EU2 source code released

[unmerged(40707)]

It'd be a generic game option, and apply to everyone.

The CoA should stay the same, however, so it might take a bit of work to get it to do that, but it would add a fair bit of flavour to the game, IMO.

Good idea. Not even sure it should be an option. We could define a reserved special flag, just like flag_HREEmperor.bmp, for example.
And flag will not be changed even if a flagname command could still change the CoA. Flag will then revert to current flagname definition when title will be lost. However, there is a problem because even Austria decided to forget the old Imperial flag in 1786...

PS: Philippe, the letter's in the post.

Fine.

 

[Olav2]

Is it easy easy to implement viewing other nations DP-sliders ingame? It should be possible to at least view the vassals' sliders.

When viewing enemy leaders, you only see their names. What do you think of seeing their base stats (maneuver, fire, shock, siege) as well? For example Napoleon [6,6,6,3].

In both cases it would be really handy, so one doesn't need to check the save- and leaderfiles all the time...

 

[Canenald]

Just had an idea while playing Japan. They have a lot of events where they get troops in a province and a revolt in the same province, but the problem is that the new troops start at minimum morale and the rebels start at about the half the morale so they always rout the new troops and kill almost half of them. I remember Trebizond also had a similar problem with a Turkoman Raids event.

It would be great if revolt, CAV, INF and ART commands could have a value that would specify the starting morale of spawned rebels or troops, for example:

command = { type = revolt which = 684 morale = 5.5 }

 

[Jedrek]

What about forceconversions? Maybe, should a victorius country get 90-100% warscore, it should have an opportunity to both vassalise and convert the enemy? It always pisses me off that, for example, when playing Russia I have to eaither annex&convert the enemy capital, or manually edit the save to let Orthodoxy expand... Plus, I think there should be a chance for player to switch Catholicism to Orthodoxy (and vice versa) without having to edit the save or writing a specific event.

 

[Third Angel]

This should not happen, at least it should be possible for historical mods to have certain monarchs tagged as non-electable.






Also, this is something else that I have been thinking about for a long time. Sorry if this has already been mentioned or deemed an undesirable feature. I believe that the following should be considered as "friendly waters" where the human player's fleets would suffer no attrition:
1. national waters of vassals
2. national waters of allied countries, in time of war
3. national waters of countries granting military access

 

[Canenald]

I agree with Jedrek that it should be possible to convert and vassalize at the same time. I don't agree that manual conversion between Orthodoxy and other Christian religions should be possible in AGCEEP, but maybe the expansion should allow for possibilities of conversion to be modded.


About the problem posted by Third Angel, I think types of governments like in EU3 should be implemented and made changeable by events or bound to the monarchs. Archbishoprics like Cologne, Bremen and Mainz shouldn't be able to have Royal Marriages. The same for council-based republics. You can have a royal marriage with the Dodge of Venice or Prince of Novgorod, for example, but you can't have a royal marriage with Switzerland or Siena.

 

[Taylor]

I agree with Jedrek that it should be possible to convert and vassalize at the same time. I don't agree that manual conversion between Orthodoxy and other Christian religions should be possible in AGCEEP, but maybe the expansion should allow for possibilities of conversion to be modded.

Yes, and in general, the way religions work should be more moddable (i.e., effects on rr, income modifier for different state religion, religion groups, effects on stability of non-state-religions, wether the culture changes to state culture when the province is converted, between which religions RM's are possible, how easy it is to convert provinces between two religions, etc etc etc), and there should be more religions possible in the world.

 

[Laur]

I agree with Jedrek that it should be possible to convert and vassalize at the same time. I don't agree that manual conversion between Orthodoxy and other Christian religions should be possible in AGCEEP, but maybe the expansion should allow for possibilities of conversion to be modded.

Historically, it was easier for an Orthodox people to accept the Pope as the patriarch while keeping their rituals, than completely switch to Catholicism. Not sure, though, if it's worth having a new religion (Uniate) in the game.

About the problem posted by Third Angel, I think types of governments like in EU3 should be implemented and made changeable by events or bound to the monarchs. Archbishoprics like Cologne, Bremen and Mainz shouldn't be able to have Royal Marriages. The same for council-based republics. You can have a royal marriage with the Dodge of Venice or Prince of Novgorod, for example, but you can't have a royal marriage with Switzerland or Siena.

Wouldn't it be easier to just change it's name from 'royal marriage' to 'establish embassy?' After all, this is what they're supposed to simulate, isn't it?

 

[unmerged(40707)]

About the problem posted by Third Angel, I think types of governments like in EU3 should be implemented and made changeable by events or bound to the monarchs. Archbishoprics like Cologne, Bremen and Mainz shouldn't be able to have Royal Marriages. The same for council-based republics. You can have a royal marriage with the Dodge of Venice or Prince of Novgorod, for example, but you can't have a royal marriage with Switzerland or Siena.

It depends if "Royal marriage" is the right term for this feature. And, if it is really "Very close diplomatic relations", there is no reason to exclude Papal States.

But it is a fact it should be possible to exclude some monarchs from the HRE election. Moreover, we could have a link between monarchs of two different countries that could make impossible a war between these countries (same monarch for two different countries is the thing that comes first to my mind).

 

[Emperor_krk]

It depends if "Royal marriage" is the right term for this feature. And, if it is really "Very close diplomatic relations", there is no reason to exclude Papal States.

I see no reason why countries like Papal States should be excluded from Royal Marriages, even if we mean them literally. The way I see it, it's not necessarily arranging a marriage of a son/daughter of the actual monarch (pope in this case), but in some cases the marriage of a very high-ranking noble, member of the court, or e.g. some more distant family (cousins, nieces/nephews and so on) of the ruler. Not to mention bastards, present even in the Papal court throughout medieval times and EU2 timeframe as well.

 

[martmol]

any news from paradox yet?

and check your mail yodamaster

 

[Emperor_krk]

BTW, now that I am here anyway, I'd like to bring back the idea I had posted quite some time ago that no one commented on back then (possibly because nobody noticed it, due to it being present at the bottom of a page):

Has anyone ever thought about enhancing the war/peace system by including another feature - or rather, reconstructing an existing one?
What I have in mind is the introduction of a truce/cease fire/armistice/insert_another_name_here, which would precede the actual peace negotiations. It would make the game look more historical: most peace treaties (that I know of) were preceded by a signing of armistice, sometimes a few days, and sometimes more than a year earlier. This would enable players (and AIs) to rebuild the army somewhat, maybe prepare better for the next stage of the war, or just stop the enemy from plundering their lands. It would make fighting between the opponents impossible for a given time, drawing a temporary border between the two countries - all provinces occupied by country A would be inaccessible by country B's units, and vice versa.
What do you think about this?

Also, speaking of peace resolutions - it would be nice to be able to negotiate the length of a truce, and perhaps Non-Aggression Pacts could be introduced as well, as a completely new feature?

Just my two cents.

 

[Mats_SX]

Has anyone ever thought about enhancing the war/peace system by including another feature - or rather, reconstructing an existing one?
What I have in mind is the introduction of a truce/cease fire/armistice/insert_another_name_here, which would precede the actual peace negotiations. It would make the game look more historical: most peace treaties (that I know of) were preceded by a signing of armistice, sometimes a few days, and sometimes more than a year earlier. This would enable players (and AIs) to rebuild the army somewhat, maybe prepare better for the next stage of the war, or just stop the enemy from plundering their lands. It would make fighting between the opponents impossible for a given time, drawing a temporary border between the two countries - all provinces occupied by country A would be inaccessible by country B's units, and vice versa.
What do you think about this?

What would be the point?

 

[unmerged(51984)]

We don't intend to remake EU3 with EU2 engine. Not the same game and not the same players.

About commanders, pictures could be interesting (and no picture by default) but think to the required amount of work for AGCEEP... just as an example.

hello sorry for late reply.

You are true that it requires a lot of work, however as you know, in Victoria only a fraction of commanders have their pics in the vanilla version while we are modding the rest. There you can do the same, just place a few pictures of some famous personalities, some generic pictures for colonel rank officers; and volunteer modders can do the rest according to their taste.

as of other things, of course you are right but.. these ideas are so bright that it would be so good to embed them at least basically to EU2

I would also like to remark a little more about the cosmetic details of EU2 warfare. The commanders certainly need to be detachable to shift them between different armies (or navies) and it would also be so good to rename armies/navies as we can do in victoria

 

[Jayavarman]

How are these projects coming along. IIRC, some would be released in time for Christmas?

 

[unmerged(40707)]

How are these projects coming along. IIRC, some would be released in time for Christmas?

Ask Paradox, licensees are not allowed to tell. But you can be assured some are working the best they can.

 

[Emperor_krk]

What would be the point?

Read the post you quoted closely, I think the reason was stated clearly enough - enhancing the truce/peace treaty system to make it look more historical and perhaps a bit more challenging.

 

[Toio]

For AI engine "thinking and evaluation" process, I would like all alliances to be capped at 3 states.

 

[MichaelM]

For AI engine "thinking and evaluation" process, I would like all alliances to be capped at 3 states.

Why 3 in particular?

 

[Toio]

Why 3 in particular?

Because IIRC 5 is the capped number ATM and this high alliance number leads to states not pursuing their destiny due to the fact that the opposition alliance is far too strong, regardless of their current size and or alliance.