• 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.

tombom

CAPTAIN WILDCHILD
46 Badges
May 3, 2004
1.759
26
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Semper Fi
  • Victoria 2
  • Warlock: Master of the Arcane
  • 500k Club
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Knight (pre-order)
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Mount & Blade: Warband
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Stellaris
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Shadowrun: Hong Kong
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Divine Wind
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Darkest Hour
  • Deus Vult
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis III: Chronicles
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • For the Motherland
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
This will be the thread for everything related to the general setup such as cores, armies, ownedprovinces etc as well as for discussing which countries are too good etc. Please say whether you think something should be changed because of MP or SP. Once something has been posted you should say what you think of it. Feel free to post, we're not going to flame you.

I think a small HSA army should be put in Anglia. This might help slow down Scotland a bit in SP.

I also think that BAY should be given two voted and COL given 1 in HRE elections.
 
Last edited:
tombom said:
This will be the thread for everything related to the general setup such as cores, armies, ownedprovinces etc as well as for discussing which countries are too good etc. Please say whether you think something should be changed because of MP or SP.

I think a small HSA army should be put in Anglia. This might help slow down Scotland a bit in SP.

How about someway to stop savory from getting vassalized and then annexated by Burgendy. Seen it happen too many times, at least remove the RM between them at start. This seems to happen alot in SP so I just thought I would bring it up.
 
I think Granadese revolts are a bit overpowered. 6% for allmost a century seems a bit much...
 
I doubt removing RM between Burgundy and Savoy would eliminate the likelyhood of diploannexion. How about having them in different starting alliances or with low relations at each other so they are unlikely to ally each other?

RevoltRisk would be more interesting if it would be divided into shorter periods of higher RR, perhaps with revolts and stabloss accompanying, instead of very long RR.

HSA should have at least 10k army in each of it's overseas possessions, to help AI.

I think nobody has even thinked about moving HRE votes around before. :D Why should any elector have more than 1 though?
 
Byakhiam said:
I doubt removing RM between Burgundy and Savoy would eliminate the likelyhood of diploannexion. How about having them in different starting alliances or with low relations at each other so they are unlikely to ally each other?

RevoltRisk would be more interesting if it would be divided into shorter periods of higher RR, perhaps with revolts and stabloss accompanying, instead of very long RR.

HSA should have at least 10k army in each of it's overseas possessions, to help AI.

I think nobody has even thinked about moving HRE votes around before. :D Why should any elector have more than 1 though?
What alliances should they be in then? Burgundy could be with Lorrain but I'm not sure about Savoy.

Not sure which particular events do the RR.

HSA now has the army in Anglia. Any more troops in Flandern will exceed it's support limit.

I think it gives them more influence in the HRE election.
 
tombom said:
What alliances should they be in then? Burgundy could be with Lorrain but I'm not sure about Savoy.

Not sure which particular events do the RR.

HSA now has the army in Anglia. Any more troops in Flandern will exceed it's support limit.

I think it gives them more influence in the HRE election.

I think having them with low relations with each other could do the trick, as having them with allied to some minor power will tie up the hands of human player there.

Me neither, but I know it is there, so it could be revised to divide into shorter periods instead of one very long one.

I didn't mean adding armies in addition to existing ones, just that they will have an army of at least 10k size in their overseas territories. I don't remember the setup so well right now. :)

I can see that it does, but why should any elector have more influence than the others?
 
Gave Savoy and Burgundy 50 relations, removed alliance and removed RM.

Still not really sure about Granadan events.

Added an army in Flandern. Doesn't seem to help much though :(.

Now all electors given 1 vote. It wouldn't make much sense to have two votes really.

I'm also thinking of a core on Dulkadir for BYZ as it's an anatolian turk and was part of the Empire at about the same time as the rest of the cores. Comments?
 
Last edited:
tombom said:
Still not really sure about Granadan events.

Events 200555 - 200557, giving +6 prov rr to 10 provs for 23 years and +4 prov rr for 39 years after that. Actually it's rather minor thing really, so I think it could stay as it is.

tombom said:
I'm also thinking of a core on Dulkadir for BYZ as it's an anatolian turk and was part of the Empire at about the same time as the rest of the cores. Comments?

I think AD had some reason to not add it as core when cores were laid down initially, as I am fairly certain we did discuss it then. I have no recollection what the reason was anymore though. :D
 
Byakhiam said:
Events 200555 - 200557, giving +6 prov rr to 10 provs for 23 years and +4 prov rr for 39 years after that. Actually it's rather minor thing really, so I think it could stay as it is.



I think AD had some reason to not add it as core when cores were laid down initially, as I am fairly certain we did discuss it then. I have no recollection what the reason was anymore though. :D

They had that in (well only 4 RR) when granada had Iberian culture so was just a major power house. It was far too easy, so they added in that and all the extra valencia events mainly just to try and slow it down. I played them the other day and had real problems doing what I did before all these events were added in. I still got it done, but could not just roll over people like I did before.

I ahve no problem with adding the core, in fact I have oftain wondered why there was no core.
 
Billdo said:
I ahve no problem with adding the core, in fact I have oftain wondered why there was no core.

I have no problem with the core either, except that I guess the Armenia Revival events would need to remove the addcore command for that prov then.
 
At the moment AI Bavaria is liable to go on a psychotic rampage at the start, only to be beaten to a pulp by everyone who's left, and certainly to lose the Imperial throne as they end up pissing off all the electors. The aggression needs turning down a lot, say to 40 or 50, and Bavaria should get military access with a lot of places a) in case they lose the throne, b) to make them think twice about conquering all these places. Also, if we put all the HRE minors in decent alliances Bavaria might be slightly more wary of them.
 
Greetings Aberration Fans

I would like to discuss the event file for Brittany. In general, I think the events could be made a little richer and a little better balanced. Brittany's event file currently offers an abundance of 'goodies' at little cost and with few corresponding challenges. I'd like to begin this discussion with a look at three key events.

The first is the Naval/Military event.


name = "The Great Decision"
desc = "When the age of colonialism and adventure hit Europe in full, the realm of Brittany had a hard decision to take. They had to decide upon whether they wanted to focus fully on the colonial enterprises, to the neglect of territorial ambitions they previously had in the old frankish realms."

action_a = {
name = "To the West, to Wealth!"
command = { type = naval value = 1000 }
command = { type = trade value = 500 }
command = { type = gainbuilding which = 416 value = shipyard }
command = { type = domestic which = LAND value = -5 }
command = { type = domestic which = aristocracy value = -5 }
command = { type = stability value = -1 }
}
action_b = {
name = "A Balance can be achieved."
command = { type = naval value = 100 }
command = { type = land value = 100 }
command = { type = stability value = 5 }
}
action_c = {
name = "The only true glory is in Battle!"
command = { type = land value = 1000 }
command = { type = gainbuilding which = 416 value = barrack }
command = { type = domestic which = LAND value = 5 }
command = { type = domestic which = aristocracy value = 5 }
command = { type = stability value = -1 }
}

}

Options A and C are pretty straightforward mirrors for each other. Option B, though, is perplexing. It's great that the player be offered a middle way, but the current expression of it doesn't make sense to me. Yes, a minor increase to both for doing nothing is strange, but that's not the principle beef I have here. I guess that in order to make Option B somehow desireable, it has been given a whopping +5 Stability hit. Now, I ask, why is the status quo providing such enourmous sudden stability to the country?

If we assume that Brittany is on the cusp of taking the new age by the horns and has the people, aspirations and energy to do so, the Third Way might be better expressed not through an almost random upsurge of national calmness, but through the energies of the the people being invested inother areas.

The third way ought to be something more like this ...


action_b = {
name = "We will invest in learning, not war."
command = { type = trade value = 500 }
command = { type = infra value = 500 }
command = { type = gain manufactory = -1 = luxury }
command = {type = Innovative = 1 }

In addition, these events are too cheap. So cheap, in fact, that they are entirely free. No cost whatsoever. Every country makes strategic decisions, but few of them get the resources to impliment them for free.

Each of these events should also cost 800+ ducats, and they would still be a STEAL at that price. 800 ducats for 1800+ ducats worth of investments, plus up to 100 years worth of Slider adjustments.

Finally, I think that whatever is done with the 'third way' the two other options have slider adjustments that seem a little strong. A toal of 10 points worth of shifts for each, representing what would normally be a century of cultural change, seems quite dramatic. Especially when considering that there is only a Stability hit of -1. I cannot think of any other EU2 event - vanilla or mod - that permits shifts of 10 points. Those which do usually arrive at the close of, or commencement of, a long period of instability (eg the Wars of the Roses). Could we see the DP sliding here eased off to maybe Land 2/Offensive 2? Even that represents an enourmous change in direction.
 
Last edited:
The next event that troubles me is the Market Collapse. It currently looks like this.


name = "The Great Market Collapse"
desc = "The monetary speculation on what different trades to China and India would net, grew to enormous proportions in the middle of the 18th century. Soon it involved sums of money which dwarfed even the incomes of voyages themselves. Suddenly, the bubble burst and almost every merchant house in the nation went bankrupt. The King had to step in and cancel all debts to the crown, to not completely cripple the economy of the nation."
date = { day = 1 month = january year = 1760 }
offset = 768
deathdate = { day = 1 month = january year = 1765 }

action_a = {
name = "The State will save everyone"
command = { type = trade value = -500 }
command = { type = cash value = -500 }
command = { type = infra value = -500 }
}
action_b = {
name = "Support the Most Important Ones"
command = { type = revoltrisk which = 12 value = 1 }
command = { type = trade value = -100 }
command = { type = cash value = -200 }
command = { type = infra value = -100 }
}

action_c = {
name = "Its not our problem!"
command = { type = revoltrisk which = 24 value = 3 }
command = { type = revolt which = -1 }
command = { type = revolt which = -1 }
command = { type = revolt which = -1 }


Brittany is currently a little overpowered, and I think that one of the reasons is that its few negative events pull their punches. Compared to most economic-collapse style events, this one is a little tame. Significantly, there are no stability hits in any of the options, something I think most people would agree is a feature of economic distress.

I suggest that to beef each of these up a little, we add the following:

Action A gaines Stability -1. The King may be cancelling all debts to the crown, but not all debts in the country. He can only relieve some of the suffering, and there still needs to be at least a minimal level of instability as a result of this collapse.

Action B Gains Stability-2 AND Aristocracy +1, as the king has revealed where his real sympathies lie.

Action C Gains Stability -3 and Centralisation -1, but loses two random revolts. In ignoring the difficulties of the people, the monarch has given up some of his ability to influence his nation and this results in a leasening of direct authority of the crown.
 
Finally, my biggest beef with the Brittany event file, the Gold Years event.

name = "The Golden Years"
desc = "During this era, Brittany became the most economical succeful nation in the world. The wealth they accumulated during these years were to provide enormous benefit for decades."

date = { day = 1 month = january year = 1600 }
offset = 360
deathdate = { day = 1 month = january year = 1610 }

action_a ={
name = "Use the Wealth!"
command = { type = cash value = 2500 }
command = { type = inflation value = -5 }
}

action_b ={
name = "Save it, to invest wisely.."
command = { type = trade value = 1500 }
command = { type = infra value = 1500 }
command = { type = inflation value = -10 }
}

I think this event should be scrapped entirely. It's kind of the reverse insanity of the Spanish Bankruptcy events. At least with those, it can be argued that the player, as the Grey Power cannot fully prevent the monarch from bankrupting the nation. But this event makes even less sense.

Consider that Brittany will be in one of two general states at this point in the game. Maybe Brittany was blungeoned early by Burgundy and Hansa and Savoy, Richemont died early, some key battle went against it, and by the time the event triggers it has two core provinces and a handful of TPs and colonies. It is FAR from an economic powerhouse. Event fire and it gets a whopping 2500 ducats and -10 inflation. Thanks very much.

Alternatively, Brittany is doing averagely, or very well, as is more typically the case. Controls much of France, parts of England and has a swathe of colonies. So the story line behind the event fits. But the event still doesn't make any sense. If Brittany is doing well economically, then it is doing well economically. This is already factored into the game. This event isn't akin to an extraordinary individual (say, Thomas Gresham), or the dynamism of a monarch (Michael Doukas events), or a peoples innovative response to a changing world (Merchant Adventurers). This event as it stands is simply double dipping. If Brittany is doing well, then the coffers will already be large, the people stable and the techs humming along nicely.

Giving a nation a huge economic reward for - essentially - having already received a huge economic reward is quite unbalancing and unecessary.

Smile, we all love Aberrated EU2.
 
Do you suggest to tie it to some triggers or drop the event as a whole?
 
TheArchduke said:
Do you suggest to tie it to some triggers or drop the event as a whole?

I strongly suggest dropping the event entirely.

There are already events in the file which represent the effects of national wealth (the arts and sciences events).

I also think that the Economic Collapse event might be improved conceptually by adding DP shifts to Actions A and B toward Mercantilism, to represent that the mercsntile/trading community - having been seriously burned - has become more circumspect. Action C would be exempt: though the king may have been heartless, he at least reinforced the pervading economic sentiment that the investor's risk is their own, and there are no safety nets.
 
Will look into it.

(P.S.: Deleted double post)
 
MattyG said:
Greetings Aberration Fans

I would like to discuss the event file for Brittany. In general, I think the events could be made a little richer and a little better balanced. Brittany's event file currently offers an abundance of 'goodies' at little cost and with few corresponding challenges. I'd like to begin this discussion with a look at three key events.

The first is the Naval/Military event.


name = "The Great Decision"
desc = "When the age of colonialism and adventure hit Europe in full, the realm of Brittany had a hard decision to take. They had to decide upon whether they wanted to focus fully on the colonial enterprises, to the neglect of territorial ambitions they previously had in the old frankish realms."

action_a = {
name = "To the West, to Wealth!"
command = { type = naval value = 1000 }
command = { type = trade value = 500 }
command = { type = gainbuilding which = 416 value = shipyard }
command = { type = domestic which = LAND value = -5 }
command = { type = domestic which = aristocracy value = -5 }
command = { type = stability value = -1 }
}
action_b = {
name = "A Balance can be achieved."
command = { type = naval value = 100 }
command = { type = land value = 100 }
command = { type = stability value = 5 }
}
action_c = {
name = "The only true glory is in Battle!"
command = { type = land value = 1000 }
command = { type = gainbuilding which = 416 value = barrack }
command = { type = domestic which = LAND value = 5 }
command = { type = domestic which = aristocracy value = 5 }
command = { type = stability value = -1 }
}

}

Options A and C are pretty straightforward mirrors for each other. Option B, though, is perplexing. It's great that the player be offered a middle way, but the current expression of it doesn't make sense to me. Yes, a minor increase to both for doing nothing is strange, but that's not the principle beef I have here. I guess that in order to make Option B somehow desireable, it has been given a whopping +5 Stability hit. Now, I ask, why is the status quo providing such enourmous sudden stability to the country?

If we assume that Brittany is on the cusp of taking the new age by the horns and has the people, aspirations and energy to do so, the Third Way might be better expressed not through an almost random upsurge of national calmness, but through the energies of the the people being invested inother areas.

The third way ought to be something more like this ...


action_b = {
name = "We will invest in learning, not war."
command = { type = trade value = 500 }
command = { type = infra value = 500 }
command = { type = gain manufactory = -1 = luxury }
command = {type = Innovative = 1 }

In addition, these events are too cheap. So cheap, in fact, that they are entirely free. No cost whatsoever. Every country makes strategic decisions, but few of them get the resources to impliment them for free.

Each of these events should also cost 800+ ducats, and they would still be a STEAL at that price. 800 ducats for 1800+ ducats worth of investments, plus up to 100 years worth of Slider adjustments.

Finally, I think that whatever is done with the 'third way' the two other options have slider adjustments that seem a little strong. A toal of 10 points worth of shifts for each, representing what would normally be a century of cultural change, seems quite dramatic. Especially when considering that there is only a Stability hit of -1. I cannot think of any other EU2 event - vanilla or mod - that permits shifts of 10 points. Those which do usually arrive at the close of, or commencement of, a long period of instability (eg the Wars of the Roses). Could we see the DP sliding here eased off to maybe Land 2/Offensive 2? Even that represents an enourmous change in direction.

I agree in general with MatyG's comments on these Brittany events. In particular that the size of the slider shifts in the LAND OR NAVY event is gratuitous; 10 slider shifts on the A and C options is just too much. A single event shouldn't change sliders by that magnitude IMO.
 
The Impaler said:
How have the Norroy and Wales things worked out?
Wales didn't really slow Scotland down too much, but Eire didn't do too badly. I think holding Wales is dragging them down a bit. Then again, I can't really remember how it was like before.

I never got round to doing Norroy.