Feudal Level

[06 Maestro]

What are the benefits to lowering the feudal level of a nation? It looks like there is the elimination of a small production penalty, and perhaps in tax revenue too. But is there anything else? I'm wondering about the affect it would have on military units-new or old.

I have conducted a few tests just to see the obvious affects. I know it is very expensive in moral during the long transition. As it is, it does not seem worth tinkering with-unless there are some other benefits I'm unaware of.

[Mus]

You get a smaller levy of specialized feudal units like NiC for the Turks and Cossacks for the Russians. This effects Russia more I think since Cossacks will be used aggressively and destroyed frequently. NiC are used more conservatively, like quasi-guard formations. Units already out aren't removed from play or anything, this just effects new production.

You get a smaller feudal dues amount (obviously) and it is very dependent on how many merchants and what level docks you have in your various ports whether or not the income difference is worth it. For Russia and Austria reform isn't really worth it (IMO), it might be for Turkey I would have to look at the numbers. Generally the better developed N European countries like Sweden, Britain, Prussia, and France benefit most from lowering feudal level. If you dont have numerous merchants and ports with good dock levels, IMO you are better off with the free replacements (500 per level?) and the Feudal dues.

[06 Maestro]

Thanks.

Yes, the free replacements amount to 2500 for Turkey with a level 5. So, 500 it is.

[Dab]

The fuedal level also effects how fast you can build improvements in provinces. It makes a huge difference if you are trying to build up your country in a long scenario.

I always lower it as soon as I get my national morale high enough to handle the fluctuations.

[06 Maestro]

ORIGINAL: Dab

The fuedal level also effects how fast you can build improvements in provinces. It makes a huge difference if you are trying to build up your country in a long scenario.

I always lower it as soon as I get my national morale high enough to handle the fluctuations.

Aha! Now that's what I was wondering about. Now, if I could only know the difference before loosing 1000 NM.

[Harvey Birdman]

The fuedal level also effects how fast you can build improvements in provinces. It makes a huge difference if you are trying to build up your country in a long scenario.

I always lower it as soon as I get my national morale high enough to handle the fluctuations.

You could be right but I've never noticed it. And I've never looked to see if it affects build times. But I'll check to see if your right.

Based on my observations I thought it was hard coded.

In the 1792 scenario to build any level 2 development takes britain france 8 turns. Spain prussia sweden and austria take 20 turns; and russia/turkey take 24 turns.

To build level 3 developments takes +2 turns and so and so on for the next highest development level.

The build times are halved if the new development level is less the roads level.

[06 Maestro]

ORIGINAL: Harvey Birdman

The build times are halved if the new development level is less the roads level.

Holy Vizier, Birdman! Are you sure about that? I will check soon anyway. I was sure I read that the road level had to be three times the new development. Perhaps it was late in the day-again.

I have been building roads like crazy to achieve that benefit-I may really be able to cash in now.

To my previous understanding; a 10 road level development would cut the build time of other improvements by 1/2 up to level 3. Gaining such a benefit up to level 9 will be nice-a whole other world.

[Harvey Birdman]

Aha! Now that's what I was wondering about. Now, if I could only know the difference before loosing 1000 NM.

It's best just to lower your feudalism level in steps. Get National morale to 1000, lower feudalism a step, then wait til NM is back at 1000 before lowering it again. That way you still get lots of nic's and keep a production bonus for high NM as you transition away from feudalism.

Since turkey has those annoyingly high development costs your probably thinking, build merchants asap. Cut my feudalism level asap. Then I can afford to build docks and banks in my coastal cities asap.

Cairo and constantinople are your best money city's so concentrate on building docks and banks there. Then in provinces that share the same sea zones.
I'm not sure if the morale of the merchant affects income , but I think I read on the forum that it does.

In feudalism the feudal dues are fixed. 12 for level 1, 25 for 2, 37 for 3 and 50 for 4 etc etc. Whereas your merchant income and port income earned from foreign merchants in your coastal waters is more variable. The higher your feudal level the more you kill your merchant and port income.

I think even russia can benefit from a 0 or 1 feudalism level, because they can't afford the army and navy they start with in 1792. Even though they won't benefit much from docks except in st petersberg. They can much more easily produce textiles then most nations and build a large merchant fleet rapidly.

As far as rapidly getting NM to 1000 asap, according to the manual the NM neutral tax rate is 15%, but I find I have to lower it to 10% to get rid of the -7 tax rate NM/turn modifier.

[06 Maestro]

ORIGINAL: Harvey Birdman

As far as rapidly getting NM to 1000 asap, according to the manual the NM neutral tax rate is 15%, but I find I have to lower it to 10% to get rid of the -7 tax rate NM/turn modifier.

Thanks for all the info.

I have been utilizing tax rates to keep the good folks happy. I have had those as low as 4%-actually gaining 9 points of NM rather than loosing the 7. In PBEM 109 Turkey is cruising right along at 1000 NM. I'm itching to try the adjustment, but the time just seem "right" just yet. Too many warmongers- you see.

[Mus]

ORIGINAL: Harvey Birdman

I think even russia can benefit from a 0 or 1 feudalism level, because they can't afford the army and navy they start with in 1792. Even though they won't benefit much from docks except in st petersberg. They can much more easily produce textiles then most nations and build a large merchant fleet rapidly.

Disagree! Russia's main income problem is from waste.

Russia gets Cossacks based on (feudal rate x number of cossack provinces)/25.

Cossacks are best used aggressively to disrupt enemy supply situations, and therefore will end up being lost and in need of replacement through a reasonable feudal level.

That makes Russia unlike Turkey in that Turkey can put out its NiC from its starting Feudal level until it has its maximum number of NiC fielded and then retain the NiC when it cuts its level.

I also think Russia building a large merchant marine at the mercy of naval powers like Great Britain, France and Spain (and even Sweden, with a 20 ship navy of 5.5 morale ships is a threat to Russia) is a foolhardy use of large numbers of textiles. Better to use those textiles for a crash court development programme to completely eliminate waste and then use them to develop better barracks, build Diplomats, Jager infantry, Lancers, Horse Artillery, etc.

Russia is a land power and should focus on acheiving land dominance. Not split the difference and try to stay a pretty good land power and become a half assed naval/economic power.

JMHO, and this is from a multiplayer perspective (I have so wanted to try Russia in a PBEM but haven't wound up with it yet). Your thinking might work in singleplayer where you can buy off the AI.

[Anthropoid]

I think Mus is right. Russia will win. Both PBEMs [:D]

[Mus]

All I know is in "Another PBEM" your fleets sailed out of Russia last turn, the first outside confirmation in 7 years that Russia still existed.

[:'(]

[06 Maestro]

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

I think Mus is right. Russia will win. Both PBEMs [:D]

Uh oh, sounds like all Europe should be alarmed at the rise of Russia.[:'(]

[Anthropoid]

What was it Sun Tzue said? Sail when they least expect it? Emerge from the shadowy East when they think you're dead?
 
I tell ya, next PBEM we do, can we set the diff level a bit lower. That whole march attrition thing seems a bit excessive dontcha think?

[Mus]

Most of us like the higher levels of March attrition (all the games have been Wellington or Bonaparte) because it makes you moderate your operational tempo. You can't march, particularly force march, all over the map without consequences. The consequences are getting weaker through march attrition or paying through the nose to keep replacements coming down teh pipe to stay up near full strength.

[Anthropoid]

Sure a bit of march attrition is good. But the settings we are playing at are too much IMO. I'd be curious if a poll would confirm your statement of "most of us." Maybe so.

[Mus]

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

Sure a bit of march attrition is good. But the settings we are playing at are too much IMO.

If you just do a bit of march attrition it doesn't serve the purpose of making people think about their troop movements. You can still force march all over Europe without consequences. It has to be fairly high to accomplish the intended goal.

The first PBEM organized off the forum here had France force marching all over the map, suffereing no march attrition and as a result all the games after that were proposed from the beginning to have more march attrition to prevent it.

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

I'd be curious if a poll would confirm your statement of "most of us." Maybe so.

Well all the games we started after the first one had higher levels of march attrition proposed from the beginning, and nobody voiced any objection to it in the discussion about the rules, so I would say that clearly indicates a majority wanting it.

[;)]

I would be curious if you have any PBEM experience without a higher level of march attrition to know why we have the march attrition cranked up in the first place.

[Anthropoid]

20% casualties to an army for moving across one border is absurd Mus.

[Mus]

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

20% casualties to an army for moving across one border is absurd Mus.

You would really have to try to get 20% casualties or be unaware of how bad a march you were ordering. Even at Bonaparte which is 15% march attrition you would have to force march or be marching in a snow storm and not have any of these reductions apply to your move to hit 20% casualties.

If you know the rules it is quite easy to keep your march attrition under control. Stay on roads, avoid Force Marching unless absolutely necessary. Make no unnecessary movements during Winter (this is probably what hit you).

Also March attrition hits you less the weaker your force gets so it prevents these unrealistically massive full strength armies force marching all over the place without regard to season. It pretty much rules when it comes to preventing stupid unrealistic movements.

According to WCS Bonaparte is actually a little on the low side of actual historical march attrition levels. At the very least it imposes realistic operational tempos on the game. You can still take an emergency force march in the winter, but it is going to cost you.

Yada yada yada.

2.6.5 March Attrition (higher difficulty
levels)
March Attrition only operates at higher difficulty levels, as shown on the setup screen
at the beginning of the game. It only affects human players. Each time a unit moves
to a new province, it loses a certain amount of Strength, depending on the game’s
difficulty level, as shown on the Setup screen. This percentage only applies to Strength
above a level equal to 300xMorale. (So, for example, a unit with Strength 10000 and
Morale 5, suffering March Attrition of 10%, would lose 10% of (10000-(300x5));
10% of 10000-1500 is 10% of 8500, which is 850.) The following modifiers are
multiplicative:
• Units in friendly provinces only lose 80%
• Units moving on roads lose 66%
• Units with the Baggage Train special ability lose 66%
• Artillery lose 33%
• Units lose 125% when moving into or out of a province with Snow or
Heavy Snow
• Units under Force March lose 150%

[06 Maestro]

Alert!, alert! Thread drift!.[:D]