Subsidize = Waste of time and money?

[Khornish]

In my current game as France in 1792 scenario, I subsized the heck out of, and started to do so from turn 1, Poland, Saxony, Batvian Rebublic, and Bavaria.

I also tossed in my diplomats into Poland with charm orders.

So far, after 5 years, only Bavaria asked me for protectorate status. All of the others, even though France's influence (pie chart) is about 99% over the 1% of all other states trying to also subsidize.

Poland has become a Swedish protectorate 3 times and an Austrian once, the crazy Dutch went to sweden first, then flipped to me after Tallyrand spoke to them.

Saxony also went to Sweden.

Except, when looking at the influence graph, it's practically solid blue!

What gives? Is the protectorate request random? It almost appears to be after watching the goings on in this one game.

At least Tallyrand can cause an insurrection about every third or fourth month in a row of attempts.

[Hard Sarge]

I seem to be the only tester who thinks this is not working the way it is suppost to, too many times it goes to the wrong Nation

Eric and others say there is a lot going on in the background, which effects what is going on, did some one try to Coop it, did some one DOW on them

my current game, I got Poland early !, but then lost all the rest of them, then either though battle or freeing them, I lost any chance to take them peacefully, so just took them

I agree with you on this one [;)]

[Khornish]

I am really considering not wasting any effort on charming or subsidizing any countries anymore. I apparently wasted a few thousand money on some Saxons and Poles who then went over to someone with a friendly rating of 4 (!!) vs my rating of 1309.

I went and checked the events from the turns in question. Sweden paid a subsidy of 105 (why can't I do 105?, do I have to subsidize twice in a turn to do more than the max 100?) the turn before and that brought their rating with Poland to 4.

The very next turn there wasn't a diplomatic action by Sweden with Poland (no charm, or goodwill or subsidy) and yet Poland became their protectorate. There wasn't a DOW by anyone on Poland either.

After checking the manual, it mentions something about map dominance with regards to a minor asking for protectorate status. Well, as France, I had more provinces and protectorates than Sweden did, individually and combined.


I don't think this is working according to a rational process at all.

[Hard Sarge]

Well
yes, you can, click on the money more then once, so you can send as much as you want, if you want to keep sending more

Eric has changed how this works, money should not do more/be better then a diplo

also, pouring lots of money in, is not as good as a little at a time

which over all, if the total is not close to zero when you start, you may as well give up, some one who is -1400 to you, is not going to like you, no matter how much money you throw at them

remember though, you are only going to get so much money a turn, so if you are gaining 500/1000 bucks a month, and already have over 2000 bucks, you may as well spend it

when things are going good for me, I try to see how much I am gaining a month, and then just spend that

keep your waste under control and grap as many protectorates as you can, and you will be doing well

as far as I see it, some of the Minors are importent, but to me, Poland is the key, France can win with out them, but the others can be major powers if Poland joins them

[Khornish]

Yeah, Poland is key. Which is why I get frustrated over this not working properly.

I can't get a protectorate without attacking it and changing it or without them asking me for it.

It's the latter that isn't working according to any rationale.

[TexHorns]

There have been other threads that have addressed this issue many times over. The concensus has always been that subsidizing is a waste of money. There are so many factors involved that you really can't predict how a protectorate is going to be decided.

I am playing two games now France 1792 start. In both games I get protectorates. Mostly the Rhine countries and Italian minor states. Sometimes I conquer and liberate in hopes they become protecorates. Sometimes they do sometimes not. I do charm, mostly Switzerland. I also cause insurrections and coups to improve chances of gaining protectorates. It seems that when I'm 1st or 2nd in Glory I get more protectorates.

Put me in the camp that likes the unpredicatability. Come on guys is it really fun to compute down to the last gold coin whether you are going to be successful or not gaining a protectorate. Give up some of the need to control everything around you. You are missing a great game.

[Kevan]

I just wrapped up a 23-year game as Sweden. I had two 60/60/60 diplomats who were tasked full time with arranging coups and insurrections. With every country I checked, my influence was at least -5000, but having 2000+ more glory than my rivals, I was still being approached by protectorates.

My personal favourite was being approached by the Kingdom of Naples, which had been a Spanish protectorate, a turn after Spain proposed a 3-nation treaty to declare war on me. At least 20 Naples divisions immediately showed up for my use. Spain was something like +500 and I think I was -5400, Spain was the second place nation in glory, and I paid no subsidies that turn.

[Khornish]

ORIGINAL: TexHorns

There have been other threads that have addressed this issue many times over. The concensus has always been that subsidizing is a waste of money.

Then, can we not then agree that this feature is not quite working with regards to its intended design function? And if it is not quite working properly, perhaps we can ask that it be changed or removed? I mean, if everyone agrees that subsidizing a country is a waste of time and money why then even have it in the game in the first place?

There are so many factors involved that you really can't predict how a protectorate is going to be decided.

Which is another way of saying it is too complicated to explain or even bother about.

I'd like at least a ratio of how these factors are weighted with regards to protectorate status being asked for.

It's not like the real dipomats of this time would not have a clue about how well or poorly their efforts are being received. True, there were a lot of surprises, but I think it could be fairly safe to state that a minor country's political decision wasn't simply a random choice.

Put me in the camp that likes the unpredicatability. Come on guys is it really fun to compute down to the last gold coin whether you are going to be successful or not gaining a protectorate. Give up some of the need to control everything around you. You are missing a great game.

I don't at all mind a certain level of unpredicatability. However, there's a great deal of difference between random, seemingly random, fairly reasonable, and reasonable.

It would be reasonable for Saxony to choose Sweden as their protector over France if Sweden was in the lead, shall we say, amongst more of the factors that are stated to influence this decision.

In the game mentioned in my earlier post, Sweden was at a 4 on the attitude scale and France was at 1309.

France had more provinces and protectorates than Sweden.

France was third in total glory and Sweden was fifth.

I could completely accept a situation where the #1 or #2 nations in glory ranking became the protector instead of France, but taking the #5th ranked nation, especially when France was ahead in both other significant factors?

Poland may have liked France more than anyone else, and had more land, but another nation was thought to be "more appealing" (meaning they had greater glory).

It would almost be better to just state in the rules, "Countries may ask for Protectorate status on a random basis."

At least then we can match the outcome with our reasonable expectations.

[Grand_Armee]

Some things I have noticed:

If another nation tries to coup a minor that likes you a lot, that minor will come to you. This works in reverse if your guys fail to cause a coup.

If minors see you attacking other minors, a couple will ask for your protection vice risking you swallowing them up.

My motto: Coddle the ones you really want while smashing the ones nearby. Don't sit peacefully for too long...or those minors will go to some nobody nation like Spain or Sweden.

[Hard Sarge]

okay, one hassle is, the system is working the way the designer wanted it to work, there are also other things that kick in, you may have the higher total, but are at war with the wrong side

there are more factors then meet the eye

and we can't just kick out things that people don't like or understand or believe in

but I will bring it up again and see if Eric will double check it, to make sure it is working as he expects

(I believe ever verison of the game/beta, I have said it still does not work the way I understand the rules to work)

but, as we found out later on, DOW on somebody is not as simple or easy as it seems like it should be, that is also being taken into account with Protectorates

[garoco]

I bid that that works fine my friend, but I prefer that you learn a solo

[Khornish]

ORIGINAL: Grand_Armee

If another nation tries to coup a minor that likes you a lot, that minor will come to you. This works in reverse if your guys fail to cause a coup.

If minors see you attacking other minors, a couple will ask for your protection vice risking you swallowing them up.

Interestingly enough, I didn't attack any minors before or after this happened, I was too busy fighting off major powers.

Also, I was spending my turns charming, and not attempting a coup.

I figured there were probably some repercussions to diplomatic actions that failed, so I posted here as the behavior was still strange and seemingly unwarranted.

[TexHorns]

In my game France 1792 start I played most of the day yesterday. 1806 and all of Europe was at war. Every country at war with at least two countries. Because of this Spain was able to walk all over France because my threats were toothless. I could not DOW because we were both at war with England. Sometimes he repsonded to my toothless ultimatum some times not. Anyway it led to some very interesting colored provinces that exchanged hands between numerous countries numerous times. I kept insurrecting Poland and it exchanged allegiance numerous times also. DOW is somewhat restricting due to being unable to DOW on someone who is at war with a common enemy. Also two intersting DOW's on France, one by Sweden and one by Austria. Both must have been part of surrender terms, because both just finished wars, had depleted armies, had large armies of mine on their border that just waltzed in and pounded them.

[ericbabe]

Once the "all of Europe is alarmed" has been triggered there is a chance that minor countries will ally themselves with the losing nations regardless of their diplomatic attitude toward the winner. Even in this case, attitude makes it less likely they will join the coalition against the winner, but does not make it an absolute impossibility.

Diplomatic attitude should be thought of as a factor in consideration of what a minor country might do, not an absolute determinant of what it will do. In some situations, such as DOW on a minor country, attitude does determine what it will do (other factors being equal), but in other situations attitude is only a consideration.

[Hard Sarge]

See
that is what I said

I think

or something like that

or

LOL

[Khornish]

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

See
that is what I said

I think

or something like that

or

LOL

So he essentially confirmed my premise that it is a waste of time and money to bother subsidizing. If it costs so much to make a small adjustment in attitude and attitude is only a [small] factor in what might happen, then it's silly to have "subsidize" as an option.

Why, then, is there even a graph for attitude when it really is a small factor in what a country which direction they decide to go for a protector.

We could easily do away with it and just let the diplomats make what amounts of attitude adjustments they can in the hope that an enemy declares war on the country we want as a protectorate and who likes us.

I guess my following statement can then be taken as true?

The process of choosing the protector is basically random with slight weight towards attitude in case of DOW against the country and some weight against whomever is at the top of the heap in glory when the alarm trigger has been struck.

[Russian Guard]

Based on my admittedly limited experience, I shall continue to subsidize, at least as England.

Since I usually play Russia, I had little previous experience with subsidizing anyone - Russia scarcely has the money to fund her Armies.

Playing England recently, I subsidized both Batavia (after using diplomats to turn her neutral) and Portugal. I made sure I was higher than anyone else in influence.

Spain DoW'd Portugal and I was asked to be her Protector. Later, Batavia asked me to be her Protector (not sure why, didn't see any DoW's on her).

In both cases, I was in 3rd place in the Glory race.

I also spent some money subsidizing Denmark, but wasn't able to stay ahead of Sweden, who ended up with Denmark as her Protectorate (somehow, later, Denmark ended up a Protectorate of Turkey - aagghk - I was all set to end that blight of historical nonsense when Spain DoW'd me and forced me to attend to other issues...but I digress).

Granted, I can't state for a fact that England wouldn't have been asked to Protect these minors had I not spent a dime on subsidizing, but...coincidence?

[Grand_Armee]

I don't think diplomatic efforts toward minors are a waste of time...but it's all a gamble. If a minor is DOW'd by a major, it will call the country it likes the most first. For instance, early in the 1792 scenario Russia will almost always DOW somebody. Usually it's Poland or Denmark...sometimes Prussia, or even Tunisia. So, some diplomatic effort should be given to the nation you want the most.

However, sitting on your hands for a long time will give other nations the chance to take the minor as a protectorate. I like to see England get protectorates, because it can never defend them. I hate to see Spain or Sweden get them because those two nations couldn't defend a 7/11...it just irks me!

[Hard Sarge]

o he essentially confirmed my premise that it is a waste of time and money to bother subsidizing. If it costs so much to make a small adjustment in attitude and attitude is only a [small] factor in what might happen, then it's silly to have "subsidize" as an option.

if you don't want to play that way, don't, no hassle, don't try and force your views on what is right or wrong way to play the game on others

you don't have to pay anyone in the game, you don't have to send your diplo's any place, but other people may and do

you don't have to send out treaties, you don't have to make trades, you don't even have to go to war with anyone (unless they force it on you)

play how ever you like or want to, but don't say it is wrong when others play different

[Khornish]

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

play how ever you like or want to, but don't say it is wrong when others play different

I am not trying to tell others how to play the game, you presuppose my motivations.

I am trying to clearly understand the dynamic behind the diplomatic model of the game.

I am fairly certain that other players, would also appreciate a clear understanding of same so they can base their style of play on known factors.

Knowing that protector status is asked for on a basically random basis, with a slightly positive emphasis on attitude and negative emphasis on #1 glory standing, is good for eveyone.