn't effect another country.

If you did it by TOTAL diplomats, you run the risk of a gamey tactic of your ALLIES moving their diplomats into the area to do insurrections, making it harder for others to do so. There are diplomats that have ZERO chance of successful insurrections and such a tactic wouldn't hurt the country holding the protectorate.

_____________________________

Russia in "Going Again II"
France in "Quest for Glory"
Prussia in "Invitational"

(in reply to evwalt)
Post #: 131
RE: GoingAgain1792 - 11/17/2009 8:49:19 PM   
Marshal Villars


Posts: 976
Joined: 8/21/2009
Status: offline 		I am worried we will soon realizet that "insurrections" are simply totally overpowered and will have to switch to the new patch when it comes out. And unfortunately, I do not think it will be backwards compatible. :(

(in reply to Marshal Villars)
Post #: 132
RE: GoingAgain1792 - 11/17/2009 8:54:00 PM   
Marshal Villars


Posts: 976
Joined: 8/21/2009
Status: offline 		I am not saying it would be a lessening effect. I am simply saying that each added diplomat will have less and less of an effect.

So if your allies are trying to carry out insurrections in your protectorates, and they push the total of diplomats doing the same thing there up to 9 (having the effect of 3 current version diplomats), then you still have a greater chance of losing your protectorate than if 4 diplomats were there (having the effect of 2 current version diplomats).

However, I do like the notion of applying this on a nation by nation basis...perhaps. However, it will mean people being ganged up on 7 to 1 are screwed (but no more than they are now).

(in reply to Marshal Villars)
Post #: 133
RE: GoingAgain1792 - 11/17/2009 8:58:44 PM   
evwalt

 

Posts: 644
Joined: 11/14/2007
Status: offline 		Ahhh, ok.

Yeah, I think anyone is ganged up on 7:1 should be screwed anyway!

If they lessen the effects of insurrections (and I read that whole thread), it should be ok anyway.

_____________________________

Russia in "Going Again II"
France in "Quest for Glory"
Prussia in "Invitational"

(in reply to Marshal Villars)
Post #: 134
RE: GoingAgain1792 - 11/17/2009 9:01:17 PM   
evwalt

 

Posts: 644
Joined: 11/14/2007
Status: offline 		NOT backwards compatable?!?

Uggh, I have 1 game going on 6 years old and this one (only 1 year but exciting so far!)



_____________________________

Russia in "Going Again II"
France in "Quest for Glory"
Prussia in "Invitational"

(in reply to evwalt)
Post #: 135
RE: GoingAgain1792 - 11/17/2009 10:37:55 PM   
gravey101

 

Posts: 50
Joined: 6/9/2009
Status: offline 		Insurrections are the sort of thing I dont care for at all in this type of game. I wish we had all agreed before the start to not use them at all but there you go. Personally, I dont see the difference in using them against conquered countries as opposed to protectorates, and so that now that others have taken the insurrection plunge as it were I shall insurrect whenever and whereever i wish without any feelings of guilt

(in reply to evwalt)
Post #: 136
RE: GoingAgain1792 - 11/17/2009 11:41:16 PM   
evwalt

 

Posts: 644
Joined: 11/14/2007
Status: offline 		My thoughts are a Protectorate is a minor country with a government while a conquered country has no government, but that is just me.

Oh, and no guilt for such gameplay (unless used against me )

_____________________________

Russia in "Going Again II"
France in "Quest for Glory"
Prussia in "Invitational"

(in reply to gravey101)
Post #: 137
RE: GoingAgain1792 - 11/18/2009 12:23:54 AM   
MorningDew

 

Posts: 1170
Joined: 9/20/2006
From: Greenville, SC
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: evwalt
My thoughts are a Protectorate is a minor country with a government while a conquered country has no government.


That's how I'm going to play it, so I will _NOT_ be performing insurrections against my captured provinces.

_____________________________


(in reply to evwalt)
Post #: 138
RE: GoingAgain1792 - 11/18/2009 3:46:06 AM   
Marshal Villars


Posts: 976
Joined: 8/21/2009
Status: offline 		Well, players can do whatever they want to in this game I believe (except for declare war on other nations while you have troops in them).

The problem is that insurrections are so powerful, that as soon as you have added provinces to your territories, you have a high chance of losing them immediately. And I don't actually know how fun that is.

I think in the AltHist game, they will be banned until further notice. Because suddenly, in this game, every diplomat is about to be switched to insurrection duty/expel duty because it is overly rewarded.

Just curious, how many turns had Nesselrode been trying to create an insurrection in Poland?

Now that the "insurrection" genie is out of the bottle, I certainly have no qualms about using it (and obviously no one else shoud). Which means that no one will ever conquer any territory and no one will have any protectorates--for long. Either we go back to before the loss of Poland and redo the insurrection, or we keep going and allow them in any case. And I don't think anyone wants to go back (not even me). So we are on an insurrection path of destruction, meaning no one can ever take anyone elses land, because an insurrection will immediately free it (not being home territory)--and no one will hold protectorates for any real period of time.

(again, remember that even the design team felt they were over-powered and needed immediate attention)

I have no problem with continuing play, as long as the rules are applied uniformly (meaing, again, that protectorates and conquered provinces will be virtually extinct within a year--which is why there is a fix coming). The only way around this is having Prussia or Russia re-declare war on Poland and avoiding insurrection orders in the future. The army is gone, but so what, they were killing me. Based on circulating emails, I think all protectorates and conquered provinces will be under sustained attack now and we will get something rather unlike "Napoleonic Era" warfare.

I don't mind. I will do whatever you guys want to do. I do know that with all of the emails circulating about insurrection, suddenly the game is much less "suspenseful" to me, because I know we will see lots of things happen which didn't happen historically. I feel particularly sorry for Spain. Hanover was "possessed" by the ruling house of Britain for at least 80 years and now it will be lost in the space of two months, in spite of the fact that the owning family is still sitting in London. LOL

For instance, Napoleon had plenty of conquered provinces and what we would call "protectorates" supporting his cause for years until he lost his sway over Europe and his influence dropped. I think, personally, that insurrections caused when National Morale plummets is enough to simulate the occasional loss of nations/conquered provinces/protectorates and that the "insurrection" function which diplomats have detracts much more from the historical authenticity of the game than it adds.

Remember that the game was primarily designed to be a single player game and was tested as such, which is why this probably slipped under the radar and was only recently caught by the PBEM community.

I think I can say that WCS is working to make insurrections impossible in certain situations. And rightly so.

< Message edited by Marshal Villars -- 11/18/2009 4:24:48 AM >

(in reply to MorningDew)
Post #: 139
RE: GoingAgain1792 - 11/18/2009 5:34:34 AM   
montesaurus

 

Posts: 489
Joined: 7/27/2003
Status: offline 		French and British turns are posted! Waiting for the rest!

In regards to insurrections, I don't feel they are too powerful, except against conquered nations. Against protetorates I have no problem with their use, as the idea of using those armies for the entire game to fight wars for the controlling nation, would very soon make them regret they asked you to be their protector! Perhaps the designer should give them different ratings, one for conquered nations, and one for protectorates!
I likewise will not use them against conquered nations unless someone else uses them aginst me first!
That is what I should have made clear to GB at the beginning of the game!

_____________________________

montesaurus
French Player in Going Again II 1792

(in reply to Marshal Villars)
Post #: 140
RE: GoingAgain1792 - 11/18/2009 11:36:08 AM   
timurlain

 

Posts: 135
Joined: 5/17/2008
From: Czech Republic
Status: offline 		Austrian turn posted while ago.

_____________________________

- playing Austria in 1792 Going again COGEE PBEM

(in reply to montesaurus)
Post #: 141
RE: GoingAgain1792 - 11/18/2009 12:50:05 PM   
Marshal Villars


Posts: 976
Joined: 8/21/2009
Status: offline 		Like I said, I am happy to keep playing.

You know. Even the original design team knows that insurrections are over-powered in this release.

Why I agree with the WCS design team:

The Spanish House of Bourbon and Austrian Habsburgs had traded off ruling the Kingdom of Naples for 200 or more years by 1790 (changing hands by treaty). In this game, it can be stripped in 2-3 months. Don't you think some French diplomat would have done this a little earlier if it had been this easy?

The Austrian Habsburgs and Spanish Habsburgs traded off ruling Milan and Tuscany for around 200 years before 1790 (changing hands by treaty). The total number of insurrections I was able to count in that time? ZERO. Don't you think someone would have stripped them of these lands a littler earlier if this would have been possible? There were at least 4-6 European wide conflicts in this time which would have provided the context for it.

The House of Hanover ruled Britain and Hanover for almost 80 years by this point. A diplomat in CoG:EE can take it away in 2-3 months. Don't you think the French would have done this a little sooner if it had been this easy?

The Spanish Habsburgs or Austrian Habsburgs ruled the Spanish and Austrian Netherlands (Flanders and Luxembourg) for 200 years before COGEE began (changing hands by treaty). The total number of "insurrections" I count in that long period of history of that highly disputed land? ONE. Don't you think that someone would have done this a little more often if it had been that easy? In that time three phases of the Thirty Years War came and went. The War of Devolution was fought. The War of the French Reunions was fought. The Dutch War was fought. The War of the Spanish Succession was fought. The War of the Polish Succession was fought. The War of the Austrian Succession was fought. The Seven Years War was fought. And the War of the Bavarian Succession was fought. I am guessing that in the 200 years prior to the start of COGEE (1792) that a state of war existed for the rulers of these lands for almost 60-70 years. But, again, in that time, through all of those wars, there was only ONE (1!!!) insurrection which lead to a loss of power which I was able to track down.

The same story goes for Parma.

These are just some examples I was able to throw out. I think you have to have read 20+ books over the general history of the 1700s to know this stuff, so I don't blame anyone for thinking they are not over-powered.

Yet each of them are an example of a COG:EE protectorate, which after up to 200 years of rulership, can be stripped in 2-3 months. In fact, in the survey of history which I just presented, with between ALL of the protectorates I looked at, I was able to track exactly ONE event which could be labelled as an "insurrection" in "Belgium" (insurrection=rebellion/coup which resulted in the loss of control--control which was reestablished within one year, it didn't even change hands and the Austrians just walked back in peacefully).

The fact of the matter is that the design team itself thinks the insurrection is overpowered and has taken immediate steps to correct it, adding a mechanism to make it impossible if a player holding such a region wants to make it impossible. I suppose it is possible to disagree with the design team. But I don't know how it is possible to disagree with the numbers I just presented.

Yes. They are over-powered. In fact, the nations discussed above traded hands only by treaty at the end of wars and by conquest. If the above examples do not convince you, then nothing ever will--except perhaps for an exhaustive reading of 24+ books on the history of the 1700s which I can give you a list for. In my opinion, for the time frame of the game, the loss of protectorates through the drop in national morale which accompanies being conquered is more than enough to represent historical realities.

Now, why don't we all go around in a circle and strip each nation of all of their protectorates which they have held for 100-200 years of war and peace? And when we are done with that, we can then strip all of the conquered nationalities as well. :)

For me, the talk of and use of such an overpowered (according to even the design team) and unrealistic tool have ruined the suspense in the game for me. It's still a fun beer and pretzels game.


< Message edited by Marshal Villars -- 11/18/2009 4:19:34 PM >

(in reply to timurlain)
Post #: 142
RE: GoingAgain1792 - 11/18/2009 1:48:29 PM   
gravey101

 

Posts: 50
Joined: 6/9/2009
Status: offline 		The distinction between protecorates and non-protectorates is meaningless as far as Britain is concerned. Any country that attempts insurrections against any British provinces will be a target for British insurrections both protectorate and non protectorate for the rest of the game. I guarentee that i will not use insurrections against anyone who does not start them on me first. And i will not change my stance to suit my position at a later date i.e. i mean exactly what i say.

One can spin history anyway they wish to justify in-game decisions, but the truth of the matter is that the French had Swiss, Bavarian, etc troops fighting for them the entire war. The British had KGL and Portuguese doing the same.

IMO insurrection is mechanic that makes the game less fun and we'd have been better off not using it. I personally think as a group we should do something about this right now or we are in danger of souring what has been a fun experience so far. Can't we rise above what happens to be good or bad for our side at this particular moment and do what is good for the game ??

(in reply to Marshal Villars)
Post #: 143
RE: GoingAgain1792 - 11/18/2009 3:26:36 PM   
Marshal Villars


Posts: 976
Joined: 8/21/2009
Status: offline 		I would recommend that Britain stop blockading ports with empty fleet containers (Eric's attention has been brought to this and it sounds like he is interested in doing something about this immediately).


< Message edited by Marshal Villars -- 11/18/2009 4:09:59 PM >

(in reply to gravey101)
Post #: 144
RE: GoingAgain1792 - 11/18/2009 3:30:02 PM   
Marshal Villars


Posts: 976
Joined: 8/21/2009
Status: offline 		Montesaurus is about to recommend that we do something about the game.

We do actually have 4 choices. They are as follows:

1. Keep playing with insurrections and empty fleets blockading ports.
2. Keep playing with house rules that there will be no insurrections and no empty fleets are allowed to blockade ports from this point on.
3. Keep playing with the principle that insurrections which are diplomat induced are not allowed and Sweden to regain Poland with a Russian or Prussian DoW on Poland when Sweden is ready for it.
4. Restart.

I have put a heck of a lot of work into this game (plenty of 5 am nights) and am not nuts about restarting.

< Message edited by Marshal Villars -- 11/18/2009 4:14:10 PM >

(in reply to Marshal Villars)
Post #: 145
RE: GoingAgain1792 - 11/18/2009 4:42:46 PM   
Marshal Villars


Posts: 976
Joined: 8/21/2009
Status: offline 		Hey guys,

If you restart, I should probably take the chance to bow out. I don't know if everyone here knows, but I am the lead designer on a WCS project (which any fan of early modern gunpowder history should enjoy) and since this game has started, my work on the project has plummeted. Though my understanding of the game has gone up! The game is very important to me. But my top priority is to deliver an excellent game. And nothing can stand in the way of that.

I may continue to referee AltHist-A (which I should try to get started in a week or so, even if we need to find a couple of new players)

I am a bit torn on this.


< Message edited by Marshal Villars -- 11/18/2009 4:44:29 PM >

(in reply to Marshal Villars)
Post #: 146
RE: GoingAgain1792 - 11/20/2009 6:08:07 PM   
Mus

 

Posts: 1759
Joined: 11/13/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshal Villars

I think in the AltHist game, they will be banned until further notice. Because suddenly, in this game, every diplomat is about to be switched to insurrection duty/expel duty because it is overly rewarded.


This was our experience in "Another PBEM" which was recently finished.

Countries that could afford the Textile cost all produced "Super Diplomats" out of their highest court province. I (British) had 5 diplomats, France either had 5 or 6.

The last year or two of the game involved 3-4 countries attacking me with their diplomats and most of my diplomats on capture/expel. I had the better half of my Army kept in Britain to defend against any sudden landing while I blockaded Russian and French fleets. The weaker half of my army was used trying to conquer new lands in North Africa from Spain to keep my head above water Empire points wise.

With +1000 National Morale I ended up losing control of Denmark/Norway to a Russian 40 espionage diplomat after I failed six expel attempts.

1. National morale of target should matter.
2. Garrison size should matter.
3. Provinces should go into unrest before they go into insurrection.

_____________________________

Mindset, Tactics, Skill, Equipment
Diligentia, Vis, Celeritas

(in reply to Marshal Villars)
Post #: 147
RE: GoingAgain1792 - 11/20/2009 6:20:27 PM   
gravey101

 

Posts: 50
Joined: 6/9/2009
Status: offline 		> The last year or two of the game involved 3-4 countries attacking me with their diplomats and most of my diplomats on capture/expel.

Ugh. Who wants to play that. Kudos to Monte for seeing where this was going and nipping it in the bud as it were... even though of course he was the one that started it

(in reply to Mus)
Post #: 148
RE: GoingAgain1792 - 11/21/2009 2:49:08 AM   
evwalt

 

Posts: 644
Joined: 11/14/2007
Status: offline 		I agree. Everything was monte's fault!

_____________________________

Russia in "Going Again II"
France in "Quest for Glory"
Prussia in "Invitational"

(in reply to gravey101)
Post #: 149
RE: GoingAgain1792 - 11/21/2009 12:48:31 PM   
Kingmaker

 

Posts: 1678
Joined: 12/27/2007
Status: offline 		HiHi

Swedens T0 sent in.

All the Best
Peter

(in reply to evwalt)
Post #: 150
Page:   <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Napoleonics] >> Crown of Glory: Emperor's Edition >> Opponents Wanted >> RE: GoingAgain1792 Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

3.656