GoingAgain1792II

[montesaurus]

I noticed that there were diplomats in Russia, and I assumed that they were trying to cause insurrections! Sorry if mistaken![:)]

[montesaurus]

"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!

[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.

[MorningDew]

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

Clear enemies [;)]

[MorningDew]

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?

[montesaurus]

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!

[MorningDew]

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.

[Marshal Villars]

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).

[evwalt]

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.

[Marshal Villars]

Home country provinces can't be done. That is the one thing I think is safe here.

[evwalt]

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.

[Marshal Villars]

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.

[Marshal Villars]

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).

[evwalt]

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.

[evwalt]

NOT backwards compatable?!? [:@][:@][:@]

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

[gravey101]

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 [8D]

[evwalt]

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 [;)])

[MorningDew]

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.

[Marshal Villars]

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.

[montesaurus]

French and British turns are posted! Waiting for the rest![:D]

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!