Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

EU2 source code released

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Show only dev responses
Regarding annexing newly independent nations and BB: What about giving the nation that had to release the nation (either by event or revolt) a five year (or something) time limit to annex said nation for x BB, regardless of amount of provinces? It will hopefully prevent the AI from accumulating too much BB early in the game. It will also make events that release nations somewhat more appealing to a player. After the time limit has run out, normal rules would apply of course.

What do you think about the DP-sliders? I think some of them aren't quite balanced, like the Free Trade - Mercantilism slider. Of course, depending on how one plays, every slider position might come in handy, but in the general case, some of the sliders positions are quite useless. Any ideas to balance them?
 
Olav said:
^No thoughts on the DP-sliders? Have you already changed them? :p
Click to expand...
DP sliders should (eventually) be moddable, so you can make them whatever you want.
 
This is a long thread, so excuses if any of this has been proposed before:

*Vassals belonging to the same culture group as the overlord releasing them should always begin with the same religion as the overlord.

*If a vassal changes religion from the one of the overlord, it should break not only alliances and royal marriages but also vassallisation and military access (so the overlord can immediately go to war agains the straying vassal without incurring a huge stab cost).

*Vassals should disregard the limit of members in an alliance when invited by their overlord. This is because otherwise they always get jumped by the allies of the overlord, which is nuts. This could potentially lead to colossal alliances of vassals but this feels realistic.
 
The Yogi said:
*Vassals should disregard the limit of members in an alliance when invited by their overlord. This is because otherwise they always get jumped by the allies of the overlord, which is nuts. This could potentially lead to colossal alliances of vassals but this feels realistic.
Click to expand...
I think I've suggested something similar. But I'd prefer if vassals were kept in some separate "invisible" alliance together with the overlord, connected via the vassal bond. That way, when the vassal is dowed, the overlord can choose to join war to protect the vassal. And when the overlord is dowed he can choose to call his vassal(s) into that war, with them having to obey (or break vassalization).

It's kind of like CK.
 
Mats_SX said:
I think I've suggested something similar. But I'd prefer if vassals were kept in some separate "invisible" alliance together with the overlord, connected via the vassal bond. That way, when the vassal is dowed, the overlord can choose to join war to protect the vassal. And when the overlord is dowed he can choose to call his vassal(s) into that war, with them having to obey (or break vassalization).

It's kind of like CK.
Click to expand...
Agree, if we can have it that way, it would be better. Especially if we can have it so that the overlord can call all his vassals to arms, but the vassal only the overlord (and not the other vassals).


Another idea I've had for quite some time - multiple alliances.

A country should be able to be member of several alliances. This is so that colonial powers can be able to form alliances with countries relevant to their colonial possessions. In this way, we could have France allied to the Iroquis and England to the Lenape, or Spain and Portugal allied with (say) Japan, and the Dutch with China. This would involve the colonial powers in regional wars in a very realistic way.

This should be very easy to fix - just don't let the options of creating or joining an alliance be greyed out once a member of an alliance, and make sure there is one dialogue window for calling to arms for each alliance. This should mostly work already. I've tried to create such multiple alliances by editing saved games and they seem to work without crashing the game or anything. It was a while ago, but I think I even got multiple dialogue windows.

The hard part would likely be teaching the AI to handle this...
 
The Yogi said:
The hard part would likely be teaching the AI to handle this...
Click to expand...
The hard part will be when everyone is allied to everyone, and someone dows someone. The nesting of alliances will have to bend out, and probably will cause unwanted effects.

If it is to be used, very strict rules need to be included. Example:

Alliance 1: A, B, C and D
Alliance 2: A, C, E and F
Alliance 3: B, E and F

What if D dows E? Does D call A, B and C to aid, and E calls A (too), C (too) and F? Or does E call F and B? What will the eventual war be?
 
Mats_SX said:
The hard part will be when everyone is allied to everyone, and someone dows someone. The nesting of alliances will have to bend out, and probably will cause unwanted effects.

If it is to be used, very strict rules need to be included. Example:

Alliance 1: A, B, C and D
Alliance 2: A, C, E and F
Alliance 3: B, E and F

What if D dows E? Does D call A, B and C to aid, and E calls A (too), C (too) and F? Or does E call F and B? What will the eventual war be?
Click to expand...
I suspect A and C dishonour Alliance 2 (dowed alliance).
C invokes only one alliance - the one whose ID comes first.
 
Therion said:
I suspect A and C dishonour Alliance 2 (dowed alliance).
C invokes only one alliance - the one whose ID comes first.
Click to expand...
But what if C wanted to call the other alliance? How does an id get to decide that? Not very practical at all.
And why give alliances offensive priority, when they might just as well have defensive priority? I don't think it's that clear. Every country should be allowed to support whichever cause they want, even deciding to be neutral should two allies fight eachother.
 
Therion said:
That is how things are currently, and not how they ought to be.
Click to expand...
Aha, my bad. My question regarded what ought to be though :)
 
Mats_SX said:
The hard part will be when everyone is allied to everyone, and someone dows someone. The nesting of alliances will have to bend out, and probably will cause unwanted effects.

If it is to be used, very strict rules need to be included. Example:

Alliance 1: A, B, C and D
Alliance 2: A, C, E and F
Alliance 3: B, E and F

What if D dows E? Does D call A, B and C to aid, and E calls A (too), C (too) and F? Or does E call F and B? What will the eventual war be?
Click to expand...

Agreed, that is a problem. Probably the best solution would be to have a dialogue that pops up whenever a country has two allies that are at war with each other and forces one of three choices; drop out of either alliance or both. (since that will be the effect of refusing a call to arms any way).

This dialogue would have to precede the calling to arms from any alliance.
 
Another thing that would be really nice, and make use of existing mechanics would be to allow a country to join an existing war, rather than have to start a new one. This would also help vassal management.

Of course, the normal rules regarding CB and so on would apply. It could give a relations boost to the country/ies joined.
 
The Yogi said:
Another thing that would be really nice, and make use of existing mechanics would be to allow a country to join an existing war, rather than have to start a new one. This would also help vassal management.

Of course, the normal rules regarding CB and so on would apply. It could give a relations boost to the country/ies joined.
Click to expand...
Sounds like a nice option, but as I interpreted your previous post, it should be included in your above suggestion? If multiple alliances were possible, a country that wanted to join a war would simply ask the alliance leader of either side for a "join alliance" and thus become part of all their wars.
 
Mats_SX said:
Sounds like a nice option, but as I interpreted your previous post, it should be included in your above suggestion? If multiple alliances were possible, a country that wanted to join a war would simply ask the alliance leader of either side for a "join alliance" and thus become part of all their wars.
Click to expand...

Basically, yes. Although I could imagine times where I would want to join another country only for the duration of the war and no longer. Also, this would probably much easier to implement than multiple alliances.
 
Is EU 2,5 going to be compatibile with mapmods? I'd love to see Interregnum combined with those new possibilities and, let's say, Kasperus' map :)
 
Jedrek said:
Is EU 2,5 going to be compatibile with mapmods? I'd love to see Interregnum combined with those new possibilities and, let's say, Kasperus' map :)
Click to expand...
We can't answer this question but it is easy to understand compatibility with existing mapmods will be an advantage.

Don't forget most important bug related to maps with current EU2 version is the PTI file location bug.
 
Never heard of it... Still, I believe you guys are capable of fixing it at some point. My dream is to see an updated version of EU2 with ExtraWATK included, not just the "vanilla" AGCEEP ;)
 
Just thought about this last night, so I hope it's not already been mentioned.

Taking inspiration from the fairly recent idea of having Austria adopt the imperial flag should they hold the imperial crown, I was thinking, why not have some sort of universial modifer (which would have to be hard-coded, presumably) to do this for any country?

So, even if the king of England was elected emperor, ENG's flag would become this.

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. :)

PS: Philippe, the letter's in the post. ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back