1.56 BUG LIST-Please Help Make The AGCEEP Better

unmerged(72200) · Jul 30, 2008

YodaMaster said:
Don't hesitate to post if you find other duplicates. I'm sure we have plenty...

Then within my remembrance...

--------------------
PER_3566-73 "Political Turmoil"

#-#Safavid power was based on the Kizilbash (Shiite Turkmen) tribesmen of Asia Minor who originally defeated the Ak Koyunlu. Unfortunately, the clans were unruly, constantly fighting each other and vying for control of the Shah. Under Abbas they were kept on a tight leash, but with his passing Persia was once more plagued by their infighting. Eventually their power waned, but they were only to be replaced by rebellious warlords from Afghanistan and Baluchistan in the 18th century.
ACTIONNAME35xxA;Let the Clans fight;;;;;;;;;;
ACTIONNAME35xxB;Buy the loyalty of the Clans;;;;;;;;;;

* We can unify all EVENTNAME/EVENTHIST/ACTIONNAMEs about these events.

--------------------
PER_3574-81 "Political Fragmentation"

#-#The death of Abbas consigned Iran to a long and painful slide into chaos. The decline resulted from weak rulers, interference by the women of the harem in politics, the re-emergence of Kizilbash rivalries, maladministration of state lands, excessive taxation, the decline of trade, and the weakening of Safavid military organization.

* We can merge all EVENTNAME/EVENTHIST/ACTIONNAMEs about these events, but be careful to maintain orders of their actions.

--------------------
MOG_230035, 37-38, 40 "Mughal Fratricide"
* We can merge these EVENTNAMEs into one entry.

--------------------
TUR_301010-14 "Fratricide"
* We can merge these EVENTNAMEs into one entry.

--------------------
TUR_3379-81 "The De-centralizing Effect of the Provincial System"

#-#The provincial governors, or 'Beys', were powerful men, usually ambitious, and not always loyal. Although the Ottoman Empire did not have a noble class or a feudal system like most European nations, the Beys were a close equivalent with many of the same intrinsic problems. Intrigues and internal feuds could escalate into little civil wars without the central government objecting overly much. Naturally, the Beys were reluctant to give up their powers and usually demanded even more concessions...even to the point of outright independence.
ACTIONNAME3379A;More power to the Beys;;;;;;;;;;
ACTIONNAME3379B;Limit the concessions;;;;;;;;;;
ACTIONNAME3379C;Rein them in;;;;;;;;;;

* We can unify all EVENTNAME/EVENTHIST/ACTIONNAMEs about these events.

--------------------
TUR_3395-96 "The Horrible Plague in Anatolia"

#-#During the 18th and early 19th centuries, Anatolia was afflicted with intermittent outbreaks of cholera and the bubonic plague.

* We can merge their EVENTNAME/EVENTHISTs.
--------------------

Also, I think we can merge some descs with little specific information of Global_Mine.eue into fewer entries for now. Maybe the issue requires us to talk about in another thread even if we want.

Garbon · Jul 30, 2008

I'm not sure if the PER ones are worth merging. With luck, they will all be gone by September.

MichaelM · Jul 30, 2008

I was just looking through Oman's events (after beregic's question), and I noticed this one for Zanzibar. Given the description, I am virtually certain that action A should not make Oman a vassal of Zanzibar.

unmerged(72200) · Jul 30, 2008

Specific_Japan.eue

Sorry, it's my mistake:

Code:

#(1609-1616) The conquest of Ryukyu
#by waishi
event = {
	id = 242051
	trigger = {
		atwar = no
		owned = { province = 688 data = -1 } #Kyushu
		control = { province = 688 data = -1 }
	}
	random = no
	country = NIP
	name = "EVENTNAME242051" #The conquest of Ryukyu
	desc = "EVENTHIST242051"
	#-#

	date = { day = 3 month = march year = 1609 }
	offset = 60
	deathdate = { day = 0 month = june year = 1616 }

	action_a = {
		name = "ACTIONNAME242051A" #Submit them
		command = { type = domestic which = land value = -1 }
		command = { type = population which = 688 value = 5000 } #Kyushu
		command = { type = provincetax which = 688 value = 1 } #Kyushu
		command = { type = provincemanpower [color=yellow]which = 688[/color] [color=red]which = 683[/color] value = 1 } #kyushu
		command = { type = trade value = 300 }
		command = { type = merchants value = 1 }
		command = { type = treasury value = -50 }
	}
	action_b = {
		name = "ACTIONNAME242051B" #Focus on domestic affairs instead
		command = { type = infra value = 300 }
	}
}

#-#The Ryukyu Kingdom (1429-1879) had ruled over the Ryukyu Islands stretching southwest from Kyushu to Taiwan. By the end of 16th century, this once-thriving kingdom on its trade with South-East Asia had declined because of losing ground to Chinese and European competitors. The shogunate attempted to exploit the opportunity to submit it. After negotiations broke down, the shogun permitted the daimyo of the Satsuma domain (the southernmost part of Kyushu) to conquer the kingdom. On March 1609, 3,000 troops with 100 ships of the Satsuma domain started to invade the country. Soon after, the king was forced to accept the domain as the suzerain. The Satsuma domain would make a large profit from the monopoly on intermediate trade between the kingdom and China until the abolishment of the closure policy.

EDIT: I found it in the event documentation. Thank you!

MichaelM · Jul 30, 2008

I just noticed that the only event in the Puritans' event file is for ROY. Copy/paste, I guess...

Code:

#Puritans (PUR)

#-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

#(1640-1700) The crown of England
#by Andrelious
event = {
	id = 265000
	trigger = {
		owned = { province = 247 data = -1 } #Anglia
		control = { province = 247 data = -1 } #Anglia
		NOT = { exists = ENG }
	}
	random = no
	country = [COLOR=Red]ROY[/COLOR] [COLOR=Yellow]PUR[/COLOR]
	name = "EVENTNAME265000" #The Crown of England

EDIT: Although, of course, it's almost impossible for this event to fire anyway. Even assuming the Royalists and Puritans both appeared, how would either of them destroy the entire British Empire? I guess it's more for if England has been destroyed by Spain or France...?

unmerged(40707) · Jul 30, 2008

MichaelM said:
I was just looking through Oman's events (after beregic's question), and I noticed this one for Zanzibar. Given the description, I am virtually certain that action A should not make Oman a vassal of Zanzibar.

Nooo, really?

o

Action_a should trigger an event for Oman that will vassalize Zanzibar:

Code:

#(1652-1680) Raid on Zanzibar
#by sturmvogel
event = {
	id = 373004 #triggered by OMA_248015 A
	random = no
	country = ZAN
	name = "EVENTNAME248015" #Raid on Zanzibar
	desc = "EVENTHIST373004"
	#-#

	action_a = {
		name = "ACTIONNAME373004A" #Submit to Oman
		command = { type = breakvassal which = POR }
		command = { type = treasury value = -25 }
		[COLOR=Red]command = { type = vassal which = OMA }[/COLOR]
		command = { type = relation which = POR value = -100 }
		command = { type = merchants value = -1 }
		command = { type = trade value = -250 }
		[COLOR=Yellow]command = { type = trigger which = 248028 } #OMA: Submission of Zanzibar[/COLOR]
	}
	action_b = {
		name = "ACTIONNAME373004B" #Remain faithful to Portugal
		command = { type = treasury value = -50 }
		command = { type = merchants value = -2 }
		command = { type = trade value = -500 }
		command = { type = relation which = POR value = 100 }
		command = { type = relation which = OMA value = -100 }
		command = { type = trigger which = 248016 } #OMA: Zanzibar refuses to submit
		command = { type = sleepevent which = 260122 } #POR: Reassert Portuguese authority over Zanzibar
	}
	action_c = {
		name = "ACTIONNAME373004C" #A pox on both their houses
		command = { type = breakvassal which = POR }
		command = { type = treasury value = -50 }
		command = { type = merchants value = -2 }
		command = { type = trade value = -500 }
		command = { type = relation which = POR value = -100 }
		command = { type = relation which = OMA value = -100 }
		command = { type = trigger which = 248016 } #OMA: Zanzibar refuses to submit
		command = { type = trigger which = 260123 } #POR: Faithless Zanzibar
		command = { type = sleepevent which = 260122 } #POR: Reassert Portuguese authority over Zanzibar
	}
}

#-#An Omani fleet sacked Zanzibar in 1652. Queen Mwana Mwema pledged submission to the Sultan of Oman in the face of overwhelming power.

New event:

Code:

#(1652-1680) Submission of Zanzibar
event = {
	id = 248028 #triggered by ZAN_373004 A
	random = no
	country = OMA
	name = "EVENTNAME248028" #Submission of Zanzibar
	desc = "EVENTHIST248028"
	#-#

	action_a = {
		name = "GREAT"
		command = { type = vassal which = ZAN }
	}
}

EVENTNAME248028;Submission of Zanzibar;;;;;;;;;;
EVENTHIST248028;After the raid, Queen Mwana Mwema pledged submission to the Sultan of Oman in the face of overwhelming power.;;;;;;;;;;

And a wrong tag in same sequence:

Code:

#(1652-1680) Zanzibar refuses to submit
#by sturmvogel
event = {
	id = 248016 #triggered by ZAN_373004 B / C
	random = no
	country = [COLOR=Red]POR[/COLOR][COLOR=Yellow]OMA[/COLOR]
	name = "EVENTNAME248016" #Zanzibar refuses to submit
	desc = "EVENTHIST260123"
	#-#

	action_a = {
		name = "ACTIONNAME248016A" #How dare they!
		command = { type = casusbelli which = ZAN value = 60 }
		command = { type = relation which = ZAN value = -100 }
	}
	action_b = {
		name = "ACTIONNAME248014B" #Leave them well enough alone
		command = { }
	}
}

#-#Zanzibar refuses to have anything more to do with us. Shall we persuade them of the errors of their ways?

unmerged(40707) · Jul 30, 2008

Garbon said:
I'm not sure if the PER ones are worth merging. With luck, they will all be gone by September.

Will luck be sufficient for 1.57?

At least, merge will be done in next beta.

unmerged(40707) · Jul 30, 2008

waishi said:
Also, I think we can merge some descs with little specific information of Global_Mine.eue into fewer entries for now. Maybe the issue requires us to talk about in another thread even if we want.

It could be done but I suppose it was intended by the author.

This is not the same for real duplicate that should be avoided.

unmerged(72200) · Jul 30, 2008

YodaMaster said:
It could be done but I suppose it was intended by the author.

This is not the same for real duplicate that should be avoided.

I see. We can also avoid unexpected bad influence if we focus on "real" duplicates, too.

In addition, there are the last suggestion about them at the moment as follows.
I hope that they won't become an extra work for you.

--------------------
ProvinceSpec_338057-58, 60-61 "Crusade against the Hussites is successful"

#-#Finally the crusade against the heretic Hussites has succeeded and Bohemia was returned to catholicism. Having been crowned King of Bohemia, Emperor Sigismund now demands that the Bohemian lands seized from the Hussites during the crusade are returned to the Bohemian crown.
ACTIONNAME3380xxA;Turn over the lands seized from the Hussites to Sigismund;;;;;;;;;;
ACTIONNAME3380xxB;Keep our conquests;;;;;;;;;;

ProvinceSpec_338059 "Crusade against the Hussites is successful"

EVENTHIST338059;Finally the crusade against the heretic Hussites has succeeded and Bohemia was returned to catholicism. Prague is in our hands. Shall we turn over this city to Romanists?;;;;;;;;;;
ACTIONNAME338059A;Turn over Prague to Romanists;;;;;;;;;;
ACTIONNAME338059B;Keep Prague;;;;;;;;;;

* As you know, these events will happen on each Bohemian province at the same time when Hussists are defeated. (Link to the document)
* We can pack all EVENTNAMEs in one entry.
* Lime color indicates different points. Then, all EVENTHIST/ACTIONNAMEs of them except 338059 can be merged into one entry.

--------------------
ProvinceSpec_338900-11 "Effect of Occupation in Eastern Siberia"

#-#After Mongol control loss in Eastern Siberia, major demographic changes took place and many Mongols fled south.

* These events will happen when a country, usually Russia, own some specific siberian provinces. (Link to the document)
* We can merge all EVENTNAME/EVENTHISTs in one entry while their ACTIONNAMEs must be different from each other.

unmerged(40707) · Jul 30, 2008

waishi said:
ProvinceSpec_338059 "Crusade against the Hussites is successful"

EVENTHIST338059;Finally the crusade against the heretic Hussites has succeeded and Bohemia was returned to catholicism. Prague is in our hands. Shall we turn over this city to Romanists?;;;;;;;;;;
ACTIONNAME338059A;Turn over Prague to Romanists;;;;;;;;;;
ACTIONNAME338059B;Keep Prague;;;;;;;;;;

It is important for this event to be different, especially for actionnames. Without Prague, Romanists can't form Bohemia and effects for keeping Prague are worsened.

And don't worry about extra work nor reference to documents. I know some (if not all) mentioned events by heart. I fully reworked some of them... but not texts that weren't included in text.csv when I did it.

MichaelM · Jul 30, 2008

Just noticed this in revolt.txt:

Code:

FRA = { #France
	no = DAU
	no = BUR
	date = { day = 23 month = july year = 1456 }
	expirydate = { year = 1820 }
	minimum = { 385 376 383 384 386 408 409 410 411 412 413 419 420 }
	extra = { }
	capital = 385
	group = latin
	#ai = "France.ai"
	[COLOR=Red]ai = "FRA_1794_Napoleon.ai"  #file doesn't exist[/COLOR]
	[COLOR=Yellow]ai = "FRA_1794_Revolution.ai"[/COLOR]
}

So I looked through to see if there were any other invalid references (no, not by hand

). I found this one:

Code:

LUA = { #Luang Prabang
	date = { day = 1 month = january year = 1707 }
	expirydate = { year = 1820 }
	minimum = { 1552 }
	extra = { }
	capital = 1552
	group = china
	[COLOR=Yellow]#[/COLOR]ai = "seasian.ai"  #all other references to seasian.ai are commented out
	ai = "SmallTrade1.ai"
}

Garbon · Jul 30, 2008

YodaMaster said:
Will luck be sufficient for 1.57?

At least, merge will be done in next beta.

Would a few extra texts break 1.57?

What is breaking is that one of iteration of those events that mentions after the death of Abbass...fires just as he's started to reign. :wacko:

unmerged(72200) · Jul 31, 2008

Garbon said:
What is breaking is that one of iteration of those events that mentions after the death of Abbass...fires just as he's started to reign. :wacko:

I can see what you mean, but is it so strange?

As you said "events that mentions after the death of Abbas" or PER_3574-81 "Political Fragmentation" laps over the reign of Abbass; not Abbas I the great (1587-1629), but Abbas II (1642-66) and III (1732-36).
Maybe, we can amend the desc as below:

#-#The death of Abbas I in 1629 consigned Iran to a long and painful slide into chaos. The decline resulted from weak rulers, interference by the women of the harem in politics, the re-emergence of Kizilbash rivalries, maladministration of state lands, excessive taxation, the decline of trade, and the weakening of Safavid military organization.

------------------------------------------------------------
EDIT: We also need to fix the text of PER_3566-73 "Political Turmoil" on the same reason as below:

#-#Safavid power was based on the Kizilbash (Shiite Turkmen) tribesmen of Asia Minor who originally defeated the Ak Koyunlu. Unfortunately, the clans were unruly, constantly fighting each other and vying for control of the Shah. Under Abbas I the great they were kept on a tight leash, but with his passing Persia was once more plagued by their infighting. Eventually their power waned, but they were only to be replaced by rebellious warlords from Afghanistan and Baluchistan in the 18th century.

unmerged(40707) · Jul 31, 2008

Good idea.

Now, events are ready for removal.

Abbas I the great => Abbas I the Great

unmerged(72200) · Jul 31, 2008

YodaMaster said:
Now, events are ready for removal.

Oh, I don't know it

o

unmerged(40707) · Jul 31, 2008

waishi said:
Oh, I don't know it o

Don't worry, I made the change. Just waiting for Garbon's proposal now. See post #187.

Garbon · Jul 31, 2008

YodaMaster said:
Don't worry, I made the change. Just waiting for Garbon's proposal now. See post #187.

So here's the real deal. Basically the current events we have now are pretty horrible as they pretty much fail to ever map onto the historical situation. Several of the events fire during reigns that weren't particularly troubled and don't fire when trouble actually was occurring. Additionally, most scholars in the area today will agree that permanent decline did not set in with Abbas...and that the suggestion that it did is really just an artificially constructed narrative. Now although I have the plans written out for the various replacement events, I have very few of the events/descriptions written. I don't really want to pull the plug on the current events we have now as Persia should seem some struggle throughout its history and so removing them without the replacements would certainly make Persia ahistorically powerful.

Garbon · Jul 31, 2008

waishi said:
I can see what you mean, but is it so strange?

If you look, the first Political Turmoil event fires around 1584 (3566) which is firmly in Abbas I's reign...yet the event suggests that there wasn't turmoil during his reign. That's a bit odd.

@YM - We can keep wiashi's suggestion but the long and the short of it is that the events are just sucky placeholders.

unmerged(72200) · Jul 31, 2008

Garbon said:
So here's the real deal. Basically the current events we have now are pretty horrible as they pretty much fail to ever map onto the historical situation. Several of the events fire during reigns that weren't particularly troubled and don't fire when trouble actually was occurring. Additionally, most scholars in the area today will agree that permanent decline did not set in with Abbas...and that the suggestion that it did is really just an artificially constructed narrative. Now although I have the plans written out for the various replacement events, I have very few of the events/descriptions written. I don't really want to pull the plug on the current events we have now as Persia should seem some struggle throughout its history and so removing them without the replacements would certainly make Persia ahistorically powerful.

Please think of my recent posts about duplicated texts as a little interim steps. I agree that we need to fundamentally think them over again.

Garbon · Jul 31, 2008

waishi said:
Please think of my recent posts about duplicated texts as a little interim steps. I agree that we need to fundamentally think them over again.

I don't mind the cutting down of duplicate texts, just pointing out that in this case it doesn't really make a difference.

1.56 BUG LIST-Please Help Make The AGCEEP Better

First Lieutenant

Sultan d'Afrique

For the Glory lead

First Lieutenant

For the Glory lead

Just call me Yoda in private!

Just call me Yoda in private!

Just call me Yoda in private!

First Lieutenant

Just call me Yoda in private!

For the Glory lead

Sultan d'Afrique

First Lieutenant

Just call me Yoda in private!

First Lieutenant

Just call me Yoda in private!

Sultan d'Afrique

Sultan d'Afrique

First Lieutenant

Sultan d'Afrique