Ceding Provinces: Returning Sanity to the Peace

[jchastain]

This was discussed some in the Wish List thread, but it would have such a significant impact on the game that I think it deserves its own thread.

The discussion was regarding the victory point cost of ceding provinces within peace treaties. After a little reflection, here's my recommendation:

(assuming the current 5000 VP minimum victory)

Base Cost = 1000

If a home province of the current owner: +2000

If originally a home province of the winner: -1000

If not adjacent to any currently owned province: The shortest distance to an owned provice is traced (using the movement engine) and cost is computed as follows: For each water province traversed +500, for each land province traversed that is a protectorate +1000, for each land province traversed that is not a protectorate +2000

Culture: +500 for each culture improvement

Courts: +200 for each courts improvement



This formula is an attempt to solve many issues. It makes it so that nations can only expand in their current zone of influence. No longer will Burgundy become a Russian province (which is totally absurd). Crossing water is recognized as less of a impediment as crossing land so that England can take French coastal provinces as would be expected.

Home provinces are harder to take than conquered lands. Taking back historical home provinces is easier.

Finally, the improvements that are used least are given some additional value and highly developed provinces are nearly improssible to take so that each nation has a core that can only be stripped away by the most overwhealming victories (and therefore VP totals).

The numbers produced by this formula are substantially higher than the current numbers, meaning that war victories will result is less land swaps and more of the softer diplomatic treaties. It would be rare for more than one province to trade hands, but you would likely see greater use of the other terms. For example, liberating a key province and then subsequently attacking it might be preferable to taking it outright - of course that opens the diplomatic avenues of someone else potentially stepping in as its protector.

As discussed in the other thread, I'd just append the cost figure to the name of the province in the selection screen so a player could easily click through the opposing provinces to easily see the victory cost of each.

Finally, I'd consider altering that 5,000 victory point figure based on the difficulty level of the game. For an easier game, the human player should get a few more so that he could get multiple provinces more easily. And someone choosing to play at an impossible level should get even fewer to make it that much more difficult to expand.

[munited18]

J,
As much as I enjoy gobbling up provinces, I think that you have brought a very good, and realistic point. I think that the current system is WAY to easy in regard to annexing provinces. So, for what it's worth you got my vote!

[Titanwarrior89]

My vote is still pending. Not sure that is what the game needs if anything.[:D]

[Jordan]

I most definitely, exceedingly, forcefully vote for this. Can I vote twice?

[Reiryc]

ORIGINAL: Jordan

I most definitely, exceedingly, forcefully vote for this. Can I vote twice?

If you're a democrat from chicago... sure!

[Hard Sarge]

Sorry, got to disagree

if that is the case, then nobody will bother taking a surrender, they will just TAKE each city

if a surrender is forced on you, you will just force the other side to ruin it self for the next round of wars

plus if you really want a city, you will send in troops, and have them plunder the countryside,there by lowering the cost of taking it over

(now, the best City to Plunder is the bad guys Cap, since you will not be able to take it during surrender)

HARD_Sarge

[jchastain]

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

Sorry, got to disagree

if that is the case, then nobody will bother taking a surrender, they will just TAKE each city

if a surrender is forced on you, you will just force the other side to ruin it self for the next round of wars

plus if you really want a city, you will send in troops, and have them plunder the countryside,there by lowering the cost of taking it over

(now, the best City to Plunder is the bad guys Cap, since you will not be able to take it during surrender)

HARD_Sarge

You touch on some good points but I would handle plunder a bit differently. Should the fact that you'll be taking everything you want be the prime factor that prevents plunder anyway? I would think not. Plundering provinces should have a diplomatic penalty and perhaps a happiness penalty. No one respects a thief. But ignoring those penalties to plunder the provinces of someone who is likely to be an enemy again in the future seems like a valid strategy and something the game designer might want to see happening. Plundering a province to make it less appealing and therefore an easier prize at the end of the war also sounds like an interesting strategic possibility. Perhaps we need to play with the plunder costs and benefits a bit if you believe they are not well balanced under this suurender proposal, but I don't believe making plunder more strategic would be a downside of my original proposal.

Surrenders are forced. Limited surrenders are still useful if you are fighting on many fronts. But it sounds like your basic objection is to raising the overall costs and making it so that you don't get as much from winning a war. Do you believe the current system is ideal and that you should take 2 provinces from anywhere you want with each victory? If so, then I strongly disagree. The current system leads to sheer lunacy with a given province half way across the map being plucked out of the middle of a nation.

I don't mind disagreement and discussion, but I'm just not sure what current behavior you are trying to defend or why you think it is good for the game.

[kerguelen]

I agree with jchastain. In my games after a few years the map looks like late medieval early renaissance Europe, when princes were simply collecting provinces.

and

No longer will Burgundy become a Russian province (which is totally absurd).

there won't be any vodka from Bourgogne.

[kerguelen]

BTW has anybody tried to ask for more in a peace treaty than was covered by Victory points? I tried to times and both times got through with it (one time my claims were about 200 points above my victory points the second time like 900).

[Hard Sarge]

Hi jchastain

to my way of thinking, if you want to take land half way across world from you, shame on you, you are not going to be able to protect it, most times it will be low in Pop points, and away from your homeland, so will not be able to build many troops, in a years time, it is a free target for the next war that starts, or a current war already going on

you take land to expand, or get something you need

Prussia is a GOOD bad guy, they are weak and they got GREAT iron production (taking one City, I was able to go from 10 Iron a month to 30)

okay, will counter yoru question on why, why are we fighting, or playing the game, if not to take over "the world"

in the game, you have to expand, so you can stay alive later in the game, if not, the AI will walk all over you, even faster, once they start to gang up on you

HARD_Sarge

[jchastain]

ORIGINAL: kerguelen
BTW has anybody tried to ask for more in a peace treaty than was covered by Victory points? I tried to times and both times got through with it (one time my claims were about 200 points above my victory points the second time like 900).

I never submitted it once I saw it was too much. Sounds like you discovered a bug. Hopefully they'll see this and address it.

[Reiryc]

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

Hi jchastain

to my way of thinking, if you want to take land half way across world from you, shame on you, you are not going to be able to protect it, most times it will be low in Pop points, and away from your homeland, so will not be able to build many troops, in a years time, it is a free target for the next war that starts, or a current war already going on

you take land to expand, or get something you need

Prussia is a GOOD bad guy, they are weak and they got GREAT iron production (taking one City, I was able to go from 10 Iron a month to 30)

okay, will counter yoru question on why, why are we fighting, or playing the game, if not to take over "the world"

in the game, you have to expand, so you can stay alive later in the game, if not, the AI will walk all over you, even faster, once they start to gang up on you

HARD_Sarge

Depends on who you're playing.

The game is roughly based upon the balance of power politics of the day for the allies and of conquest by france. I try to win by accumulating glory. I can of course conquer everyone if I play long enough, but that doesn't mean I'm going to win the game. I've played turkey a couple times and found that can be difficult to keep up with france and/or britain in the glory points category. It requires that I do more than just trying to conquer the world.

It requires that I play the politics game right so as to be able to achieve victory as well as the military side of things.

[jchastain]

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge
Hi jchastain

to my way of thinking, if you want to take land half way across world from you, shame on you, you are not going to be able to protect it, most times it will be low in Pop points, and away from your homeland, so will not be able to build many troops, in a years time, it is a free target for the next war that starts, or a current war already going on

you take land to expand, or get something you need

Prussia is a GOOD bad guy, they are weak and they got GREAT iron production (taking one City, I was able to go from 10 Iron a month to 30)

okay, will counter yoru question on why, why are we fighting, or playing the game, if not to take over "the world"

in the game, you have to expand, so you can stay alive later in the game, if not, the AI will walk all over you, even faster, once they start to gang up on you

HARD_Sarge

Yes, this is a wargame but it is a Napoleonic Grand Strategy game and I suppose I just like to see it staying within the basic confines of what was reasonable and possible within that context. Unlike you, I don't see world conquest as the goal. There are games that have that as a goal, but I don't see a Napoleonic titles as having that as the basic premise for vistory (and CoG doesn't use that as the yardstick either). I do understand the DESIRE to conquer everything you see. And I enjoy doing that too. But I don't think that we need to abandon the basic premise in order to accomplish that objective. Empires should still grow through normal expansion of their borders - not by cherry picking provinces and assembling a nation that looks like a quilt. While it isn't modeled in this game, the economy of any such nation would be a shambles and I think the game should just prevent it from happening (or at least make it unusual and difficult as my proposal does).

If the ability to conquer the world is your concern, I would much rather there not be a time limit and players be allowed to go as long as they want in order to allow people to conquer more if that is their desire. In that way, we keep the Napolonic flavor but you can build up. It might take a bit more strategy as you might have to find ways to cripple other nations instead of just picking their best provinces. But the surrender terms give lots of options and I am sure you could find interesting ways to isolate opponents and then chip away at them.

Anyway, I don't think our goals are necessarily conflicting. But I continue to believe that my proposal above would make the game far more playable and much more in-line with the time period in which it is set.

[kerguelen]

I also think that the aim is, to work for your own interests and still keep the balance of powers. Even Napoleon didn't try to reach out of what France considered her "natural" borders. (The rhine and the southern Netherlands were already Richelieus goal, French involvement in italian affairs goes back to Francois I.). The confederation of the Rhine can aslo be seen as a kind of subsidizing and bribing the german petty princes in the way of Lous XIV. The annexion of the North Sea coast to Lübeck might be a desperate try to enforce the blockade (I don't know how to explain the 'illyrian provinces'). Furthermore, in 1815 the Allies left France with her prerevolutionary borders. So they pretty well knew, what is possible.

[Ralegh]

The counter balance for the 'conquere the world' play style is WASTE. If you collect provinces all the time, your waste will be amazing - and other countries will be out producing you. I suppose the idea is that management theory, communications etc were too inefficient for running a large empire at the time, which seems reasonable to me.

I would hope that waste would be much larger based on the sort of distance formula you propose, creating a game-logic reason to not want disconnected land.