syndicates

Biggio509 · 01-30-2012, 09:44 PM

Anyone try to simulate these in the 19th century? My Cleveland spiders in the fictional universe following the historical baseball progression is never anywhere near as bad as real life. What would be the easiest way to do it?

Set financials for clubs like Cleveland really low so they could only sign youngsters or manually move the best players to St. Louis?

Spritze · 02-02-2012, 05:56 PM

When I tried this a few months ago I found really low financials often left me with only 8 or 10 players on these teams. Choosing "Win Now" or "Rebuild" didn't do nothing neither. I wound up having to force trades to get the good players to move. Sometimes I just flat out moved them via the player editor.

Basically it seems OOTP is anti-syndicate. Probably anti-mafia as well. Perhaps it even has an anti-military industrial complex.

And don't get me started on the New World Order! (It is most definately NOT alpha-numeric)

Biggio509 · 02-09-2012, 06:02 PM

I think financials in general may have something to do with it. One thing I have found playing around with finances is a lot of money in the league creates bigger disparity. The historical financial import is FUBAR due to the fact the projector does not recognize fractions and the game tries to balance the average team budget. So importing historical financials always gives enough media contracts to the average payroll. When I played like this big dynasties appeared almost every year Chicago won the NL 4 out of 5 of the first years and 9 times from 1876 to 1900. STL won 6 titles from 1882 to 1891 and only lost in 1891 because of BAL's short schedule.

When I made my own financials based on the scarce 19th century data I found, essentially the contract data from Baseball:The Early years and payroll scant payroll data from there and the 1951 congressional report, teams were more lean the average profit was much smaller and there were fewer dynasties. My ST. Louis Browns won 4 titles as they did historically in the AA but Det was the only team to win 3 titles in a row in the NL. Note: not with historical players and using real historical timelines with contraction and expansion so teams could build dynasties picking up the pieces of failed teams despite the reserve clause.

I think I have found a conundrum. Putting too much money in the league and starting media contracts too early really creates dynasties but it makes being a GM boring when you can outbid everyone else for the best players created or the best of the pieces of a contracting team. Leaner finances means more competition and a more fun game since you are limited but not as historical of an outcome.

scott1964 · 02-09-2012, 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biggio509

I think financials in general may have something to do with it. One thing I have found playing around with finances is a lot of money in the league creates bigger disparity. The historical financial import is FUBAR due to the fact the projector does not recognize fractions and the game tries to balance the average team budget. So importing historical financials always gives enough media contracts to the average payroll. When I played like this big dynasties appeared almost every year Chicago won the NL 4 out of 5 of the first years and 9 times from 1876 to 1900. STL won 6 titles from 1882 to 1891 and only lost in 1891 because of BAL's short schedule.

When I made my own financials based on the scarce 19th century data I found, essentially the contract data from Baseball:The Early years and payroll scant payroll data from there and the 1951 congressional report, teams were more lean the average profit was much smaller and there were fewer dynasties. My ST. Louis Browns won 4 titles as they did historically in the AA but Det was the only team to win 3 titles in a row in the NL. Note: not with historical players and using real historical timelines with contraction and expansion so teams could build dynasties picking up the pieces of failed teams despite the reserve clause.

I think I have found a conundrum. Putting too much money in the league and starting media contracts too early really creates dynasties but it makes being a GM boring when you can outbid everyone else for the best players created or the best of the pieces of a contracting team. Leaner finances means more competition and a more fun game since you are limited but not as historical of an outcome.

I have found that out with my dynasty. I can get any player I want and can outbid any team. But doing that does not guarantee that my team will win all the time. My team has Tris Speaker, Ty Cobb, Walter Johnson, Christy Mathewson to name a few. I will probable start over in ver 13.

Le Grande Orange · 02-10-2012, 12:51 AM

Something to keep in mind: the real Cleveland Spiders abandoned their home park roughly half-way through the 1899 season and played the rest of the year on the road (Louisville abandoned its home park late that same season). The Spiders ended up playing just 42 games at home and 112 on the road.

This was at a time when home winning percentages were higher. NL home clubs posted a .567 winning percentage at home in 1899 excluding games involving Cleveland. Including Cleveland the home winning percentage was .592 for the NL as a whole. (The Spiders posted an 11-101 record in its away games).

Biggio509 · 02-11-2012, 05:42 PM

I think the schedules I am using reflect the playing on the road that much. However, I don't think there is anywhere to give more homefield advantage in the game. The problem is not just with Cleveland but in general trying to get the dynasty feel of the era. Even with a decent financial disparity it is just hard to recreate the dominance of say Baltimore and Boston from 1892 to 1900. I suppose part of that is because these teams were tactically innovative and the AI just doesn't work right for the hit and run Baltimore chop strategy of the time where speed was paramount not power. Sure you can adjust strategies but the way signings, depth charts, and lineups are done is just not quite right for the era. I don't think the AI signs properly nor sets the lineup right for the era of high baseball and hit and run.

There are some problems that are hard to recreate such as how some teams invented modern strategy while other lagged, how teams like Baltimore were rough and tumble and practiced a play style that would get modern players ejected while others didn't. There is no way to recreate spiking an umpire for a call you didn't like or throwing the catcher's mask on the base line to trip the runner. League totals get the numbers right but teams don't have the strategy and willingness to cheat differences that the real teams had. Boston had the cutting edge strategy and Baltimore had the lack chivalrousness that caught teams of the day off guard.

You also don't have the problem of many pitchers becoming completely ineffective when the mound was moved to modern distance. Whether that be due to fictional players or 3 year recalc. That left some teams without really effective pitching.

01-30-2012, 09:44 PM	#1
Biggio509 Hall Of Famer Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 2,027	syndicates Anyone try to simulate these in the 19th century? My Cleveland spiders in the fictional universe following the historical baseball progression is never anywhere near as bad as real life. What would be the easiest way to do it? Set financials for clubs like Cleveland really low so they could only sign youngsters or manually move the best players to St. Louis?

02-02-2012, 05:56 PM	#2
Spritze OOTP Historical Czar Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Bothell Wa Posts: 7,254	When I tried this a few months ago I found really low financials often left me with only 8 or 10 players on these teams. Choosing "Win Now" or "Rebuild" didn't do nothing neither. I wound up having to force trades to get the good players to move. Sometimes I just flat out moved them via the player editor. Basically it seems OOTP is anti-syndicate. Probably anti-mafia as well. Perhaps it even has an anti-military industrial complex. And don't get me started on the New World Order! (It is most definately NOT alpha-numeric) __________________ It's madness, madness, I tell you! For the love of God, don't do it!

02-09-2012, 06:02 PM	#3
Biggio509 Hall Of Famer Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 2,027	I think financials in general may have something to do with it. One thing I have found playing around with finances is a lot of money in the league creates bigger disparity. The historical financial import is FUBAR due to the fact the projector does not recognize fractions and the game tries to balance the average team budget. So importing historical financials always gives enough media contracts to the average payroll. When I played like this big dynasties appeared almost every year Chicago won the NL 4 out of 5 of the first years and 9 times from 1876 to 1900. STL won 6 titles from 1882 to 1891 and only lost in 1891 because of BAL's short schedule. When I made my own financials based on the scarce 19th century data I found, essentially the contract data from Baseball:The Early years and payroll scant payroll data from there and the 1951 congressional report, teams were more lean the average profit was much smaller and there were fewer dynasties. My ST. Louis Browns won 4 titles as they did historically in the AA but Det was the only team to win 3 titles in a row in the NL. Note: not with historical players and using real historical timelines with contraction and expansion so teams could build dynasties picking up the pieces of failed teams despite the reserve clause. I think I have found a conundrum. Putting too much money in the league and starting media contracts too early really creates dynasties but it makes being a GM boring when you can outbid everyone else for the best players created or the best of the pieces of a contracting team. Leaner finances means more competition and a more fun game since you are limited but not as historical of an outcome.

02-10-2012, 12:51 AM	#5
Le Grande Orange Hall Of Famer Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Up There Posts: 15,413	Something to keep in mind: the real Cleveland Spiders abandoned their home park roughly half-way through the 1899 season and played the rest of the year on the road (Louisville abandoned its home park late that same season). The Spiders ended up playing just 42 games at home and 112 on the road. This was at a time when home winning percentages were higher. NL home clubs posted a .567 winning percentage at home in 1899 excluding games involving Cleveland. Including Cleveland the home winning percentage was .592 for the NL as a whole. (The Spiders posted an 11-101 record in its away games).

02-11-2012, 05:42 PM	#6
Biggio509 Hall Of Famer Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 2,027	I think the schedules I am using reflect the playing on the road that much. However, I don't think there is anywhere to give more homefield advantage in the game. The problem is not just with Cleveland but in general trying to get the dynasty feel of the era. Even with a decent financial disparity it is just hard to recreate the dominance of say Baltimore and Boston from 1892 to 1900. I suppose part of that is because these teams were tactically innovative and the AI just doesn't work right for the hit and run Baltimore chop strategy of the time where speed was paramount not power. Sure you can adjust strategies but the way signings, depth charts, and lineups are done is just not quite right for the era. I don't think the AI signs properly nor sets the lineup right for the era of high baseball and hit and run. There are some problems that are hard to recreate such as how some teams invented modern strategy while other lagged, how teams like Baltimore were rough and tumble and practiced a play style that would get modern players ejected while others didn't. There is no way to recreate spiking an umpire for a call you didn't like or throwing the catcher's mask on the base line to trip the runner. League totals get the numbers right but teams don't have the strategy and willingness to cheat differences that the real teams had. Boston had the cutting edge strategy and Baltimore had the lack chivalrousness that caught teams of the day off guard. You also don't have the problem of many pitchers becoming completely ineffective when the mound was moved to modern distance. Whether that be due to fictional players or 3 year recalc. That left some teams without really effective pitching.