Somehow I missed this post, last time I posted.
idontlikeforms said:
...
I don't think AIs have problems with too much money very often. They will spend money on relations boosts even when they have a puny amount every January. There's nothing you can really do to stop this that won't cause more harm than good. I don't really care for the way the engine is designed on this point but we're pretty much stuck with it like it or not.
Do we really know the limits of what modders can change? Moctezuma's Tech Effects mod floored me. I would never have guessed you could change something in the engine like this.
idontlikeforms said:
...
I play Japan. Use the Columbus cheat, montezuma cheat, and ney cheat and them let it run. I don't usually watch it the whole time. I usually have a list of things I'm testing for and then restart it once it's gone through them all. But I also check all over it for anything else that's strange. I haven't actually done this for a while either but no doubt I'll do it plenty of times in the future.
Thanx.
idontlikeforms said:
...
It's a great way to make AIs that should be gaining no territory not wind up with excessive troop counts at the end of a war.
Does that mean that there's a setting which determines this? That is, the AI will not make a serious siege of a province he isn't programmed to go after? Some of the Otto provs were ones which were Orthodox, & I think were formerly Ethiopian. But I've certainly seen plenty of odd things: Dalmatia was Scottish, then English, for centuries. An Ottoman New York. French possessions in the Black Sea. England itself is often victimised; I've often seen provinces throughout the Brit Isles in foreign hands, & not just the obvious ones like France or Spain, right to the end (Venice? Russia?).
And I understand that what hurts my allies can hurt me to a point, but what happened in the end is I got what I wanted, but Ethiopia was screwed. When I'm allied to Spain, I'm usually scrupulous about the letter of the rules, but shaft them every chance I can get (steal sieges, kill rebels in enemy held provinces, use the access to explore their holdings, peace out when I want, leaving them in the lurch). But with a minor, I tend to be fairly generous.
Anyway, since I RM everyone I can, I've seen this back-&-forth siege effect in wars in which I have no interest. It can't help the AI's, unless there's a way you set it so certain countries don't do so. Can you?
I'll tell you what I'd like to see. I'd like to see allies set missions (modelled on dynamic missions) for one another. But I don't know if this is feasible.
idontlikeforms said:
Don't know. Never used it.
Richelieu lets you move every unit, allies, enemies, etc. One thing which might work, sort of midway between SP & MP, would be to send a savefile to someone, who opens as your country, uses this & columbus, & does something rational with the AI forces, then sends it back. But if the AI undoes it as soon as you unpause, it'd be a waste of effort. Note that by opening & saving as your country, it wouldn't ruin the AI settings, as it would if I just opened, eg, England, fixed it's postion, & went back to Portugal.
idontlikeforms said:
There's a random element to it. I think the real key is to put the new transports right in the same province that gets a new troop stack.
IC.
That works only if it's by troops raised by event, like the Ameida's main force, right? I suppose for some countries, you could put them where troops are usually built.
And I think we could test AI galleys with the columbus/richeliu combo, if we save when we see a big Otto fleet at sea.
idontlikeforms said:
AIs will only use one explorer at a time. Extra explorers won't get used.
True, but what if this happens: your EP explorers tend to be short lived. I now understand & accept your reasoning here. Generic ones are long-lived. If they get exp B, during the life of A, what happens to B when A dies? Does he just sit there, ignored, or does he now start out, himself? If it's the 2nd, an ai-only random explorer could be helpful. There's a tough balance between limiting their use by players, & giving the AI what it needs.
Or maybe you've already got some out there.
idontlikeforms said:
The AIs won't blockade ports it doesn't know. Also I've noticed that they tend to move out to an enemy port and spread out after they've left their home ports/coastal provinces.
Well, I played only one year, & with vanilla, but the Irish blockades were established in the 1st month, & then just sat there. So I'm puzzeled. I also don't see why, when I did nothing, the Dutch just stayed in port, but when I put a defensive cordon around Britain, they came out & destroyed themselves against it.
idontlikeforms said:
If you mean England's that's fine. I rework leaders all the time, not just outright add new ones.
But keep in mind my criteria for leader status: The leader needs to have lead his respective country in at least 3 battles. I make exceptions for minor countries that have a shortage of recorded history and give them leader status for only one battle. Also if it is probable that they led them in 3 battles but I can't find any information saying so, I'll usually give them leader status. I make the start dates begin the year of their first battle they led. The deathdate is either their real deathdate or 1 year after their last battle they led.
...Also I'll count raids or taking prizes as a battle or two if there were a lot of them.
Those criteria don't really work for navies after the mid-XVIII C. After all, Nelson commanded only 3 big actions. So he barely makes the list. IRL, the French, & their allies, had learned to avoid action with the brits, unless it was either necessary for some strategic end, or a favorable opportunity arose. Most of the "action" at sea was fleets sailing forth without actually engaging.
The result is that Hughes is a "major" admiral, but Jervis & Duncan aren't, purely because Suffren was unusually agressive. In game play, that'd mean he wouldn't be left in a backwater like India.
Further, someone who fought many little battles, like Cochrane, rates above the victors in really big, & strategically important, victories like St Vincent & Camperdown.
And, by the 3 battles standard, why Collingwood? Or Perry? Or why Brueys, who just got to be trounced at the Nile?
What really matters, I'd argue, is the continuing command of the major fleets. One major battle should be enough; indeed, in some cases, I wouldn't even ask for that. This applies, not only to the Brits, but to Spain, France, & Holland, as well. For them, anyone who didn't get humiliated, should count.
And as to dates, your method geared to the earlier period, although even then, you've got to give some leeway for the leaders to take command. (In 1500, the time to get from Lisbon to India can eat most of the leader's lifespan). But certainly from 1700 on, for England at least, we have (a) when the leader attained Flag rank, & (b) when he was appointed to command a fleet or squadron. Surely, when that info is available, it's better to use it.
idontlikeforms said:
For ranks, I reserve the 0 rank for monarchs only. Rank 1 is for princes, prime ministers, viceroys of important provinces/regions, and commanders of a country's whole army/navy. Rank 2 is usually used for a campaign leader, unless it's a minor one. Rank 3 is for leaders of battles where they were outranked in a campaign just not the actual battle. I use rank 4 for leaders who weren't appointed(freelance leaders) or were very low ranked etc. I use 1 rank for a leader for all his lifespan, so it should be his highest rank he achieved, during the time where he led his country in battles.
The trouble is the interaction of leaders. Shouldn't the real test be, who served under/over whom? In general, I'd argue that your general approach, the effect on the game, is applicable here.
I'll use Nelson as an example of the problems I see, as he's the most documented of all, & I can run much from memory:
I assume you just took over the 1790 start date from other mods. In fact, he was a half-pay (unemployed) captain from 1788-92. He was captain of 1 ship (Agamemnon, 64) in the Med from 1792. He was often given detached commands, occasionally being senior captian over other (smaller) ships, while trying to harrass Boney's Italian ops. In 1795, he gets to be a commodore, thus officially commanding other captians, but only in the absence of a real admiral. (Commodore was not a permanent rank. It lapsed if an admiral showed up, unless the admiral chose otherwise.)
During this period, under Hotham, he took part in the battle off Genoa, as captain of a single ship. By EUII standards, this puts him in command of a battle, of whose conduct he strongly disapproved.
He's still a commodore--by Jervis's decision--at St Vincent. But note, IIRC, he's 4th in seniority here. No way is he in command, despite his importance to the outcome.
He finally became admiral later that month, & he is in command at the Nile. He commanded, if not the fleet, at least all the fighting forces at Copenhagen, so that's OK. But Collingwood was along as 2nd in command at Trafalgar.
Now, in EP, he's given a rank of 1. In fact, he died a vice-admiral, & certainly didn't command the whole navy. So he really doesn't deserve this rank, by the above standard. This is, however, a good example of the game effect being paramount over the formal rank. Collingwood's rank of 4 does put him under Nelson, so he does take over at death.
The above is just an example of the kinds of problems facing the question of rank. Given the fact that, from the mid 1700's, right to the end of the game, you have Britain, France, Spain, & Holland in frequent naval wars, often with the same commanders (Howe, S Hood), it needs careful attention.
And I would again argue that more admirals are needed for all 3 nations.
BTW, there's a reference to a Portuguese admiral "de Valle" as serving alongside the Brits in the Nap wars. I could find nothing on him. Of course, British spellings of foreign names are extremely unreliable ("Rufrero").
EDIT:
To pgroves: The Portuguese will get Al Kharaim by event, but Aden you can keep, if they & the Ottos let you. The Turks really, really want it for themselves, I've found.
