Are we going to set up some potential rules for when we get to human vs. human conflicts? Our multiplayer session sort of died last time because Cazz got gulped up in basically just two wars and the comradery sort of died. It might not be a bad idea to set some house rules up.
I am all for this.
Anyone have any suggestions?
Everyone sends subsidies worth 10% of their income to whatever nation Kabouter is playing?
Everyone sends subsidies worth 10% of their income to whatever nation Kabouter is fighting.
1. No Kills
Player nations may not be annexed, only vassalized. If it would cost less than 100% war-score to vassalize another player, provinces may no longer be demanded from them.
2. Restricted Exploits
Players may not sell provinces to another player unless the latter has the ability to core that province or already has a core on that province, and has discovered it. Players may not make other players protectorates. Players may not move their capital to an overseas province.
3. Justified Demands
Players may not demand provinces from another player or player’s subject unless they are cores, claims, same culture-group, colonial, same religion-group held by a heathen, same religion held by a heretic, or are otherwise subject to war goal modifiers on aggressive expansion, cost or prestige.
4. Complete Negotiation
Any players involved in a player vs. player war (any war in which both war-leaders are players) must tick the "Allow leader to negotiate" box.
5. Total Concession
In a player vs. player war, the losing side may agree by consent from all participants on the losing side to offer total concession to the winner. If they do, the winning side must name by consent from all participants on the winning side demands which would sum to less than 100% war-score [this may not be precisely possible, if for example the winning side names a province which he has not yet sieged fully and thus does not know the war-score for. Reasonable approximations are accepted], and which have a diplomatic point cost affordable to the winning side. If those demands can be met, they must be met immediately, and the winning side must accept immediately. Alliances and coalitions may not declare separate wars to circumvent this 100% cap.
6. Dictated Concession
In a player vs. player war, if the winning side maximizes the war-goal war-score bonus at +25%, or has a total war-score of +50%, they may dictate by consent demands which would sum to less than the current war-score and may currently be met, and which have a diplomatic cost they can afford. These demands must be met immediately.
7. Limited Alliance
Players may not have more than guarantee, ally, or be guaranteed by more than 1 other player nation prior to 1500, 2 other prior to 1600, or 3 others prior to 1750. A coalition may not have more than 3 player nations prior to 1500, 4 player nations prior to 1600, or 5 player nations prior to 1750.
Yeah, definitely a colonial nation for me given that all the majors are pretty much taken. I'll just grab whatever colonial nation first pops up in the Eastern America colonial region, and observe until that happens.
I've quickly whipped up this map. Grey indicates that a nation is within the Fabricate Claim range of a nation someone has already chosen to play; and I'm guessing most people would prefer that so they can establish their own theatre of war against the AI and build up to player vs. player stuff. Bold lines indicates nation already chosen. The rest are non-chosen and in their own theatre of war. I took the slight liberty of putting ZZMitch as Venice - he chose an Italian power, and Naples is in range of Ottomans and the rest in range of Aragon, Venice being the only non-OPM/2PM that isn't. If you want to be Ferrara/Mantua/Urbino, ZZMitch, just let me know.
Kabouter, FACE, Haly, CloudWolf, Toma and Manik still have yet to make a choice.
You could still be Brandenburg or Sweden - they're both very forgiving.
Also very Poland and Muscovy adjacent respectively. Brandenburg in particular would be a dreadful choice given that the much stronger and unioned up Poland gets a mission to vassalize the Teutonic Order, whereas you need their provinces to form Prussia and even have a core on one of their provinces.
So yeah, it'd have to be a non-European and non-Muslim tech nation (since those are going to fall to the Iberians and Ottomans). I'd be the weakest nation in the game by a country mile and the bitch of whichever European superpower got to me first. On top of that, I'd be completely isolated from all other players and would essentially be playing single-player right up until the point that people came to conquer my shit.
I've quickly whipped up this map. Grey indicates that a nation is within the Fabricate Claim range of a nation someone has already chosen to play; and I'm guessing most people would prefer that so they can establish their own theatre of war against the AI and build up to player vs. player stuff. Bold lines indicates nation already chosen. The rest are non-chosen and in their own theatre of war. I took the slight liberty of putting ZZMitch as Venice - he chose an Italian power, and Naples is in range of Ottomans and the rest in range of Aragon, Venice being the only non-OPM/2PM that isn't. If you want to be Ferrara/Mantua/Urbino, ZZMitch, just let me know..
Why not the Timurids? They're one of the best nations in the game, those NIs are absolutely crazy, and they have the opportunity to interact with the Ottomans, Muscowy and Poland without necessarily falling into their immediate path of conquest.
The Germany region is going to be a lightning free-for-all with no players in there. Especially with no chance for a Burgundian inheritance (as they're player controlled) meaning weaker Austria/Emperor.
Make Morroco the colonial powerhouse they deserve to be.
Hey, you should join
I would if I could but I'm Australian and the timezones make it impossible.
Plus I pause way way way too much in my single player games
Knowing how poorly I did in my previous games, and that rebels have been made stronger, I'll likely break apart in the first few years.
Nah, if you're worried about rebels you just release Persia as a vassal and use their forces as a slave army, then reintegrate when you're happy with your conquest.
Kab, you can play in a hotter area (like Hungary, Provence or Savoy) until you can rule the United Kilts of Scotland to the top of the world.
There's going to be loads of people in Germany, they're just moving in from all sides rather than starting there.I would play a country like Bavaria if someone else wants to play an Italian nation. I think it is important to have someone in Germany if at all possible.
There's going to be loads of people in Germany, they're just moving in from all sides rather than starting there.
Haha yeah that is why I think it would be more fun if someone was in Germany
Not fun for the player starting in Germany
Not fun for the player starting in Germany
Very true! But I am willing to take that position if someone else wants to get into the European action but cannot because there is no space.
I, for one, think it might be fun to try to play "in the center". Also I wouldn't have to deal with boats heh.
Why Bavaria, though? The Hansa and Brandenburg are way stronger. Even the Palatinate is somewhat better, as it is an elector.
1. No Kills
Player nations may not be annexed, only vassalized. If it would cost less than 100% war-score to vassalize another player, provinces may no longer be demanded from them.
2. Restricted Exploits
Players may not sell provinces to another player unless the latter has the ability to core that province or already has a core on that province, and has discovered it. Players may not make other players protectorates. Players may not move their capital to an overseas province.
3. Justified Demands
Players may not demand provinces from another player or players subject unless they are cores, claims, same culture-group, colonial, same religion-group held by a heathen, same religion held by a heretic, or are otherwise subject to war goal modifiers on aggressive expansion, cost or prestige.
4. Complete Negotiation
Any players involved in a player vs. player war (any war in which both war-leaders are players) must tick the "Allow leader to negotiate" box.
5. Total Concession
In a player vs. player war, the losing side may agree by consent from all participants on the losing side to offer total concession to the winner. If they do, the winning side must name by consent from all participants on the winning side demands which would sum to less than 100% war-score [this may not be precisely possible, if for example the winning side names a province which he has not yet sieged fully and thus does not know the war-score for. Reasonable approximations are accepted], and which have a diplomatic point cost affordable to the winning side. If those demands can be met, they must be met immediately, and the winning side must accept immediately. Alliances and coalitions may not declare separate wars to circumvent this 100% cap.
6. Dictated Concession
In a player vs. player war, if the winning side maximizes the war-goal war-score bonus at +25%, or has a total war-score of +50%, they may dictate by consent demands which would sum to less than the current war-score and may currently be met, and which have a diplomatic cost they can afford. These demands must be met immediately.
7. Limited Alliance
Players may not have more than guarantee, ally, or be guaranteed by more than 1 other player nation prior to 1500, 2 other prior to 1600, or 3 others prior to 1750. A coalition may not have more than 3 player nations prior to 1500, 4 player nations prior to 1600, or 5 player nations prior to 1750.
Dont forget to discuss above proposed rules, since I feel we need them to have a good PvP centered game I feel.
I had mixed feelings about the rules, but I think they're fine. The first game we played, people were heavily avoiding PvP until the end unless they had little other choice. Don't want people to shy away from PvP, but also want to encourage fair play and avoid anything gamey.
Who can host?
Kabouter?
Without Austria as a player, Bohemia should be a good option for HRE.
Sure.
Do you have all the DLC, Kab? The unit packs/music shouldn't matter, but you should probably have Conquest of Paradise, Wealth of Nations, Res Publica, Purple Phoenix and Star and Crescent. American Dream is really buggy and is basically incompatible with CoP, so we probably shouldn't have both on at the same time.
I'd like to suggest a new rule: Fanboi isn't allowed to start wars against France and drag naíve new players along