Subsidize = Waste of time and money?

[garoco]

I always like have a lot of friends, so why? doesn´t subsidize my friends, I love when I open the relations screen and look for friendly and I see all my minors countries friends mine with a big for me, In the real life I don´t receive that love, so that I have decide continue subsidize my minors countries, they love me and I love them.

[Hard Sarge]

Khornish

I don't think so mate, you are a rule lawer, you pick and harp and then when some one comes back at you, you say it only for the better of the game

your just harping

the system works for other people, it is broke to you, and should be dropped because you don't like it or believe the way it works [&o]

[canuck64]

I'm going to wade in here where others fear to tread. Been playing hotseat with myself (boy that sounds bad, but you know what I mean)-this in order to learn better the economic model, and the effects of the political model.
well I can honestly say I'm not POSITIVE about subsidizing, and the due effects-better I think to have one good diplomat charming and spreading goodwill. But in tandem with the latter, subzidizing is huge.
Playing 1796 campaign, Britain on the fence with the continental war with Austria/Prussia and France...and I can tell you that while the principals are playing down their money building armies, Britain can force the war's conclusion by subsidy. No question about that. I've had Russia now gain a protectorate out of (Wurttemburg?)-because everyone concentrated on the Bavaria/Hesse/Hanover sweepstakes for protectorate. Russia had no diplomat nearby, merely threw money at them repeatedly.
SO it DOES work, but it's doubtless improved by diplomats, and possibly trade and a host of other tangible/intagibles...

[garoco]

Hi canuck 64
the things change much when you play against another human opponent, then start a carrer of speed to reach the favors of those minors countries and the diplomats don´t sound like enough to this challenge

[Khornish]

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

Khornish

I don't think so mate, you are a rule lawer, you pick and harp and then when some one comes back at you, you say it only for the better of the game

You are fully entitled to your erroneous opinion.

your just harping

I would characterize my comments as a valid argument, presented in a logical, straight-forward manner without implying a motivation to any others who believe one way or another.

the system works for other people, it is broke to you, and should be dropped because you don't like it or believe the way it works [&o]

The world should be grateful for those who are unwilling to accept the status quo just because conventional wisdom says they must.

You disagree with me, but that fact does not invalidate my argument.

If COH currently incorporated a way to easily make adjustments to these various factors on a scenario by scenario basis, this discussion wouldn't even happen.

However, this is not so. Hopefully, in the next game, Eric will make a number of new options open to change by the players. Perhaps, he may even make other changes to this version of COG.

[Khornish]

ORIGINAL: canuck64

SO it DOES work, but it's doubtless improved by diplomats, and possibly trade and a host of other tangible/intagibles...

I appreciate the reality of your experience. I do hope you like the game and would enjoy playing against you via tcp/ip sometime in the future.

However, I think in this case you may have been the beneficiary of random luck. [;)]

By all means, play the game however you feel you want to.

For myself, I'll spend less on subsidies and more on taking over provinces and then turning them into protectorates after the fact.

[canuck64]

Kornish, Garoco

I'm playing hotseat (by my lonesome) because the AI I find too weak. And yes, given my efforts to look out for (politically) what makes sense for each nation given the current state of affairs, the amount of money spent on subsidizing would-be protectorates is huge. Can't afford not to compete. But money/war influence where to put this effort-and by default that means Bavaria, Hesse, etc-the nations where you pick up additional troops for no cost. How that would change in a multiplayer is beyond me. In fact, I'm trying to replicate just that without committing to the MP experience....So I'm probably not seeing your points.
And Kornish, conquering Bavaria is pointless to either side, which is what those middling European countries have in their favor. You then make them a protectorate of the other side, and lose the free corps/divisions coming from the political process. So by-passing or ignoring that process seems like a losing strategy entirely. You tell me.

Remember Von Clausewitz-war is a POLITICAL end, not vice versa.
I've been wargaming a long, long time lads....there's a point to doing all of these things, whether immediately discernable or not. The issue at hand is does it work as it's supposed to?
That I can't answer yet....but it SEEMS like it.

Cheers-

[Russian Guard]

Canuck,

Are you playing all 8 nations hotseat?

If so, how long is it taking you to play a month turn? I thought about trying that but balked at what I perceived to be hours per month, given that it was likely that at least 1 nation would be fighting detailed battles each month...

[Khornish]

And Kornish, conquering Bavaria is pointless to either side, which is what those middling European countries have in their favor. You then make them a protectorate of the other side, and lose the free corps/divisions coming from the political process. So by-passing or ignoring that process seems like a losing strategy entirely. You tell me.

In my MP game with Garoco, after about 5 years of game time having elapsed, his efforts at subsidies have, so far, not paid off. He has been pouring money into a variety of countries and had little success.

I, on the other hand, have had great success at gaining protectorates that I didn't give any money to, nor were they attacked by another nation.

So far, I'd say things have paid off well for me with no investment at all, and have not done so for him with a very large investment.

I think the attitude pie chart is misleading in some respects. I would expect it shows a representation of how well you are liked by the country in relation to other nations.

However, I'd like it to take into account the glory ranking (which seems to be a negative modifier in all respects).

In this way, I could be very well liked by Poland, but they fear my power and this would be resolved and reflected in the pie chart.

I mean, if attitude really is a small part of the decision process, why the pie chart? We could just as easily had the colored attitude indicators in the relations screen.

[garoco]

In my MP game with Garoco, after about 5 years of game time having elapsed, his efforts at subsidies have, so far, not paid off. He has been pouring money into a variety of countries and had little success.

I made a mistake, declare France Empire very early.

[Khornish]

ORIGINAL: garoco

In my MP game with Garoco, after about 5 years of game time having elapsed, his efforts at subsidies have, so far, not paid off. He has been pouring money into a variety of countries and had little success.

I made a mistake, declare France Empire very early.

Excuses, excuses! We can always start a new game [X(]

[garoco]

No my friend I prefer continue our struggle, I go like a rocket with my upgrades

[canuck64]

ORIGINAL: Russian Guard


Canuck,

Are you playing all 8 nations hotseat?

If so, how long is it taking you to play a month turn? I thought about trying that but balked at what I perceived to be hours per month, given that it was likely that at least 1 nation would be fighting detailed battles each month...

Admittedly the turns are long. But it's fascinating to see what's ongoing from each perspective, and how that plays out viz-the others. Currently detailed battles (3 in last 6 months) between France and Prussia only-and they're less-than-bloody stalemates.
The opening rounds of the 1792 campaign involve a LOT of coveting of minors' troops. Spending money on them is cheaper than using the goods to build (particularly labor). Everyone is in a private infrastructure race, as I think it would be among humans. Austria has a commanding lead, with continental trade with Prussia, Italy, Venice and Poland to buttress her impressive land mass. Only nation actually getting upgrades at the moment.
Britain fence-sits and subsidizes while cautiously getting her fangs in Portugal, and trying with Batavia-meanwhile the improvement of Gibraltar goes on.
France has taken Flanders-kind of a given-and that hurts the Austrians bad, when you look at the money Flanders brings in a turn. Bavaria has gone protectorate to Austria, Hesse to France. Saxony and Batavia remain on the fence despite massive subsidies by all concerned.
That gives a Corps each to the better to both France and Austria. Prussia's still weak as hell, but improving. It's in her interest to keep the balance of neutrals neutral between her and France, so some subsidy/diplomatic effort there-she can't survive the big boy wars.
Spain has had naval issues with France reacting to Spanish privateers, but a peace quickly ensued as France can't have a 2 front war. Spanish army improving, Spain heavy in Italy, Piedmont (diplomatic). Turkey and Russia sit as passive entities, but PURELY ON A WHIM I had Russia subsidize (heavily) Baden, and Baden became it's protectorate.
Sweden has it's hands full fighting Denmark (sigh). Had one game long ago similar (hot seat all the way) where Sweden received Poland as a protectorate, otherwise, the Swedes hurt to play. So much promise, so little delivery.
Prussia has recently invaded Mecklenburg, ready to fall.
LOT of manoeuvring. Spent the first half-year working out relevant trades, and I got tired of doing that EVERY turn for EVERY nation.
Subsidy works. My concern is that despite EVERYONE doing massive infra improvement, only Prussia has received upgrades. Bug? Old bug? or just more 'intangible' stuff from the game....
The game's strength is it's relative unpredictability, but damnation that makes it hard to tell if everything is as it should be....
Sorry bout the length-this is more an AAR-but there you have it.

[canuck64]

By the way, Kornish, Garoco-I can readily admit that there'd be less focus on subsidy were this 1805 or later....but I've no idea what (time-wise) scenario you are playing.

But Eric B's prediction that there are intangibles to the Subsidy thing so far make sense. In my game, France was behind in subsidy (heavily) to Austria for Bavaria. Bavaria, with all the trades that prussia (plus diplomatic efforts) has inevitably with Bavaria-sided with Austria. France invades Flanders, takes Flanders. Bavarian/Austrian Corps counterattacks, but is forced to retreat, in a driving rain, with a hastily assembled command (saxe-whoever at the helm), routed off with a cavarly unit.
Next turn, despite appearing to be slightly behind Prussia in subsidy/diplomacy with Hesse, Hesse asks for France protection. Corps of Hessian troops for the taking-offsets Bavaria going for Prussia.

Of course, as France, I quickly resumed the offensive (or thought I could...)-but 2 turns of attacks that have soured quickly (spring rain and fog is terrible), and resulted in the French army voluntarily leaving the field.

Major battles at the outset of 1792 are difficult things to prosecute well. They make for enjoyable, realistic results. And they make needing the favor of protectorates WHO HAVE TROOPS TO CONTRIBUTE a necessity. I truly don't know how you guys have ignored that process altogether.
Maybe a TCPIP game is needed. I'd love to see how your 'blitzing' of the minors by conquering them wouldn't just add troops to your opponents' TO/E....but maybe I'm too cautious.....
Truly an awesome game, either way.

[Khornish]

canuck64,

I am glad, truly, that you're having a blast with COG. I've been playing it daily since it arrived, myself.

I really do feel you've see some fortunate luck more than you've seen subsidies pay off, sorry, but even your AAR here doesn't give me enough evidence to change my opinion.

I agree with intangibles, but I feel in this case, they cause a protectee to ask for a protector in fairly random manner.

Garoco and I are playing a 1792 scenario with a 23 year duration, FWIW. He has been sinking money, every turn, into subsidies and I stopped doing so about 8 turns into the game. I'm getting the protectorates, from those I never even looked at, where he is not.

And he only just recently gained number one in Glory status, so it's not as though he's been the cause of concern in Europe for the whole game.

[garoco]

I think that it works combine subsidie with trade and avoid declare be Empire. I had read this in somewhere of manual.

[canuck64]

Kornish/Garoco-as regards your game....

Obviously, Kornish-you're not playing one of the 'lesser lights' in the game. So I guess Diplomacy isn't a concern at all for you.
If you're the military conquest gimme the blood and guts-type, I have to assume you're playing either Austria or France. Any other nation you'd be forced into a concern for the minors I should think.

Truly, I find the game less rich for those two powers, (particularly France after awhile). While I love the military end, what makes the game unique to my mind is the delicate balance I seek among nations.
War is bad business, and does nothing to enrich a country (usually). 23 years is a long time to play too..but keep us posted on how things go....
I can see a (admittedly smokey) relationship between trade partners, status of majors, subsidy and diplomatic efforts....
this allows my armies to march as a fist, instead of spread out to cover all fronts....at least to an extent.
But that only governs Austria/France and to a lesser extent, Britain. The others (all of them literally) are just too weak NOT to concern themselves with gaining allies, and letting fate do the work.

[garoco]

In TCPIP the use of diplomats is reduce only GOODWILL while Ericbabe´s Team fix this little problem

[Khornish]

ORIGINAL: canuck64

Kornish/Garoco-as regards your game....

Obviously, Kornish-you're not playing one of the 'lesser lights' in the game. So I guess Diplomacy isn't a concern at all for you.
If you're the military conquest gimme the blood and guts-type, I have to assume you're playing either Austria or France. Any other nation you'd be forced into a concern for the minors I should think.

Actually, I'm playing as Britain. I've only DOW'd France, on general principle after he formed an alliance with Sweden and forced Prussia into an early surrender.

His navy is much reduced in strength and is bottled up in Antwerp, so I landed a force in southern France for a quick raid. A couple turns later, as his large army quickly came after me, I plundered 2 barracks and 2 roads then trotted off into Spain, where I had formed a free passage agreement the turn before.

This expeditionary force then arrived at Gibraltar where they took care of a pesky force of rebels (!). Now, this same force is about to invade Corsica in order to capture and detain Napoleon's family, I may even have my force burn Napoleon's home down and destroy their farm, just to get my point across.

I find the game less rich for those two powers, (particularly France after awhile). While I love the military end, what makes the game unique to my mind is the delicate balance I seek among nations.

Unfortunately, we dont's see a lot of the underlying political philosophy, and thus the national will, in COG. It would be terribly difficult to get it right, so I'm not really complaining.

war is a bad business

But sometimes a necessary measure, especially following a period of ignoring or avoiding a potential menace. But this as geopolitical issue of modern times that probably should be let alone here.

23 years is a long time to play too..but keep us posted on how things go....

We're over halfway through it at this point. I don't belive I can take France out of the top glory spot, the Austro/Prussian AI can't deal with a human player. But this was really more of a test game anyways, so it's not a big deal.

But that only governs Austria/France and to a lesser extent, Britain. The others (all of them literally) are just too weak NOT to concern themselves with gaining allies, and letting fate do the work.

As Britain I've gained protectorates by doing nothing. Really though, I don't think COG makes for a great 2 player game due to the fact that a human player has to rely on an AI that just can't cope as an ally. I do like 3 player games though, it definately makes a difference in play.

I think I'd like to see an option in a future COG game where in a 2 player game, an AI's allied army could be played by the human ally. Thus in my game against Garoco, I'd be able to move and fight my Austrian ally's army, but not control anything regarding production, development, or diplomacy.

This would be more of a challenge for both players equally, and the race to make an ally of a nation would definately be worth running.

Subsidies of a nation do help in this instance as you can befriend them enough to where they'll agree to an alliance easily.

[canuck64]

Kornish-we're very much agreed on the AI-which is why I went to the horribly geeky choice of playing myself hotseat for all factions.
Years ago, my best friend and I had a 2 player game of Diplomacy going, until college-then we got 5 others in on it-and things got really complex...we were drafting propositions in officialspeak of the time and so forth. Back stabbing occurred, but the stabbee would inevitably let it be known this had happened.
COG would make for a great 3 or more player game. France, Austria and Britain can be the three leads, the others you can (as you suggested) work on thru the in-game diplomacy.
3 differing motives here would augment the diplomatic model.

FInally, arguably-you're playing the one power I'd have to agree on that really doesn't need to work on diplomacy too much. It seems England is the go-to guy of the minors when they're concerned about motives of their (adjacent)land-locked brethren. Ironically, unless it's a coastal entity-having Britain as a protectorate is often like kissing your sister, unless the minor in question actually has an army per se.
Britain's the spoiler, no doubt. But are you on the continent IN FORCE? That's the hard part.