No as in province. So if England was colonizing Massachusetts but ceded it to France before the most recent colony attempt was complete, colony attempt would be wiped out. The exploit would be that it would be easy to mess up ai colonization.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
- Status
No as in province. So if England was colonizing Massachusetts but ceded it to France before the most recent colony attempt was complete, colony attempt would be wiped out. The exploit would be that it would be easy to mess up ai colonization.
Excellent! I didn't know that ferocity could be modified this way!
Currently it is only really useful for civil wars (where it is invaluable) and some native-colonizer situations to mimic the fact that diplomacy just would not occur.
You mod for my suggestion is a good one.
The ai isn't always 'too generous'. It is sometimes rediculously non-genous, refusing generous peace deals or offering you a few ducats when you control half their country.
I understand now but this is not what I proposed. In my mind, colonists are not part of the "buildings in process". They must arrive in the targeted province and change population level, culture and religion if they "have" to.
We can do what we want. This is just a matter of devoted time.
Could you please explain such situations?
Indeed but I often see colonial empires offering half of their empire when player can only demand few of them in order to match the warscore.
There's a bug (very minor one) when exploring enemy provinces. It would be really easy to explain with a picture, but I don't have one right now... For example, you have reached Rio Grande with a regular army. It's possible to move into Tampico and discover it, since it's owned by the Aztecs. Then you move to Saltillo (undiscovered). The army will then try to move through undiscovered provinces outside Aztec territory. However the day the normally would reach the province, they stop, and the province remain undiscovered (as it should be). My point is that it shouldn't be possible to move with a regular army to Saltillo in the first place. But this is a very minor bug, so don't spend too much time on it.
And yeah, I only have one or two savegames for each nation I play, so I don't know the dates ingame (like Emperor_krk said).
Terminator: Yeah, some pictures would be nice ingame. Although remaking the tech-tree must be a lot of work?
By the way, I just saw that the HoI2 team has released a beta-patch. I don't know if you are allowed to tell, but are you making a complete package now (patching/bug-fixing + improvements), or will you do a patch first, then start on the improvements?
And yeah, I only have one or two savegames for each nation I play, so I don't know the dates ingame (like Emperor_krk said).
Terminator: Yeah, some pictures would be nice ingame. Although remaking the tech-tree must be a lot of work?
By the way, I just saw that the HoI2 team has released a beta-patch. I don't know if you are allowed to tell, but are you making a complete package now (patching/bug-fixing + improvements), or will you do a patch first, then start on the improvements?
There's a bug (very minor one) when exploring enemy provinces. It would be really easy to explain with a picture, but I don't have one right now... For example, you have reached Rio Grande with a regular army. It's possible to move into Tampico and discover it, since it's owned by the Aztecs. Then you move to Saltillo (undiscovered). The army will then try to move through undiscovered provinces outside Aztec territory. However the day the normally would reach the province, they stop, and the province remain undiscovered (as it should be). My point is that it shouldn't be possible to move with a regular army to Saltillo in the first place. But this is a very minor bug, so don't spend too much time on it.
And yeah, I only have one or two savegames for each nation I play, so I don't know the dates ingame (like Emperor_krk said).
Terminator: Yeah, some pictures would be nice ingame. Although remaking the tech-tree must be a lot of work?
By the way, I just saw that the HoI2 team has released a beta-patch. I don't know if you are allowed to tell, but are you making a complete package now (patching/bug-fixing + improvements), or will you do a patch first, then start on the improvements?
i know what you mean, but is not something that makes any diffrence except for some minimal movement attrition without a point.
38 pages and 4½ hours of my time.
Very interesting project.
I have to go back and play some EU2 again.
BTW i like the idea with pictures, I've always felt that the images in Vicky really helped the atmosphere.
Edit: does that make sense, can you use atmosphere in that way?
You can in danish, but what about english.
Anyway you get what i mean
Very interesting project.
I have to go back and play some EU2 again.
BTW i like the idea with pictures, I've always felt that the images in Vicky really helped the atmosphere.
Edit: does that make sense, can you use atmosphere in that way?
You can in danish, but what about english.
Anyway you get what i mean
In Civil Wars you don't want the two sides to make a peace deal and live in harmony together. (Mostly, anyway). You want them to fight to the death. Giving each side ferocity at the outset ensures the civil war reaches a conclusion. Obviously, if you are trying to model a protracted Civil War you might want to keep the ferocity as 'no' until the denouement, but you get the idea.
With 'natives' the earlier colonial powers did not consider them worthy of a peace deal, so giving the native side ferocity ensures that the ai colonial power has to fight and fight and fight them till the bitter end. Obviously, you need an event for that native side to ensure they lose ferocity if they fight themselves to an advantageous position.
In Interregnum I have used ferocity in a number of situations, mostly Civil Wars to ensure a result, not some lame ai peace deal.
Ok
My proposal can model civil wars. It will be easy to implement a ferocity = { <taglist> } for this. A better solution could be the "faction" concept of a country without owned provinces, only trying to control all the provinces of a specified country but able to recruit in controlled provinces.
My proposal can apply to natives but taglist will be very long in this case... Nevertheless, you are right about the advantageous position. Only problem is its definition and limits. We will then need the peace entry you proposed but only when at war against a country in the taglist and only if warscore is above the value. By default, this value will be 100 (warscore = 100% before peace deal) => a better name will be ferocitypeace.
For example, ferocitypeace = 10 will mean country will propose a peace deal if warscore is 10% or above against a country in the taglist. This could avoid endless wars. Only problem will be with the taglist and ferocitypeace of the other country if white peace is impossible. Modders will have to be careful and avoid crossed values that couldn't match.
Maybe a better (or complementary) solution for this is forced end of a war if warscore doesn't change for too long. This will apply to all endless wars. I already proposed it somewhere (certainly here...) with effect on ownership of controlled provinces if not capital.
My proposal can model civil wars. It will be easy to implement a ferocity = { <taglist> } for this. A better solution could be the "faction" concept of a country without owned provinces, only trying to control all the provinces of a specified country but able to recruit in controlled provinces.
My proposal can apply to natives but taglist will be very long in this case... Nevertheless, you are right about the advantageous position. Only problem is its definition and limits. We will then need the peace entry you proposed but only when at war against a country in the taglist and only if warscore is above the value. By default, this value will be 100 (warscore = 100% before peace deal) => a better name will be ferocitypeace.
For example, ferocitypeace = 10 will mean country will propose a peace deal if warscore is 10% or above against a country in the taglist. This could avoid endless wars. Only problem will be with the taglist and ferocitypeace of the other country if white peace is impossible. Modders will have to be careful and avoid crossed values that couldn't match.
Maybe a better (or complementary) solution for this is forced end of a war if warscore doesn't change for too long. This will apply to all endless wars. I already proposed it somewhere (certainly here...) with effect on ownership of controlled provinces if not capital.
Last edited:
Just a little something I've suggested in the random events thread.
I think stability costs should be scaled - that is gaining stability when you're stable should be more costly than when you're unstable. Many times we read in history books how a certain king/duke//chief/shah/sultan took over a country that was in turmoil and quickly managed to bring peace quickly. If they lived long enough they usually also managed to bring a long-lasting peace to the country. Whereas a 'stable' country would likely be defined as a country with no revolts, a 'very stable' country would have to be defined as one where there are grounds for a long-lasting period of peace, and this would be signified for example by building a cathedral, reforming a provincial administration system or setting up a courthouse. It's easy to see that it takes a lot of time and effort to stabilize a country to such a high degree, and I think it was usually achieved by an able monarch with long reign or one who inherited a stable country.
So in game terms I think it should be more costly to go from 0 to +1 then from -3 to -2. I think the cost of going from +2 to +3 should be the same as going from -3 to +1, and the cost of going from +1 to +2 should be about 2/3 of that. Note that as the stability cost increases, the relative impact of monarch's skill and manufactories decreases. I think this would be very historical, seeing as many endeavors are required to bring high stability to a country; it should only be achievable with steady investment into stability.
If mean-time-to-happen is ever incorporated into the mod, then chance for bad events should be decreased considerably at high stability. It makes sense if you think about it (ie. +3 stab should signify lasting peace..., less chance for assasination, a political crisis,etc.). Also, while I advise a very high price to go from +2 to +3, I think an able administrative monarch should decrease the cost considerably. Say, if the monarch's adminstration is 8, then stability cost would be multipllied by 0.75. This would represent that such a high stability was usually achieved by able monarchs. In fact, people should be reluctant to invest in high stability when the monarch is weak. Just my opinion.
I think stability costs should be scaled - that is gaining stability when you're stable should be more costly than when you're unstable. Many times we read in history books how a certain king/duke//chief/shah/sultan took over a country that was in turmoil and quickly managed to bring peace quickly. If they lived long enough they usually also managed to bring a long-lasting peace to the country. Whereas a 'stable' country would likely be defined as a country with no revolts, a 'very stable' country would have to be defined as one where there are grounds for a long-lasting period of peace, and this would be signified for example by building a cathedral, reforming a provincial administration system or setting up a courthouse. It's easy to see that it takes a lot of time and effort to stabilize a country to such a high degree, and I think it was usually achieved by an able monarch with long reign or one who inherited a stable country.
So in game terms I think it should be more costly to go from 0 to +1 then from -3 to -2. I think the cost of going from +2 to +3 should be the same as going from -3 to +1, and the cost of going from +1 to +2 should be about 2/3 of that. Note that as the stability cost increases, the relative impact of monarch's skill and manufactories decreases. I think this would be very historical, seeing as many endeavors are required to bring high stability to a country; it should only be achievable with steady investment into stability.
If mean-time-to-happen is ever incorporated into the mod, then chance for bad events should be decreased considerably at high stability. It makes sense if you think about it (ie. +3 stab should signify lasting peace..., less chance for assasination, a political crisis,etc.). Also, while I advise a very high price to go from +2 to +3, I think an able administrative monarch should decrease the cost considerably. Say, if the monarch's adminstration is 8, then stability cost would be multipllied by 0.75. This would represent that such a high stability was usually achieved by able monarchs. In fact, people should be reluctant to invest in high stability when the monarch is weak. Just my opinion.
Ok, I'm not quite understanding all of your proposal:
Aren't those contradictory?
No, not exactly. I sould have explained better. Let me clarify:
In my proposal, the monarch has two effects on stability: an 'absolute' effect (2*ADM goes to stab investment), and a 'relative' effect (the stab cost is multiplied by a certain multiplier). Regardless of what they are, monarch's 'absolute' effect will be less important at higher stability costs. The monarch's 'relative' effect, on the other hand, will be less important at lower stability costs.
A monarch with a certain administrative rating will multiply the base stability cost by a certain multiplier. Let's say that the base cost of going from +1 to +2 is 1000. If monarch's administration is '5', then the multiplier could be 1.00, and the cost is indeed 1000d, assuming no other variable. For an administration '8' monarch the multiplier is 0.75, and the cost would be 750d, assuming no other variables. A monarch with good administration thus affects the stability cost greatly at high stability costs. At low stability costs, on the other hand, 2*ADM will be much, much more important factor. This doesn't change the fact that, for a given ADM monarch, the relative impact of monarch's ADM goes down as stabiliy increases.
So, for a monarch with given administration, his impact on stability will always be lesser at higher stability costs. At the same time, only monarchs with high ADM will be able to decrease high stability costs greatly.
Some things to note:
- regardless of how you slice it, it is better to have a higher ADM monarch for faster stabilizing,
- the monarch's ADM impact on stability will be huge if stability costs are immense (which will usually be researching for +2 or +3 stab under my proposal); you could even have weak ADM monarchs increasing stability cost,
- the monarchs's ADM impact on stability will be higher than it is now at low stability costs; also it could be changed from 2*ADM to 3*ADM,
- the direct investment from monarch could represent monarch's direct involvement in stabilizing the country, such as fighting an opposing faction that lays a claim to the throne,
- the indirect impact on STAB cost through multiplier could represent less direct involvement of the monarch, such as supervising an administration reform,
- I think most people would agree that a monarch should always have a significant impact on stability, and that that impact should be especially high at lower stab costs; my proposal reflects that,
- I think minor countries should generally be at +2 or +3 stab with an average monarch; cost of stability would still be low enough in my proposal to achieve that easily,
- I think that medium countries should be strong with good monarchs and weak with poor monarchs; medium countries don't have enough income to stab up quickly, so a good ruler should be important for stability; my proposal reflect that very well,
- large countries should be mostly dependent on income to raise stability; if the stab cost is 10,000, and income is low then even decreasing it by 30% through monarch won't help much; if country has high income, then it will stab up relatively quickly regardless of the cost; an average income combined with a good monarch will make the country strong, whereas average income with poor monarch will make the country average (seeing as average income for a large country is still significant); I've thought about this quite a lot, and I think my proposal would reflect the situation for large countries properly as well.
OK, I hope this wall-o-text is understandable, but if you think it doesn't make sense, don't hesitate to say it!
I generally agree with the ideas expressed here. However, the ideas won't work in exclusion: many other tools need to be available in oder to incorporate them properly into the game.
1. Most event writers throw around Stab hits like grated cheese on pizzas. With all the events with stab hits, your hard-fought-for +3 Stability would be casually shredded back to 2, 1 or 0 by flippant event writing.
2. Many events are already triggering off Stab levels, and might need to be re-written with a new scaled-stab system in mind.
I guess that large-scale event re-writing is part and parcel of releasing the new source code, but it still needs to be overtly stated, that if the Stability system is changed, that events need to be reworked with this in mind.
In addition, you would only want to have a scaled system if the command codes relating to stability were also adjusted to work with it. For example, two code versions I want to see would enable scaling to work:
1. Stability points, in addition to whole values. I know this is in the list of ideas already; and, more critically,
2. Conditional stability commonads:
command = { type = stability which = 2 value = -1 }
so, in the above command it would only work if the country's stability was 2 or higher. The trick is in checking for value X and below, as in:
command = { type = lowstability which = 0 value = 1 }
in which the command only works if the country has stability 0 or LESS, and it gains 1.
These command tool s would enable the modder to work with scaled stability values, being careful to not make +3 stab a virtual impossibility to keep.
But a +3 stability *ought* to be a virtual impossibility to keep. Which state on earth was in perfect harmony and perfectly industrious and never had even a hint of rebellion in the years between 1419 and 1820? I would say none. So building utopia on earth with semi-permanent +3 stability is highly unrealistic.
England! T'was always a happy land.
Hundred Years war? War of the Roses? Reformation and anglican church? Cromwells Protectorate? And all at +3 stability?
- Status