Yes, and we had to discover the code. Not the easiest task, at least for me sometimes, but experience should come...
-
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.
- Status
YodaMaster said:Here is a quick summary of already processed enhancements:
Interface:
-Support of high resolutions (big part but not finished)
-Color of scorebars moddable
-Progress bar not displayed on loading screen (consequence of high resolutions support)
-Fixed SPA shield displayed by default on some message boxes
-Shield of country displayed on the foreground in country selection screen
-No shadow associated to flare for shields in country selection screen
-Map zoom with mouse wheel
-Flagname displayed instead of wrong standard shield at the end of the game
-No CTD at the end of the game if hands-off game with no real country (MER in particular)
Script Engine:
-Added discover command
-Added hre command (type = hre which = <prov> value = yes/no)
-Changed event conversions to not target Catholic provinces for CRC countries
-Changed event conversions to not target trading posts
Engine:
-Changed DoF navy morale bonus to 0.5 (same as army bonus) => to be moddable in the end
Miscellaneous:
-Logs files moved to Logs folder
-Cleaning of EU2 install files
-Music without music.ini
As you can see, we have many remaining things to do.
Yes, but as we can see, you have already done much.
So, will these changes work with the new map, and if not, why not?
Thanks but this is only the beginning.MattyG said:
Of course, changing the way the map works is not a high priority and expansion should be compatible with any existing map. However, expansion will certainly add some features for the map. First one (but not only one) is names of the provinces as sprites (bmp files) for easy modification if wanted. "Old" maps will still be displayed with names as they are (i.e. no associated sprites). But it won't be necessary to have names included in maps anymore and script engine could provide a way to change sprites and names.MattyG said:
Btw, today's fixes:
-Incgrid.tbl taken in account in moddir
-Tax_stab.csv taken in account in moddir
YodaMaster,
In regards to the command to know a region, I was wondering if you would consider expanding this. Let me explain.
I have never really liked the exploration system for EU2, because the player has too much control, guiding the explorer and knowing instantly the discovered provinces. Colonists are even sent out before the explorer has returned from his voyage!
My preference for Interregnum is that the early explorers (maybe all) are instead goverened by events which could produce a some-what random set of discoveries. When an event fires which asks the player if s/he wants to fund an (expensive) expedition, choosing Yes would set a flag. In response to this flag one of five or so events would fire in 8 months - 2 years time (depending on the time period/expedition) which would result in a range of outcomes, from Expedition Lost to 8 provinces discovered (plus the intervening sea zones).
This could be simply done using the new command by having them preselected by the designer (me) which is good, but not as good as it could be. It would be better if there was more another possible command:
command= { type = discover which = area value = -1 }
where area was the set of provinces defined by name in the province.csv ('la plata' caribbean louisiane etc) and -1 chose a random province from among them.
Naturally, the mod designer would need to ensure that only coastal provinces were included in any area, and all inland provinces form their own area sets.
There would be an option in the game to toggle this off and toggle on traditional explorers (done by event in Interregnum).
Regards,
Matty
In regards to the command to know a region, I was wondering if you would consider expanding this. Let me explain.
I have never really liked the exploration system for EU2, because the player has too much control, guiding the explorer and knowing instantly the discovered provinces. Colonists are even sent out before the explorer has returned from his voyage!
My preference for Interregnum is that the early explorers (maybe all) are instead goverened by events which could produce a some-what random set of discoveries. When an event fires which asks the player if s/he wants to fund an (expensive) expedition, choosing Yes would set a flag. In response to this flag one of five or so events would fire in 8 months - 2 years time (depending on the time period/expedition) which would result in a range of outcomes, from Expedition Lost to 8 provinces discovered (plus the intervening sea zones).
This could be simply done using the new command by having them preselected by the designer (me) which is good, but not as good as it could be. It would be better if there was more another possible command:
command= { type = discover which = area value = -1 }
where area was the set of provinces defined by name in the province.csv ('la plata' caribbean louisiane etc) and -1 chose a random province from among them.
Naturally, the mod designer would need to ensure that only coastal provinces were included in any area, and all inland provinces form their own area sets.
There would be an option in the game to toggle this off and toggle on traditional explorers (done by event in Interregnum).
Regards,
Matty
This one is for MichaelM. He is the author of the discover command.
I'm more focused on interface and structure right now.
I'm more focused on interface and structure right now.
It's a very exiciting news, Yoda. Now, what will we call the outcome of this project? EU2 v1.10, EU2.5, or other good name is here?YodaMaster said:
Another name... It could be "<the name>" or "EU2: <the name>" and Paradox will be involved for final decision.
Does this mean that there are more people willing to do this, only waiting for approval? If so - excuse me my curiousity, but who are they?MichaelM said:
Argh, I wish I knew C++ (or any programming language for that matter)...
Great job you are doing there, really.
YodaMaster said:
And that is one hell of a great news! Actually, this is much earlier than I would have possibly expected. I'll surely be among the first to acquire this new, better EU2. 
I wonder, will it be possible to add something similar to EU3`s outliner to EU2`s interface? A very helpful thing to have all key information at a glance.
You will know when they will be approved.Emperor_krk said:Does this mean that there are more people willing to do this, only waiting for approval? If so - excuse me my curiousity, but who are they?
Thanks! And existing mods (not only AGCEEP) will benefit from this work.Emperor_krk said:
I hope you won't be the only one.Emperor_krk said:
And it could come with a new map... just wait... (but this is a secret)
It could be possible. Like any other enhancement, we will have to see if it is complex to implement or not.Cortes_R said:
As currently implemented,MattyG said:
Code:
command = { type = discover which = -1 }Anyway, if YodaMaster is okay with it, I'd like to do the following:
command = { type = discover which = <region> value = <int> }
where
region = the region or area to discover in; leaving this out means it will work as described above (no region is necessary for discovering a specific province)
value = province id / -1 / -2 / ...?
Described above, with an additional feature: if "value" is not present but "which" is, the entire region/area will be discovered.
Comments? I haven't done any of this yet, so this is the best time to make changes.
I think we should avoid confusion and reserve -1, -2 and -3 for the value we already know (any / capital / same as previous province in event). As expressed, -4 could be replaced by real name of continents (i.e. not only for America, or which / value proposed syntax) and we also have -6 that could be replaced by "emperor".
This could free all values above -3 for implementation of your idea about other special groups. In this case, even if it makes not much sense to discover a random province far away in terra incognita without a path to go there, better reserve -1 for "any province". -2 is invalid and -3 is still "same as previous province in event" for the new discover command.
As a consequence, we could have any negative value implemented but meaning could be different for this value from a command to another only if it is impossible to have common meaning.
Or maybe we could have a specific negative value for each new possibility and only apply the ones that are suitable for a command. it will avoid confusion too (and this solution could be useful for search&replace purpose). I didn't check range but I think we can use at least until -16567. It could be sufficient, couldn't it?
Changing -4 and -6 with new values/syntax in all events could be easy for all events but there will be strange results with mods that use -4 and -6 and will not be adapted.
The "which = <continent/region/area> value = <id/negative value>" syntax could be extended to many other commands as well.
Only problem could be with commands that already use which / value and includes provinces in this syntax. In this case we could need another keyword like "area".
Example: command = { type = INF which = -8 area = europe value = 5000 }
=> could mean 5000 INF in any national province (core for -8) in Europe.
Discussion is open.
This could free all values above -3 for implementation of your idea about other special groups. In this case, even if it makes not much sense to discover a random province far away in terra incognita without a path to go there, better reserve -1 for "any province". -2 is invalid and -3 is still "same as previous province in event" for the new discover command.
As a consequence, we could have any negative value implemented but meaning could be different for this value from a command to another only if it is impossible to have common meaning.
Or maybe we could have a specific negative value for each new possibility and only apply the ones that are suitable for a command. it will avoid confusion too (and this solution could be useful for search&replace purpose). I didn't check range but I think we can use at least until -16567. It could be sufficient, couldn't it?
Changing -4 and -6 with new values/syntax in all events could be easy for all events but there will be strange results with mods that use -4 and -6 and will not be adapted.
The "which = <continent/region/area> value = <id/negative value>" syntax could be extended to many other commands as well.
Only problem could be with commands that already use which / value and includes provinces in this syntax. In this case we could need another keyword like "area".
Example: command = { type = INF which = -8 area = europe value = 5000 }
=> could mean 5000 INF in any national province (core for -8) in Europe.
Discussion is open.
Last edited:
Speaking as a modder ...
1. I agree with YM that keeping the -X values consistent is important. If we can go as high as -20 that should give us ample room!
2. So, the commands could be:
<type = area which = X value = -10 or -11 or -12>
<type = region which = X value = -10 or -11 or -12>
<type = continent which = X value = -10 or -11 or -12>
a. where area/region/continent refers to the continents, regions and areas defined in the mod through the province.csv
b. where -10 is a random adjacent-to-known province
c. where -11 is a random coastal province
d. where -12 is a random non-coastal province
That would give me all the flexibility I need.
One can but dream .....
1. I agree with YM that keeping the -X values consistent is important. If we can go as high as -20 that should give us ample room!
2. So, the commands could be:
<type = area which = X value = -10 or -11 or -12>
<type = region which = X value = -10 or -11 or -12>
<type = continent which = X value = -10 or -11 or -12>
a. where area/region/continent refers to the continents, regions and areas defined in the mod through the province.csv
b. where -10 is a random adjacent-to-known province
c. where -11 is a random coastal province
d. where -12 is a random non-coastal province
That would give me all the flexibility I need.
One can but dream .....
One final major request.
Diploannexation.
Please modify this game feature. I consider it the ruinination of EU2, and I am not alone in this regard.
Two things would be good.
1. Make it a feature that can be toggled off at game start.
2. If players want it on, please make it a little more difficult. Some suggestions are:
a. Raise the diplomatic requirements, such as monarch rating 7 or higher.
b. Make BB requirements, such as a maximum of BB 2 or DA is not possible.
c. Bring in culture requirements: ie you cannot DA a country unless you share a culture.
Thanks,
Matty
Diploannexation.
Please modify this game feature. I consider it the ruinination of EU2, and I am not alone in this regard.
Two things would be good.
1. Make it a feature that can be toggled off at game start.
2. If players want it on, please make it a little more difficult. Some suggestions are:
a. Raise the diplomatic requirements, such as monarch rating 7 or higher.
b. Make BB requirements, such as a maximum of BB 2 or DA is not possible.
c. Bring in culture requirements: ie you cannot DA a country unless you share a culture.
Thanks,
Matty
i do not agree with such requierments as you state here "2. If players want it on, please make it a little more difficult. Some suggestions are"MattyG said:One final major request.
Diploannexation.
Please modify this game feature. I consider it the ruinination of EU2, and I am not alone in this regard.
Two things would be good.
1. Make it a feature that can be toggled off at game start.
2. If players want it on, please make it a little more difficult. Some suggestions are:
a. Raise the diplomatic requirements, such as monarch rating 7 or higher.
b. Make BB requirements, such as a maximum of BB 2 or DA is not possible.
c. Bring in culture requirements: ie you cannot DA a country unless you share a culture.
Thanks,
Matty
if i WANT IT ON, meaning i do not want it "harder" as you say after in your syggestions
LOLdiploannexation is already harder and i will not be playing something that just restricts my choices as to make it harder just FOR THE SAKE OF DOING SO.
i can gurantee you that myself , if such reccomandations will be applied, will NOT be playing such mod, maybe others will
this was first and foremost important aspect that atracted me to this game in the begining; while initially was indeed too easy, now is just right, as i do have constant vassals breaking away, and in order for them not to so so i waste LOTS of money on relations = loss of investments, etc.so no need to apply some "draconian" rules here, just restricts player even more and the economic path of advancement is take away since war will be the only mean to expand. and hell if i am just playing to "watch" other AI nations evolve and say "oh that is pretty", etc.. i know that for a MODDER that is "ideal", but not for a player that plays this for FUN AND ENTRETAINMENT while LEARNING NEW historical facts from events, and much more..
however i would not mind if there is such option to start with such as "forced annex" -"on" or "off". but if i can have an option better not be a RESTRICTED one
your "harder consists of IMPOSSIBLE;
a- diplo skills of 7 are only a FEW , if double check the monarch stats files...
b- a 2bb requierment i KNOW will make only 2-3 possible diplo annexation in the WHOLE gc...
c- bye bye playing minors, especially since many of them could or have only one culture...
Last edited:
from this observation and a few more i have a feeling that i will be sticking with the present eu2 engineMattyG said:One final major request.
Diploannexation.
Please modify this game feature. I consider it the ruinination of EU2, and I am not alone in this regard.
Two things would be good.
1. Make it a feature that can be toggled off at game start.
2. If players want it on, please make it a little more difficult. Some suggestions are:
a. Raise the diplomatic requirements, such as monarch rating 7 or higher.
b. Make BB requirements, such as a maximum of BB 2 or DA is not possible.
c. Bring in culture requirements: ie you cannot DA a country unless you share a culture.
Thanks,
Matty
Just because MattyG suggests it doesn't mean we're necessarily going to do it (and if so, whether it will be modified from his suggestion).beregic said:from this observation and a few more i have a feeling that i will be sticking with the present eu2 engine
MichaelM said:Just because MattyG suggests it doesn't mean we're necessarily going to do it (and if so, whether it will be modified from his suggestion).
that sounds good for a change; ...i thought that having the codes released will INCRESES the CHOICES for a player to have; insted been reading posts with RESTRICTION suggestions.
i find it odd the dirrection interegnum took; great event scripts, some original settings, but it is a "fantesy" mod wich is actualy more STRICT then agceep.( my assumtion is that matty thinks that is needed to be able trigger certain possibilities like the european crusade, etc and that since the limited functions for modding. but in my opinion he took a wrong road.)
for example there is a new random event that literally breaks up a nation of certain size. ok fine, so it is as an "option" right now BUT i keep forgetting to turn that option "off" and i find myself in a good game and forget about it...but all of a sudden it triggers, makes yawnnnnnnnn and abruptly quit playing calling myself a stupid for forgetting that "enhacement" option :wacko:
MichaelM said:Just because MattyG suggests it doesn't mean we're necessarily going to do it (and if so, whether it will be modified from his suggestion).
That's true.
But I'd hope there would be some intellegent discussion about it.
This game attracts different players for different reasons. Some like to be able to blitzkrieg their way to world domination (something no real world nation has gone even 10% of the way to acheiving). These players find game mechanics that impede this to be an annoyance, not a challenge. Others are more interested in seeing historical outcomes acheived. Others like the role-playing feel. There are many others, and I think the point is clear. Certainly the game should not be altered to suit the style of play of one niche.
Consider what some of the problems are for EU2. For some, it is the lack of religions. Adding more was, I believe, placed highest among the ten more important things to add/change in EU2 in a submission to Johan. This could be changed now, I believe. Does this mean that EU2 is going to be worse off, becuae there could be more religions added? In some people's minds, yes, I'm sure they won't like it. Too much complication being added, perhaps. Adding game features/potentials will not please everyone, but that's no reason for the status quo.
Here are the two main reasons I'd like to see DA tightened or have the ability (as a player) to toggle off this feature.
1. Blobbing by the ai is something I read more complaints about that almost any other aspect of EU2, regardless of mod. Blobbing is chiefly acheived through DA by the ai, which it appears to do with greater ease than players (this may not be the reality: source code access might quickly dispel this sense).
2. Diploannexation tries to approximate historical events/processes, such as the absorbtion of Brittany by France, or even the formation of Great Britain (though I can't say that the relationship between Scotland or Ireland or Wales with England at the time was 190+ :rofl: ). However, it occurs much too often, and can see even very large states being absorbed. I can't think of a state larger than 5 provinces (on the vanilla map) that was DA in the real world, and it certainly wasn't through the process of RM and strong relations.
While the ideas I offered for tightening it might not work, there are certainly other ways. For example, there could be a province-size threashold. No country six provinces or larger, perhaps.
MattyG
Last edited:
- Status