when the event has too many effects, you could use the description for the event...
-
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.
Two more things, as well:
1. There will be a lot of reformatting to do, with all of the new events when 0.6. coming out. I think jjeventsv3 will be the last version to make it into 0.6, unless we get working together immediately... my suggestion is that whichever one of us is currently the 'scribe', meaning the one actually making the changes to the files, should keep a backup copy in a separate directory before installing any new versions of C.O.R.E. or HoI.
2. Another area where I would like to make changes in is the events themselves. Not to change gameplay/balance, that is up to others on the C.O.R.E. team, but to add in more options in some cases (some need an option_d included, giving the choice to do nothing/make no changes), and to correct for both the order of options (some of the events were written seemingly by people who were unaware that the first option is chosen by the AI 85% of the time) and to modify certain effects (some effects included boosting the infrastructure of a random province by 40, this should be cut down to 2 provinces increased by 20, or 4 increased by 10... think about it, 40 would take 4 years of inf improvements in game terms... it would take a LOT of aid missions to poor countries to increase the inf. that drastically).
This modification would just be for overall cosmetic 'fixing' of problems.
JesseJames
1. There will be a lot of reformatting to do, with all of the new events when 0.6. coming out. I think jjeventsv3 will be the last version to make it into 0.6, unless we get working together immediately... my suggestion is that whichever one of us is currently the 'scribe', meaning the one actually making the changes to the files, should keep a backup copy in a separate directory before installing any new versions of C.O.R.E. or HoI.
2. Another area where I would like to make changes in is the events themselves. Not to change gameplay/balance, that is up to others on the C.O.R.E. team, but to add in more options in some cases (some need an option_d included, giving the choice to do nothing/make no changes), and to correct for both the order of options (some of the events were written seemingly by people who were unaware that the first option is chosen by the AI 85% of the time) and to modify certain effects (some effects included boosting the infrastructure of a random province by 40, this should be cut down to 2 provinces increased by 20, or 4 increased by 10... think about it, 40 would take 4 years of inf improvements in game terms... it would take a LOT of aid missions to poor countries to increase the inf. that drastically).
This modification would just be for overall cosmetic 'fixing' of problems.
JesseJames
Originally posted by Generalisimo
when the event has too many effects, you could use the description for the event...
True, Gen, but I found that that usually wasn't necessary. 70 characters is actually enough to put in 2 short sentences. The option text has to be HIGHLY concise, specific, accurate, and descriptive.
I agree with you, but 70 characters is usually enough to re-iterate the effects of the option, after giving a thorough explanation of the situation in the description text.
One of my reasons for doing these hours of typing labour was because I, personally, found that in some cases, option text of "YES", "NO", or "OK" was just not enough, and I didn't know exactly what the results of my choice would be...
JesseJames
"unilateral" changes doesn't help anyone, if you don't agree with some effects of an event, you MUST post your new opinion/effects in the proper thread.
That's how we change events... we MUST discuss the changes here first (unless there is a bug present, but that is NOT the case here).
Cheers.
Broadly speaking, two ways of doing it: either have us make changes, or have us note and suggest changes, then you decide.
Either way, the files need to be divided up. Either you could tell us which to take, or one of us could start at top and the other at bottom and work to the middle. I don't care which. My editing would be very light, focusing on spelling/grammar and typos.
jkk
Originally posted by Generalisimo
"unilateral" changes doesn't help anyone, if you don't agree with some effects of an event, you MUST post your new opinion/effects in the proper thread.
That's how we change events... we MUST discuss the changes here first (unless there is a bug present, but that is NOT the case here).
Gen,
I agree with you, don't worry, I'm not trying to divert the C.O.R.E. effort to model my own crazy visions. Event changes should be discussed with the team before they are made.
But I also feel that you should agree with me: is anybody in C.O.R.E. currently looking to make these kinds of corrections? If not, I might as well work on them, as I spend hours reading old events anyways. You have to admit... in core_us, the likelihood of "The President is doing a lousy job: congressional seats lost", with a corresponding movement of +10 TOWARDS democracy, being chosen by the AI 4 times consecutively, is both HIGHLY unlikely to have happened historically, and also an example of coding the wrong effects for a particular result.
While I agree that problems like these should be discussed, I also hold that they are generally minor, cosmetic changes.
JesseJames
My suggestion is that all three of us post necessary editing changes here, and we all take turns being the one who actually does the file editing. The one doing the editing would have a backup copy of ALL the event files, and would make all of the posted corrections to that version. Every week or two, the editor with the altered files could release the new version to the others, and the next person in line would then take their turn at the file editing "being the scribe". The person as 'scribe' could also spend their time making the small, but annoying, changes, such as just going through the files to remove periods from the end of option texts.
I think it has to be done this way, because then we don't have 3 different sets of files. All of the changes would be included in everyone's current version, and it would be easier to maintain unity of style, tense, and presentation.
JesseJames
Well, but always document your "minor" changes, so, someone can review it.
Something like a peer review system before integrating them into the final release...
Originally posted by Generalisimo
Well, but always document your "minor" changes, so, someone can review it.
Something like a peer review system before integrating them into the final release...
Of course!
JJ
About the event, you should discuss with the author of the event what he wanted to simulate with that first...
JJ - I did receive the newest files.
Teamwork Pattern suggestion:
Team CORE-Text (how's that? how about TCT?) - I'd like to suggest a way for us to start:
We could take one file - say the Altmark file - and work on it in this thread, event by event. JJ takes the lead. He would put out his reformatting of the first event. We then discuss it to make sure we're all on the same page with the style and so forth. Then take the next event and so on.
By the end of the file we should be quite in tune with the format and how to implement it. After that we should be able to split up the work load and work separately, without the fear of slaving over some files that will meet up with resistance or outright rejection.
Does that sound like a good idea?
Event Alterations
Further, if we want to expand any of the events by including (where applicable) an alternate option to make no decision or take no action, I think we need to contact Steel on that. Here's what I'd suggest:
We divide up the files into sections. We as a team work on one section at a time, each of us taking a few files (once we have our working pattern established). JJ should look over each section of files before we farm them out for re-working and determine which ones he thinks should have the extra option(s). I say JJ because it's not something I want to spend time on. Then forward each file to Steel with the suggested options. He'll approve, disapprove, or discuss the suggestion with JJ. Once a decision is reached, then forward that batch of approved files to the team for re-working.
So it's:
1) divide files into sections
2) take the first section and JJ should determine alternate option suggestions - forward to Steel
3) after final decision on said section of files, forward those to the team to have them re-worked
4) rinse and repeat
-PK
Teamwork Pattern suggestion:
Team CORE-Text (how's that? how about TCT?) - I'd like to suggest a way for us to start:
We could take one file - say the Altmark file - and work on it in this thread, event by event. JJ takes the lead. He would put out his reformatting of the first event. We then discuss it to make sure we're all on the same page with the style and so forth. Then take the next event and so on.
By the end of the file we should be quite in tune with the format and how to implement it. After that we should be able to split up the work load and work separately, without the fear of slaving over some files that will meet up with resistance or outright rejection.
Does that sound like a good idea?
Event Alterations
Further, if we want to expand any of the events by including (where applicable) an alternate option to make no decision or take no action, I think we need to contact Steel on that. Here's what I'd suggest:
We divide up the files into sections. We as a team work on one section at a time, each of us taking a few files (once we have our working pattern established). JJ should look over each section of files before we farm them out for re-working and determine which ones he thinks should have the extra option(s). I say JJ because it's not something I want to spend time on. Then forward each file to Steel with the suggested options. He'll approve, disapprove, or discuss the suggestion with JJ. Once a decision is reached, then forward that batch of approved files to the team for re-working.
So it's:
1) divide files into sections
2) take the first section and JJ should determine alternate option suggestions - forward to Steel
3) after final decision on said section of files, forward those to the team to have them re-worked
4) rinse and repeat
-PK
Last edited:
Language corrections etc can be handled here, but if you are proposing to change event options and effects then post it in the correct regional thread as an enhancement suggestion so that the original event author can see it.
I'm happy to implement typo corrections and minor wording changes without consulting an author, but events are designed in certain ways for a reason (well I hope so!)
I'm happy to implement typo corrections and minor wording changes without consulting an author, but events are designed in certain ways for a reason (well I hope so!)
The Wehrmacht is the German Armed Forces. Not Army.
Army = Heer
SS = Waffen SS
Airforce = Luftwaffe
Navy = Kriegsmarine
Put Together = Wehrmacht.
Originally posted by Phil K
Teamwork Pattern suggestion:
Team CORE-Text (how's that? how about TCT?) - I'd like to suggest a way for us to start:
//
So it's:
1) divide files into sections
2) take the first section and JJ should determine alternate option suggestions - forward to Steel
3) after final decision on said section of files, forward those to the team to have them re-worked
4) rinse and repeat
[/B]
I think this is a good idea for the TCT members to get some practice at working together and, especially, to develop a similar style of re-writing events.
This is also a good idea, as, when I began this project, I was tinkering with the exact formats to use. From the file altmark through to the file core_EEurope, you may notice many inconsistencies with the general format I posted earlier. (e.g. titles not beginning with 'The', wrong tense, wrong case, missing punctuation, etc.
Thus, these files largely need updating to the current format I have set, and would be a good way to make examples of how all of us could do the revisions in a similar style.
Along the way, we may find some events which may need changes. As Steel said, we'll propose those changes in the proper regional thread and let the others handle them from there.
So, I guess I'll start here with the first event in altmark.txt.
JesseJames
Checked, and it seems you're right. My error. Though the fact remains, Schmeling was in fact in the Luftwaffe rather than the army. He didn't jump into Crete, IIRC, due to diarrhea, which probably saved his life.
jkk
name = "The Altmark Incident (NOR)"
desc = "A few months into the war between Germany and the UK, the German transport ship Altmark came into Norwegian waters with some one hundred British prisoners on board. In a small fjord a British task force intercepted the Altmark, boarded the ship, and set the prisoners free, while the outgunned Norwegian navy was helpless to intervene."
action_a = { name = "Protest against British violation of our neutrality!"
action_b = { name = "Seek British protection from German retaliation."
action_c = { name = "Seek German protection from British aggression."
Here are the changes I would make:
name = "The Altmark Incident"
desc = "A few months after the outbreak of war between Germany and the Allies, the German transport ship Altmark came into Norwegian waters carrying about one hundred British prisoners on board. In a small fjord off the Norweigan coast, the Altmark was intercepted by a British task force. British forces boarded the German ship, and set the prisoners free. The nearby Norwegian navy was outgunned, and powerless to intervene."
action_a = { name = "Protest against British violation of our neutrality"
action_b = { name = "Seek British protection from German retaliation"
action_c = { name = "Seek German protection from British aggression"
desc = "A few months into the war between Germany and the UK, the German transport ship Altmark came into Norwegian waters with some one hundred British prisoners on board. In a small fjord a British task force intercepted the Altmark, boarded the ship, and set the prisoners free, while the outgunned Norwegian navy was helpless to intervene."
action_a = { name = "Protest against British violation of our neutrality!"
action_b = { name = "Seek British protection from German retaliation."
action_c = { name = "Seek German protection from British aggression."
Here are the changes I would make:
name = "The Altmark Incident"
desc = "A few months after the outbreak of war between Germany and the Allies, the German transport ship Altmark came into Norwegian waters carrying about one hundred British prisoners on board. In a small fjord off the Norweigan coast, the Altmark was intercepted by a British task force. British forces boarded the German ship, and set the prisoners free. The nearby Norwegian navy was outgunned, and powerless to intervene."
action_a = { name = "Protest against British violation of our neutrality"
action_b = { name = "Seek British protection from German retaliation"
action_c = { name = "Seek German protection from British aggression"
Ok, before we go any further, let me say:
Make sure you're familiar with the vB code tags (bold, underline, etc). This makes it much easier to read through a post.
Ok, so how about this format:
- Original text in a colored text
- Suggested new event wording in default white text
- Counter-suggestions are italized
-PK
Make sure you're familiar with the vB code tags (bold, underline, etc). This makes it much easier to read through a post.
Ok, so how about this format:
- Original text in a colored text
- Suggested new event wording in default white text
- Counter-suggestions are italized
-PK
Last edited:
Well, it's also true that too many cooks spoil the stylistic broth, so I don't propose to. I don't envision myself writing events of my own; I just offered to help proofread and correct any obvious errors to help speed things along and take a mundane part of the load off. If someone else is rewriting the event text, or suggesting a rewrite/reformat, it's not ready for proofreading yet.
jkk
Agree. Which is why I suggested any of JJ's suggestions go before the Grand High CORE Marshalls or whatever ya wanna call 'em - or whoever they are - because I don't want to do work a second time.
I will say this - I was playing vanilla HoI as Germany and the event for the Rhineland Re-occupation came up. It had no alternative, and I don't like that. The player should - for the most part - have options on initial events. Now sometimes a decision will trigger a series of other events that are reactionary and there are no options. That's different, however. In the above example, I'd like the opportunity not to occupy the Rhineland. There need to be mirror events - one for the human player and another for the AI. The AI follows history for the greater part whereas the human has more options. I'd script that event for the AI as:
a) occupy Rhineland
b) occupy Rhineland
c) don't occupy Rhineland
But anyhow... Sorry if the CORE event is dramatically different - I haven't played Germany yet. I was just using this as an example.
-PK