Probing "kingdoms"

[Jimmer]

There are currently two kingdoms in the game: Poland and the Confederation of the Rhine.

There are three multi-district minors as well.

My question (to Marshall) is, how ingrained into the game does creating a kingdom have to be? I assume it's hard to create a new kingdom (say, the Kingdom of Bavaria, for instance).

If it's not, but you just haven't had time, you might want to consider something while you are writing the code:

With a small amount of tweaking (I hope), you could treat the multi-district minors as "kingdoms". Thus, they could include the secondary district, as they did in the board version.

Another, related, issue is Naples/Sicily. In the original board game, Naples controlled the corps counters and Sicily controlled the fleet counter. Clearly, their intent was to have Napoleon not be able to control the fleet via overland-only attacks. Thus, they only navy Napoleon could add via overland only movement, is Portugal, and that requires going through Spain (one way or another).

I'm wondering if you could instead treat Naples and Sicily as two separate minors, one with the corps and one with the fleets. Then, when someone declares war on Naples (for the first time, that is), you would just have to add a second declaration of war as an automatic action. They wouldn't be a true multi-district minor any more, but two separate minors.

Then, all you have to do is allow Naples to set up its forces in either nation, and vice-versa for Sicily.

Do-able?

[bresh]

I think there are 3 "kingdoms"
Ottoman Empire.
Poland
CotR

But i agree we miss some Kingdoms.
Also the playability for the kingdoms its quite flawed and has to be looked into how to fix,
You cant lend your ally, Kingdom corps.
Also the ability to add provinces, this by conquest or RE-conquesting those minors is another important factor that is missing.

Regards
Bresh

[Jimmer]

Good points. Thanks.

[bresh]

Ponder, i been thinking about how to "fix" lend Kingdom corps.
Cant there be created a couple extra minor countries in the DB ?
And then treat Kingdom corps another minor country, like OE, could be OE-1 and OET.
Same for Poland and CotR.

Then at creation, do checks what Minor-country to use, provinces involved and other important info, corps avaible etc, and then just lend as normal ?

Regards
Bresh

[pzgndr]

Kingdom corps should have a single database entry regardless of exact kingdom configuration so it shouldn't be too difficult to fix and allowing lending?  The kingdoms should already be treated like minor countries; probably just an oversight regarding their corps counters.  Resolving the adding provinces issue would be nice.

[MarshallEllis]

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

There are currently two kingdoms in the game: Poland and the Confederation of the Rhine.

There are three multi-district minors as well.

My question (to Marshall) is, how ingrained into the game does creating a kingdom have to be? I assume it's hard to create a new kingdom (say, the Kingdom of Bavaria, for instance).

If it's not, but you just haven't had time, you might want to consider something while you are writing the code:

With a small amount of tweaking (I hope), you could treat the multi-district minors as "kingdoms". Thus, they could include the secondary district, as they did in the board version.

Another, related, issue is Naples/Sicily. In the original board game, Naples controlled the corps counters and Sicily controlled the fleet counter. Clearly, their intent was to have Napoleon not be able to control the fleet via overland-only attacks. Thus, they only navy Napoleon could add via overland only movement, is Portugal, and that requires going through Spain (one way or another).

I'm wondering if you could instead treat Naples and Sicily as two separate minors, one with the corps and one with the fleets. Then, when someone declares war on Naples (for the first time, that is), you would just have to add a second declaration of war as an automatic action. They wouldn't be a true multi-district minor any more, but two separate minors.

Then, all you have to do is allow Naples to set up its forces in either nation, and vice-versa for Sicily.

Do-able?

Don't forget the Ottoman Empire!
The problem with more kingdoms is really only a problem with kingdoms that could have overlapping provinces. Outside of that it is simply a time thing.

[Jimmer]

Ahhhhh. That explains why some of the smaller ones weren't included.
 
OK, then, could the change for multi-district minors be implemented (later, of course)? I.e. make them "kingdoms"? None of the multi-district minors overlap with any other kingdom.
 
NOTE: If so, the person forming said "kingdom" should not receive any PP for forming it.

[MarshallEllis]

I guess, but tell me what would making Sweden a kingdom actually do?
 

[Jimmer]

I think so. We should discuss it to delve into the details. But, if Sweden were done approximately as Confederation of the Rhine was done, it should work. Same with Denmark, and, to a degree, Naples/Sicily.
 
Sicily is a little different, though, in that Sicily should get the fleet and Naples the troops, if they are owned by separate nations. My guess is that you can't do this directly due to the way the database entries are formed. So, a compromise would be to make them separate free states that can be formed into a kingdom. Naples would get no fleet counters, and Sicily no corps counters. Sicily would still be able to make troops (unlike the board game version), but that would be a small compromise compared to giving France or Spain both of them now (barring a war intervening). In fact, I'm betting Sicily, if turned into a free state, can already make infantry. She just can't do it with Naples unless not conquered after that first DOW.
 
What problems do you foresee using the "kingdom" mentality for these multi-district states? Is it even reasonable to probe this?

[Jimmer]

Now, "what would it do" is a different question: It would allow Sweden to build an extra factor per turn, and still add (if memory serves) $4 to Sweden's coffers each turn. A nation building Swedish cavalry today can only build one infantry at the same time, unless they pour some money into her. With Finland, one can build 3 or even 4 infantry AND that cavalry factor. Or, possibly more importantly, ships.

[gwheelock]

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

Now, "what would it do" is a different question: It would allow Sweden to build an extra factor per turn, and still add (if memory serves) $4 to Sweden's coffers each turn. A nation building Swedish cavalry today can only build one infantry at the same time, unless they pour some money into her. With Finland, one can build 3 or even 4 infantry AND that cavalry factor. Or, possibly more importantly, ships.

Another possibility is allowing a Swed/Fin/Dane/Norway combo as an 8th player
(there are some varients of the game that allow this)
I think they get Bernadotte as their leader counter.

(Its somewhat historically valid. There was an entity back in the 1600's called the
"Union of Kalmer" that contained all of these.)

[bresh]

ORIGINAL: gwheelock

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

Now, "what would it do" is a different question: It would allow Sweden to build an extra factor per turn, and still add (if memory serves) $4 to Sweden's coffers each turn. A nation building Swedish cavalry today can only build one infantry at the same time, unless they pour some money into her. With Finland, one can build 3 or even 4 infantry AND that cavalry factor. Or, possibly more importantly, ships.

Another possibility is allowing a Swed/Fin/Dane/Norway combo as an 8th player
(there are some varients of the game that allow this)
I think they get Bernadotte as their leader counter.

(Its somewhat historically valid. There was an entity back in the 1600's called the
"Union of Kalmer" that contained all of these.)

¨

Kalmer union was founded 1397.
Sweden withdrew from the Kalmer Union in 1521. So long before Napoleon.
Think it was supposed to be Sweden-Finland & Denmark-Norway-Iceland.

The remains of the Kalmer Union lasted till 1814, (Denmark-Norway).

The Flag was a red cross on yellow background. (Like most nordic flags).

Regards
Bresh

[gwheelock]

ORIGINAL: bresh

ORIGINAL: gwheelock

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

Now, "what would it do" is a different question: It would allow Sweden to build an extra factor per turn, and still add (if memory serves) $4 to Sweden's coffers each turn. A nation building Swedish cavalry today can only build one infantry at the same time, unless they pour some money into her. With Finland, one can build 3 or even 4 infantry AND that cavalry factor. Or, possibly more importantly, ships.

Another possibility is allowing a Swed/Fin/Dane/Norway combo as an 8th player
(there are some varients of the game that allow this)
I think they get Bernadotte as their leader counter.

(Its somewhat historically valid. There was an entity back in the 1600's called the
"Union of Kalmer" that contained all of these.)

¨

Kalmer union was founded 1397.
Sweden withdrew from the Kalmer Union in 1521. So long before Napoleon.
Think it was supposed to be Sweden-Finland & Denmark-Norway-Iceland.

The remains of the Kalmer Union lasted till 1814, (Denmark-Norway).

The Flag was a red cross on yellow background. (Like most nordic flags).

Regards
Bresh

You're right - mostly 1400s not 1600s.
I think that the idea was a "what-if" scenario/alternate possibility to allow an 8th player.
(IE "What if KalmAr (not KalmEr - another of my mistakes) was reformed?")

[bresh]

ORIGINAL: gwheelock

ORIGINAL: bresh

ORIGINAL: gwheelock





Another possibility is allowing a Swed/Fin/Dane/Norway combo as an 8th player
(there are some varients of the game that allow this)
I think they get Bernadotte as their leader counter.

(Its somewhat historically valid. There was an entity back in the 1600's called the
"Union of Kalmer" that contained all of these.)

¨

Kalmer union was founded 1397.
Sweden withdrew from the Kalmer Union in 1521. So long before Napoleon.
Think it was supposed to be Sweden-Finland & Denmark-Norway-Iceland.

The remains of the Kalmer Union lasted till 1814, (Denmark-Norway).

The Flag was a red cross on yellow background. (Like most nordic flags).

Regards
Bresh

You're right - mostly 1400s not 1600s.
I think that the idea was a "what-if" scenario/alternate possibility to allow an 8th player.
(IE "What if KalmAr (not KalmEr - another of my mistakes) was reformed?")

Doubt it, Denmark was the leader of the Kalmar union, and Sweden after a rebellion around 1520's pulled out. In this rebellion there was among other things what was called the Stockholm Bloodbath, so dont think Sweden would like to be ruled by Denmark after.

Regards
Bresh

[MarshallEllis]

You guys have some DEEP knowledge of Euro history! Wow!
What's the deal? major/minor in college? Just like it?
 

[Jimmer]

Free access to Wikipedia, Marshall.
 
Actually, I do read about these things, as do others (obviously). In fact, I found that playing your nation historically can really help your game. So, I make it my practice to read a book about the nation I am playing while I am playing it.
 
Check out "The Ottoman Centuries" some time. Turkey really should be played as a no-holds-barred take-no-prisoners army, appearing to be on the verge of insanity. Seriously: These are the guys for whom the word "fratricide" (the Latin word, that is) was invented.
 
Or, one about Alexander-the-not-so-great's Russia (Peter was great, Catherine was great; Alexander was, well, not).
 
Prussia was a world power not too long before the game period.
 
Austria inherited the Holy Roman Empire 1000 years earlier, and it had slowly declined ever since. Napoleon just made it official.
 
The period is FULL of rich history. I would read about them even if it didn't help my game. But, I get the side benefit of a better game.
 
Man, I love playing GB historically. A collection of rich, meddling nobility "making the word British". It works REALLY well in this game.

[MarshallEllis]

Jimmer:
 
I'm impressed!
You've been promoted to head of the EiANW historical fact checking / precedents department!
Congratulations!
 
 

[Jimmer]

Is the pay good?
 

[MarshallEllis]

Not at all LOL!