Are DP requirements for events documented?

[Ghost_dk]

As a general principle I think it wil be fair to say that CORE is moving in a direction where slider moves are not as much an effect of events but rather caused by the slider moves.

Some events are of course out of the hands of a ruling government and may even lead to drastic slider changes, like coups fx, but once more and more policy type events from CORE1 and other souces get implemented the more events you will se that are triggering because the ruling government moved in X direction on its slider priorities rather then causing the move itself.

 

[baylox]

I don't think we use the defense_policy slider all that much as a trigger - interventionism is used far more for events. Just searching the events quickly (for "type = defense_lobby") I can't really find it used as a trigger outside of the Mobilization events, so you shouldn't have to worry so much about that one. Interventionism, however...

This only goes for events, of course. Hawk Lobby is very powerful in direct game effects (cost AND time reductions for all builds, which also affects upgrade and reinforcement costs), while Interventionism only lowers CG demand.

 

[ShadoWarrior]

Interventionism also lowers diplomatic/espionage costs, which can be very significant if you have a strategy that employs a lot of tech-stealing, tech-trading, smearing, or assassination.

 

[dec152000]

Hi,

I don't know where this attitude that we are unwilling to discuss the design is coming from. While we may not be willing to make changes to things (for any number of reasons), we are always willing to explain design features. You may not like the explanation, but that is a different issue.

Interventionism: This slider gets used as a possible trigger for Rearmarment Initiative (8) and Partial Mobilization(9) events. Also used in the LL chain (Arsenal of Democracy (5) & Undeclared War (6)), Destroyers for Bases (High (3) & Low (2 or less) and Flying Tigers (4). Some of these may need some tweaking as they were done at different times by different people. My personal suggestion (though I don't play USA often) would be to make sure you are at least at Interventionism 3 by 1940. I'd prefer to be at 5 myself, but this might be difficult.

mm

 

[unmerged(53093)]

I don't know where this attitude that we are unwilling to discuss the design is coming from.

It comes from statements like "putting in every requirement like this leads to 20/20 foresight and I'm not sure we want to encourage that". The way this sounds is like you don't want people to know exactly how the game works because you think they might play a "gamey strategy", and that keeping them ignorant will force them to play the game the "right" way. That is how it sounds. Even if you didn't mean it that way.

While we may not be willing to make changes to things (for any number of reasons), we are always willing to explain design features.

So, you don't want to put the information in the manual because it would let people know how the game works and you don't want to encourage what you consider to be gamey playing. But you are willing to be a 24-hour help-desk and give out that information on the forum, even though you telling us this stuff will lead to the "20/20 foresight" that you say you don't want to encourage. I'm really confused. Do you want us to have the information or not?

If you don't mind us having the information, then why is documenting it something that you "don't want to encourage"? That statement by you is what started all of this. And I still don't understand what the heck you meant by it.

 

[Ghost_dk]

In really short what was meant was that if you have a specific question we are glad to answer it but if you want a full documentation you are more then welcome to start working on it. Its CORE policy on the matter and if its not liked im sorry but its too bad then, its our spare time being used in developing the mod and we choose how to use it. End of discussion.

 

[Fielding]

It comes from statements like "putting in every requirement like this leads to 20/20 foresight and I'm not sure we want to encourage that". The way this sounds is like you don't want people to know exactly how the game works because you think they might play a "gamey strategy", and that keeping them ignorant will force them to play the game the "right" way. That is how it sounds. Even if you didn't mean it that way.




So, you don't want to put the information in the manual because it would let people know how the game works and you don't want to encourage what you consider to be gamey playing. But you are willing to be a 24-hour help-desk and give out that information on the forum, even though you telling us this stuff will lead to the "20/20 foresight" that you say you don't want to encourage. I'm really confused. Do you want us to have the information or not?

If you don't mind us having the information, then why is documenting it something that you "don't want to encourage"? That statement by you is what started all of this. And I still don't understand what the heck you meant by it.

Jeez, what is the big deal here? Is it so difficult to just look in the event files and figure it out for yourself like the rest of us do? Personally, I'd prefer that the guys (I'm assuming they're guys) at CORE devote their energies to developing the game rather than documenting every last detail because you and others are either too lazy or too clueless to figure it out on your own.

 

[dec152000]

Hi,

I can see how that would seem inconsistent and perhaps it is. At the time it was a quick answer to a rather general question and I think people have read more into it than was intended. I'll be glad to stand on my track record (over 5000 HOI related posts on CORE2, SR and Paradox) with respect to answering questions and being helpful.

Anyways, the much better and more thought out answer is that we can't document everything in the manual. For starters the is a cost/benefit issue going on here, as it does take away from other work. Up until this issue came up no one else had asked for this information. So there hadn't been any motivation to include this information. Also, we do have concerns about the manual bulking up too much. So we try and keep it related to issues that commonly cause questions. Again, not real high on the list.

mm

 

[unmerged(53093)]

I can see how that would seem inconsistent and perhaps it is.

It was a weird answer. My initial reaction was to the implication that you thought that information about the game should be closely held and doled out only when it won't result in someone playing in a way of which you don't personally approve. I fully accept now that this was not what you intended. But at the time, when I was assuming that you meant what you wrote, it struck me as being patronizing.

Anyways, the much better and more thought out answer is that we can't document everything in the manual. For starters the is a cost/benefit issue going on here, as it does take away from other work. Up until this issue came up no one else had asked for this information. So there hadn't been any motivation to include this information. Also, we do have concerns about the manual bulking up too much. So we try and keep it related to issues that commonly cause questions. Again, not real high on the list.

As I said before, this is unarguably a good point. Wish you had said it the first time.

 

[dec152000]

Hi,

Yes, I probablly could have thought about that answer a bit more.

mm