EU Source Code released

[unmerged(15247)]

I always thought limititation of decentralization was working as designed for MP.

Autotrade is cleary broken but this is not specific to MP and we had ideas for entirely reworking this aspect of the game.

Thanks, this is indeed the goal.

Could you explain this part or give examples?
I'm not sure seeing future events is a good idea and even easy to show when some of them can be the result of the choice of other countries. It could be a big amount of work for a not very satisfying result. See how it was already difficult and a big amount of information but a big step in this direction for AGCEEP documentation, thanks to MichaelM's work.

What do you mean with this?


Some comments:

It is a fact we could have a message when it is time to be able to change sliders.

Techs are abstractions. Not easy to ban a country from bonus. There is always propagation, directly or undirectly.

FAQ are the result of the great work of the community. Of course information can be delivered by developers but, as I said, it will be impossible without Paradox approval.

About eu2 military engine, remember game covers centuries. We need abstraction here too and avoid side effects. For example, it doesn't male sense to see expertise of a unit improve over the centuries and become invicible. But generic leaders could have temporary bonuses. It could balance countries that don't have historical leaders if they are succesful in warfare.


Some interesting proposals already...

- i meant as the player beeing able to see his OPTIONES in the events ahead. this can simplly be done by INSERTING the actual "agceep specific naples" file(example) into the mp itself(player's ledger).hope you understand my point here now. just inserting "refference" codes could do that no?
so basically, instead of the player needing to alt tab and phisically look in the event files( is anyone that DOES not or has NOT ever practiced this IN MP!?), the player maybe could do the same exact thing WITHOUT alt-tabin. ok hope that my proposition is much clear now.

- the ability to break siege: sorry , my bad, i just assumed you played other paradox games(or "tested" some at least) like "knights oh honnour" where this feature is important. basically it consists of the player having the possibility to use his fortified troops to counteratack a siege.
example: 20k infantry lay siege to a city(minimal fort with 5k defenders). they start assaulting... while they are killing some of the defender in the fort, their moral decreases at a higher rate. so the 20k end up beeing 11k while the defenders have only 1.5k left . BUT the 1.5 k has 50 percent morale while the 11k ZERO. at that point the defenders can break the siege and in attempting so they can either loose or generally win due to their higher morale....of course if the attackers have a great leader(frousenbergh comes to mind or napoleon) the defenders are "doomed". and this feature would ALREADY work well with the PRESENT engine, ONLY IF the player could use those "troops" in a defensive manner( as they can not be taken in or out of a forst, etc). a simple screen "addcomand"(in the code itself) with the function of "break siege" might be able to do that maybe?

- tech are abstractions and the knowladge did propagrate(open source ). BUT it is the speed that it does so. lets assume that country "b" recives 22 montlly neighb. bonus from country "a". while "" can NOT restrict the spill of information to "b"', it CAN (and it did) RESTRICT the access. so instead of "a" letting "b" recive 22 bonus, it could make it LESS (lets say even more then 50%less---this are numbers to be debated , etc ). becouse i am sure that such a feature will GREATLLY increase strategic alliances and optiones.

-- errr...of COURSE i do not mean such thing as "invincible" troops . by having diffrent levels of generic leaders(wich die in same manner as the historical ones NO??). or simplly have those posibilities with TIME LIMIT( as every 10 years or so, all veteran troops revert back to novice if still alive,)
generic leaders having the ability of temporarry bonuses is PERFECT( i did not know that this posibility already exists ).

 

[unmerged(15247)]

Mats, you made false step aside. Players won`t take european vassals, they will take asian minors, that are not needed to anyone at all.

let`s say 8 players play the game. Everyone for maximum effect getting 10 vassals. 80 vassals ?

It`s fucking idiotic to follow this idea and stimulate people to hunt for vassals in africa and asia. We aim for PvP wars and not exploit of getting as much vassals as you can.

great point( have not played with drake in a long time , i might be COMPLEATLLY wrong here, but i have a feeling that your observation is based on his style ). sorry drake, no dissing intended.

however there is a simple solution: vassal MUST be land connected to the capital( AT LEAST on same continent). compared to other codding this would be a very easy "rule" to implement i think... like this there will be balance between both of your views?( you and matts). and by having this rule there will be no point to have vassal "colonies" at ALL ( with regards to tech, we, recruitment bonuses i mean).
personally i like the way centralization is , except that it COULD be scaled to include 3 vassals or so instead of just one( but certanlly no more the 3 or even 2).

but drake is right that it would enhance the game play...nobody will ever bother to increase centralization and wait to do that by random events alone . the problem with this i think would be in the earlly game due to increased bonuses for players choosing to take only economic path. while it makes sense , it could "break-up"the mp faster...

however , in agceep, i forsee such rule as problematic. by that i am reffering to the events scripted ALREADY wich see the centralization as the best "bonus" to be given in any event(historical or random as well). right yoda?( would be a HUGE amount of work to balance out events over again and change commands). i do not mean just the work(typing) itself but of considering a balance approach of what could be interpreted as "bonus" OR as a "handicap" in such situations.

 

[unmerged(15247)]

also i can not believe i forgat a MAJOR issue that exists in mp (sp as well but player vs ai is not as important)

- when at war and armies are moving around. especially in in-land warfare where many provinces addiacent to each other. the player can not generally SEE where the enemy is heading to. would be GREAT if there would be some arrows that will show to WICH provinces EXACTLLY that specific army is INTENDING to go. thus will create less tactical misscalculations. especially with the new maps, where the moving troops within germany(as example) becomes a "guessing" game of where exactlly they are going to(or intending as such). this "bug" provides as a great disadvantage to the defender since he sees enemy going to province "a"....or wait, could that be province "b" maybe!? ...or even "c"?

 

[Tonioz]

begeric, i may say that eu3 way of showing "where army moving" - big mess togethere with a lot of small armies (in eu2 you normally merge quickly).

 

[unmerged(15247)]

begeric, i may say that eu3 way of showing "where army moving" - big mess togethere with a lot of small armies (in eu2 you normally merge quickly).

true, but in eu2 a player vs player will not risk sending such small units JUST to confuse his opponent, since he would loose much more ws like that even if winning the major battle while loosing on fake manouvers. so in EU2 mp the mess you reffering to would be avoidable. however could there be such feature implemented in mp only?( and not necessary sp). or instead of arrows simplly add a refference such as when hoovering mouse over the troops it reads( arriving AT ...etcor something similar); SOMETHING that can give indication of INTENT , since right now it could be anyones guess.

 

[unmerged(40707)]

- i meant as the player beeing able to see his OPTIONES in the events ahead. this can simplly be done by INSERTING the actual "agceep specific naples" file(example) into the mp itself(player's ledger).hope you understand my point here now. just inserting "refference" codes could do that no?
so basically, instead of the player needing to alt tab and phisically look in the event files( is anyone that DOES not or has NOT ever practiced this IN MP!?), the player maybe could do the same exact thing WITHOUT alt-tabin. ok hope that my proposition is much clear now.

Ok, a text viewer then.

- the ability to break siege: sorry , my bad, i just assumed you played other paradox games(or "tested" some at least) like "knights oh honnour" where this feature is important. basically it consists of the player having the possibility to use his fortified troops to counteratack a siege.
example: 20k infantry lay siege to a city(minimal fort with 5k defenders). they start assaulting... while they are killing some of the defender in the fort, their moral decreases at a higher rate. so the 20k end up beeing 11k while the defenders have only 1.5k left . BUT the 1.5 k has 50 percent morale while the 11k ZERO. at that point the defenders can break the siege and in attempting so they can either loose or generally win due to their higher morale....of course if the attackers have a great leader(frousenbergh comes to mind or napoleon) the defenders are "doomed". and this feature would ALREADY work well with the PRESENT engine, ONLY IF the player could use those "troops" in a defensive manner( as they can not be taken in or out of a forst, etc). a simple screen "addcomand"(in the code itself) with the function of "break siege" might be able to do that maybe?

Do you think I have time to play other games?
Very clear now.

- tech are abstractions and the knowladge did propagrate(open source ). BUT it is the speed that it does so. lets assume that country "b" recives 22 montlly neighb. bonus from country "a". while "" can NOT restrict the spill of information to "b"', it CAN (and it did) RESTRICT the access. so instead of "a" letting "b" recive 22 bonus, it could make it LESS (lets say even more then 50%less---this are numbers to be debated , etc ). becouse i am sure that such a feature will GREATLLY increase strategic alliances and optiones.

I understand the idea but it can be debated.

-errr...of COURSE i do not mean such thing as "invincible" troops . by having diffrent levels of generic leaders(wich die in same manner as the historical ones NO??). or simplly have those posibilities with TIME LIMIT( as every 10 years or so, all veteran troops revert back to novice if still alive,)
generic leaders having the ability of temporarry bonuses is PERFECT( i did not know that this posibility already exists ).

No it doesn't exist but I can have ideas too.

begeric, i may say that eu3 way of showing "where army moving" - big mess togethere with a lot of small armies ...

A screenshot maybe? o
Not sure but it could be implemented by clicking on a specific not owned unit (army or navy) and only for this one or temporarily when the mouse is over the unit (same behaviour as the tooltip) and only limited to the next province to be reached, not the entire path with final destination (this feature being reserved to owned units).

however , in agceep, i forsee such rule as problematic. by that i am reffering to the events scripted ALREADY wich see the centralization as the best "bonus" to be given in any event(historical or random as well). right yoda?( would be a HUGE amount of work to balance out events over again and change commands). i do not mean just the work(typing) itself but of considering a balance approach of what could be interpreted as "bonus" OR as a "handicap" in such situations.

Why? Centralization and less vassals are the historical trend. I don't see a real problem for events that lower or increase centralization. Only random events that tend to decentralization could be reworked with a condition of higher centralization level than current version for them to happen (for example, they will not fire if centralization is at level 4 instead of only level 2 if necessary).
Real problem is a "too much" decentralized or "too much" centralized country should have malus (impact of stab hits for example) and not only bonuses for the extrem. To be discussed and it could be extended to all sliders.

 

[Tonioz]

true, but in eu2 a player vs player will not risk sending such small units JUST to confuse his opponent, since he would loose much more ws like that even if winning the major battle while loosing on fake manouvers. so in EU2 mp the mess you reffering to would be avoidable. however could there be such feature implemented in mp only?( and not necessary sp). or instead of arrows simplly add a refference such as when hoovering mouse over the troops it reads( arriving AT ...etcor something similar); SOMETHING that can give indication of INTENT , since right now it could be anyones guess.

hovering solution of eu3 is mess to read if at least 3-4 armies were in battle (quite possible for eu2). The best way to inform in side window, like hoi and victoria

 

[unmerged(15247)]

hovering solution of eu3 is mess to read if at least 3-4 armies were in battle (quite possible for eu2). The best way to inform in side window, like hoi and victoria

yes that is a GREAT idea . "tested" both this games, yet i forgat how great that feature was o

 

[unmerged(15247)]

Why? Centralization and less vassals are the historical trend. I don't see a real problem for events that lower or increase centralization. Only random events that tend to decentralization could be reworked with a condition of higher centralization level than current version for them to happen (for example, they will not fire if centralization is at level 4 instead of only level 2 if necessary).
Real problem is a "too much" decentralized or "too much" centralized country should have malus (impact of stab hits for example) and not only bonuses for the extrem. To be discussed and it could be extended to all sliders.

not sure what you mean as vassals beeing a historical trend, especially why "LESS" ...from what i know the vassalship was popular as many times yu would have vassals of vassals and vassals of an common overlord but vassals between each other as well... as a matter of fact paying tribute was the "norm" of the day if generalizing. and tribute automatically implies vassalship.
but i totally agree that both extremes(under 2-3 or over 8-9 centralization) should suffer certain penalties in AN EQUAL manner, as that would reflect a certain calculated risk the player need to take in order to end "stagnation". however if he chooses to stay around 5, that might become an exploit as much as the extremes IF the player has a style of insisting on other sliders( as concentrating on militarry ONLY, or 0 innovative, serfdom and aristocracy). talking about mp specificallt here. risk in EARLLY game is rarelly taken if at all wich leads to an extreme direction of other sorts if 5 centralization would become the "way to go". basically what i am saying is that by creating penalties for centralization extremes, in EARLLY game, would create an economic status quo.

also, please note that there are rules "locking" land slider, since that many say( i do NOT agree) that it creates "disadvantages" for naval nations. to compensate for low land one needs to go low serfdom as well but wich does create a problem with the stability costs..... what i mean is that the 0 or 10 land extremes does NOT REFLECT its CHOICE(player's) in the stability COSTS as per related to economic adantages both extremes DO offer.
so in conclusiion, i am thinking, is there anyway to make the land sliders affect stability as well? as the choice of naval should affect only army MORALe, a bit the economy(as it does) but NOT the stability sliders( as the player is forced to consider aristocracy and serfdom as well wich create a pure advantage if going FULL land).
the way i see it, this "issue" with locking land sliders has to to with players prefference of doing ONLY economy for quiet a long time of the first century. and as such the economic player is the only one that has advantages in this periods( obviouslly we all generally do it) ONLY becouse there are no real incentives otherwise( and beating ai is not a real issue in mp, since the players always tend to have the big nations at start).

the way i see it, creating many "bonuses" or "handicaps" for SPECIFIC slider positions only incite the player to pla SAFE even MORE...a trend i noticed when the eu2 main betas were beeing release....now please do not get me wrong, mindless wars are certanlly not the objective here( for that there are "rts" games as i keep saying). however the player should be REWARDED for taking CALCULATED RISKS, no? becouse i notice that all of us tend to join to "sides" in complaining there is either too much agressivness or none. this has to do with TOO MUCH balance and CONDITIONS( including the random events). tough nut to crack here into pleasing every STYLE, but if calculated risk is rewarded then one will see more "intreasting" stuff happening and various inter-related tactics and strategies.

my main issue with eu2 REMAINS its LACK of enough pool of militarry options, wich if compared with the economic ones , LACK almost entierlly , ESPECIALLY in the earlly gaem when everyone is more or less "even"( including the damm land 1 or 0 ACROSS the board, withonly ottos as exception in agceep as far as i know).
i guess ithat increasing the number of techonogical "trees" might halp as well, wich in turn would also affect the much preffered neighborhood bonus here( in long term play of course).

 

[unmerged(40707)]

not sure what you mean as vassals beeing a historical trend, especially why "LESS" ...

Maybe my English was not right. See what happened in France. In few words, all vassals disappeared (inherited by the Crown) while centralization became more and more important and last step of the process was achieved by Louis XIV.

the way i see it, creating many "bonuses" or "handicaps" for SPECIFIC slider positions only incite the player to pla SAFE even MORE...a trend i noticed when the eu2 main betas were beeing release....now please do not get me wrong, mindless wars are certanlly not the objective here( for that there are "rts" games as i keep saying). however the player should be REWARDED for taking CALCULATED RISKS, no? becouse i notice that all of us tend to join to "sides" in complaining there is either too much agressivness or none. this has to do with TOO MUCH balance and CONDITIONS( including the random events). tough nut to crack here into pleasing every STYLE, but if calculated risk is rewarded then one will see more "intreasting" stuff happening and various inter-related tactics and strategies.

Extrem could be more rewarding but more risky. This is why I used "too much". Minimizing or maximising sliders can be considered pushing the system to the limits but, currently, there is no real risk, only costs.

 

[Therion]

I don't know if this can be implemented, but decentralised nations should get a stability bonus and a tax bonus for different culture cores. So, for example, the Ottoman Empire would only have Turkish culture without any stability cost and tax losses for its non-Turkish provinces if it stays decentralised and with the additional historicalness of not being able to convert them easily.

 

[Mats_SX]

Make the following moddable:

- Manufactory costs.
- Conversion costs & chances.
- Land and Naval support modifiers. For example how much a point of tax value in a port should add to naval support (currently four), and how much one point of manpower should add to land support (currently 1000).
- Fort costs.
- Conscription Centre and Shipyard costs.
- Stability hits for different Declaration of War conditions. For example being able to alter -1 for same religion, or -1 for RM.
- Stability cost for breaking vassalization.

I am sure it's been mentioned already, but better be safe than sorry.

 

[unmerged(40707)]

In other words, as much as possible externalized values for all aspects of the game!

 

[Mats_SX]

In other words, as much as possible externalized values for all aspects of the game!

I suspected you got it covered (you usually do), but you never know

 

[Mats_SX]

Oh yes!