• 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.
I put Byz and Fin as ferociuous, because in my experience the non-ferocious AI always makes peace after first battle or after losing one prov. And give ridiclous amount of stuff easily. Ferocious tends to have more spine. But of course they could be made non-ferocious if there's good reasoning that it's very bad for their health.
 
I agree that the normal AI can be a bit of a pussy at times, particularly when it ends up in more than one war. On the other hand, I have seen it be quite stubborn upon occasion as well -- mostly when fighting with a human player who has 20 or more badboy.

Ferocious AI is kind of a 'horse-medicine' cure though. From what I've observed, the ferocious AI will not make any unfavorable peace until all of its core provinces are taken, at which point it will get gutted. This is very bad for the AI's health as it is effectively incapable of bribing off enemies who are giving it a pasting; for a country like the Byzantium, who is surrounded by enemies, it is very dangerous indeed.

Far worse than the ferocious AI's inability to cut its losses, is its inability to take 'yes' for an answer. I've also found that countries with this flag set will not accept any favorable peace offer either, at least until they are offered something truly exorbitant, such as 2000+ ducats or 6+ provinces (often with the warscore strongly against them).

AI nations will typically end up eternally at war with a ferocious AI nation, unless they are in a position to smash the offender utterly or get smashed themselves. Playing against a ferocious AI nation as a human player is just annoying.

If all of this still sounds like a good idea, I'll give you a few examples of scenarios where there were significant nations with ferocious AI:

1) One of the earlier patches for the regular EU2 grand campaign had the Knights of Saint John and the Teutonic Knights set to ferocious = yes (crusader.ai). I had the Grand Dutchy of Muscovy until 1700 in that one because they were at war with the Knights of St John; no Empire of Russia even though they were eligable for it.

Fortunately, the Teutonic Knights would usually get mowed down by Poland.

2) The EEP had (and may still have for all I know) the ferocious AI for the Ottoman Empire during Suleyman's reign and the ferocious AI for Sweden during the Great Northern War.

Both were good ideas in theory... but let me tell you what happened in practice. After I played five games using the EEP, front to back, I had nearly the same results 4 out of 5 times.

Sweden was at war with the same people from 1698 to 1819. Three of those four times, he was almost completely covered by the end -- just once, he turbo-annexed over 15 provinces off of a colonial England who was doing well at one point.

The Ottoman Empire was at war from 1521 to 1566 in four of five games. Half of the time, this resulted in a total castration in 1567 (when the AI gets switched), the other half of the time he would peace out everyone by either giving or taking large amounts of gold/provinces.

The one time neither of these things happened was because I happened to be playing either the OE or Sweden.



Anyhow... blah blah blah blah, shame on me. If you're still reading this, I'd ask you to reconsider. I too wish that there was a stubborn = yes flag in the AI file, but unfortunately there isn't, and setting ferocity to true is like curing a hangover with a bullet.

Cheers and beers.
 
Thanks for giving a comprehensive explanation on the effects of ferocious. I have to admit that I myself haven't been experimenting with them very much. I'll change them to non-ferocious.
 
Point taken, will be gutted.
 
Still haven't been able to play the latest version of this but I must say that from what I've played of the second newest one this is great! :D
One thing though:
The later parts of EU2 saw the comming of nation states and such with more centralized states and so on, shouldn't for instance the union of Kalmar and the Hanseatic League get options to reshape themselves into some sort of kingdoms/nations as the game commences (if it's not in allready admitedly I've not played the latest version and I've not yet finnished my entire first game as the UoK). With the current settup I kind of get the feeling of being stuck in the middle ages as time commences, wouldn't the kings, leaders, etc of the union have tried to create a more modern nation state given the opertunity rather than a union of states? (possibly with a brand new cool flag as well ;) and probably with some conditions along the lines of having to have reconquered norway for instance)
Same with the hanseatic league, if it's expanded into a real state, wouldn't a change of the constitution from a union of merchant cities have been in order?

Also norway seems a bit too weak to me in the july 9th beta (but that depends really on how powerfull you want it to be I suppose).

Again, great scenario, I love alternate history! :D
 
Trin Tragula said:
The later parts of EU2 saw the comming of nation states and such with more centralized states and so on, shouldn't for instance the union of Kalmar and the Hanseatic League get options to reshape themselves into some sort of kingdoms/nations as the game commences (if it's not in allready admitedly I've not played the latest version and I've not yet finnished my entire first game as the UoK). With the current settup I kind of get the feeling of being stuck in the middle ages as time commences, wouldn't the kings, leaders, etc of the union have tried to create a more modern nation state given the opertunity rather than a union of states? (possibly with a brand new cool flag as well ;) and probably with some conditions along the lines of having to have reconquered norway for instance)

I admit, that makes sense. Though we won't have some "nationstates" like France, England, Germany ever, UoK, Hansa sound like they should somehow evolve.

As soon as I get flags for that or ideas for flags I will knock on some flagmakers door.
 
This is an awsome project I'll keep a close eye on. A few things though:
Isnt the scottish inheritance of Norway way too easy? Just a royal marriage, and bookah, they are inherited some years later.

How about having a few more trigger condition, and perhaps some Norwegian counter events so that a Norwegian player might have a say in the matter.

Finally, how would one feel about Norwegian events?
 
Gotta check that. But as SP Norway player there should be some way out, I agree.
 
Firstly, I just want to say that I think this scenario is great!
In my game as Eire, I had colonized almost all of Brazil, South Africa plus North Africa and the Canaries by 1560.

I played as Granada before that - and I noticed that some events are missing. Several events in Granada's event file is triggered by event 200529, "Al-Andalus is united", which doesn't exist, sadly enough. I believe that the events with ID's from 200529 to 200531 are missing, all in all.
 
Will check, but it would make sense, Granada was mainly done by MM with some influence by Forzaa.
 
G-Klav said:
I played as Granada before that - and I noticed that some events are missing. Several events in Granada's event file is triggered by event 200529, "Al-Andalus is united", which doesn't exist, sadly enough. I believe that the events with ID's from 200529 to 200531 are missing, all in all.

Events 200539-31 are in epo_iberia.txt, an event file that is currently undergoing maintenance. At the moment, it sort of crashes the scenario if it is loaded. I'm fixing it as we speak.
 
That's great. Be brutal about it. Forzaa left us basically long ago and I want it in line with the other gra events.
 
Slavonic, yeah sure.

1 province cultures aren't that justified imo, but why?
 
TheArchduke said:
1 province cultures aren't that justified imo, but why?

Because 1 province mini-culture, which only 1 nation has, in a very poor province, which also has no involvement in events, is just silly? ;)

Wow, that sentence is definetly not grammatically correct. :D
 
Begone.:D Considering I trashed romanian, albanian is silly, yup.
 
Byakhiam said:
Could we combine albanian with greek or slavonic?

That's funny... I just said the same thing in another thread. Except I want to combine it with greek, not slavonic.

TheArchduke said:
That's great. Be brutal about it. Forzaa left us basically long ago and I want it in line with the other gra events.

Aye, mon capitan. Actually, I'm glad you feel this way, because I'm almost done and I completely reworked the event sequences. The logic is close to what Forzaa designed in the first place, but the execution is a bit cleaner/simpler.

In fact, I've cut down on the clutter enough that I was able to fit most of the events for Navarre-Granada and Navarre-Savoy into the file. Plus some interesting Eire-Granada things, to boot, although nothing major.
 
TheArchduke said:
Slavonic, yeah sure.

1 province cultures aren't that justified imo, but why?

A thread I read 1-2 years ago noted that half of the EU province of Albania was greek, which is what I personally mod the province to, but albanian culture is closer to slavonic, so either goes I guess..
 
Hmm......

Well, It is an inbetween.

Is it strategically better to have Albania as a byzantine culture province or also avaiable to hungary?

Also wouldn't Genoa, Sicily be tempted to take it?
 
TheArchduke said:
Hmm......

Well, It is an inbetween.

Is it strategically better to have Albania as a byzantine culture province or also avaiable to hungary?

Also wouldn't Genoa, Sicily be tempted to take it?
I'd say greek... it fits better as a natural border and Hungary should be satisfied with Ragusa :)
It's still dirt poor anyway.