Jump to content
DIPLONEWS
  • Don't miss DGL at 8PM EST rotating Saturdays and Sundays.
  • Diplo is getting an Ark server contact Duck for more information.
  • Want to play Dungeons and Dragons? Join D^3 to play now!
  • Want to watch movies with Diplo? Contact BaneBladeLuv for more info on movie night!
Sign in to follow this  
EagleMan

Proposal for Solving the Bulgaria Meme (long but important)

Recommended Posts

TL;DR: I propose to remove the slot of Bulgaria and add North Germany as a slot. Justification below.

In honor of the centennial of the end of WW1 (11/11/2018), I ask you all to please seriously consider permitting my rework, which involves the removal of Bulgaria as a slot and the addition of North Germany in its stead. Please read/skim most of it before passing judgment. If I do not get serious feedback that convinces me otherwise and an alternative solution for the problems I will describe, this all is how I will eventually design the game to be in order to solve some fundamental problems plaguing ISH. If the community hates this proposal and offers no solutions for the problems plaguing ISH, then future updates to ISH by myself will be sparse and likely halt so I can focus on other maps like Greece. That's how important I feel it is to fix these issues for the long-term health of the scene, especially with WC3 Reforged on the horizon where we can become much stronger with returning and new players. I feel like with every balance update, we are only superficially addressing balance issues that are core to ISH. I have placed serious thought into how this rework would strengthen the core balance of the game, how it would make the game more fun while allowing it to reach a higher competitive level once the rework is implemented and fine-tuned, how it would make it easier to set up lobbies and how it would invigorate the ISH community. I will detail how I have considered how all the fronts would be affected by the removal and addition of the Bulgaria/North Germany slot and how that is accounted for by the changes of these slots, which is why this will be a very long read as I hope to convince you that I have thought of how most everything would be affected by this rework, and that this change would be an appropriate course of action to improve ISH and the community itself.

The reason I say there is a Bulgaria meme and that it needs to be solved, is because regardless of balance, it is an awkward slot whose very existence causes unavoidable balance problems. Due to West Germany being structured to take on 2 players, alongside other quasi 2v1s and the historical facts that limit how we can design the game, there is left a spare player in the Centrals, which we create in the form of Pink who has Bulgaria, the European OE, and OE's navy. Because a 6v5 can never be truly balanced due to the unequal amounts of micro, we give these possessions to a single player in Pink to make the game a 6v6. Even games with professionals paid to sit around all day to think about balance, who have access to statistics that I could never hope to have (I don't even have win/loss ratios)... they would never hope to balance a 6v5 because of the unequal micro. Despite the inclusion of Pink to make a 6v6, unequal micro burdens are plentiful and severe enough on local levels that that unequal burden is not alleviated by the fact that the overall game is a 6v6. The design of the slots as they are makes it fundamentally difficult to balance the game as an editor to account for all possible early game plays. It handicaps our ability to balance lobbies and start games. Lastly it makes it difficult to train new players while keeping existing players from burnout.

As is, Bulgaria is a feast or famine nation. You can be a huge thorn in the side of the Entente in several ways. You can force Purple to split his focus between yourself and Grey all game, you can needle Red all game and help secure the Revolution (which enables EG to push Russia hard, or to go break the West front), you can help take out Egypt and secure a super OE in the Middle East, or you can conserve your strength to blow out Yellow the second he gains additional Balkan territories. By contrast, if you lose in one of those early game strategies and your initial forces and investments, you're reduced to being an ineffectual no-impact nation that can never recover due to the lack of inherent income and strength. That sort of impact on the game, where early-to-mid game Pink could affect all these fronts (but where the fronts are all designed to be balanced without his meddling) means that by the mid-game, people rarely care if a Pink, winning or losing, drops from or leaves the game as compared to other players. Consider what terrible design it is that in every game, Pink can choose to focus on wildly different, unrelated fronts, from Italy, to Egypt, to the Balkans to Russia. It'd be like if it was accepted for GB to say at the start "Well I'm packing up and going to go fight in Africa." and then no one particularly cared if GB left 20 minutes into the game.

As such, to solve this pseudo 6v5 that creates unpredictable lopsided early-game 2v1s, I propose to remove Pink as a player and add North Germany. I'll describe how NG will work after detailing how the Mediterranean would be affected with the removal of Pink. The starting possessions of Pink would be incorporated into Green, navy included (or the navy could be given to Grey). Now Green/Grey, with immediate priorities in Serbia and Egypt, will rarely feel the freedom to extensively micro navy across all of the Mediterranean Sea. The safe but also easy thing to do for them would be to keep the navy parked at Constantinople. Keep in mind that starting naval forces for both sides can be modified and repositioned in this rework. As this scenario decreases the likelihood of extensive, invested-in naval fights in the Mediterranean Sea, the limitations of naval warfare in WC3 will not be as suffocating when trying to balance ISH, which along the same vein is why we don't have air warfare in ISH. In WC3 it is simply much easier to create balanced, intricate ground combat than it is for the sea, so pulling back on the importance of early game naval warfare makes it easier to balance the overall game.

Anyways, in some games Pink parks the starting navy at Constantinople, which keeps naval control of the whole Mediterranean Sea split between the factions until mid-to-late game or even for the whole game. That camping prevents early game snowballs that generally do not make for good or fun games due to how trade income works and the massive amounts of landing opportunities both teams gain with total naval control. Because most Greens/Greys will not want to split their micro at the start, they're more likely park and secure their navy with Pink gone, to only then make naval plays mid-to-late game. This would reduce the occurrence early game doom drops of Green by Purple (or even Yellow) if Pink fails early on, which isn't an intended way for the game to play out so early on, while conversely dissuading other unintended early game plays like Pink dropping all his forces into Port Said.

If Grey micros the navy early-to-mid game, that makes it so the land and navy fights of the Mediterranean are both fought between only 2 people in most games: Grey and Purple. That balances out the resource/micro requirements, because in typical games Grey neither has to invest in or micro navy while Purple does. Unspoken arrangements can result where neither side focuses navy, to instead focus on trench/howitzer warfare which is more fun and central to the game. Pink as is forces Purple to focus on navy because Pink has little else to do except focus on navy. With the removal of Pink, Purple would then be free to revert to a bygone era before the meta evolved to put so much sustained naval pressure on him. He could now focus solely on preparing to be as strong as possible against Grey, whether that means building howitzers, researching upgrades, or securing the Adriatic coast. The strength/income of French Africa and then Italy itself could be rebalanced as needed to account for the deemphasized naval play. These cumulative changes then puts strategic pressure on Grey, who now has to be more careful about how much he invests in the fight against Yellow since Purple no longer has to invest gold and attention into combating Pink. Grey currently has the luxury of being a strong nation who can potentially always be fighting a 2v1 of sorts, to his advantage. One issue making it so Purple can handle both Grey and Pink early game has been that if Pink chooses to not focus navy, all that Italian strength is then converted into the fight against Grey.

By the mid-game in the Mediterranean, outcomes would be set up to play out similarly as they do now in current games, because mid-game is when Pink gets Bulgaria proper and sometimes focuses less on Purple. By then, short of Centrals having camped the Dardanelles, the naval fight is probably already decisively won for the remainder of the game. One caveat is that it is easy for Purple to permanently knockout Pink from the sea if Purple wins that early game naval engagement, as all you generally must do afterwards as Purple is park your remaining navy at the Dardanelles. Of good Purples though, we ask them to continue to wage naval warfare throughout the game, to always fight on land and sea. This is because due to the geography and historical borders, Pink is unable to secure easy, permanent naval control of the Mediterranean if Pink crushes Purple's navy early on. This in contrast to Purple who mostly only needs to camp the Dardanelles to ensure long-term control of the sea after the initial fight is won.

So given that the navy is addressed, here is where Bulgaria as a country is given to Hungary. Hungary is a no-event nation with no given sea access, navy or trade income, so LB receiving all that would help make the slot more dynamic and fun. LB absorbing Bulgaria would also make it more of a 1v1 fight between LB/Yellow, as they fight across several different Balkan fronts over the course of the game, rather than Yellow being crushed because he has 2 people microing against him, like Grey/LB then LB/Pink. Players like Red, Grey, Green, Purple, Orange, etc. could still intervene in the Balkans as strategy and circumstances dictate, but overall the mid-to-late game Balkans experience would become more consistent, instead of memes happening like Yellow being annihilated immediately by a Pink who saved his strength for that. That does mean that Pink was  contributing less elsewhere against the Entente, but it is fundamentally unfun to not have a fighting chance in that situation as Yellow.

Hungary or EG could be given the Russian Revo perks that Pink gets, keeping the Eastern Front more focused on key, involved players instead of having this weird Pink slot that's potentially fighting Italians, Egyptians, Serbians or Russians depending on what Pink wants to do that game. Russian Revo would be reworked/rebalanced as needed for these changes (the Revo has always been out of whack anyways). I'll detail possible changes and consequences for the East Front below. So, the lack of a Pink slot reduces the occurrence of unpredictable, early game 2v1s. It is very difficult to balance for these scenarios where it's "Well maybe [Italy, Russia, Egypt] will be 2v1'd in the early game by Pink and his ally, maybe he won't." The core issue of the Pink slot is how it creates unequal, unpredictable distribution of micro and spending across the fronts early game, and how unpredictable of an effect Pink can have on the outcome of the game depending on the long-term strategy they elect and if they win or lose in that strategy.

So far I think this would improve the quality of the early-mid game experience for most everyone, as removing Pink keeps things focused on strategic, skilled play, instead of the Bulgaria meme which enables them to play a decisive role of their choosing early game in any front except the Western Front. Games spiral out infinite number of ways by the late game that cannot be reasonably accounted for, but a problem of Pink is that he is a wild card faction from the very start of the game.

With the effects of Pink's removal accounted for in the Balkans and the Mediterranean, North Germany would be added. The purpose of North Germany would be to turn the West Front into a straight up 2v2 trench/warfare battle from the start. That would be a novel fight setup for ISH, so not a 1v1, 2v1 or "Surprise, this game you're playing a 2v1 because Pink wants to do things that way."  The addition of North Germany would serve to deemphasize the all-out importance of having a top-tier West Germany who can handle taking on both France and GB. The two powerhouses of the 4 man West Front would still be France and West Germany, while North Germany and GB would duke it out with their navies and in the Belgian corridor with weaker ground forces. This would make it considerably easier to balance lobbies, as you would need only need balance the players on a 1:1 basis (France/WG, then GB/NG), rather than a 2:1 basis where we have to design a compatible trio of players. That sort of asymmetrical balancing is difficult to get right, especially with a small pool of players and the use of captains with no matchmaking system. We are overly reliant on a very small handful of players to ensure a game that can last for years with no clear winner. The 2v1 basis of the West Front is problematic compared to other 2v1s because it is a permanent 2v1 from the beginning, rather than ephemeral situations like Yellow vs Grey/LB, or situations where the 2nd player is not fully committed to fighting you forever because they have other competing military priorities that demand their attention.

So, one of the best ways to defeat GB/France is to win navally, but most players do not have the micro ability to focus navy while also being brutalized by 2 howie advances, which is why WG is reserved for a handful of players who have that micro prowess (even if they don't choose to focus navy). This micro imbalance sometimes results in things like giving control to Pink to manage the navy, which is not intended, and it self-evidently means there is a problem with how the fronts are designed if some players view that as being the best strategy. With the inclusion of North Germany, there would be some rearrangement of cities and industrial bases across Germany and reterraining as needed, so don't just mentally superimpose North Germany over the current state of Europe. For an example and how East Germany would be affected by these changes, EG can be given a proper base in Konigsberg for Russia to threaten, making it easier for Russia to score permanent damage against the Centrals rather than relying on memes like massive infantry rushes into AH because the map design encourages AH to focus on other enemies. It would make EG less safe and secure where all his institutional strength is safe and sound at Berlin, in contrast to Red who has so much to worry about everywhere with his spread out infrastructure and long borders. The inclusion of NG would also lead to the Netherlands and Denmark being warred more often in game circumstances that aren't a meme, as NG and GB would have the micro available to them to conquer those territories if they feel the other player is weak. This contrasts West Germany trying to handle France/GB/Neutral simultaneously, a basically impossible task for most players and viewed as a game throw. It's also rarely viable for GB to war Netherlands outside of late game scenarios or where the Entente having won is already clear, because that early-to-midgame warring means WG can go stomp France while GB is preoccupied with the new German territory they must conquer. NG/GB would then have greater strategic flexibility choice in deciding whether it's worth it to try to conquer the Netherlands and Denmark. It would also become more practical to contest Denmark, as NG would have his base of power close to it unlike WG currently. This all would make the stretch of coast from Belgium to Hamburg to Denmark more strategically interesting and fun. Their starting naval forces and how vulnerable one is in in the scenario of a total naval knockout would be adjusted as needed.

Since you'd have 3 players with Germany infantry, I would likely nerf Germany infantry and decrease their train times. They would still be powerful compared to other infantry, but the disparity would be less severe. Besides historical reasons, German regiments are that strong with slow training times because that serves to reduce the micro load of WG. He only needs to micro a few infantry to have the same impact as someone microing many more infantry. It would then be a little less frustrating for Russia to push against East Germany. EG benefits greatly from how it's necessary to design WG infantry to be so strong to accommodate for the 2v1. That makes it so EG has the most powerful men and trenches in the game and rarely has to split his attention between 2 or more enemies. He also rich as a slot, in part because of high tax income but also because EG doesn't need to invest in navy or extensive trenching (German stats, plus minimal land to defend if you conquer Warsaw, an expected outcome). That setup makes it so EG is free to tech and build productive infrastructure to his hearts content, while also having Berlin as an incredibly safe and secure capital. On the subject of security, EG is also much less vulnerable to harassment compared to Russia, which is why having a good WG/Russia is more important than a top-tier EG. We need good EGs primarily to contain good Russias, not because the demands of the EG slot are equal to that of Russia. This would help equalize the Eastern front a little more in terms of skill requirements.

One issue the slot changes resolve is how advantaged Germans are with upgrades. Germans get more benefit from upgrades than most everyone (Blue/Yellow/Pink are equal). WG only needs to build one research center and tech once, while Blue/Teal must duplicate all teching between them. It takes 7500 gold to fully upgrade one tier, which means to get to 5/5 for inf, you must spend 15,000 plus the 1000 for the duplicate Research Center. That's an extra 16,000 that GB/France together must spend to upgrade equally with WG, and then GB is weaker in a 5/5 situation anyways, and who cares if Pink doesn't have the income to upgrade? It's much more important for Central victory that the Germans be upgraded. That calculation also doesn't even account for other duplicate upgrades like gas and fortified trenches. That much gold saved more than counters the event gains of the Entente, most of which indirectly (trade) or inconsistently (America) helps Teal/Blue.

That upgrade imbalance is also exacerbated because of German unit strength. It makes for late game situations where 5/5 Germans can go bulldoze the defenses of the West front or others with infantry mass alone, because of the synergy they get with having high income concentrated in the player with the best infantry, which is not in the spirit of trench/howitzer warfare. Among the allies it is the easiest for Russia to upgrade, but given that his upgrades scale the worst of anyone, that does not counteract out the German upgrade advantage.

That rework of the Germans would free me to rework Great Britain and France, who can sometimes feel very anemic as they have to be that way to account for their 2v1 advantage. Sure, you have more micro available than WG, but it's also not fun to feel so weak against such overwhelming power when WG focuses you, so gameplay satisfaction issues flow both ways in that 2v1 setup.

The primary purpose of this rework would be making it so that player micro is more equitably distributed against all fronts. We know that a 6v5 is inherently unfair, but with the way the slots are structured, we sort of have that situation anyways where some players are unfairly burdened with huge amounts of micro, while others have to do much less to play effectively. The starting strength of some nations are then crippled or supercharged as an attempt to compensate for these disparities, with a 12 man game overly reliant on the performance of 3 or so players.

The secondary purpose of the rework would make it easier to balance lobbies. We have only a handful of players that can be trusted to WG, Russia, Italy, etc. in the current meta. This rework would reduce the importance of putting top players in those slots to have a balanced game. For example, I can be trusted to play reasonably competently, but I never want to play WG simply because it's too stressful and demanding even if I face a GB/France that is less skilled than I am. Many good players, including people better than me, similarly avoid slots like WG and Russia because the pressure is too high. Everyone then blames you for ruining the game if you melt in such incredibly demanding fights. We have bad lobby situations where we have a group of 12, but no one can be trusted to play WG/Russia, or the trusted players are too burnt out and don't want to play those slots, or one of the handful of Italy players that can handle fighting both a good Pink/Grey aren't around, making the game die even though we have a full house. That's bad for the community - that should not be happening. As people get pigeonholed into certain slots because only certain people can play the top slots (which then dictates where everyone else goes), that makes it so people are more likely to get bored or burnt out and play less often. That's not good balance design, we need it so that lobby setups can be more flexible. Every player should be able to feel impactful, while inversely not feeling like the weight of the game rests on their shoulders.

I ask for this proposal to be seriously considered rather than reflexively dismissed out of hand. You may disagree or quibble with the details and I'm open to changing them, but I remain absolutely convinced that something must be done to solve the problems I've described. No good WG is around or they don't want to play it? There's no good game to be had then despite having 12 players, sorry. You want to play Ottoman or Egypt? Too bad, we need you to play WG/Russia every single game because no one else can be trusted to play well enough there. How motivated does that person feel to play ISH if they know it means playing those high pressure slots over and over? The fact that Pink can be disregarded as a "newb slot" hints at a real problem with how the game is structured if we feel we can entirely toss aside a player. The slot doesn't teach anything to newbs either. Pink's game experience is very much unlike the rest of the players, so it's not a good way to onboard newbs as they don't really learn 1v1 trench/howitzer warfare, which makes it difficult to transition newbs to more demanding slots, which ultimately makes it difficult to cultivate new skilled players that can be put in most slots.

Removing Bulgaria as a player and adding North Germany would solve these problems fundamental to ISH that can't be solved through editor balancing like altering income or the starting forces. I hope that you will agree that the issues I described in the above paragraphs are a real problem that have dragged the scene down for years, and that my proposal would remedy these issues, although a balancing period would be expected once the changes are implemented and live. Once that balancing period is complete, I believe it would make the ISH competitive scene, and the community itself, much stronger than can ever be achieved with how ISH is currently structured. It would also position us perfectly to absorb an influx of new players with WC3 Reforged. I propose these changes because I feel it is my responsibility as the current map author to make it easy to have fun, competitive games and to make it easy for the community to sustain itself, and even to grow stronger. These changes  would help mitigate the issues that have dragged down the community and our lobbies for years, which is a big factor in why ISH dies out completely on occasion. We are way too dependent on a handful of people shouldering the burden of playing certain slots, which means if they aren't around, the community goes into hibernation, and we may one day not wake up again from that slumber.

P.S. North Germany would not have to be pink either, he could be one of the new, unused colors. The rework itself would be relatively uncomplicated to implement in the editor - all the above text is simply to show the thought that's backing it. It would not take too much time and effort to achieve in the editor, and in the Holiday season I will be free to play plenty of ISH, collect feedback and pump out patches. I apologize for any typos or weird grammar, I reorganized the post a lot to try to provide a logical flow from one issue to the next.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eagleman, as you can imagine, the discord is up in arms about your proposed change of ISH, essentially because it results in a complete revamping of the game generally. Without a doubt, balance will be completely changed, the meta completely changed, etc.

I will start by articulating the discord's concerns here, and then provide my own thoughts afterwards, mainly because I doubt the discord people will post here, or if they do, it will be largely incoherent.

So the principle concerns from this change seem to be as follows;

1. In effect, you are conceding med navy to Italy, and that is going to have significant unforeseen balance ramifications. Italy is strong, and people don't seem to realize this. Especially if Serbia is a good player, Gray is going to have a tough time. In fact, Gray gets out incomed if he cannot take any of serbia, which is otten the case (but i have a suggestion to remedy this, i'll provide it later).  People generally like that bulgaria is dedicated naval counter to italy at the start, and enjoy that unique aspect of the game. They generally seem to prefer a nerf to pink's navy. What will happen here is that gray / green will park it like you said, but Purple can very easily kill a camped navy that is not being baby sat the whole time. It happens all the time. This then means that Green, WHO still struggles with getting landed today, is going to be feasted upon even more. Now he must also trench constantinople, which he can be cut off from with a naval loss. Big problem for that theatre (this is more my thinking but you get the point).

2. Concerns that you are just going to be creating a super hungary player. People seem to be under the impression that there is no way a yellow will ever be able to survive vs Hungary, and Hungary is going to end up getting super income from romania + north g reece + bulg.

3. People seem to be generally supportive of the concept of allowing people to play different slots and reducing pressure, but they also do not want to turn every game into a 1v1 howie battle. The most derided slot ATM is France, and the concern is that these changes will in effect make almost every slot a 'france' slot.  THis seems to be the biggest concern - people really don't want to see the game devolve into siloed 1v1s.  People also do not see how GB could ever push NG given the current state of the terrain, and IMO I agree - you would need to definitely make the front a little more accessible/wider.

4. People tend to not see the 2v1 in West as such a big deal, because Hungary always ends up assisting in the West anyways (but this is partly a function of the existence of a bulg that can solo balkans - so i dont see this as really changing much except from the outset). 

5. People in general want to see incremental changes not huge revamps. They still support the idea of nerfing pink/bulgarian navy, and also buffing Romania. People in particular feel that the majority of yellow's howitzers should be concentrated in Romania and not North Greece at the start and generally feel Romania should be buffed more. 

Now for my thoughts -

I agree that bulgaria is a shit nation that doesn't really fit into the meta very well. Its function is pretty much purely to meme and fight where needed. Bulgaria faces almost 0 threat and has every advantage because of micro disparities. However, even so, the Centrals do not face an overwhelming advantage or victory so its questionable how much of an issue this micro disparity actually impacts game balance given its balanced by micro disparity elsewhere. I first have to outline the current meta of the game because you are a bit of out of date on your assumptions, I feel.

First off, the naval balance in med isn't actually so terrible. People have been learning how to combat Guim's naval play, and we have had some victories where Purple's have defeated Pinks. What we increasingly see is purple's retreating navy and waiting for teal to win up north, then bringing teal's navy down to combat it. Basically, the Meta has been adjusting to deal with Pink's advantage here. Still, generally speaking, Pink has an advantage with navy. HOWEVER, this is not the true issue with pink. The issue is that in the Balkans, Romania + N.Greece generally just get instantly or nearly instantly steam rolled right away and that is where balance issues can occur. But still, this is not game breaking. This happens often, and we still see entente wins. Nonetheless, the problem generally is that Pink has a huge surplus of infantry almost disproportionate to his size as a smaller nation. Pink should be a 'minor' nation and yet often ends up being one of the highest food nations come 1917-1918.  

Now the next thing - Red in my opinion is in much more powerful position than he was previously. We have seen Reds perform far better, and the capital placement change + revo change has definitely made him far more of a threat/powerhouse. Indeed, I would say on the whole we see EG's struggle more vs him. It is not longer the case that russia does inf charges into A-H. What we actually see now is a lot of howie play from red. The current meta is that EG abuses cars/drops vs Red, red tries to turtle/defend caps in that initial push, then once stabilizes begins the push to take back warsaw/defend warsaw and take East Prussia. West meta is the same from when you played most often, except we are recently seeing more "doom" pushes on Paris where EG/Gray/Hung/WG all go for a quick sack of Paris ~1917ish. We have seen mixed results here, where the over-commital results in death to centrals and other times great success. For the Italian front - the ijncome change has made loss of navy far less destructive for purple. We will generally see Purple's at least stale-mate with gray. If purple has naval win + gray has no serbia, gray is losing by 1918 for sure.

So in short - Red is stronger than he was, he no longer relies on infantry, we see far more howitzer play from him, and he is generally a huge issue for Centrals. The pink howie removal also made pink's harrass far less effective. In fact, the early game harass of pink is pretty much non-existent for the most part without his howitzers. 

I just did that to provide you with a quick up to date overview of the Meta in case it changes your thoughts on anything.

Now for the actual changes - 

While I understand that you want to reduce the impact one slot has, the fact of the matter is that all you are going to be doing here is shuffling which slots have the most weight and importance. You are never going to be able to stop that from happening, it's just the way the game is. In fact, this arguably reduces the noob slots available. Arguably this configuration makes it so that overall importance and skill required of each slot has increased, not the other way around. The only place which has gotten easier is purple, mybe yellow. North Germany will be more difficult than bulgaria having to immediately 1v1. LB will need to actually be fairly skillful if he is to 1v1 a Yellow without Pink's support, and Green is going to get even more abused now that he either 1. has to worry about navy or 2. loses navy every time and gets landed all the time. Is this really going to have the desired effect of reducing the importance of each individual slot? I don't think so - it just moves things around in my opinion. Frankly, I hve never understood the problem of having "all-star" slots. Moreover, we have increasingly seen people branch out and take up the harder slots in recent games. 12345p  picked up Russia and is a fairly reliable one. Pusan has become a reliable EG. DBTM/aPerson have both had WG games where they have done decently. These are hard slots, but there will always be hard slots in the game. Just something to think about. 

With all this said, and to keep things short, I would support this change because I think Bulgaria is a cancer nation that as you said, does random shit that makes no sense, and this change MIGHT improve things  if we can properly address the following things;

1. How do we ensure italy doesn't get free naval victories every game and therefore overpower Austria each and every time? In my view, it may be viable to have Gray control navy at least initially and let LB control the serbia micro for a bit, so this may not be a huge issue. However, if you are splitting between green/gray again, you are going to split upgrades potentially, and require additional sharing between parties. Moreover, who gets Bulgs additional navy when it joins? LB?? that's too disjointed. 

2. People clearly do not like the idea of every nation becoming france like in that you engage in autistic howie micro the whole game. ISH has done well in that regard in that while howie play is a central focus, each front has a bit of a different style, and it is really only france/WG that is truly fully autistic howie micro. I think this is also my biggest concern, the west front will be one huge autism 1v1 howie micro fest, and arguably the balkans will be as well. Same with purple/gray. The only way I can see this not being the case is if North Germany/GB engage in prolonged navy fights where they actually build navy. Possible? Won't know till it happens. Will have to play it by ear.

3. The change will be extremely isolating for Ottomans - how do we ensure they aren't further mucked than they already are? They are going to get a new capital, have MORE land to trench, not have naval cover, and most certainlty never enjoy naval superiority. Yet at the same time a lot of Entente wins depend on this mucking of OE because it's the only way to open the Balkans up, since Balkans generally fall. I don't know what can really be done here under your suggestions, and it may just be the nature of the game and given history/geography, how things will have to be. I think Green having Constantinople could be good. It should be re-made to be his 'central capital' but what I would suggest is that while there is a regular ferry, green should have a special, destroyable ferry that lets him cross irrespective of naval presence. Maybe a little ridiculous but the only fair, balance preserving measure I can think of. 

4. Super Hungary? Super Serbia? - What is going to be done to balance this out? Will all of Pink's units/infra stay, minus constant stuff and LB inherits it? Pink has been fairly key in taking down serbia's when LB's have struggled. But at the same time we don't want a snowballing LB either. Moreover, i noticed your concern for more WG inf in the game, but removing Bulgaria means Centrals lose balkan inf class, which is statistically the best inf the game so be careful about any changes to WG without accounting for that. I think what you're going to want to do is generally scale down the income in the Balkans, but at the same time you've gotta find a way to make an LB vs Yellow fight more or less fair when romania + n. greece joins, because I don't think it can be expected that Serbia is still alive. Unless you are going to consider buffing Serbia itself even more, in which case you'd need to be careful about how much additional strength romania + North Greece adds. I doubt the balance will be correct on the first try and it's probably gonna require a lot of tweaking.

5. German Inf Nerfs ?? We need more clarity on this. What is the envision stat change? This is IMO pretty big for east front balance when EG depends a lot on car drops to deal damage to Russia to get on an equal footing with him. Similarly, adding a Koenigsberg base would probably be fairly destructive for EG. I don't actually think Russia would ever revolt under these circumstances, esp. if we consider that LB would likely always be tied up vs yellow. So this is going to need some fairly substantial re-balancing, potentially. I would rather just see the german inf stay the same for now, but just give teal a third rax, and keep N.G on two raxes.

That's it for now, but those are my main concerns about the changes.

Maybe an appropriate compromise is one more updated version with bulg, and then you can implement these changes.

 

Edited by War4life

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

3. The change will be extremely isolating for Ottomans - how do we ensure they aren't further mucked than they already are? They are going to get a new capital, have MORE land to trench, not have naval cover, and most certainlty never enjoy naval superiority. Yet at the same time a lot of Entente wins depend on this mucking of OE because it's the only way to open the Balkans up, since Balkans generally fall. I don't know what can really be done here under your suggestions, and it may just be the nature of the game and given history/geography, how things will have to be. I think Green having Constantinople could be good. It should be re-made to be his 'central capital' but what I would suggest is that while there is a regular ferry, green should have a special, destroyable ferry that lets him cross irrespective of naval presence. Maybe a little ridiculous but the only fair, balance preserving measure I can think of. 

 

 Not a bad idea when you know the distance between both sides of Istanbul

ISTANBUL ( 06 Jours - 05 Nuits ) Spéciale Offre Aid Al ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To preface everything: people need to understand that more thought would go into this besides recoloring existing units. Starting forces, structures, tax values, chokes, mountains, rivers, all that can be changed. Some live balancing is always necessary but a lot of the these issues can be foreseen in the editor. A change as simple as adding a Submarine or Torpedo Boat somewhere can change everything for example. So if I hear a concern and my first thought is "They're just superimposing this change they're isolating over the current state of ISH" then obviously I will try to account for that.

I won't abandon the map and I suppose I will begrudgingly implement the suggestions fed to me if the community truly does reject this proposal wholeheartedly, it's just that I'm really over the dynamic of lobbies being such a pain to organize because of the slot issues I described. The Africa Front is my favorite to play and I never get to because balance demands I play Austria or GB. I want to make it so the community feels free to be more flexible with the slots in fully competitive lobbies. Maybe some people would like to play France if it wasn't required that your howie micro be top-tier to handle the power of WG, or maybe others would like to play Italy if the meta didn't demand so much of them navally. I used to get to play Italy a lot more myself before that became the case, but now I'm always stuck on GB, which isn't a slot I dislike but it's what I always have to play on Entente. The takeaway of this is not "Let EagleMan play the slot he wants so he doesn't ruin my game." How many other people are in a situation like me and how many players have we already lost to the wayside because of that dynamic? What happens to the community if we lose our handful of WGs or Russias? We're overly dependent on a handful of linchpin players. The game seems calcified (even if balanced), but I see the meta doubling down on that calcification. If I do something like nerf Bulgarian navy, then that makes having a Bulgaria specialist even more important, because that nerf does absolutely nothing to change pink's nature as a slot or the importance of Centrals winning navy in the Mediterranean, making lobbies even more rigid. I'd be treating the issue superficially but not stopping it from poisoning the meta. I feel like I'm playing the same game over and over again.

Anyways, if I even move forward on all this it would be in like late December or January, apparently people think I'll do this in a week or something?

4 hours ago, War4life said:

1. In effect, you are conceding med navy to Italy, and that is going to have significant unforeseen balance ramifications. Italy is strong, and people don't seem to realize this. Especially if Serbia is a good player, Gray is going to have a tough time. In fact, Gray gets out incomed if he cannot take any of serbia, which is otten the case (but i have a suggestion to remedy this, i'll provide it later).  People generally like that bulgaria is dedicated naval counter to italy at the start, and enjoy that unique aspect of the game. They generally seem to prefer a nerf to pink's navy. What will happen here is that gray / green will park it like you said, but Purple can very easily kill a camped navy that is not being baby sat the whole time. It happens all the time. This then means that Green, WHO still struggles with getting landed today, is going to be feasted upon even more. Now he must also trench constantinople, which he can be cut off from with a naval loss. Big problem for that theatre (this is more my thinking but you get the point).

I don't think it's a concession to Italy, but it's an encouragement for the meta to revert to a different time when navy wasn't so heavily focused on. It used to be pretty routine for that sort of camping to happen with people focusing on land, and the game progressed happily when navy was in the background. So I nerf pink again, how does that stop him from continuing to all-in on navy with little appreciable penalty to himself? Do I just keep cutting the faction to the bone because in the hands of a few, his potential impact is enormous? That's an issue I think is inherent to the design of the slot.

Re: camped navy that purple can kill, see preface. And if purple can split focus that, then so can green, with defender's advantage.

4 hours ago, War4life said:

2. Concerns that you are just going to be creating a super hungary player. People seem to be under the impression that there is no way a yellow will ever be able to survive vs Hungary, and Hungary is going to end up getting super income from romania + north g reece + bulg. 

See the preface. And why would a Serbia be inherently worse off against 1 player's micro rather than two?

5 hours ago, War4life said:

3. People seem to be generally supportive of the concept of allowing people to play different slots and reducing pressure, but they also do not want to turn every game into a 1v1 howie battle. The most derided slot ATM is France, and the concern is that these changes will in effect make almost every slot a 'france' slot.  THis seems to be the biggest concern - people really don't want to see the game devolve into siloed 1v1s.  People also do not see how GB could ever push NG given the current state of the terrain, and IMO I agree - you would need to definitely make the front a little more accessible/wider.

I'm sympathetic to the concern of siloed 1v1s, 1v1 eternal slogfests over a small stretch of no man's land have their place but shouldn't be the experience of every fight. It would be my goal to try to provide a little unique flavor to each fight, like how LB/Yellow would be a 1v1 but across many fronts, with the strategy of where to focus playing a key role rather than the single battleground being predesignated. They also aren't walled off, so tag team assists are still possible as always, e.g. Russian incursions.

5 hours ago, War4life said:

4. People tend to not see the 2v1 in West as such a big deal, because Hungary always ends up assisting in the West anyways (but this is partly a function of the existence of a bulg that can solo balkans - so i dont see this as really changing much except from the outset). 

Are the people who don't see it as a big deal volunteering to play the West Germany slot for the rest of time and are you willing to let them play it in a competitive game?

5 hours ago, War4life said:

5. People in general want to see incremental changes not huge revamps. They still support the idea of nerfing pink/bulgarian navy, and also buffing Romania. People in particular feel that the majority of yellow's howitzers should be concentrated in Romania and not North Greece at the start and generally feel Romania should be buffed more. 

Yeah I understand the desire for change to be that way, my issue with Bulg is described above which is my response to this. We can do a non-revamp patch to redistribute yellow's strength though.

5 hours ago, War4life said:

I agree that bulgaria is a shit nation that doesn't really fit into the meta very well. Its function is pretty much purely to meme and fight where needed. Bulgaria faces almost 0 threat and has every advantage because of micro disparities. However, even so, the Centrals do not face an overwhelming advantage or victory so its questionable how much of an issue this micro disparity actually impacts game balance given its balanced by micro disparity elsewhere. I first have to outline the current meta of the game because you are a bit of out of date on your assumptions, I feel.

Yeah the game's still overall balanced, but I want to address the micro disparity because of how it seems to negatively affect the health of the community and the ability to get good games going. A dedicated meme slot is a permanent wrench in the works.

5 hours ago, War4life said:

First off, the naval balance in med isn't actually so terrible. People have been learning how to combat Guim's naval play, and we have had some victories where Purple's have defeated Pinks. What we increasingly see is purple's retreating navy and waiting for teal to win up north, then bringing teal's navy down to combat it. Basically, the Meta has been adjusting to deal with Pink's advantage here. Still, generally speaking, Pink has an advantage with navy. HOWEVER, this is not the true issue with pink. The issue is that in the Balkans, Romania + N.Greece generally just get instantly or nearly instantly steam rolled right away and that is where balance issues can occur. But still, this is not game breaking. This happens often, and we still see entente wins. Nonetheless, the problem generally is that Pink has a huge surplus of infantry almost disproportionate to his size as a smaller nation. Pink should be a 'minor' nation and yet often ends up being one of the highest food nations come 1917-1918.  

To reiterate, my concern isn't so much balance, but fixing issues toxic to the game. Navy sucks, there's only so much I can do with it in the WC3 engine, so the fact that it's become more and more important in the meta over time has set off alarm bells for me because navy is very difficult to both balance and make fun. It's the same reason I never want to open the can of worms that is air-to-ground combat. Only a handful of people like Guim love navy enough to focus on it all game alongside dealing with the task of constantly loading and unloading men everywhere. That's when the meta started to spiral out of control as he specialized in Italy/Bulgaria, requiring others to do the same, which pushed to the forefront the fact that Bulg is an inoperable meme. One reason I think yellow gets steamrolled is that he has several fronts he can't prepare for unlike pink/LB, and they with that advantage also get to have 2 players microing against yellow. Yeah I could nerf the Bulgaria country, but then my concern rises again of making Bulgaria barely be a slot at all. Then if I buff Yellow's Balkan possessions, it's also easy for it to snowball into Super Serbia.

Pink shares the same infantry type as Yellow which train very fast. Presumably Poot did this for the sake of Bulgaria having men to play around with so as to not feel like a non-existent slot and also so Pink wouldn't have to be given several Barracks. He could be given a new unit type or whatever, but aside from the fact that his men train fast, part of the reason he has a high food count (besides naval supply) is because he doesn't really need to spend his men. His land engagements are mostly voluntary. There's rarely a situation that forces him to commit his men to the meat grind of a theater besides camping out yellow.

5 hours ago, War4life said:

So in short - Red is stronger than he was, he no longer relies on infantry, we see far more howitzer play from him, and he is generally a huge issue for Centrals. The pink howie removal also made pink's harrass far less effective. In fact, the early game harass of pink is pretty much non-existent for the most part without his howitzers.  

That's all good to hear if you feel the East Front is still balanced.

5 hours ago, War4life said:

While I understand that you want to reduce the impact one slot has, the fact of the matter is that all you are going to be doing here is shuffling which slots have the most weight and importance. You are never going to be able to stop that from happening, it's just the way the game is. In fact, this arguably reduces the noob slots available. Arguably this configuration makes it so that overall importance and skill required of each slot has increased, not the other way around. The only place which has gotten easier is purple, mybe yellow. North Germany will be more difficult than bulgaria having to immediately 1v1. LB will need to actually be fairly skillful if he is to 1v1 a Yellow without Pink's support, and Green is going to get even more abused now that he either 1. has to worry about navy or 2. loses navy every time and gets landed all the time. Is this really going to have the desired effect of reducing the importance of each individual slot? I don't think so - it just moves things around in my opinion. Frankly, I hve never understood the problem of having "all-star" slots. Moreover, we have increasingly seen people branch out and take up the harder slots in recent games. 12345p  picked up Russia and is a fairly reliable one. Pusan has become a reliable EG. DBTM/aPerson have both had WG games where they have done decently. These are hard slots, but there will always be hard slots in the game. Just something to think about. 

Some nations will inevitably have a higher skill cap than others, and it's not desirable or practical to equalize them all, I just want the range to not be as severe as it currently is so that we can be more flexible. Stuff like Green makes me think you're only picturing Green as the noob slot - why is it we can assume Italy can micro navy while dealing with Austria, but Green can't handle a defensive camp of his navy? Also if the community is on board for the 7v7 rework, that would create some easy noob slots. Some slots can also be made into noob slots, like Austria and Italy. Why is Austria not a noob slot currently? Well, that's because Italy is powerful, so he has to be made strong as well. Why is Italy so powerful? Because of how weird navy can be among other addressable factors. So if we deemphasize navy, we can trace that causal chain and account for the effects step by step. It is theoretically not a necessity that Austria/Italy have high income, 4 barracks, and fast training infantry. The slots could be nerfed in tandem with each other to make them gentler slots we can put noobs in. That makes it so starting starting Serbia can be nerfed a little or starting Hungary buffed, Sarajevo can be deemphasized, or both. Then consider how it would be a good training ground for noobs to duke it out in the Adriatic corridor with no events to befuddle them like with how we have to instruct pink, yellow, LB etc. to deal with certain events as they come. I'm not saying this is the plan as it's all spontaneous towards your comment, it's just an example of how things can shift around and cascade for a potentially acceptable outcome, albeit one unfamiliar to the current meta.

5 hours ago, War4life said:

1. How do we ensure italy doesn't get free naval victories every game and therefore overpower Austria each and every time? In my view, it may be viable to have Gray control navy at least initially and let LB control the serbia micro for a bit, so this may not be a huge issue. However, if you are splitting between green/gray again, you are going to split upgrades potentially, and require additional sharing between parties. Moreover, who gets Bulgs additional navy when it joins? LB?? that's too disjointed. 

Navy would be delicate and I would likely mess it up in some way before patching, but a lot of what I've said already factors into this, such as the desire to deemphasize navy and my preface in terms of changing fleet composition. For example, in this new setup, would it be necessary to have a large Entente Mediterranean navy at the start? What if the bulk of the navy came online with Italy's entrance? What if Greece, Crimea and Portugal had stronger navies? Obviously, there would be lots of cascading effects from all of that, but my point is things don't have to stay the way they are where we fiddle around the edges forever and hope to hit it right. For your concern of it being disjointed, part of me says good. Why? Because while unified ownership makes control easier, the synergy of that has accelerated the naval importance in the meta. If you double down on navy as Purple or Pink, you can reap more reward now with shared upgrades, which makes focusing on navy more attractive for both sides. I dislike the importance of navy so much at this point that a passing thought writing this was just to eliminate most of the starting navy, shipyards and transports in the Mediterranean while making landings less threatening and see how quality of life would improve. Would people tryhard navy from the start under that circumstance? It'd be much less likely. People would take their cues and go focus on their ground fronts and then decide mid-game if they want to execute a naval strategy. Game outcomes felt more consistent and fair when everyone sat around with their navies until the mid or late game. The impact of a decisive naval victory early on is way too big, especially in the case of Centrals winning. That's why I want Central Med. Navy to park itself again, just like how most Germans keep their navy parked.

6 hours ago, War4life said:

2. People clearly do not like the idea of every nation becoming france like in that you engage in autistic howie micro the whole game. ISH has done well in that regard in that while howie play is a central focus, each front has a bit of a different style, and it is really only france/WG that is truly fully autistic howie micro. I think this is also my biggest concern, the west front will be one huge autism 1v1 howie micro fest, and arguably the balkans will be as well. Same with purple/gray. The only way I can see this not being the case is if North Germany/GB engage in prolonged navy fights where they actually build navy. Possible? Won't know till it happens. Will have to play it by ear. 

I don't think the 2v2 would be full on autistic howie micro, I think all involved would feel more like GB who faces the least stress of the current trio. With the 2v2 there'd be a flow where the teams try to push and defend at different points, assisting the other as needed, bringing some strategy to it rather than the victor being solely determined by raw micro power. Because WG wouldn't be this indomitable powerhouse where you need every howitzer possible to slow him, France would also be free to relax a little and try alternative strategies like how other nations can.

6 hours ago, War4life said:

3. The change will be extremely isolating for Ottomans - how do we ensure they aren't further mucked than they already are? They are going to get a new capital, have MORE land to trench, not have naval cover, and most certainlty never enjoy naval superiority. Yet at the same time a lot of Entente wins depend on this mucking of OE because it's the only way to open the Balkans up, since Balkans generally fall. I don't know what can really be done here under your suggestions, and it may just be the nature of the game and given history/geography, how things will have to be. I think Green having Constantinople could be good. It should be re-made to be his 'central capital' but what I would suggest is that while there is a regular ferry, green should have a special, destroyable ferry that lets him cross irrespective of naval presence. Maybe a little ridiculous but the only fair, balance preserving measure I can think of. 

I can imagine something like the twin caps (or just one cap) having the ferry ability. Control the cap/s and your ferry is safe and sound. If the community wants the 7v7 then that remedies a lot of your concerns. I can always put more unpathable coast as well too. Also see above concerning how we understimate Greens currently because the meta dictates that we never allow the best players to play the slot.

 

6 hours ago, War4life said:

4. Super Hungary? Super Serbia? - What is going to be done to balance this out? Will all of Pink's units/infra stay, minus constant stuff and LB inherits it? Pink has been fairly key in taking down serbia's when LB's have struggled. But at the same time we don't want a snowballing LB either. Moreover, i noticed your concern for more WG inf in the game, but removing Bulgaria means Centrals lose balkan inf class, which is statistically the best inf the game so be careful about any changes to WG without accounting for that. I think what you're going to want to do is generally scale down the income in the Balkans, but at the same time you've gotta find a way to make an LB vs Yellow fight more or less fair when romania + n. greece joins, because I don't think it can be expected that Serbia is still alive. Unless you are going to consider buffing Serbia itself even more, in which case you'd need to be careful about how much additional strength romania + North Greece adds. I doubt the balance will be correct on the first try and it's probably gonna require a lot of tweaking.

I think I've described some thinking that applies to this, and you're also generally thinking how I am here in terms of the scope of tweaks that would be required. For example, North Greece could lose the Barracks and most of its tax income to Romania as it's made into a full fledged base (which also makes it viable to retreat into Russia with substantial forces if circumstances merit). North Greece could then serve primarily as a reinforcement event, such as reinforcing Serbia if it's still alive, or to be a place with strong defenses but no ability to replenish its strength, so it can be a thorn in the side of LB if he's not careful about neutralizing it.

6 hours ago, War4life said:

5. German Inf Nerfs ?? We need more clarity on this. What is the envision stat change? This is IMO pretty big for east front balance when EG depends a lot on car drops to deal damage to Russia to get on an equal footing with him. Similarly, adding a Koenigsberg base would probably be fairly destructive for EG. I don't actually think Russia would ever revolt under these circumstances, esp. if we consider that LB would likely always be tied up vs yellow. So this is going to need some fairly substantial re-balancing, potentially. I would rather just see the german inf stay the same for now, but just give teal a third rax, and keep N.G on two raxes.

Clarity is difficult to provide, I would have to feel a lot of it out as I implemented the changes and considered how each minute change would affect everything else. I would want to reduce damage (they'd still remain the most powerful and France could commensurately be knocked down a peg alongside them, as on a per-unit basis both are far ahead of everyone else) and decrease train times. Imagine how starved you would feel as NG if you only had two Barracks which few other factions start out with, and then such long train times to boot? It'd be extremely punishing to lose men and unfun. You can see how things can potentially cascade to improve other issues, like I would then be free to make French troops train faster or give France an extra Barracks, which will provide more tactical flexibility and reduce his reliance on pure howitzer warfare.

Anyways, it was mentioned a few times but 7v7 could be done too which I feel neatly addresses some concerns, and it could be made to degrade to 6v6 like the 5v5 mode. Next weekend I'll have to investigate the observer desync issues and see if it's due to something I can fix with the triggers - the WC3 patches messed with a lot of triggers that relied on the assumption of a 12 man game. I wouldn't want to add 2 slots only for them to experience constant desync issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote
29 minutes ago, EagleMan said:

Stuff like Green makes me think you're only picturing Green as the noob slot - why is it we can assume Italy can micro navy while dealing with Austria, but Green can't handle a defensive camp of his navy?

 

Just saying people attribute green as a noob slot but it is far from a noob slots. It is in a corner, far from conflicts but that front if quickly won can turn the tides of the game for the winning faction. Also if Green can delay Orange, he is inside the soft spot of Russia and can rapidly take control of russian cities and hold them until revo happens. The meta around green and orange is so unexploited because of giving it to noobs for the effects of that front not being directly affecting the rest.

 And Green also have to manage entente landings over his large coasts or russians early pushes if russia is competent.

 

Austria and Italy are considered pros only because people think so. But you could put two players of equal skills there and it wouldn't affect the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that landings are generally fine at the moment. Defense vs landings is a c ritical aspect of the game, and landings themselves are a critical aspect of the game. Removing or de-emphasizing that will just serve to make the game more of a 1v1 autism howie micro fest. See my suggestion about LoS/model size/ms generally in the other thread. But something more radical I was thinking, if you are really concerned about this, is to simply implement a fueling system for ships whereby when they are out of port they lose fuel and eventually are unable to move. Now, the fuel thing shouldn't be ridiculous - it should be relatively slow (like, the ships should be able to be out at sea for quite a while before needing to refuel - this isn't a  new micro requirement, but more something to require people to be strategic about engagement, etc.), but you get my point - this would force people to be more tactical about ship placement, etc. Of course, this might also wreak havoc and let people land more easily because ships have to be in-port to refuel at times, but tbh this may be the best possible mechanism for taking care of navy if implemented correctly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/11/2018 at 1:02 PM, War4life said:

I will start by articulating the discord's concerns here, and then provide my own thoughts afterwards, mainly because I doubt the discord people will post here, or if they do, it will be largely incoherent.

OMEGALUL

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, War4life said:

when..?

 

The time of work begins now, literally now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone particularly care if I move up the events of ISH to start at when OE joins the war? The new editor has a hard limit on the number of passive units that can be placed on the map which is getting in the way a lot which is why I want to put Egypt/OE under direct player control at the start. Downside is it'd make other time critical events come up a minute faster, e.g. the Italy war (though that front will be affected by the overhaul). Or we can just start at the same month with OE playing anyways. Or I can do that but also place conspicuous pathing blockers at the Egypt/OE border that go away after one minute, which will give them the freedom to mobilize in that one minute but no meaningful ability to wage war (unless you're performing some weird rush). I wouldn't want forced neutrality for 1 minute  because that could be exploited.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Give entering powers 1 minute buffer time; that is, an entering nation like Ottoman/Egypt/Italy/etc should be allowed control 1 minute before officially joining the war. This will allow player strategy flexibility and prevent rushes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Just let Ottos and Orange start at war right at the start, yolo. But absolutely dont move up events 1 min r u crazy thats huge for balance

 

 

Edited by War4life

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×