|
SlothfulCobra posted:Wiz's last LP ended without a nuclear holocaust. A couple bombs were dropped, but the major population centers were unharmed. Aside from the fact that imperial monarchists took over the bulk of Europe (and they never could quash the last vestiges of democracy) and the oriental power block's imperialism was never curbed, things turned out pretty comparable with the real world. The biggest difference was that there wasn't any cold war. You were only really screwed over if you were a communist or french. It was a world with monarchy as a bid thing, that's a pretty huge BAD END.
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2012 00:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 18:04 |
|
|
I don't know too much about Vicky 2, but is it possible that if we lose (which is quite likely) could Russia force Azerbaijan into a republic? or will they just get Crimea.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2012 00:59
|
|
|
Cityinthesea posted:I don't know too much about Vicky 2, but is it possible that if we lose (which is quite likely) could Russia force Azerbaijan into a republic? or will they just get Crimea. In V2, you can add wargoals as your warscore goes up, but in your peace settlement you can only make demands that you have as warscore. Russia hasn't added a wargoal yet, so we don't know what they want if they win. Possible options they have are "humiliating" us (cheap, costs 10 warscore IIRC), acquiring a state (depends on the value of the state...Crimea is probably valued around 15 warscore, but that's just a guess), freeing a people (slightly cheaper than acquiring a state), cutting us down to size (50 warscore, forces us to disarm and pay reparations), adding us to their sphere (50 warscore), and...I think that's it? One of the facts of V2 is that sieging is very tedious. Wiz says he's reduced siege times, but the Caucasus and Anatolia are very mountainous and would still be slow. You can get up to about 25 warscore from battles, but past that, you need high value provinces held. It's up to Russia's AI, but if they're really winning badly, they can pick one of those 50s: cutting us down to size or adding us to their sphere. In about the best scenario for Russia, they have about 70 warscore, demolish our army, occupy most of our country, and peace out Zhen. Then they can do some sort of mix of humiliate us, take Crimea, and either cut us down to size or sphere us. EDIT: For the record: our wargoal is to cut Russia down to size. It is effectively impossible to get 50 warscore against Russia. The absolute best Azerbaijan could possibly do in this war is a white peace. EDIT 2: A peace deal where we lost Crimea and were cut down to size would trigger large amounts of revanchism in our pops. It's lucky that this is happening at the beginning of the game rather than later on, because that much revanchism in the late game is a recipe for fascism. Patter Song fucked around with this message at 01:28 on Nov 9, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2012 01:07
|
|
|
No. No. No. gently caress THAT OWL.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2012 01:19
|
|
|
Patter Song posted:In V2, you can add wargoals as your warscore goes up, but in your peace settlement you can only make demands that you have as warscore. In the games I played as the Ottoman Empire where I also had a powerful Russia I was only able to reliably beat them by bleeding their manpower dry in defensive engagements in the Caucasus. I really hope that the wisdom of our professional officer corp prevails and we don't go charging off into Russia and just get swamped by the Russian hordes in areas where they can make their numbers felt. That said I don't hold out high hopes given our current ruler... One thing to add in case people are unfamiliar with the mechanics, you have far higher support limits in your country than in enemy territory. That means that in foreign territory the home power can keep a larger stack in one place without suffering losses due to attrition. Since generally the larger stack wins (barring a significant tech advantage which we don't have) it means that you have to either eat attrition to match the size of the enemy stacks or face losing engagements when your maneuvering isn't quite good enough that enough reinforcements reach the battle at just the right time. If you're facing a foe with significantly more manpower you generally can't afford eating the manpower losses attrition would involve so you either have to be very good at maneuvering and exploiting the AI or force the enemy to eat shedloads of attrition fighting on your own soil. Anyway, we might have a chance at status quo if we exploit the terrain in the Caucasus and husband our forces. If so we just have to hope that their isn't too much war score in the indefensible terrain north of the mountains...
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2012 01:33
|
|
|
BrooklynBruiser posted:No. Populism lives on in the Owl of Athena.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2012 02:22
|
|
|
Why don't we just take this to its logical conclusion?  ...I'm sorry. I think. Count me in on those who await the inevitable
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2012 05:03
|
|
|
StrifeHira posted:Why don't we just take this to its logical conclusion? Don't think there's anything to be sorry about there 
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2012 09:08
|
|
|
The United Steppes of Wolfe
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2012 16:15
|
|
|
StrifeHira posted:Why don't we just take this to its logical conclusion?  I thought it needed more Wolfes
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2012 16:44
|
|
|
StrifeHira posted:Why don't we just take this to its logical conclusion? IF we somehow end up as the theblastizard fucked around with this message at 18:07 on Nov 9, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2012 16:47
|
|
|
ThePutty posted:
My.... eyes!  The thumbnail version makes it kinda looks like houndstooth.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2012 17:01
|
|
|
ThePutty posted:
I think we can finally declare the end of Flagchat, to continue after this would be pretty pointless.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 16:44
|
|
|
Glad to see this got started up again.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 13:10
|
|
|
A look at the civ/unciv system in AzeriVicky. The vanilla civ/unciv system is gone entirely, and has been replaced with a system of two tiers of uncivs, based on government form: Uncivilized Tribalism and Uncivilized Monarchy   Countries with these government forms work like any other country, with some exceptions. They start with a lower level of tech than civilized governments, and get penalties to their research, factory costs and factory output. What this means is that uncivs that stay uncivs can industrialize, but will be inefficient at doing so, and will likely have to run factories at a loss.   In addition to these penalties, education is more expensive in an unciv. This becomes important, because literacy is how you reform out of unciv status. Tribal uncivs must first reform into an uncivilized monarchy (requires 10 literacy and prestige), while uncivilized monarchies with 20 literacy and prestige can become a civilized nation. This may sound easy, but between the economic penalties, increased education costs and the general economic tweaks of the mod, it is very expensive to modernize your government, and requires valuable RGOs, a high administrative efficiency and most likely foreign loans to be feasible at all.   Of course rebels are a factor as well - modernizing will drive up militancy considerably, and spark reactionary revolts that will try to roll back your government to its previous form. All in all, the system is meant to make uncivs more fun to play by allowing you to research, build factories, and do most anything a civ does, but without turning China into an industrial powerhouse in 1836.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 15:22
|
|
|
AzeriV2 also reworks national focuses and colonization. A common complaint about V2 is a lack of ways to affect your own country, so the NF system has been changed so that you have unlimited NF points, meaning that you can influence all your states simultaneously instead of just one or two. A new 'miscellanous' category has been added to NFs, with a variety of NFs you can use when you're not looking to promote a certain POP or factory. They are: Increase Factory Production (+throughput), Increase RGO Production (+output), Encourage Political Thought (+con -mil), Supress Political Thought (+mil -con) and Increase Population Growth (guess).  You may have noticed a lack of a colonization NF. Since unlimited NFs would allow you to colonize everywhere simultaneously, there are no uncolonized provinces in AzeriV2. Instead, colonization is done through either conquest or the sphere system. Whichever method you choose, life rating and tech still plays a role - you cannot conquer states that hold provinces with a life rating your tech cannot support. If you prefer diplomatic takeover, all you have to do is to sphere the unciv you want to take over, and sooner or later an event will fire that allows you to integrate them peacefully. Thus, colonization of Africa actually depends on using your diplomatic influence to take control over the regions you want - or failing that, a military invasion. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 15:59
|
|
|
If your intention is to put most African nations on the lower tier of uncivs, you might want to rethink the "tribal" label - it's a bit :paradox:, no offense. Almost all of the coast of Africa (and some of the interior) was controlled by organized monarchies or city-states before colonialism started in Africa - Congo was even ruled by a Christian king. Sokoto was a caliphate, not a tribal government at all.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 16:17
|
|
|
Not all of Africa is tribal, it's a mix of Unciv Tribalisms and Unciv Monarchies, but keep in mind that tribalism does not exclude having a monarch. Anyway I'm open to changing the name, but only if someone can come with a better one that is obviously lower tier than Unciv Monarchy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 16:18
|
|
|
You could have uncivilised monarchy/uncivilised empire I guess
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 16:31
|
|
|
Wiz posted:Not all of Africa is tribal, it's a mix of Unciv Tribalisms and Unciv Monarchies, but keep in mind that tribalism does not exclude having a monarch. Anyway I'm open to changing the name, but only if someone can come with a better one that is obviously lower tier than Unciv Monarchy. Unciv Despotism?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 16:31
|
|
|
Wiz posted:Not all of Africa is tribal, it's a mix of Unciv Tribalisms and Unciv Monarchies, but keep in mind that tribalism does not exclude having a monarch. Anyway I'm open to changing the name, but only if someone can come with a better one that is obviously lower tier than Unciv Monarchy. What about a system that calls the tiers "Pre-Modern State", "Early Modern State", and "Modern State"? This decouples government type from level of advancement (so that you don't end up with an Unciv Monarchy republic or something) and is a pretty widely accepted nomenclature in history currently.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 16:34
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:What about a system that calls the tiers "Pre-Modern State", "Early Modern State", and "Modern State"? This decouples government type from level of advancement (so that you don't end up with an Unciv Monarchy republic or something) and is a pretty widely accepted nomenclature in history currently. I like this idea. Using the word "uncivilized" in this context seems kinda Victorian anyway, and not in the "thematically appropriate for a game called Victoria" sense either.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 16:37
|
|
|
Sounds good to me as well. All the better if it fits current historical nomenclature.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 17:16
|
|
|
Have you made elections less unbearably annoying?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 17:35
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:What about a system that calls the tiers "Pre-Modern State", "Early Modern State", and "Modern State"? This decouples government type from level of advancement (so that you don't end up with an Unciv Monarchy republic or something) and is a pretty widely accepted nomenclature in history currently. Doesn't really work since it is government forms. I'll stick with what I have, and if you think any particular african states deserve to be Monarchies rather than Tribalisms, let me know and I'll probably change them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 17:37
|
|
|
A look into the future?? 
Wiz fucked around with this message at 17:41 on Nov 13, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 17:38
|
|
|
Wiz posted:Doesn't really work since it is government forms. I'll stick with what I have, and if you think any particular african states deserve to be Monarchies rather than Tribalisms, let me know and I'll probably change them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 17:52
|
|
|
Wiz posted:Doesn't really work since it is government forms. I'll stick with what I have, and if you think any particular african states deserve to be Monarchies rather than Tribalisms, let me know and I'll probably change them. Is there no way to set up multiple government forms at the same tier of advancement? You could have Pre-Modern Monarchy, Early Modern Monarchy, Early Modern Republic, etc. This could also let non-modern states reform the government out of monarchy, which should be rare but possible. Sorry to keep talking about this, but "tribalism" and "uncivilized" really are words that historians are desperately trying to make extinct as they are basically undescriptive and offensive to non-Westerners.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 17:53
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:Is there no way to set up multiple government forms at the same tier of advancement? You could have Pre-Modern Monarchy, Early Modern Monarchy, Early Modern Republic, etc. This could also let non-modern states reform the government out of monarchy, which should be rare but possible. Really not a fan of those names. They're just really really dull and don't feel at all thematically appropriate in the game. If noone comes up with a better alternative, I'll just have to be a bit imperialist I guess.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 17:59
|
|
|
Wiz posted:A look into the future?? I hate to be 'that guy', and I think that outcome is most probable...but I think it's much preferable to keep big events unrevealed until you get to them in the LP.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 17:59
|
|
|
SirPhoebos posted:I hate to be 'that guy', and I think that outcome is probable...but I think it's much preferable to keep big events unrevealed until you get to them in the LP. That's not a big event, it's a mechanic. Revolutionary democracies (like Russia) get a special CB/wargoal to install revolutionary regimes in other countries, this is something I've gone over before so it's hardly a secret.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 18:00
|
|
|
Wiz posted:That's not a big event, it's a mechanic. Revolutionary democracies (like Russia) get a special CB/wargoal to install revolutionary regimes in other countries, this is something I've gone over before so it's hardly a secret. Doesn't telegraph the fact that Azergaijan lost? Can't we keep our 
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 18:04
|
|
|
SirPhoebos posted:Doesn't telegraph the fact that Azergaijan lost? Can't we keep our That is not a screenshot from an update, it is me showing off a mechanic. Look at the date, I haven't actully played the war yet.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 18:04
|
|
|
Wiz posted:That is not a screenshot from an update, it is me showing off a mechanic. Look at the date, I haven't actully played the war yet. Oh. Right. Carry on then 
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 18:08
|
|
|
I thought that it was hardcoded that uncivs couldn't build factories on their own. How did you get around that?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 18:26
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:I thought that it was hardcoded that uncivs couldn't build factories on their own. How did you get around that? By designating every nation as civilised.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 18:29
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:I thought that it was hardcoded that uncivs couldn't build factories on their own. How did you get around that? See the "scrapping vanilla system" part.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 18:34
|
|
|
Nice. I really like the unlimited NF:s idea, and I also like the fact that Africans have actual governments now compared to what it used to be. Also would it be possible to have other options when integrating colonies. Let's say that you're playing as France and you've "won" over an unciv, are there other options besides integrating it fully and not integrating? For example, I'd like an option to just simply change the colonization target country's primary culture to what mine is and then make it a puppet. Essentially a colonial regime sort-of thing. I really hate to micromanage my colonies. (But the colonial regime, now that it has a new primary culture, would start to assimilate the locals and possibly get fully integrated in the future.)
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 18:47
|
|
|
That's an interesting idea. I'll consider it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 18:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 18:04 |
|
|
Is the word "aboriginal" verboten? What about "archaic"? It's difficult to assign a word that means "not modern" without also assigning a negative connotation, because "modern" is a word loaded with positive connotations. "Primitive" has a connotative meaning synonymous with "backwards" or even "ignorant." I am on board with avoiding it. I do like "despotism," but that's maybe because it was used a lot in the Civilization games, which I grew up with. "Tribalism" doesn't seem as negative to me, but it still implies a lack of organization that is incorrect for pretty much any human population united enough to be considered a nation-state in the first place... which seems to be the basis we're working from in this game. So I guess what I wind up thinking is: maybe it's hard to describe what a "primitive kingdom" really is because I don't actually know much about them. I suppose that it means a nation-state with a national government (led by a despot?) but lacking in a modern (post iron-age?) technology/toolset. Or possibly one with high levels of local autonomy and a king whose control and organization are minimal: e.g., little or no bureaucracy or national institutions. There may not be a universal national language, probably no national currency, certainly no national army. Not much in the way of national infrastructure (roads, especially). And probably - although I'm really guessing now - pretty low population density. So maybe what we actually need are words that describe native societies in the transitional phases between pre-contact conditions (anywhere from nomadic tribes totally lacking in national identity to pre-existing well-organized kingdoms with established bureaucracies whose only "deficiency" compared to Westerners are the lack of guns and the lack of an oceangoing fleet), and the wreckage left by massive colonization, enforced "modernization", European-style infrastructure projects, puppet governments, and of course, the ravages of European diseases. So maybe: "Pristine archaic government" and "Semi-modernized Colonial Humanitarian Disaster-State".
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 18:54
|
|
