|
Yes, i have been thinking about that, too. Basically, we become bigger, and stuff gets easier. That is just how the game work. I don't think either ramping up the difficulty or taking a smaller country fundamentally changes that, it just delays it by a bit.
What we need is some rule to keep us small, while still being fun.
I propose for the next game, we play kind of a Superhero country. Our goal is not to blob up, but to free everyone on the planet. Thus, we don't try to get more and more territory, we try to get people to release other nations, and, if possible, release vassals and then cancel the vassalage on as many as possible. Allies are allowed, Vassals are not, because that would defy the spirit of Liberty. Maybe start as someone like Brandenburg, Holland or Sweden, who starts under foreign rule and thus decides that noone should suffer that again? Thoughts about that idea?
On November 26 2011 21:07 Monsen wrote:Also I noticed ppl slacking quite a bit on the aar'ing towards the later stages of the game. Don't do that-  playing excellent 20 years = fun for you. Doing an excellent battle report over 20 years = fun for everyone involved/reading.
And this should be emphasized, this is not only about playing the game, but about giving it to everybody on this forum, too.
|
mine sucked :D but it was my first attempt at writing anything about it. if we play more games the quality will get better for sure :D
just need to remember to take pictures constantly, even if you arent sure if you will use them :D
|
On November 26 2011 22:12 Simberto wrote:Yes, i have been thinking about that, too. Basically, we become bigger, and stuff gets easier. That is just how the game work. I don't think either ramping up the difficulty or taking a smaller country fundamentally changes that, it just delays it by a bit. What we need is some rule to keep us small, while still being fun. I propose for the next game, we play kind of a Superhero country. Our goal is not to blob up, but to free everyone on the planet. Thus, we don't try to get more and more territory, we try to get people to release other nations, and, if possible, release vassals and then cancel the vassalage on as many as possible. Allies are allowed, Vassals are not, because that would defy the spirit of Liberty. Maybe start as someone like Brandenburg, Holland or Sweden, who starts under foreign rule and thus decides that noone should suffer that again? Thoughts about that idea? Show nested quote +On November 26 2011 21:07 Monsen wrote:Also I noticed ppl slacking quite a bit on the aar'ing towards the later stages of the game. Don't do that- playing excellent 20 years = fun for you. Doing an excellent battle report over 20 years = fun for everyone involved/reading. And this should be emphasized, this is not only about playing the game, but about giving it to everybody on this forum, too.
seems very restrictive and im not sure i would enjoy playing like that, i think more emphasis on roleplaying rather than powergaming to gain as much advantage as possible would suffice. other than that playing a non ottoman-empire islamic country or perhaps even indian/indochina country would ensure there would be powers to challenge us for longer time periods of the game.
edit: cleared up some confused wording
|
On November 26 2011 23:55 nttea wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2011 22:12 Simberto wrote:Yes, i have been thinking about that, too. Basically, we become bigger, and stuff gets easier. That is just how the game work. I don't think either ramping up the difficulty or taking a smaller country fundamentally changes that, it just delays it by a bit. What we need is some rule to keep us small, while still being fun. I propose for the next game, we play kind of a Superhero country. Our goal is not to blob up, but to free everyone on the planet. Thus, we don't try to get more and more territory, we try to get people to release other nations, and, if possible, release vassals and then cancel the vassalage on as many as possible. Allies are allowed, Vassals are not, because that would defy the spirit of Liberty. Maybe start as someone like Brandenburg, Holland or Sweden, who starts under foreign rule and thus decides that noone should suffer that again? Thoughts about that idea? On November 26 2011 21:07 Monsen wrote:Also I noticed ppl slacking quite a bit on the aar'ing towards the later stages of the game. Don't do that- playing excellent 20 years = fun for you. Doing an excellent battle report over 20 years = fun for everyone involved/reading. And this should be emphasized, this is not only about playing the game, but about giving it to everybody on this forum, too. seems very restrictive and im not sure i would enjoy playing like that, i think more emphasis on roleplaying rather than powergaming to gain as much advantage as possible would suffice. other than that playing a non ottoman-empire islamic country or perhaps even indian/indochina country would ensure there would be powers to challenge us for longer time periods of the game. edit: cleared up some confused wording
I agree with this post. I think having too much of a restrictive goal removes from the experience. Playing some minor indian nation while expanding and trying to catch up in technology to the west would be fun. Or maybe we could play as a state in Japan or in the SEA area? I think it would be a fun senario and somewhat of a challange to fight the colonial powes later on.
|
You can impose whatever rules you want and the game just gets silly. For example, recently I played a game as Tuscany with these rules:
* No demanding territory in a peace deal.
* No demanding vassalization in a peace deal.
* Must be a republic.
* No Royal Marriages.
* No more than 7 merchants in foreign CoTs, and no merchants in foreign CoTs if you own any domestic CoTs.
* No more colonies (Azores, Madeira etc count as colonies) than European provinces.
* No using spies on nations which you are at war with.
* No level 5 or 6 buildings unless you already have level 4 buildings of each type on every province.
And probably some more that I'm forgetting. Even with these rules and having started as Tuscany I was the strongest country in the world by around 1600.
The fact of the matter is that adding restrictive rules doesn't make the game hard, it just makes it less fun. If you want a challenge you should be playing multiplayer.
|
On November 26 2011 20:51 beef42 wrote:
I disagree entirely with this difficulty talk. After familiarising yourself with the basics, (you don't even need to be 'good') the game ceases to be about any challenge, and more about doing stuff you want to do and seeing how the world reacts.
I mean sure, you guys can take Ryuku at Very Hard to get a game where you have to scum every gamey trick in the book for hundreds of years to succeed, but is this fun? For me, the game is more about the interesting counterfactual history than it's about a challenge.
Especially for a succession game for the forums. Imagine a Ryuku term? "So in my 20 years I just kinda minted and tried not to get declared war on."
While that is true, it should not be -this- easy IMO. It's not about dick waving, more of just making it a little more challenging for people.
|
Where is the last battle report? Also the not expending thing would be better if we could have vassals on our own, at least some...
But yeah, what about a non-European country for the next game, so we change background a bit.
|
the problem with mass vassel is that it actually makes the game easier :D as you can just sit back and lol while your vassels bitch slap people for you. you never get any W.E. and you save money by not needing an army. you get massive tech leads as you are a tiny country but with massive vassel tax income.
|
On November 27 2011 00:36 Fruscainte wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2011 20:51 beef42 wrote:
I disagree entirely with this difficulty talk. After familiarising yourself with the basics, (you don't even need to be 'good') the game ceases to be about any challenge, and more about doing stuff you want to do and seeing how the world reacts.
I mean sure, you guys can take Ryuku at Very Hard to get a game where you have to scum every gamey trick in the book for hundreds of years to succeed, but is this fun? For me, the game is more about the interesting counterfactual history than it's about a challenge.
Especially for a succession game for the forums. Imagine a Ryuku term? "So in my 20 years I just kinda minted and tried not to get declared war on." While that is true, it should not be -this- easy IMO. It's not about dick waving, more of just making it a little more challenging for people.
i think the consensus is that if we want the game to be harder we should just be more risky and ask people to never reload a save. do funny things like invade india as soon as possible etc.
|
haha, I like the idea of never reloading! Now that we know that pretty much everyone is good at the game, we can really do crazy shit 
|
we could also do a world conquest next time, rather than just "win"
|
On November 27 2011 05:45 turdburgler wrote:
we could also do a world conquest next time, rather than just "win"
World conquest with Japan pls
|
We could be Ottoman, Mamluks or Morroco and have the goal to make all of Europe Muslim. We could add "rules" like no none Muslim vassals or no claim throne/force personal unions if we wanted to make the game slightly harder :p
|
Wörgh. The last 2-300 years or so of a world conquest are only tedious, and so unlike what this game is really like. Basically you just run around, PU everyone you can, and then you manage your infamy. Then, if you did not manage your infamy enough, the last 20 or so years are spent hunting rebels while annexing whatever is left of the world.
|
true, I did a world conquest as France once, was boring after 100 years :p
|
I say start in the New World with the goal of conquering Europe.
|
On November 27 2011 08:40 deafhobbit wrote:
I say start in the New World with the goal of conquering Europe.
That would be terribly boring for almost everyone, and no more difficult.
|
On November 27 2011 08:40 deafhobbit wrote:
I say start in the New World with the goal of conquering Europe.
I'm all for a challenge, but that's just tedious. Do shit for a bit, wait 100+ years, and hope you don't get insta-killed by the first Euro nation to come by you and hope to god you survive Westernization.
|
On November 27 2011 08:42 Fruscainte wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2011 08:40 deafhobbit wrote:
I say start in the New World with the goal of conquering Europe. I'm all for a challenge, but that's just tedious. Do shit for a bit, wait 100+ years, and hope you don't get insta-killed by the first Euro nation to come by you and hope to god you survive Westernization.
idd. we shouldnt do anything that requires nothing to happen for the first or last any amount of time. thats why i think world conquest will be good. managing infamy is a good thing to learn to do and it means we need to use all the mechanics to expand properly all through the game, even when we are dominating wars theres still excitement due to the race against time.
does anyone know if its possible to WC without going over infamy limit? if we use a lot of PU's and holy war it must be possible?
|
i have another idea, why don't we play different countries for a 20 year span, i.e. go from say France to Ottomans to Japanese daimyo to HRE OPM to Russia to Portugal, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
