ETW PBM Think Tank

[mini]

I guess there isn't much want for an ETW PBM atm :)

[TinCow]

I guess there isn't much want for an ETW PBM atm :)

I think there's plenty to work with for an ETW PBM, but it would probably be a good idea to wait for the game to be patched up a bit first. Since we won't have access to any console commands, there's not going to be any way to alter the in-game situation if we have problems or don't like it. Combine this with a lack of naval invasions, and you've got a major risk of an unchallenging AI. I personally think that the AI will be a much bigger factor in an ETW game than in the RTW/M2TW games, so this is somewhat important.

For the type of game created, I do like your suggestions. I think decentralized control systems like that will have to become the norm. I also think that we need to discard any internal PvP system at least for the first game.

[mini]

Yeah, we probably will have to avoid pvp situations since we can't enforce the results without console.

I've only played a prussia campaign so far, i've been playing more MP at this point.
Though in the prussia campaign i'm 40 years deep and have faced some serious perils left and right. Though I tend to play slow and don't blitzkrieg, which may account for it.
I've now got about 4-5 regions, and had to fight tooth and nail for everyone, spending rounds and rounds on trying to negotiate my behind out of disastrous situations.

But the AI does need patching indeed. Unless you stir it up a bit, they tend to get static when it doesn't involve you.

Bring on those patches, cuz i'd love to see an ETW pbm ^^

[TinCow]

Your observations tend to mimic my own. ETW is definitely MUCH more challenging in SP than the last few games, even with the AI in its current state. If the game starts with a nation without overseas provinces (i.e. Prussia, Sweden, Poland/Lithuania, Austria) it will probably be decently challenging at the start. Our old problems of massive initial expansion due to everyone conquering whatever is nearby with a 3 unit army is no longer a concern. With a decent rule system that allows for effective internal 'political' competition, the AI could well be enough to keep us occupied with fun ETW PBMs for a good while. Not all PBMs have to last 1+ years, after all.

[mini]

Perhaps we should create various governement system according to the possibilities ingame.
That way we can cope with ingame revolutions.

So, if you read my big post above, that spares me half the explanation.

For absolute monarchy, we place all authority with the king in theory.
He will be able to select 5 players to act as his ministers (just like the ones ingame). These players will stay ministers until a new king comes to power, or until the king decides a new minister is needed (thus if the ingame minister dies, this does not effect us. Lets say the ingame ministers are the right hand henchmen for the IRL ministers)

Discussions take place in the Council of nobles but it does not have any power. But everyone is allowed to IC there, and the purpose is that the 5 ministers will take the discussed topics into consideration to present to the king, who eventually gets to decide. Of course, disregarding the advice of ministers too much, will have effect on the power of the king.

As I stated in previous post, ministers will be able to appoint stuff in their jurisdiction. Military ministers get to appoint players to generals, same thing for naval minister and admirals.
Taxes will be done by the financial one.
troop recruiting is co-junction of military minister and financial one, etc etc.
The prime minister ends the turns and provides turn reports.


Of course, when/if we ever switch to republic system, things change.
A parliament will be created, where everyone can get a say.

players will have to roleplay the ingame ministers now (who the lucky players are might be decided by ooc elections aswel?) and they will change when dying or with new elections.
The only big difference is that the ministers now have to put their proposals to the vote in parliament, instead of letting the king decide.
The prime minister will still end the turn. What exactly will be the role of the president, I haven't figured out yet.
Perhaps give him veto power, and the ability to fire ministers.


Like I said in the previous post, if we have a large playerbase there will be a lot of people forced to roleplay a character which has no physicial representation ingame. But I think there are people who are ok with that.



I think that the last 5 posts by tincow and me are sufficient to build a skeleton of rules, on which we can build a test game.
We could start out with Prussia as it is smallish without colonies.

I'll make a new thread to see how many people are willing to participate in this testcase, if noone replies to this thread in a few days.

[mini]

internal competition is necessary of course, but it's harder to implement since many players will be forced to RP imaginative chars.

Until we find a way to track internal competition with a mathemathical system, I suggest we can base this on personal feelings. We can all try to make a fair judgement of anothers effort and contributions towards the game.
People who actively RP'ed imaginitive characters deserve a chance to assume control of something physical ingame when the next chance comes around.

[TinCow]

You make a very good point about the different government systems. Like you suggest, it would be wise to create basic rules about how the game is run depending on which of the 3 systems are currently in effect. However, this means the rules will also need some kind of mechanism for determining when a government system can be changed. Whoever is playing the King is not likely going to approve of a switch to a Republic, so there's got to be some method of determining which side wins.