So Boerd said
Spain can project more power than Portugal?

Yes

Pasta Sentient said
How are tiers determined? Like I agree that historically some nations have more of an imprint than others, but whether a nation is Tier 3 or Tier 2 could be a matter of opinion as opposed to factual.

How is the projection power determined? What stats are being used to determine the the tier system? Or is it just opinion?

Arbitrarily. I'll try to explain the tiers.

Tier I is filled by the world's top dogs. Britain and France with their strong position in Europe and massive colonial empire, rising star Germany that aims to compete with and outshine the former two, and the Russian giant covering 1/6th of the world's land area. These nations are the most relevant.

Tier II: Consists of nations that could, in terms of strength, give Tier I a run for its money, especially the USA. However, they aren't quite as strong as the top dogs and/or they fail to leave a mark that's suitable for a world power.

Tier III: Medium/Regional powers. These countries hover between II and IV. They can't possibly face a Tier I or Tier II nation alone, but because of their power projection and colonial empire (Netherlands now), still being stronger than average (Spain), or being a regional giant (Brazil) gives them a position that's still above average. Despite being an unciv, China is here too since it's fucking massive.

Tier IV: The Joe Average nations. They mainly just sit there minding their own business, and any imprint they want to leave in foreign affairs will be through working together with others or by shady business. Could make convenient allies.

Tier V: Uncivilised nations and/or nations that do not control their foreign affairs.

Pepperm1nts said
But I imagine that being active on the world stage would help too. Even if it's just getting involved in international topics.

This is 100% correct. It is the reason the US is not a Tier I.

Pepperm1nts said
@Pasta: I think he said it depends on how much of your influence your nation is able to impose upon others. If your nation is constantly ending people's wars with diplomacy, it might become more important. Same if.. like, you have a serious hold on resources that make a lot of people dependent on you. And, obviously, if your nation is able to use sheer force to get what it wants, it'll probably be somewhere high in the tier scale.But I imagine that being active on the world stage would help too. Even if it's just getting involved in international topics.

I can understand that, my worry is who or what determines whether you have such influence. Like...as we have all seen from previous RPs...we like to argue. If this is placed in the hands of a person, my worry is that their opinions will factor into who fits into such and such a tier. So I'm concerned that there does appear to be a factual/statistical/spreadsheet or whatever to determine Tiers, but rather it is something that can be argued against. My main point is that I can see lots of OOC argument's arising from this trying to 'sway' the GMs into giving more tiers based on decisions and such. I don't mind the tier system, just would like it to be made very clear now how it works.

Edit: Ninja'D. Thanks Dutch! :P

You know what, I can actually say what decides your nation's tier in two words. Perceived strength. If your country is seen as capable of bruteforcing whatever (Russia), it's stronk. A big navy helps too.

Reminder: We have a new chatroom. We abandoned the first one for a new one because Nexerus wanted moderating powers.

Just one question though, how does a nation's international standing affects its ability to implement internal projects? America, as we all know, was isolated for a long time and was still very capable of catching up with the world powers despite not doing anything on the international level. I just don't think punishing a nation's ability to build and progress for not being internationally active or for being 'uncivilised' makes much sense.

Dutchbag said
You know what, I can actually say what decides your nation's tier in two words. . If your country is seen as capable of bruteforcing whatever (Russia), it's stronk. A big navy helps too.

I'll keep that in mind. :) So as Japan orders get sent to you Dutch? I think it was said that non-european are your domain? Umm...how does that work with you playing russia? lol Like as potential belligerents I don't want you knowing my orders :P

Edit: I"m getting a bad gateway to that chat, Pepper :(

@Pasta: Me too. I was in it not long ago, but now I can't go back in.

EDIT: It works now.

I would still like Stein to edit this all in to the first page and make it official, along with making it official that non-Euros send orders to Dutch.

@Dutch, you can still make a regular order relevant to a treaty or a war if you want to, right? Also, about treaties, you don't need an order to pass them, do you? You can just do that IC, right? Does that mean a treaty order is just, like, if your treaty calls for you to pay a certain sum of money you don't have to use a regular order to pay it and can simply use your treaty order? Right???

AegonVI said
I would still like Stein to edit this all in to the first page and make it official, along with making it official that non-Euros send orders to Dutch.@Dutch, you can still make a regular order relevant to a treaty or a war if you want to, right? Also, about treaties, you don't need an order to pass them, do you? You can just do that IC, right? Does that mean a treaty order is just, like, if your treaty calls for you to pay a certain sum of money you don't have to use a regular order to pay it and can simply use your treaty order? Right???

I would request that nations with historical animosity towards russia or near Russia geographically would also send orders to Stein. It would be kinda hard to even start the Russo-Japanese war if Dutchbag knew Japan's plans. This is nothing against Dutchbag, just requesting this to make the game fair and with no chance of there being any dispute.

Pasta Sentient said
I would request that nations with historical animosity towards russia or near Russia geographically would also send orders to Stein. It would be kinda hard to even start the Russo-Japanese war if Dutchbag knew Japan's plans. This is nothing against Dutchbag, just requesting this to make the game fair and with no chance of there being any dispute.

Or that develop animosity with Russia, I would like to add.

AegonVI said
You can still make a regular order relevant to a treaty or a war if you want to, right? Also, about treaties, you don't need an order to pass them, do you? You can just do that IC, right? Does that mean a treaty order is just, like, if your treaty calls for you to pay a certain sum of money you don't have to use a regular order to pay it and can simply use your treaty order? Right???

Your treaty order is an order reserved to sign a treaty. It can't be used on anything else. All effects of a treaty will be ratified by your signature. You can still use regular orders to sign treaties, but acts of war are confined to war orders.

Pasta Sentient said
I'll keep that in mind. :) So as Japan orders get sent to you Dutch? I think it was said that non-european are your domain? Umm...how does that work with you playing russia? lol Like as potential belligerents I don't want you knowing my orders :P

Stein will GM a war involving Russia. As for peacetime troubles, I'll find out in the update anyway.

Kho said
Just one question though, how does a nation's international standing affects its ability to implement internal projects? America, as we all know, was isolated for a long time and was still very capable of catching up with the world powers despite not doing anything on the international level. I just don't think punishing a nation's ability to build and progress for not being internationally active or for being 'uncivilised' makes much sense.

Because bigger nations get more done too. They need those orders because they need to compete with others.

@Dutch, I could keep this debate going, but I don't think it's worth either of us wasting our time.

I fully support the Tier System, I understand the reasoning behind it but I think it should be altered to make it less harsh on those of us who purposefully chose small, already disadvantaged nations. I don't think it's an unreasonable request to make the system more fair, either by lessening what the top two tiers get, or increasing what the bottom ones have. That's the last I'm going to say, and I sincerely hope both you and Stein consider this point when you come to a conclusion. Thanks...

As for peacetime troubles, I'll find out in the update anyway.

This doesn't make sense. We send you our orders and you will know then. You will then know the intimate details of our orders and able to counter them with your own. Even if you send your orders first, it still allows you to set up for the future orders instinctively.

Kho said
@Dutch, I could keep this debate going, but I don't think it's worth either of us wasting our time.I fully support the Tier System, I understand the reasoning behind it but I think it should be altered to make it less harsh on those of us who purposefully chose small, already disadvantaged nations. I don't think it's an unreasonable request to make the system more fair, either by lessening what the top two tiers get, or increasing what the bottom ones have. That's the last I'm going to say, and I sincerely hope both you and Stein consider this point when you come to a conclusion. Thanks...

I genuinely do not see where this system is unfair. I see where it is a big nuisance for you, but it is fair.

Pasta Sentient said
This doesn't make sense. We send you our orders and you will know then. You will then know the intimate details of our orders and able to counter them with your own. Even if you send your orders first, it still allows you to set up for the future orders instinctively.

I understand your concern but I am also subject to the deadline.

Dutchbag said
Your treaty order is an order reserved to sign a treaty. It can't be used on anything else. All effects of a treaty will be ratified by your signature. You can still use regular orders to sign treaties, but acts of war are confined to war orders.

Wait, why do we have to use orders to RATIFY treaties? Stein didn't say anything about that in the first post and I thought you could just sign them in an IC post? I understand this isn't Outcast's game, but that's how it worked over there. I believe in that game you only need to use an order on treaties if you are giving up something (land, money, etc.) and that otherwise you could sign them willy-nilly like Dedonus was doing. We really need Stein to weigh in on this as I would rather not waste all of my orders on treaties that only say words with no real action behind them (i.e. giving up land, money, etc.)...

AegonVI said
Wait, why do we have to use orders to RATIFY treaties?

Well, yes. If there is a treaty that affects your statistics it needs to be ratified, or presented to your parliament for ratification.

QUESTION

Your government means your system.

Dutchbag said
Well, yes. If there is a treaty that affects your statistics it needs to be ratified, or presented to your parliament for ratification.

But what if doesn't affect your stats? Like, for example, one that only promises non-aggression (to keep it simple)... Does that require an order to be used?

Dutchbag said
Well, yes. If there is a treaty that affects your statistics it needs to be ratified, or presented to your parliament for ratification.

Can you ratify multiple treaties in one order? Does the ratification include the giving up/taking up of land?

While the tier order system annoys me I will leave it as is.
Although I request that everyone gets a treaty order. Those on the lower tiers are going to need there limited orders to get anywhere, its kinda of unfair to give a treaty order to the bigger powers and not the smaller nations, instead forcing the smaller nations to use a regular order which probably needs to go elsewhere.