• 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
Not open for further replies.
Olav said:
This sounds nice! Have you got an answer yet?
Do you see a diary somewhere? ;)

No comment.

EDIT: once again, start a new thread in general EU2 forum for such a "petition" if you really want informations. Maybe Paradox will notice this thread. We, licensees, have to be neutral about this.
 
Last edited:
Taylor said:
I hope you will at least try out daily attrition to see if it really does hog up things.
If performance is a real problem, maybe we could have different behaviour for player(s) and AI. AI could still have monthly attrition when player(s) daily. It wouldn't be the first time AI will not have the same rule...

Taylor said:
By the way, shouldn't movement attrition in the winter be higher than in the summer?
No idea inside but we can still have current rules for this.
 
Taylor said:
By the way, shouldn't movement attrition in the winter be higher than in the summer?


Depends on the region. I doubt Nuakchott would have higher attrition in the winter than in the summer.
 
@BurningEGO: There are a lot of SP'ers around who do manage their movement attrition. Making it daily would change the game experience significantly for them: finally we'll be free to move our armies whenever we like! (Not to mention the fact that moving several provinces will become so much less tedious!)
The fact that things are different in MP doesn't mean the option shouldn't be added in SP...

To be honest movement atrition as a whole should be deleted (except for ships).

And well, most people do not care if they are going to loose 1% of the army when they are moving over to another province. Sorry to say, but it sounds almost geek-like to care about when to move the army not to loose a couple of men.
 
BurningEGO said:
And well, most people do not care if they are going to loose 1% of the army when they are moving over to another province. Sorry to say, but it sounds almost geek-like to care about when to move the army not to loose a couple of men.
Maybe, but it is still silly to loose men only because of one day too much movement... and none the day just before.
 
Michael, like others I have a whole list of things that I'd like changed about EU2, some of it being minor stuff like movement attrition but some other very big potential changes.

Here is a list of some things I think ought to be put in a "1.10" for the purpose of squelching tedious or unrealistic exploits of various game features:

Military access exploit squelch
* All MA will be autocancelled between two countries whenever they enter the state of war.
* stability cost for doing this is done like RMs
* also, remove ability of fleets to capture ports, regardless of MA.

Naval attrition fixes:
* make fleet recombination recompute months-at-sea realistically
* make fleet recombination not nullify attrition buildup; recompute it sensibly
* make a message that comes up whenever a fleet loses one or more ships via attrition


Trade fixes:
Note that I think the CoT-based trade system should be completely overhauled in the long run. It doesn't make sense. But these are some fixes to make it less tedious, within the current design.
* remove current, broken autosend, as it can only do harm and no good.
* automate empty slot technique to replace autosend, as follows:
** add "autosend to this CoT" checkbox for each CoT. Default is off.
** only autosend to CoTs the player has turned on autosend for
** only autosend at the start of a month, and only when you've just gone from 5 to 6 merchants
** only autosend when there is an empty slot in at least one CoT
** never autosend more than one merchant per month
** do not autosend to a CoT if not enough money in treasury (duh)
** if multiple CoTs have empty slots, pick the target by simple cost-benefit: total trade currently in that CoT divided by cost-to-send.

for AIs and trade:
* make AIs use new autosend as above, with the set of target CoTs depending on:
** game play level (at lower levels, trade only close to home and in colonies)
** trade efficiency, both absolute and relative to the world
** maybe some sort of "trading aggressiveness" set in the AI file

Sieges:
* require an immobile siege force throughout the month to get advancement. I think an added variable here, to track the siege by days, then advance only after 30 days of siege would be best.

Tiny armies:
* Impose 1% monthly attrition on all armies of <500 men, unless they are passengers, or led by a conquistador, and use the minimum attrition rules to increase it on really small armies.

Looting:
* disallow looting by all armies that are moving, fighting, or under a white flag. Only an unopposed, stationary army should be able to loot.
* require a minimum amount of men to guarantee looting happens. I'd suggest a flat 1000 men for a controlled province. (The no-looting-while-moving rule means that a cover force is necessary to loot uncontrolled provinces.) An army of less than 1000 men should be given a chance to loot, linear in the amount of men. So N men should have a N/10% chance to loot in that month.
* change time that the looted state persists on a city, from a known, fixed, player-exploitable time (12 months) to a variable amount of time averaging 12 months. For example, 6-18 months. This will make synchronized looting impossible other than the start of a war.
 
I agree with all your points, Wreck, especially the ones with MA and looting. I have used the MA exploit a lot myself, but I would really like to see it fixed. By the way, what do you mean with "fleets to capture ports"?

I'm also a long time user of sync looting. I don't think it is an exploit, but I find looting an enemy (all provinces captured) for years very gamey. Perhaps force a peace when having 100% warscore? On the other hand, it may have been historical wars were a part kept looting and looting?
 
Olav, on using fleets to capture ports:
http://www.paradoxian.org/eu2wiki/index.php/Capturing_unfortified_ports_with_a_fleet

I think that in historical wars, looting was generally one-time for any serious loot. (Serious meaning livestock, valuables, etc.) Loot upon capture of a city was common, especially if it resisted. But not afterwards. The amount you'd get had to do with how rich the city was, particularly in how long it had been since it was last looted. Taking food from the peasants, of course, could happen throughout the growing season.

In EU2 terms, we sort of want two kinds of looting: city and province. A province should be repeatedly lootable, but not for large amounts. A city should only be looted upon capture, and this is where the serious money should be.

Perhaps we could give 2x BTV for capturing a city, but always as money into treasury. (This has the advantage of reducing MM considerably, and making it easier for newbies to play, at the cost of perhaps too much incentivizing war as pure banditry.) The province looting would work like it does now, except that total amounts would be much less: in a province with uncaptured city, looting for only 1/4 BTV; with a controlled city, a bit more, maybe 1/2 BTV. A player could get slightly more for very short wars (1 year or less), if he captures cities, but this system would then quickly yield less total loot for long wars.
 
Wreck, i just wanted to say that you got a lot of good things in that post (post 446).

Also now that you speak of MA, we should be able to give/cancel MA and trade embargos/agreements via event. Possibly discover land/sea provinces as well (via event).

Regarding trade embargos, i think nations with full mercantilism shouldnt have their TE reduced by 3%, but maybe by 1% only. On the other hand nations with free trade should suffer, say, 6% TE hit per embargo. Trade embargos should actually be used (online for example, the income hit of having less 3% TE is just too huge to bother embargoing an enemy, unless you hold most of the COTs around the world, which is a rare thing).
 
Need a fix on the AI armies to change its "habit" of , once a siege is won , the AI armies march all the way to their capital to reorganize , then march all the way back to the next province it wants to siege,

The AI armies should be able to reorganize themselves in their closest owned province
 
@wreck

in regards to your looting, post 446. Historically armies did not carry much food in their supply trains, they lived off the land, the supply trains carried ammuntion, armour etc etc AND also the looted gold they got for their sovereign
 
Toio, plenty of work needs done on the AI, but that may be difficult to get right. But I certainly agree with you that the behavior of marching all the way home is not ideal.

On looting, what's your point? I agree that armies lived off the land, but how do you think that ought to affect EU2 looting? My point in #446 is both realism and MM reduction -- synchronized looting is both tedious and deeply unrealistic.
 
Wreck said:
Michael, like others I have a whole list of things that I'd like changed about EU2, some of it being minor stuff like movement attrition but some other very big potential changes.
Thank you very much! I was sort of hoping you had a list. :)

Military access exploit squelch
* All MA will be autocancelled between two countries whenever they enter the state of war.
This seems like a very obvious thing to do (more of a bugfix), so unless anyone has a good reason not to do it, I think it will go in our to-do list.
* stability cost for doing this is done like RMs
Or maybe just a hit if you have armies in enemy territory? I don't think canceling access through an enemy sounds like a nation-affecting event, but maybe that's just me.
* also, remove ability of fleets to capture ports, regardless of MA.
Well... one might argue that fleets *could* capture undefended ports, but I agree that it's a problem that armies present in the province can't fight them.

Naval attrition fixes:
* make fleet recombination recompute months-at-sea realistically
Okay, that would be a bugfix.
* make fleet recombination not nullify attrition buildup; recompute it sensibly
Ditto.
* make a message that comes up whenever a fleet loses one or more ships via attrition
Ah, that's a good idea! I hate it when I send my 40-ship fleet to blockade an enemy port and then remember it three years later, when it gets down to 15 or 16 ships and heads for port.


Trade fixes:
Note that I think the CoT-based trade system should be completely overhauled in the long run. It doesn't make sense. But these are some fixes to make it less tedious, within the current design.
* remove current, broken autosend, as it can only do harm and no good.
* automate empty slot technique to replace autosend, as follows:
** add "autosend to this CoT" checkbox for each CoT. Default is off.
** only autosend to CoTs the player has turned on autosend for
** only autosend at the start of a month, and only when you've just gone from 5 to 6 merchants
** only autosend when there is an empty slot in at least one CoT
** never autosend more than one merchant per month
** do not autosend to a CoT if not enough money in treasury (duh)
** if multiple CoTs have empty slots, pick the target by simple cost-benefit: total trade currently in that CoT divided by cost-to-send.

for AIs and trade:
* make AIs use new autosend as above, with the set of target CoTs depending on:
** game play level (at lower levels, trade only close to home and in colonies)
** trade efficiency, both absolute and relative to the world
** maybe some sort of "trading aggressiveness" set in the AI file
A little harder to implement, but definitely a possibility (once more manpower shows up to help, probably).

Sieges:
* require an immobile siege force throughout the month to get advancement. I think an added variable here, to track the siege by days, then advance only after 30 days of siege would be best.
Hmm, another daily update. Probably not a big problem, but we don't want to have too many things updated that often.

Tiny armies:
* Impose 1% monthly attrition on all armies of <500 men, unless they are passengers, or led by a conquistador, and use the minimum attrition rules to increase it on really small armies.
No elite commando forces? :eek:
Seriously, I'm not sure if this is really necessary if the looting rules you propose are implemented. Any army that small would be annihilated almost immediately if attacked, so they really would be of no use if not for looting.

Looting:
* disallow looting by all armies that are moving, fighting, or under a white flag. Only an unopposed, stationary army should be able to loot.
* require a minimum amount of men to guarantee looting happens. I'd suggest a flat 1000 men for a controlled province. (The no-looting-while-moving rule means that a cover force is necessary to loot uncontrolled provinces.) An army of less than 1000 men should be given a chance to loot, linear in the amount of men. So N men should have a N/10% chance to loot in that month.
Both good ideas. :)
* change time that the looted state persists on a city, from a known, fixed, player-exploitable time (12 months) to a variable amount of time averaging 12 months. For example, 6-18 months. This will make synchronized looting impossible other than the start of a war.
Reasonable and doable, but the subsequent discussion on looting makes me think it might not be necessary.

Toio's post is about what I was thinking. Maybe loot should just pay for the upkeep of the looting soldiers for that month or so, and not give the looting country anything? This would eliminate synchronized looting (no need to bother), and also stop loot-hyperteching.
 
BurningEGO said:
Also now that you speak of MA, we should be able to give/cancel MA and trade embargos/agreements via event.
I've just added those to our event to-do list (although that doesn't really guarantee anything).

Possibly discover land/sea provinces as well (via event).
Let me refer you to the status post from several months ago (when status reports weren't banned). :)
 
Olav said:
Is it possible to fix the border between Kexholm, Karelia and Olonets? It's red when it should not be. You can see it here for example, but I guess it is familiar to you already.

I think it happens down in Aden as well.
Not sure if it is not inside map itself...

Get rid of AGCEEP Deluxe and vanilla maps for example? ;)
 
Wreck said:
Michael, I use tiny armies for many things other than looting, although of course I use them for that too. I refer you to the page at the wiki:
http://www.paradoxian.org/eu2wiki/index.php/Tiny_armies
Some of those uses strike me as more reasonable than others; basically anything using a single man is suspect and should be squelched, but the use of 100-500 men seems fine to me.
All right, let me look through the list:

Wreck on EU2Wiki said:
* exploring terra incognita
Isn't this an issue more with the exploration system, which allows suicide explorers? But I agree that as it is now, this should be addressed.
* capturing trading posts and unfortified settlements
Maybe we should require a minimum number of men to capture an unfortified city? If that's unreasonable, I agree this should be addressed.
* looting controlled enemy provinces, including synchronized looting. Note that looting happens before attrition is computed, so that you can send a suicide scout army to a winter province and he'll get the loot just before he dies.
Addressed above, but maybe we should move the looting check to after the attrition check.
* looting provinces occupied by enemy armies, regardless of fortification. Again, looting before attrition, so a single man can loot against a huge stack that kills him via attrition.
Ditto.
* directing retreats of enemy armies
Perhaps the retreat algorithm shouldn't take into account any army less than, say, 1/10th its size?
* forcing retreat of a stack of allied armies
How does this work? I know I've seen it (when AI all-cavalry armies were besieging and I tried to help them), but I don't know the rules.
* occupying controlled enemy provinces to kill population growth
Maybe the negative growth could be tied to the army size? That sounds maybe too involved, so this is another good argument for getting rid of tiny armies.
* tweaking natives to get them to rise, then running away
Hmm, you didn't mention this in your list of MA exploits, but it should probably be addressed. Possibly it should just be impossible to attack natives in provinces owned by another country.
* stealing sieges, if you've gone with a very low offensive domestic policy
Really? I thought the highest siege value was only used for the actual siege, and then whoever got there first (if there aren't any leaders) would get the province. Does the game treat low-offensive generic leaders as non-generic leaders?
 
I'm just thinking, if you are supposed to be able to attack a besieging army from your forts, shouldn't that mean that you thousands of thousands of troops standing by at all times? If so, that should be considered into maintenance.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.