| Welcome to Blut Und Eisen. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Working Rules List | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Apr 12 2015, 09:09 PM (354 Views) | |
| Felicity | Apr 12 2015, 09:09 PM Post #1 |
|
cutest
![]()
|
felicity’s rules see also: https://docs.google.com/document/d/11hTAOU2...HxIeftNS9A/edit General Rules Table of contents: 1-2, player rules and absent rules 3, pauses 4-5, stockpiling and naval supply 6, releasing nations 7-8, edits and negotiated transfer cb 9, giving away cores 1. Be on time and be prepared to play. Consistent lateness is grounds for being ejected. 2. A nation with an absent player is considered to be neutral. 2a. A nation with an announced absent player for more than one session may be reassigned at the GM’s discretion. 2b. An abandoned or otherwise AI’d nation may be protected at the discretion of the GMs, and are treated just like a protected player nation. 3. The game will run at the highest speed that all players agree on, and does not cause excessive slowdown. The game will run at 1 speed during wars, unless all members of the war agree otherwise. 3a. The game will run at 1 speed during negotiations. Unless agreed upon otherwise, the surrendering party will retreat their forces and institute a battlefield truce. (In the case of a potential white peace, the aggressor.) 3b. Gratuitous pauses are not allowed. If a player pauses more than once in a session without a declaration of war or justified reason, the basic penalty will be instituted. 4. No stockpiling is allowed. Goods must always be set to auto-buy in the trade screen. 5. Players may not exceed their maximum supply capacity for ships by more than 1000 points. If you are over this limit, you must disband ships until you are less than 1000 points over maximum supply capacity. 6. Releasing nations that are part of your cultural union is not allowed. 6a. You may also not release nations of less than four (4) provinces unless it is demanded as a "liberate country" wargoal. 6b. A player may not release nations that the player is aware are being justified as a wargoal. 7. All edits are subject to GM approval. Player errors will not be fixed via edits. States will not be split via edits. 8. Use of the Negotiated Transfer CB may not be used to partition defeated nations in any way. Fake wars must be announced in chat, while stating the province to be transferred. 9. Giving a cored state that has a land connection to the capital to any power for any reason other than a proper war will cause a penalty of 100 prestige. The penalty rises to 200 prestige after the discovery of Great Wars. __________ Alliance and War Rules table of contents: 1. treaties 2. alliances 3. new players & treaties Alliance and Treaty Rules A treaty is defined as a written and signed deal between two or more nations, and includes alliances. 1. All treaties must be made on the treaty subforum either before or during the session. They must specify the details of the treaty, including any relevant land transfers or alliances included. A treaty is invalidated if not posted and signed. 1a. If a treaty is made during the session, it must be declared in in-game chat, and posted on the forum as soon as possible. 1b. Alliance treaties last one session. NAP treaties last two sessions. All others are based on the details of the treaty. 1c. Interpretation of treaties is up to the GM arbiter in the case of disagreement. 2. There are three types of alliance treaties: offensive, defensive and non-aggression pacts (NAPs). You cannot join an aggressor in a war without an offensive alliance, and you cannot join a defender in a war without a defensive alliance. Non-aggression pacts are defined by the writer and signers. 2a. Alliance treaties may be broader or narrower in scope as long as all signers agree. 2b. Alliance treaty priorities are enforced in this order: Defensive > NAP > Offensive. 2c. All NAPs no longer apply and cannot be written after 1900. 3. A new player is bound by the old treaties its country was bound under, unless those treaties could be considered nation-ruining or self-destructive. EFS 4. Total EFS of one side of the war cannot be higher than 100. 4a. This limit is no longer applicable if one side is pursuing three or more wargoals after Great Wars have been discovered. - major wargoals are: acquire state, take capital, cut down to size, liberate country, release people, place in the sun if colony is over 150k people - liberating a large nation will be considered three wargoals - pursuing many minor wargoals may be considered a major wargoal for the purposes of the above rule For point a. to be in effect both sides of the war need to have at least 70 EFS. b. Sphere leader can always defend his protectorate regardless of EFS difference c. Starting multiple wars to go around this rule is prohibited d. If a country separately peaces out of the war, its EFS stays calculated to its alliance’s score. e. Wargoals a winning side can take are restricted by EFS difference of the alliances. f. For every 10 EFS one side has more than the other, their maximum wargoals are reduced by 20% (0-10 100%, 11-20 80%, 21-30 60%, 31-40 40%, 41-50 20%, etc) g. EFS difference rule doesn’t apply in 1v1 wars. h. Winning side can always press for it's original wargoals. <- some limit needs to be placed on this, in case of huge wars where 5-6 people are asking max infamy and warscore. War Declaration Rules 1. A player must pause and announce via in-game chat that they are declaring a war. This announcement must include any other aggressors, as well as all original wargoals (define). Wargoals must be able to be enforced by a CB. 1a. All other players who intend to join the war as a defender must declare intent before the game is unpaused to be allowed to be called in immediately. 1b. After approximately 60 seconds have passed, the GM will unpause the game. From this point on, joining the war requires declaring intent and wargoals, and waiting 3 months before being able to be called in. 2. Crisis wars and intervening with a status quo wargoal do not require a formal declaration of war, but are encouraged. War General Rules table of contents: 1. wargoals, war leaders, warscore 2. player within crisis 3. consecutive wars 4. stabhitting 5. gm enforced peace 6. infamy limit 7. mobilization 8. rejoining wars 9. colonial wars 1. The original aggressor and defender on each side of a war shall be counted as the War Leaders for negotiating peace. Defender must state their wargoals when asked to do so by the attacking party or by a GM. 1a. During a crisis the original crisis backer counts as the war leader for his side. 1b. The Defending War Leader may, as their primary wargoal, force a reasonable equivalent of demands as the Attacking War Leader should the Attacking party surrender before one year has passed. 1c. If both parties agree to wargoal change and it will result in the end of the war, it may be made at any time. 1d. Wargoals for either side may be updated once a year from their original declaration. 1e. During any war you may only demand a maximum of 100% warscore. 2. If the target of a crisis is a player, the crisis backer is not allowed to surrender the player’s land without his or her permission. 3. A nation may not declare war on another country that is already involved in another player versus player war. This does not apply if the existing war is a Great War. 4. A nation may not send "stabhitting" peace offers to a single nation within a multi-party alliance. These are un-negotiated peace offers in-game that drive up war exhaustion. These may be used in a 1v1 war. 5. GMs may enforce peace at any time if a war has clearly been decided, and a side refuses to surrender for whatever reason. GMs may also institute a time limit in stalemates, after which time the GMs will enforce a peace. 6. Infamy is limited to 25. If a justification takes a player’s infamy over the limit, the wargoal is not valid. The infamy CB gained by all other nations may be used without limit (consecutive wars may be done). 7. A nation may only mobilize once during a war. A nation must be completely at peace before it is allowed to demobilize and remobilize. 8. A nation, AI or otherwise, may not re-enter a war it has already peaced out of. 9. If an attacker can capture the entirety of a colonial region and defend it for 3 years(is that long?), the defender must surrender it if that is the attacker’s only wargoal. This can be done for three colonial regions per war. This does not apply if the attacker’s homeland is being heavily occupied, up to GM discretion. Unit Movement and Placement Rules 1. No land attacks may be made from, or land retreats to, neutral nations which are not involved in a player versus player war, unless both the attacker and defender have military access. 1a. If an army retreats to a neutral nation, it is considered interned and may not move for the duration of the war. The army may be disbanded and raised again. 1b. Troops walking between home territories may walk through neutral territory. Walking from home to allied territory through neutral territory is not allowed. (justification?) <maybe ban all neutral movement 2. Troops that are walking through a country as it peaces must return to an allied territory before entering hostile land. Any battles that are active may continue to their end, though no reinforcements may be added. 4. No retreating more than one province away from a battle or behind enemy lines or for any other exploitative means. 5. Armies and navies may not be placed on top of enemy armies and navies prior to starting/joining a war. China Rules 1. The following Wargoals may be used against China without limit: - Free People, Liberate Country, Acquire Treaty Port, Release Puppet 2. The following regions may be conquered: Formosa, Hainan, Hong Kong and Macao, and regions taken by China during the game that it did not have a core on in 1836 3. Establish Protectorate/Minor Conquest/Conquest Wargoals may only be used to annex the substates of Xinjiang, Mongolia, and Manchuria 4. The substates of Xinjiang, Mongolia and Manchuria may be sphered. If another nation is released from China and is automatically added to your sphere, it must be removed immediately, and are not allowed to be sphered further. INFRACTIONS TBD. See following post for details. |
![]() |
|
| Felicity | Apr 12 2015, 09:11 PM Post #2 |
|
cutest
![]()
|
Here is a new list of rules. First of all, you'll notice it's not much shorter than the other one was. That's an unfortunate reality of this game; it's so broken and there are so many subtle exploits that all of these need to be written down. I tried to put more important rules at the top of each section, and group rules up based on subject, most obviously the wargoal rules. though most things are 'attempts' at common sense. A lot of the chaff in each section has been written out, and some things have been reworded based on experience. I removed any rules I felt weren't necessary for the enjoyment of both parties in any conflict of interest. This still left a lot of rules. There are a lot of things that are 'unfair' because the game is not really made for how we play it, and came up in the past, and so had to be written down so we could punish or remind people for similar things that happen in the future. Any rules complaints or suggestions can be posted here. Everything will be considered, but I will be vetting every suggestion through a variety of different sources (several players, the other GM, and V2 players I know irl who don't play MP I ask to see if it's a common sense rule). The most important rules remain the treaty rules, movement rules, and the general war rules. Hopefully we can get signups up tomorrow whilst we go over this set. |
![]() |
|
| icendoan | Apr 13 2015, 03:33 AM Post #3 |
![]() ![]()
|
I suggest banning all neutral movement, with the caveat that navies that accidentally retreat are not considered interned. You don't appear to have any rules banning nation ruining. The somewhat superfluous rules at the start (you should show up and be ready to play etc.) could be removed. If a player doesn't care enough about the game to actually show up and play, then your rules are pretty meaningless for them. Likewise, rules about game speed are entirely unnecessary. I can't believe that we've both had people fall out over the game speed, and then that it being a rule is a satisfactory justification to sate that enraged player. It's quite common that the GMs are hosts, anyway, at which point it is entirely their call. (I know full well that several people will bitch about being on 1 speed for ages; I don't believe that these are legitimate grievances that warrant a rule - you just tell them to shut up). The rule to arbitrarily protect ex-player nations is worrying. Either protect all of them, or protect none of them. Otherwise, I think this opens the door to both accusations of GM bias, and for some implicit biases of the GMs' to slip through. I'm still unconvinced by this 100 prestige penalty for the sale of land. Perhaps ban treaties that loan land instead? Selling land is a pretty big deal, and I don't think anyone takes it lightly. If Austria or Russia want to buy another nation's support, they should be able to, to be honest. As we've seen from this last game, nations like Italy and Sweden don't have any trouble with money. I don't think attaching a large penalty to the transfer (200 prestige for Finland!) is the only way to gain strife; there are many Russias and Austria-Hungaries that will not want to simply give away this land. I do think that they should have the option. In particular, preventing the sale of this land gives a very large bias in favour of one set of alliances: as Sweden, it's not really possible to avoid joining with the Germans, as you need to get Finland in order to be a credible power. Likewise, the Italians now must join the French, as it's unreasonable to have them pass up on Lombardia and Venezia. Maybe the penalties should be changed, instead of removed. (It would be nice to handle this by some other, more delicate, instrument than the mallet of -100 prestige). This could be a good route for the mod to go down: it would be nice to punish the loss of accepted cultures via edit or negotiated transfer, and this can be done via events and flags, I think. Since all sales of land will be done outside of session, the editor can add a relevant flag to the nation selling said land, and it would trigger some event or other. The idea is that the sale of, say, Finland or Lombardia, both of which don't have many accepted POPs and were irritable/autonomous anyway should be less painful (as they are not so much of an integral part of the nation) as the sale of French land to the Germans, for instance. I think EFS needs a complete rework. I don't think it accurately measures the war capacity of a country correctly. It seems bizarre that Scandinavia should have a higher EFS than the Ottoman Empire, despite the Ottomans having on-par technology, and more ships, and more troops. The mechanism of ranking a nation is quite a tough one, but EFS needs a rethink. I have some ideas to do with this, but it would require a program to parse a save file, and I won't have time for that until exams are over. It should be reasonable to allow players to declare several wargoals, and always get to enforce their pick of them (up to their EFS warscore?) if they win; it's not possible to tell how much warscore an individual wargoal is going to be (aside from some being obvious, like releasing Ukraine, etc.) This way, when an alliance collectively DoWs, they list all their primary wargoals, and then they get to decide what they're actually enforcing. Make sure to always allow at least one primary wargoal. As a subclause, we should add that you should not add wargoals you have no intention of enforcing. That is, do not add any secondary wargoals before adding all primary wargoals. Primary wargoals could be added to by the arrival of a new ally. I like the no NAPs after 1900 rule. Felicity: nobody comments on the rules, eh? |
![]() |
|
| Yenzen | Apr 13 2015, 04:19 AM Post #4 |
![]()
|
Agreed about EFS. The influence of naval capacity needs to be greatly reduced and land forces much empowered. As for war goals, there should be limits. It should always be possible to push for a change single state, especially for a defending side, but medium nations shouldn't be faced with attacks with 3-4 war goals that pass the EFS limit because they're "original war goals" |
![]() |
|
| icendoan | Apr 13 2015, 04:30 AM Post #5 |
![]() ![]()
|
I think that the brokenness of EFS' naval weightings is a symptom, not a root cause. In order to get to a real power ranking, you have to take into account both the number and type of units (China having 1000 irregular brigades doesn't make them strong!) and also the ability to supply said units, both in terms of having access to goods and internal production (and, in the case of land units, manpower). It doesn't make sense to give a hypothetical Jan Mayen with 1000 dreadnaughts an EFS above 0, and no change of the weightings will accommodate this. |
![]() |
|
| Felicity | Apr 13 2015, 05:02 AM Post #6 |
|
cutest
![]()
|
1. Oops. Banning neutral movement was already decided on, apparently I hadn't changed the wording when I posted this. 2. I don't understand how we can enforce nation ruining. If someone is going to nation-ruin then quit, they aren't going to care about the rules, and are going to probably not be allowed in the future anyway. We can take care of things on an adhoc basis if it comes up. I was essentially nation ruining that entire last game (bored) and nobody cared because I was basically only an observer the whole time. Some people would consider Spain giving away all of his overseas resources nation-ruining. Is he going to be allowed back? Probably not, for a major, at least. Not because of how he played, but because of quitting after losing basically the first war he was in. Seleukos is cool, but he quit anyway, on a completely repairable Russia. Poor sportsmanship, but not considered nation-ruining since he left for a decently legitimate reason in the session. I know there were cases in the past, but even if there wasn't a rule for it, would it not be distinguished and acted against? 3. I actually already did remove several superfluous rules at the beginning, and merged several. I left that one for the sake of sanity and to have something to point to when some jackass inevitably tries to pull the 'there's no rule against being late' card. I've moderated sites long enough to know that everyone will try to pull any loophole in the rules possible, and never consider that on the internet it isn't a representative democracy. 4. You say selling land is a big deal, and yet Austria gives away all his cores to Italy every game regardless. Even this one, with the prestige penalty in place, he still did it in exchange for help. That was supposed to curb that kind of behavior, and perhaps encourage the rivalry between Italy and Austria over that land; but players cannot be predicted, I suppose. There should definitely be some penalty for giving up land that's core to your nation's people. If anyone has any suggestions other than -100 prestige, I'd like to hear it. 5. EFS will most likely be edited. Navy is definitely a huge part of score in the lategame, and it's probably that way to reflect how inflated military score gets, but military score doesn't appropriately show how strong a nation is anyway. I'm not really sure how EFS works specifically so I can't comment much more than that. 6. I suppose it's reasonable to say that there will be huge amounts of land transfers after a Great War, as is historical. It's annoying to split up rules based on time, though. I think there should be some limit to the number of wargoals enforceable at first until a year passes, but it's probably a higher limit than I first think. That was probably kind of a rushed reply since I am headed to work. I will reread it later as well and see if I missed anything. |
![]() |
|
| icendoan | Apr 13 2015, 05:41 AM Post #7 |
![]() ![]()
|
2. I mention the nation ruining because it's the rule that's used to end stalemates in the case of 100% war exhaustion. You could have these wars continuing on indefinitely, until a nation totally collapses, but that's not very fun. These are also the situations that a player will be particularly highly strung, but still show up calmer and more reasonable to the next session (we all get a bit tense in a big war, especially if we're losing, but most of the time we don't resign). 3. Fair enough; I just feel that the rules should be used expressly for removing/clarifying exploitative gameplay, and not to try and enforce decency. 4. I made a very small suggestion that it could be handled in-game with various events and so on, that would apply penalties based on how integral that land is to the nation and their national identity. We would need to talk to Kristjan about how this could work. Also, A-H doesn't always sell land to Italy; in the last Friday game, there were several wars fought against the Italians. In particular, I really don't like the way the current rulings enforce certain alliance blocs. It should be viable for A-H to ally with Italy, but it's really not possible outside of drastic circumstances in this ruleset (A-H had lost Bohemia, and thus would be willing to sell their soul to reclaim it). Likewise, Scandinavia should be able to ally to Russia, but it's impossible under the current ruleset: you must ally with Germany or the UK, because you don't have the strength to defeat Russia. I'm definitely in favour of increasing the players' options in diplomacy; I just think that the current penalties are too harsh. If you want to encourage strife, make the land that is more commonly traded much more valuable. The reason that the trades go through, most of the time, is that the nations think that the war to get the land will cost more than the land, even if they win. Adding a decision to A-H to accept North Italians (perhaps in a similar way to the Ottoman decision) would be a good way to increase the value of that land to A-H without just buffing it. Likewise, a series of 'National Shame' events if you just give away Alsace could be an idea. |
![]() |
|
| Yenzen | Apr 13 2015, 07:09 AM Post #8 |
![]()
|
The Friday thing is true, there were many bloody wars for Italian lands where Austria regained all their cores in Italy by the end. Me and Kunarian's manlove was essentially caused by a combination of an ambitious Austria and a NGF that did not care much for diplomacy. Recruiting my help by giving lands in the early game for my help throughout the mid and late game was simply the best way Kunarian had to regain Bohemia/Bavaria and later unify South German culture. Therefore, I do not consider this game a good example of Austria giving away cores too cheaply: Austria was planning a greater victory in the long game. To be honest, had he not ceded Friuli and South Tirol, I would likely have switched site in the late game to gain all of my cores. I would not mind a harsh modifier for the next session if someone sells out their cores, I doubt it would have stopped Kunarian. Austria accepting North Italian somehow by the mid/late game might help make Austria a more attractive nation, though it runs the risk of completely diverting its purpose by making Austria's number one goal to invade Italian minors. |
![]() |
|
| shampoocat | Apr 13 2015, 07:20 AM Post #9 |
![]()
|
Regarding the land sale thing. Maybe allow it if land is exchanged for other land of roughly equal value. It would still punish Austira for giving Italy all his shit, but it gives Italy the option to trade away a colony or two for its cores. Problem is we would need the GM´s to decide whats legit and what is not. |
![]() |
|
| Yenzen | Apr 13 2015, 07:29 AM Post #10 |
![]()
|
But that would give a rather rigid system. I don't want a situation where two nations must become enemies, because that was how it was historically. I supported Austria in three major wars risking quite a severe reaction from Germany if he managed to completely destroy Austria. That is easily "of roughly equal value". |
![]() |
|
| icendoan | Apr 13 2015, 08:05 AM Post #11 |
![]() ![]()
|
I agree with Yenzen; I'm contesting this rule because I think it is too rigid. To enforce like-for-like trading makes it far more rigid than it is already. Also, another suggestion: how about preventing nations from signing alliances if it goes over EFS? That is, Nation A cannot sign an alliance with Nation B, because Nation B is already allied to nation C, and their joint EFS would be above some number if Nation A were to join? This would encourage some dynamism, as people don't really want to be left stranded and without allies. It would also prevent the situation we had this game, with the UK, OE, France, Italy, A-H superbloc. |
![]() |
|
| Felicity | Apr 13 2015, 12:44 PM Post #12 |
|
cutest
![]()
|
I recall there once being a rule that said you can't ally more that one other great power until Great Wars. What happened to that? I assume it was the same 'not enough flexibility in diplomacy' complaint. I don't have any problem with there being an alternate punishment for giving up cores. If Kristjan can write it into the mod in some feasible way, that's fine. This last time was mostly a trial run, and it didn't really work, and only stopped people from selling non-essential colonies that had mistaken cores of them. The problem with making land more valuable is while I agree it's a sandbox type game, there still should be some at least a little historical precedent on resources available. There are a few ahistorical resource plots on the map, but if we say put all the good resources on border provinces to encourage fighting over them or retaining land, the same problem arises, with Italy allying with whoever they can to still fight Austria and get the good lands, with Austria only giving them up if he's a bad player or is in a lack of bohemia situation. I guess it's a very careful balance. and with nation ruining, war general rule 5 still allows us to end any war we see fit to do. it does require some adhoc decision making by the GMs, but when it happens it's usually pretty obvious. |
![]() |
|
| icendoan | Apr 13 2015, 03:24 PM Post #13 |
![]() ![]()
|
I imagine the issue with that rule banning certain alliances is that it was just ignored. I expect my EFS suggestion would be similarly ignored. I agree that simply buffing the base land is not the way to go; however, you can add decisions and events that make that land more valuable for just the nation that usually sells it. For instance, a decision to add North Italian as accepted post 1880 if Italy exists would be a way of increasing value of Italian lands to Austria. Hard to justify historically, perhaps, but it's an interesting route to add for gameplay. Similarly, giving Russia a small bonus while it controls Finland would provide a reason to not trade it away. |
![]() |
|
| shampoocat | Apr 16 2015, 07:23 AM Post #14 |
![]()
|
Per alliance or per player?
Suggestion: Allow the defending side to go over the infamy limit if they win. It should prevent situations like Russia surrendering to Persia in a scumbag move and not loosing anything if the defender has no ifamy to spare. If you go start a war you should allways risk something. Limitations would be: You may only do this if the attacker has declard a wargoal targeting you. You cannot declare any new wars untill your infamy has normalised. You may not be called in to any offensive wars until your infamy has normailed. This still applies. And finaly anyone may use the containment CP on you, however the original attacker may not be called in to those wars. Also is there any alternative to the "one year" thing, it is painful to keep track of. |
![]() |
|
| icendoan | Apr 16 2015, 07:45 AM Post #15 |
![]() ![]()
|
Shampoocat: I would assume per alliance. 100% per player is a bit much. I also like your idea to be a bit more flexible with the infamy rules. Why do we have the 1 year between wargoal changes rule, and does it achieve its aim? The idea is clearly to prevent people DoWing for humiliate only to immediately tack on loads and loads of wargoal, or to only get what they manage to take in order to accumulate warscore (although people already add spurious wargoals for this). Perhaps a replacement rule: "When forcing peace, you must always include your original wargoals whenever possible". This frees up alliances to demand what they like, without having to bother especially about when they do it. If the issue is over large wargoals, then requiring that all wargoals be announced prior to surrender (you cannot force a peace for unannounced wargoals unless defending), it would remove the incentive to DoW for "humiliate Russia" only to add "release Ukraine" on day 1. |
![]() |
|
| shampoocat | Apr 16 2015, 08:32 AM Post #16 |
![]()
|
I do believe that we did use the 100% per player at one point, and per alliance at another, i was never sure what was correct. |
![]() |
|
| Kristjan | Apr 17 2015, 10:46 PM Post #17 |
![]()
Administrator
![]()
|
It has always been 100% per alliance, at least since I joined this dog and pony show back in AoE3 or so days. Note that while i'd be willing to take on board events to simulate consequences for giving away core land, Scripting events is my weakest point as a modder, and therefore you guys would be required to actually script what you want to see. EFS will be looked at insofar as I can adjust weighting to the various subscores (army, navy, economy, population). Eidur would have to recalibrate the underlying coefficients properly when he has time if a more total rethink of EFS would be required. The weight can be adjusted as well from week to week, if you wanted to de-emphasize naval more in the early game but not so much when Dreadnoughts appear. Currently army/economy/population are weighted at 100 and navy weighted at 65. Currently naval tech level doesn't contribute at all to naval score/true total score. This is probably because, when he made EFS for vanilla and previous version of WiR, naval techs didn't contribute as much to combat power of ships as it does in current PUIR. |
![]() |
|
| icendoan | Apr 18 2015, 02:24 AM Post #18 |
![]() ![]()
|
I'll have a look at events scripting once my dissertation/exams are out of the way, same with this EFS business. |
![]() |
|
| Kunarian | Apr 18 2015, 03:19 PM Post #19 |
![]()
|
I have honestly not had enough problems with the rules that I could legitimately complain about (other than not being allowed to be Korea) to properly contribute to the rules discussion. However I feel I could contribute to the scripting of events and such things more related to the inner workings of the game. I'll look into that if I find some time but currently I'm moving out of my home. I will just say that my biggest issue with non-mod vicky 2 and this vicky 2 mod is that it still resists departing from history. When in actuality I believe that there should be plenty of opportunity to do so. Albeit of course, in a realistic manner. Also I feel that the decisions and events certain nations get are bad for the game and balance. For instance the decisions and events that the Prussians a fully expansionist nation and punishes the player if they do not wish to pursue such a route. I further feel that there should be a reasonable expansion of flavour events that serve a key gameplay purpose, not just for potential great powers but also for potential secondary powers. It would really do a lot to make the game more engaging whatever nation you are playing. Although I feel I'm moving into mod discussion here, so I'll not further post here, I do hope there'll be an opportunity to discuss the matter of the mod and what might be missing. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Age of Empire VI · Next Topic » |











7:37 AM Jul 11