EU2 source code released

[Garbon]

I think you are completely missing my points as well. After all, why are you posting observations if you don't want comments? Also, I was simply informing you that the connection between no wars and the released vassals is not as simple as you think.

 

[unmerged(15247)]

No, but then most country changes aren't documented.

Jahan Shah (leader of Kara Koyunlu) dies on November 12, 1467, so unless the game has drawn that 1 in 5 chance of letting him live, you need to have eliminated the Ak Koyunlu by that date in order to become the Safavids.

damm...wish i would knew this before i got mad a FEW times for the "imposibility" of making persia. oh well , it is never too late

 

[unmerged(15247)]

In general, the AI wars less and less as the date advances. Thus even if we didn't have these events, you'd see wars decreasing. Additionally, you aren't going to see more wars if the HRE kept on to all provinces it annexed as by the very fact of those countries not existing, they couldn't war with the HRE.

I think you are completely missing my points as well. After all, why are you posting observations if you don't want comments? Also, I was simply informing you that the connection between no wars and the released vassals is not as simple as you think.

seems VERY simple to me. common sense even for a novice player that less wars as time goes by. or absolute COMMON sense that no wars if no nations . so what is not SIMPLE HERE?( other then the bonus that vassals do offer for better tech, wich you actualy forgat it as an "argument"? )

point is that myself i KNOW there are less wars then they used to be in europe, since the release vassals in HRE. at least that is on the game running on my computer; maybe there are other factors indeed that we have diffrent in settings...

 

[MichaelM]

A bit harsh, but i have to agree a bit with it. I believe things that make EU2, actually EU2, like DAing, should remain as they are. They, should, however, be, modable.

Also is there somewhere a complete list of what is going to be implemented in this new "expansion"? There are a few ideas i would like to give, but i dont know if they were already given and i know that for you guys it might be annoying to hear the same suggestion over and over again.

Post #25 has a partial list.

Regarding diploannexing: We have never said we were going to eliminate diploannexing. I don't think that we have even said we were going to make it harder. We did say that we wanted to make as many things as possible moddable.

 

[Toio]

seems VERY simple to me. common sense even for a novice player that less wars as time goes by. or absolute COMMON sense that no wars if no nations . so what is not SIMPLE HERE?( other then the bonus that vassals do offer for better tech, wich you actualy forgat it as an "argument"? )

point is that myself i KNOW there are less wars then they used to be in europe, since the release vassals in HRE. at least that is on the game running on my computer; maybe there are other factors indeed that we have diffrent in settings...

first of all, the random events should have more triggers so as to not have the same events trigger often, maybe stab triggers

less wars is true from 1600 onwards, (thats why I have my 30YW running from then), but this stems from what i call "relations creep", that is as the game ages , the relations all creep closer and closer to 200,

I would like to see all the random events have any relation bonuses maxed at 10 points while keeping other commands as is.

 

[Garbon]

less wars is true from 1600 onwards, (thats why I have my 30YW running from then), but this stems from what i call "relations creep", that is as the game ages , the relations all creep closer and closer to 200,

I would like to see all the random events have any relation bonuses maxed at 10 points while keeping other commands as is.

I wonder how true that is though, seeing as how nations that we want to have fighting often get large relation drops...and yet still aren't often at war or are at war for very short periods of time.

 

[unmerged(40707)]

It could be a matter of size... AI driven big countries are very conservative when relative strengths are almost the same despite the fact that strategical and/or geopolitical situation on one side could be a decisive advantage. AI can't simply see it and will not dare engaging in such war.

 

[Garbon]

Yes, AI large countries seem to like sure things. They often only end up at war with other large AI countries if dragged in by minor allies.

 

[unmerged(15247)]

first of all, the random events should have more triggers so as to not have the same events trigger often, maybe stab triggers

less wars is true from 1600 onwards, (thats why I have my 30YW running from then), but this stems from what i call "relations creep", that is as the game ages , the relations all creep closer and closer to 200,

I would like to see all the random events have any relation bonuses maxed at 10 points while keeping other commands as is.

my take is this: quick , rare wars have to do more with WARSCORE and LARGER FORTS rather then anything else.( if look closelly that generally only happens in europe, asia and somehow less other regions other then europe, always have them , as long as china does not remain too "big"). but in asia there other problems, read further.

generally in europe, ai is very bad at effectivelly taking large forts mostlly becouse they do not send enough troops( an exception somehow is austria wich always manages that aspect compared with anyone else in europe). the rule of thumb is that a nation with even a SLIGHTLLY less land tech will never manage to get even a medium fort, and especially in winter. relations aspect while they might affect somehow , i do not see them at all as the main couse for this. as long as a nation has a core to get, they will do so at any costs regardless of their relations

also ai wars have a certain limitations( to avoid endless wars i guess) where after 3-5 years they "must" peace. so back to "status quo" . myself i always have a tendency to hekp vassals get "bigger" and i provide all type of support from troops piling-up (to keep the siege) to giving away money( so ai can sustain its troop quantity). but against medium forts and above that proves without much point , so i find myself reloading game over and over when at war( making sure i keep siege every time i do so while ai "restructurates" again upon reload).

another aspect in late game is an annoying bug that has GREAT IMPACT, even if not very obvious at first( the one where ai troops keep "fleeing" constantlly even if they have enough numbers to sustain a siege). the only thing that makes logic for me regarding this behaviour is to force ai NOT TO WIN; if that is not the case,would it be a "bug"? a great example here would be spain, wich after 1600's or so, all of a sudden seems to loose any interests in any conquests and "loosing" on purpose from what i seen.

in asia the problem at times is even more straight foward when comes to forts; becouse ai keeps building them everywhere but never ATTEINING land 41 and above where it could PROPERLLY assault or simplly siege thsoe forts

my APPROACH/reccomandation would be to either associate larger forts with a higher CRT land level AND/OR making historical and random events where forts would be decreased over time.( a point case here would be paris or london where ai always seems to "forget" making ANY forts in their capital , however unless a human ai never gets that far to siege them anyway)

the WARSCORE issues: it comes into play becouse in late game is much EASIER to compleatlly anihilate scout or pillage troops upon contact. it results in ai loosing the "reserved" numbers of such "armies"( on both sides, regardless of their size most of the time!) and they have to white peace due to its "internal" "lost" war score( even if they might have an advntage when appied to overall WAR score) or for some small amount of cash exchange. also over time the score value/province DECREASES, for a few reasons well known.

the above thoughts are just yet another aspects where i believe the eu2codes are implemented to "decive" the player in making things seem harder, while they are certenly not from a logical point of view at least...

also modding ai behaviour to go(attack and siege eventually) for capitals FIRST(or try/attempt to) will certanlly help since the defeating ai nation will "give up" the cores that the enemy might have on them, even if not sieged or big fort. the historical reasons(if you need one) for this behaviour would be precise as well, becouse most of the medival wars were fought in-between the rulling monachs( and their families) wich almost ALWAYS resided in the capital city...so the ai should logivally try to get those first and "kill" or "capture" the enemy royal families

 

[MattyG]

In regards to the HRE, would you please consider making some elements of it moddable.

1. No HRE

This happened historically in the game's period (1809?). It would be great to have a command that ended the HRE (and all effects). And one which re-awakened it too.

2. Electable Monarchs

The current situation is unsatisfactory, with Protestant monarchs being elected as Emperor some times, so that obviously needs to change, but it would be great to have the parameters moddable here too. This is especially important if new religions can be added to the game.

3. Method of Election

Probably more controversial and harder to code, but I find the current way the empeor os elected a little unssatisfying. I'd prefer it to be tied to actualy provinces which are the ones that have a vote, rather than just relationships with the countries that votes are assigned to in the country.csv


Any other ideas out there?

Matty

 

[Canenald]

This happened historically in the game's period (1809?). It would be great to have a command that ended the HRE (and all effects). And one which re-awakened it too.

I'd make that one of top priorities. Also some commands for setting and clearing elector status would be nice.

2. Electable Monarchs

The current situation is unsatisfactory, with Protestant monarchs being elected as Emperor some times, so that obviously needs to change, but it would be great to have the parameters moddable here too. This is especially important if new religions can be added to the game.

Sometimes? Isn't that an understatement? With Brandenburg and Saxony always turning Protestant and Palatinate Protestant or Reformed most of the times Catholic monarchs, including Austria, have little chance of winning the title after the reformation.

3. Method of Election

Probably more controversial and harder to code, but I find the current way the empeor os elected a little unssatisfying. I'd prefer it to be tied to actualy provinces which are the ones that have a vote, rather than just relationships with the countries that votes are assigned to in the country.csv

Probably the only things I liked in my experience with EU3 is the MMG2 HRE elections and the Japanese Shogunate. At least a system of elections like the one in vanilla EU3 would be nice.

 

[unmerged(40707)]

HRE overhaul is in the ToDo list. Setting end clearing the HRE are good ideas to be added to all others (and one is already implemented by MichaelM about provinces). First answer is being able to modify Elector status for countries. I think we already discussed this in the same thread.

About election and Brandenburg and Saxony turning Protestant, I don't always have such result and Austria can keep the title but it is a fact annexations are detrimental to Austria. Tyrol and Bohemia can be killers..

My intention about HRE is to add the window that can be seen in EU3 about Electors and relations for next election. We lack such clear information in EU2.
I have no idea about MMG2 HRE elections and the Japanese Shogunate but we should be able to borrow interesting stuffs.

 

[unmerged(40707)]

another aspect in late game is an annoying bug that has GREAT IMPACT, even if not very obvious at first( the one where ai troops keep "fleeing" constantlly even if they have enough numbers to sustain a siege).

I think MichaelM found the bug.

my APPROACH/reccomandation would be to either associate larger forts with a higher CRT land level AND/OR making historical and random events where forts would be decreased over time.( a point case here would be paris or london where ai always seems to "forget" making ANY forts in their capital , however unless a human ai never gets that far to siege them anyway)

AI only build forts when there is nothing else to build and/or focus on provinces with very high value for this (especially if a COT is present).
It is a fact it is a problem because land levels are very low for small and medium levels.

the WARSCORE issues: it comes into play becouse in late game is much EASIER to compleatlly anihilate scout or pillage troops upon contact. it results in ai loosing the "reserved" numbers of such "armies"( on both sides, regardless of their size most of the time!) and they have to white peace due to its "internal" "lost" war score( even if they might have an advntage when appied to overall WAR score) or for some small amount of cash exchange. also over time the score value/province DECREASES, for a few reasons well known.

There is indeed a problem here, especially in late game.

also modding ai behaviour to go(attack and siege eventually) for capitals FIRST(or try/attempt to) will certanlly help since the defeating ai nation will "give up" the cores that the enemy might have on them, even if not sieged or big fort. the historical reasons(if you need one) for this behaviour would be precise as well, becouse most of the medival wars were fought in-between the rulling monachs( and their families) wich almost ALWAYS resided in the capital city...so the ai should logivally try to get those first and "kill" or "capture" the enemy royal families

Not sure about this one and to be discussed. AI could have other goals. Problem is predictability of AI behaviour but I agree capturing the capital is almost always a decisive advantage (btw, used blue is not very easy to read, at least for me).

 

[MichaelM]

Johan has just forbidden giving out *any* information without approval, so don't expect any more "I've just added/fixed <whatever>" posts.

This of course doesn't mean we can't discuss things, just that we can't reveal whether we've already done what you're asking for.

 

[MattyG]

Johan has just forbidden giving out *any* information without approval, so don't expect any more "I've just added/fixed <whatever>" posts.

This of course doesn't mean we can't discuss things, just that we can't reveal whether we've already done what you're asking for.

This places you in a slightly tricky position.

When Johan uploaded patches he would write stuff like:

- Fixed a bug when the game crashes in the ledger
- Spain more likely to colonise now

....and so forth. If you are not able to do this, then that means players will keep asking you to fix problems, when in fact you have already fixed them. Will Johan at least be able to make these comments on your behalf?

 

[unmerged(40707)]

It won't be possible to talk without approval but this doesn't mean we won't be allowed at all nor Paradox will not do it for us.

Logs were published after patches/new versions were published, not before.

I fully understand the approval for control and it is a fact we don't "need" to say publicly what was exactly done so far but we need to communicate about our goals (I already did it long ago anyway) and what we are doing (some sort of diaries like any other recent games). Many players don't even know expansion(s) are created...

 

[unmerged(15247)]

It won't be possible to talk without approval but this doesn't mean we won't be allowed at all nor Paradox will not do it for us.

Logs were published after patches/new versions were published, not before.

I fully understand the approval for control and it is a fact we don't "need" to say publicly what was exactly done so far but we need to communicate about our goals (I already did it long ago anyway) and what we are doing (some sort of diaries like any other recent games). Many players don't even know expansion(s) are created...

oh well, for myself i can smell a mile away any changes done anyway . however , as i mentioned before i have an issue with the "fair" dealing; aka: trying to create a false imagine about issue to confuse the player in thinking he actually has "choices" when he clearly has none or almost none

paradox "codes" are famouse for that; it all comes down how each player percives them

 

[MattyG]

It won't be possible to talk without approval but this doesn't mean we won't be allowed at all nor Paradox will not do it for us.

Logs were published after patches/new versions were published, not before.

I fully understand the approval for control and it is a fact we don't "need" to say publicly what was exactly done so far but we need to communicate about our goals (I already did it long ago anyway) and what we are doing (some sort of diaries like any other recent games). Many players don't even know expansion(s) are created...

OK. This seems very reasonable. Most of us have no real idea what the agreement with Paradox covers and how it is implemented.

Take all this debate as a sign of how intoxicated we all are with the idea that the game will be so drastically improved in the near future!

 

[unmerged(40707)]

Take all this debate as a sign of how intoxicated we all are with the idea that the game will be so drastically improved in the near future!

I hope it will be!

Don't hesitate to post ideas anyway. We can't say if they will be implemented and we won't tell if they will, but we can still discuss them if we find them interesting and many if not all of yours are.

 

[Garbon]

OK. This seems very reasonable. Most of us have no real idea what the agreement with Paradox covers and how it is implemented.

Take all this debate as a sign of how intoxicated we all are with the idea that the game will be so drastically improved in the near future!

Now this is a very different post from the original.