Interregnum 2 - Tech Change Events

[MattyG]

Here is my first stab at one of the generic tech change events, in this case for those in the traditionalism group to go up to Conventionalism.

event = {
	id = 901001
	random = no
	country = ADE
	trigger = {
		flag = exotic_tech
		OR = {
			AND = {	
				ai = yes
				NOT = { flag = player_run }
				year = 1580
			}
			AND = {
				infra = 1
				OR = {
					AND = {
						domestic = { type = innovative value = 5 }
						domestic = { type = centralization value = 5 }
					}
					domestic = { type = innovative value = 6 }
				}
				year = 1460
			}
			AND = {
				infra = 2
				domestic = { type = innovative value = 4 }
				domestic = { type = centralization value = 5 }
				OR = { 
					AND = {
						continent = america
						year = 1540
					}
					AND = {
						continent = africa
						year = 1490
					}
					AND = {
						NOT = { continent = africa }
						NOT = { continent = america }
					}
				}
			}
			infra = 3
		}
	}
	name = "The Tide of Change Ebbs Forward"
	desc = "Trade with new cultures and the influx of new tools and ideas has been changing our culture. We now care a little less about tradition, and a little more about innovation."
	date = { year = 1419 }
	offset = 3000
	deathdate = { year = 1820 }

	action_a = {
		name = "Excellent"
		command = { type = technology which = china }
		command = { type = clrflag which = exotic_tech }
		command = { type = setflag which = china_tech }
	}
}

I believe that there can be no events for dropping from Conventionalism to Traditionalism. Most of the tech shifting ought to be upward, with the possible exception of events dropping countries from Innovative to Renaissance. We need to make Innovative a difficult tech group to maintain oneself in (well, for players).

 

[siafu]

I believe that there can be no events for dropping from Conventionalism to Traditionalism. Most of the tech shifting ought to be upward, with the possible exception of events dropping countries from Innovative to Renaissance. We need to make Innovative a difficult tech group to maintain oneself in (well, for players).

I can see several situations where a country might drop a tech level, but it would be mostly "story" based and not from an automatic event of the type you've just written up. An example would be the Toluids dropping to conventionalism ("chinese") after being thrown out of northern China by Korea, Ming, or the Jurchen. Their only claim to the higher tech group in the first place was their contact with the Chinese.

 

[MattyG]

Not certain that I agree. I think that we need to have a random (or timed, one for each nation) event to turn a (player only?) nation from Innovative (latin) to Ranaissance (orthodox) tech. Here are my reasons:

First, I think we need to see Innovative tech as something that needs to be maintained, not just attained. Otherwise it seems to be a right, rather than a priviledge. OK, priviledge sounds corny. But we can't allow a player to sit on their laurels, especially if they gain it in the early game.

Secondly, I think that in addition to the principle that Innovative tech should not be a ne-way road, we need to ackowedge that certain ways of running a country will lead it to be less innovative. Being very militaristic for a long period ought to knock it down to Renaissance. We have used such a premise for the Teutonic Order. I think there are three ways to model this in a generic event.

A. BB
One is via BB. BB is high when you've be conquering. (We just have to make sure that inheritance events come with a BB reduction.) Nobody get to 28 BB by being scholarly and peaceful.

B. Land Tech
The second is through land tech. If it is well-ahead of schedule, you have defined your country's focus and character, and you should be prepared to pay the price. Currently the game has few rewards for a non-aggressive strategy. I have tried to counter this a little via the triggers for some random events (many of the nice ones don't trigger if you are at war) but this would be another way. A third way would be with DP sliders.

C. DP Sliders
Finally there can be triggers which look at the DP settings. High Land, Quality and Offensive are the keys here. A nations with Land 10, Offensive 8 and Quality 7 is not looking to make friends, they have developed a militarist culture. Finally, we will be providing some incentive to NOT pushing the sliders in that direction.

Cheers.

 

[Incompetent]

B. Land Tech
The second is through land tech. If it is well-ahead of schedule, you have defined your country's focus and character, and you should be prepared to pay the price. Currently the game has few rewards for a non-aggressive strategy.

This is likely to screw over the AI unless you make it player-only. Also, I think you've got the wrong end of the stick here: in SP at least, most players invest very heavily in 'peaceful' techs, because that's what lets them power ahead economically and so dominate the world later. Countries which focus on Land tech at the expense of Trade and Infra end up backward in the long run for this reason alone; there's no need to punish them further.

For all its flaws, BB is a much better measure of how much of an expansionist you are. Alternatively, we could be even more direct and look at province count.

As for sliders, Narrow-minded to me definitely suggests an expansionist of some sort, albeit probably one who wants to colonise and/or convert the heathens. Some tie-in here would make a lot of sense (after all, how can you have Innovative tech without having high Innovativeness?). Quality and Offensive, however, only say something about how you fight when you need to, not how often you declare war on your neighbours. A Defensive player might build lots of forts and accumulate artillery pieces, and a Quantity player might levy hordes of peasants; how is that more peaceful than keeping a small, elite cavalry force?

 

[MattyG]

This is likely to screw over the AI unless you make it player-only.

I don't recall the ai being very good at fast-teching in any category. :rofl:

Also, I think you've got the wrong end of the stick here: in SP at least, most players invest very heavily in 'peaceful' techs, because that's what lets them power ahead economically and so dominate the world later.

So, it would kick in when they start to try and dominate the world. And it is all relative, if all the players are doing the same thing.

Countries which focus on Land tech at the expense of Trade and Infra end up backward in the long run for this reason alone; there's no need to punish them further.

I think that players in MP who focus on conquest and fail to attack those players who are doing the peaceful uber-tech approach are failing to follow a very sound strategy. Maybe we ought to punish them.

For all its flaws, BB is a much better measure of how much of an expansionist you are. Alternatively, we could be even more direct and look at province count.

This would needlessly punish colonial nations.

As for sliders, Narrow-minded to me definitely suggests an expansionist of some sort, albeit probably one who wants to colonise and/or convert the heathens. Some tie-in here would make a lot of sense (after all, how can you have Innovative tech without having high Innovativeness?).

That's true, but we have to be careful. We want people to be able to coloize, and even mid-rane Inno shuts down colonists pretty sharply. The ai certainly won't know how to cope with this. That said, I thought it was pretty much 'as read' that you need to maintain Innovative at a certain (as-yet-undefined) level. Of course, one adjustment is to increase the colonists value for all religions, to offset somewhat the price being paid by having Innovatibe higher than, say, 3.

Quality and Offensive, however, only say something about how you fight when you need to, not how often you declare war on your neighbours. A Defensive player might build lots of forts and accumulate artillery pieces, and a Quantity player might levy hordes of peasants; how is that more peaceful than keeping a small, elite cavalry force?

Fair enough. It's a shame how poorly defined these sliders are. They really don't afford much advantage to being low in land or offensive.

 

[siafu]

Not certain that I agree. I think that we need to have a random (or timed, one for each nation) event to turn a (player only?) nation from Innovative (latin) to Ranaissance (orthodox) tech. Here are my reasons:

...

I'm not sure we're talking about the same things here. While most shifts would be upward, as you say, I'm suggesting that downward shifts OTHER than innovative -> renaissance would be non-random.

 

[unmerged(15247)]

Not certain that I agree. I think that we need to have a random (or timed, one for each nation) event to turn a (player only?) nation from Innovative (latin) to Ranaissance (orthodox) tech. Here are my reasons:

First, I think we need to see Innovative tech as something that needs to be maintained, not just attained. Otherwise it seems to be a right, rather than a priviledge. OK, priviledge sounds corny. But we can't allow a player to sit on their laurels, especially if they gain it in the early game.

Secondly, I think that in addition to the principle that Innovative tech should not be a ne-way road, we need to ackowedge that certain ways of running a country will lead it to be less innovative. Being very militaristic for a long period ought to knock it down to Renaissance. We have used such a premise for the Teutonic Order. I think there are three ways to model this in a generic event.

A. BB
One is via BB. BB is high when you've be conquering. (We just have to make sure that inheritance events come with a BB reduction.) Nobody get to 28 BB by being scholarly and peaceful.

B. Land Tech
The second is through land tech. If it is well-ahead of schedule, you have defined your country's focus and character, and you should be prepared to pay the price. Currently the game has few rewards for a non-aggressive strategy. I have tried to counter this a little via the triggers for some random events (many of the nice ones don't trigger if you are at war) but this would be another way. A third way would be with DP sliders.

C. DP Sliders
Finally there can be triggers which look at the DP settings. High Land, Quality and Offensive are the keys here. A nations with Land 10, Offensive 8 and Quality 7 is not looking to make friends, they have developed a militarist culture. Finally, we will be providing some incentive to NOT pushing the sliders in that direction.

Cheers.

in my opinion, yet again , i see justifications( well done i must admit) that basically resumes to make something harder for the sake of it; especially justification no. 2(----"B"----).....so if i am militaryy innovative i have to pay a price that basically implyes GELOSY..(pay the price)...now why would i need to pay ANY price becouse somebodies else logic( we have religious books for such things that indeed helped humanity to stay behind in evolution)???????????????????????????????? and yet again, since when a militaristic empire has went "down" BECOUSE SUCH REASONS!?

so let me get this right: i have to play a eu2 mod that its own intent is WAR, WAR AND ....WAR( economy is always a mean for GRABBING MORE and yes....MORE WAR...P) , but my BEST rewards would be if i am PEACEFULL!?
anyone that played with me mp knows i am centred on economy first( only becouse that would give me BETTER war results in the end); however this logic turns me off , seriouslly


also what i do not understand is this: many COMPLAINTS ABOUT EASY DIPLO ANNEXATIONS( wich is peacefull no?????????????????)...yet THAT seems to be too "easy" just as beeing militaristic is as well to "easy"...... so what WOULD BE LEFT TO DO!?!??!?!( in this mod, on this loGIC, )

you know...maybe playing sym city might be more proper if i want to get such feelings ...you know , getting a sexy fantastic wife and be very "calm" since that would give me a LOT of rewards for beeing a "good boy" unlike the real life where i am sure you know the opposite works see my logic now overall?


and is there ANYONE here that having a colonizing game ONLY found it as BEEING FUN?????????????( providing you have to be peacefull of fear of massive VARIOUS events reprisals?????????? that punishes you)

 

[MattyG]

in my opinion, yet again , i see justifications( well done i must admit) that basically resumes to make something harder for the sake of it; especially justification no. 2(----"B"----).....so if i am militaryy innovative i have to pay a price that basically implyes GELOSY..(pay the price)...now why would i need to pay ANY price becouse somebodies else logic( we have religious books for such things that indeed helped humanity to stay behind in evolution)???????????????????????????????? and yet again, since when a militaristic empire has went "down" BECOUSE SUCH REASONS!?

so let me get this right: i have to play a eu2 mod that its own intent is WAR, WAR AND ....WAR( economy is always a mean for GRABBING MORE and yes....MORE WAR...P) , but my BEST rewards would be if i am PEACEFULL!?
anyone that played with me mp knows i am centred on economy first( only becouse that would give me BETTER war results in the end); however this logic turns me off , seriouslly


also what i do not understand is this: many COMPLAINTS ABOUT EASY DIPLO ANNEXATIONS( wich is peacefull no?????????????????)...yet THAT seems to be too "easy" just as beeing militaristic is as well to "easy"...... so what WOULD BE LEFT TO DO!?!??!?!( in this mod, on this loGIC, )

you know...maybe playing sym city might be more proper if i want to get such feelings ...you know , getting a sexy fantastic wife and be very "calm" since that would give me a LOT of rewards for beeing a "good boy" unlike the real life where i am sure you know the opposite works see my logic now overall?


and is there ANYONE here that having a colonizing game ONLY found it as BEEING FUN?????????????( providing you have to be peacefull of fear of massive VARIOUS events reprisals?????????? that punishes you)

Beregic,

I have really appreciated the effort you have put into reporting your results from playtesting Interregnum. I have also enjoyed reading the ideas you have put forward. You have definitely had an impact on the direction of certain events, event series and other aspects of the game.

Your attempt to make a contribution here goes way too far. This is an angry and offensive rant, not a contribution to the debate. If you want to influence the outcome of this issue, please do so in a vaguely civil manner.

In this original posting I was trying to model how we might generically assess the character of a culture which had become overtly militaristic, such as the Teutonic Order, Al-Andalus (under the Mawlas) or the Order of the Crescent. Both these nations have events that lower their tech group to represent the effects of a culture that was focused too little on learning and innovation at the expense of empire building. If you feel that the goal of such an event is not valid, fair enough. I am not sold on the idea myself, but I am prepared to put the idea 'out there' and see what people think, and to advance some ideas about how we might work the triggers.

As someone who has before now extolled the importance of variety in the game, I am surprised that you are not more supportive of the ideas here. Currently the game basically judges 'victory' through countrysize, acheived either through conquest or colonization or most likely a combination of the two. Learning and cultural advancement are presented only in terms of their utility to acheive those goals. Players do not, for example, push their Serfdom slider to Free Subjects until maybe late in the game, because it holds you back from conquest by making troops more expensive. The game does not credit you with having created a more humane, fair and free society, something which I suspect you value as a Canadian.

Now, I cannot (and I am not interested in) altering the victory point system to somehow assess victory based on this set of social values, but I do think that there is room for asking the question "What are the costs of Empire?" Does increasing militarization require also greater innovation in order to maintain the cutting tech edge that a truely successful empire requires?

Let us ask the question, "Why did Great Britain win EU2 and not Russia, Spain or France?" It surely was NOT through massive military advantage. All those nations had greater manpower. Spain and France had greater wealth than England. And England had its share of internal political troubles. I would argue that the British Empire emerged because England came out of the 1700s as a nation with a more innovative society and politics than any other nation in Europe, and was able to out-tech, out-trade, out-administer and out-class its more numerous opponents, having fostered a culture that genuinely embraced change, technology and a larger learned class.

So, the principle I was aiming for - but which I had not yet properly expressed - is that we place an ever-greater threshold of the Innovative slider as a nation grows bigger. Maintaining your 'edge' while empire-building needs to be a tough challenge. the English won that challenge in this period although they later lost it. The Romans maintained their administrative, military and learning advantage for many centuries, ditto the Egyptians. The Americans maybe still have it, but the 'edge' is also harder to keep in a time of massive cultural and technological exchange. (Please do not start debating the issue of the American Empire and whether it is in its death throes or not. )

Maybe that explains my idea a little better. Maybe the idea still isn't very good. Please debate in a civilized manner.

 

[unmerged(15247)]

Beregic,

I have really appreciated the effort you have put into reporting your results from playtesting Interregnum. I have also enjoyed reading the ideas you have put forward. You have definitely had an impact on the direction of certain events, event series and other aspects of the game.

Your attempt to make a contribution here goes way too far. This is an angry and offensive rant, not a contribution to the debate. If you want to influence the outcome of this issue, please do so in a vaguely civil manner.

In this original posting I was trying to model how we might generically assess the character of a culture which had become overtly militaristic, such as the Teutonic Order, Al-Andalus (under the Mawlas) or the Order of the Crescent. Both these nations have events that lower their tech group to represent the effects of a culture that was focused too little on learning and innovation at the expense of empire building. If you feel that the goal of such an event is not valid, fair enough. I am not sold on the idea myself, but I am prepared to put the idea 'out there' and see what people think, and to advance some ideas about how we might work the triggers.

As someone who has before now extolled the importance of variety in the game, I am surprised that you are not more supportive of the ideas here. Currently the game basically judges 'victory' through countrysize, acheived either through conquest or colonization or most likely a combination of the two. Learning and cultural advancement are presented only in terms of their utility to acheive those goals. Players do not, for example, push their Serfdom slider to Free Subjects until maybe late in the game, because it holds you back from conquest by making troops more expensive. The game does not credit you with having created a more humane, fair and free society, something which I suspect you value as a Canadian.

Now, I cannot (and I am not interested in) altering the victory point system to somehow assess victory based on this set of social values, but I do think that there is room for asking the question "What are the costs of Empire?" Does increasing militarization require also greater innovation in order to maintain the cutting tech edge that a truely successful empire requires?

Let us ask the question, "Why did Great Britain win EU2 and not Russia, Spain or France?" It surely was NOT through massive military advantage. All those nations had greater manpower. Spain and France had greater wealth than England. And England had its share of internal political troubles. I would argue that the British Empire emerged because England came out of the 1700s as a nation with a more innovative society and politics than any other nation in Europe, and was able to out-tech, out-trade, out-administer and out-class its more numerous opponents, having fostered a culture that genuinely embraced change, technology and a larger learned class.

So, the principle I was aiming for - but which I had not yet properly expressed - is that we place an ever-greater threshold of the Innovative slider as a nation grows bigger. Maintaining your 'edge' while empire-building needs to be a tough challenge. the English won that challenge in this period although they later lost it. The Romans maintained their administrative, military and learning advantage for many centuries, ditto the Egyptians. The Americans maybe still have it, but the 'edge' is also harder to keep in a time of massive cultural and technological exchange. (Please do not start debating the issue of the American Empire and whether it is in its death throes or not. )

Maybe that explains my idea a little better. Maybe the idea still isn't very good. Please debate in a civilized manner.

-just becouse i value something as a canadian, as you rightlly suspect so, does not applly to a historical simulation; i know what you mean well, just again there is need, i think to be objective; everyone would like certain things to be diffrent at some level, but they never are
- the serfdom ; well aristocracy and serfdom are things i FIRST look to push to the right; why? becouse the game engine is in such away that it makes this the only practical situation no matter how much one values the canadian way; remember first times played eu2 in mp , first thing probablly i learned in eu2 combat was the deffensive wars and high serfdom and aristocracy are of most utmost importance; and i will tell you EXACTLLY why that is so....becouse the RANDOM combat outcomes; one can not, in eu2 interface ,BE SURE of an outcome in earlly eu2 combat stages and having CHEAP troops gives you BEST CHANCES since you can try more combats and eventually win ( even for shock value that works with/need CHEAP cavalery . so you see? again it is the game's engine itself that would not make a "free society" probablly ever possible unless FORCING player to adopt a certain path that itself might DEPEND on your opponents and that is the reality myself , my friend; there will ALWAYS be someone to take advantage of your GOOD intentiones to a balanced society; the opponent might believe in a free society even more then you for example , BUT if HE/SHE is the MASTER and not you.....
- yes, you can always team up with other players that believe in same values of free society but, even in real life that would lead to boredoom, so what would happen in a GAME that someone would look for "ACTION"?

coming to GREAT BRITAIN...from my studies, i came to conclusions that they ONLY did things with better manipulative values and NOT becouse beliefs in a more perfect world; canada itself is a result of such policies; for example you aware that england abolished slavery ONLY becouse it broke the competitions; it was the right thing to do but the MOTIVES they did it for are not black and white at all . also, further more, they considered the american "revolutionarry" as terrorists ; regarding upper and lower canada u know we never been trully independent and it took a very long time of 140y almost to FIND the canadian constitution LOST in governamental BRITISH archives in london . england is the first state in the world that apllied credit as we know it today ; and look how the state LONG ago lost control of its destiny to the bankers; british lower class subject have always been poor just like other nationality, since cornwall not even the king was independent; great britain has long now been rulled by a "parlamantaire dictatorship" wich actually restricts your FREE SOCIETY rights in the way that you are BeTTER controlled that not even the citizen itself would know it australia was build by convicts that THEMSELVES NEVER intended to make that great country we have today; i bet that , if those people would be alive would be full of bitterness to the british empire( that sended them there becouse they stole maybe a piece of bread while a lord was selling them the right to work)
- even worse then france,spain,russian empires....british BOUGHT people only to later kill them; does the well known massacress in india come to mind? ( about english language, knowing a few diffrent ones but none of them perfect, i could say that english is a very EASY language to be spoken unlike latin ones wich for example have a way more complivated grammar).unlike other empires they had better control over how to write history and over public opinions; those things only in recent years came to light; coming back to canada, you know well the true values RIEL( in alberta) believed in and how bad he ended, long been considered as a terrorist too by the british canadians; i mean louis riel DID make a true free society no? but it would have never survived anyway.
- sorry if offended you in any way; that was not my intention and i do not see where i could have insulted you. i mean i play your mode so how could you ever consider me insulting you i agree i am a bit too direct, but look how long this threads get otherwise.... put this like some tipe of marriage( jejejejejejej, fits in perfectlly with the new canadian laws , jejejejejejeje) where if you have no sparks nothing gets done

 

[MattyG]

Here is the random event to shift a country from the Conservative (china) to Conventional (muslim) tech group.

event = {
	id = 901011
	random = yes
	trigger = {
		flag = china_tech
		OR = {
			AND = {	
				ai = yes
				NOT = { flag = player_run }
				year = 1640
			}
			AND = {
				infra = 2
				trade = 2
				OR = {
					AND = {
						domestic = { type = innovative value = 6 }
						domestic = { type = centralization value = 6 }
					}
					domestic = { type = innovative value = 8 }
				}
				year = 1540
			}
			AND = {
				infra = 3
				trade = 2
				domestic = { type = innovative value = 5 }
				domestic = { type = centralization value = 5 }
			}
			AND = {
				infra = 3
				trade = 3
			}
			infra = 4
		}
	}
	name = "Ideas, Skills and Systems"
	desc = "The influx of ideas, skills, currency, trade mechanisms and the establishment of a functioning central bureaucracy have transformed the productivity and thinking of our nation.[To raise your nation's technology group you will need to increase your Innovative domestic policy setting]."

	action_a = {
		name = "Excellent"
		command = { type = technology which = muslim }
		command = { type = clrflag which = china_tech }
		command = { type = setflag which = muslim_tech }
		command = { type = domestic which = innovative value = -2 }
	}
}

 

[MattyG]

Then the generic event to shift from Conventional (muslim) to Renaissance (orthodox) tech group.

event = {
	id = 901020
	random = yes
	trigger = {
		flag = muslim_tech
		OR = {
			AND = {	
				ai = yes
				NOT = { flag = player_run }
				year = 1750
			}
			AND = {
				infra = 3
				trade = 2
				OR = {
					AND = {
						domestic = { type = innovative value = 6 }
						domestic = { type = centralization value = 6 }
					}
					domestic = { type = innovative value = 7 }
				}
				year = 1600
			}
			AND = {
				infra = 3
				trade = 3
				domestic = { type = innovative value = 5 }
				domestic = { type = centralization value = 5 }
			}
			AND = {
				infra = 4
				trade = 3
			}
			infra = 5
		}
	}
	name = "A New Golden Age"
	desc = "The promotion of new ideas, technologies and systems of trade and administration have seen our great nation enter what must be its new golden age.[To raise your nation's technology group you will need to increase your Innovative domestic policy setting]."

	action_a = {
		name = "Excellent"
		command = { type = technology which = torthodox }
		command = { type = clrflag which = muslim_tech }
		command = { type = setflag which = orthodox_tech }
		command = { type = domestic which = innovative value = -2 }
	}
}

 

[MattyG]

Then, for the shift from Renaissance (orthodox) to Innovative (latin) tech group.

event = {
	id = 901030
	random = yes
	trigger = {
		flag = orthodox_tech
		OR = {
			AND = {
				infra = 3
				trade = 2
				OR = {
					AND = {
						domestic = { type = innovative value = 6 }
						domestic = { type = centralization value = 6 }
					}
					domestic = { type = innovative value = 7 }
				}
				year = 1650
			}
			AND = {
				infra = 4
				trade = 4
				domestic = { type = innovative value = 5 }
				domestic = { type = centralization value = 5 }
			}
			AND = {
				infra = 5
				trade = 4
			}
			infra = 6
		}
	}
	name = "A New Golden Age"
	desc = "The promotion of new ideas, technologies and systems of trade and administration have seen our great nation enter what must be its new golden age.[To maintain this group you will need to maintain Innovative at 5 or greater.]."

	action_a = {
		name = "Excellent"
		command = { type = technology which = latin }
		command = { type = clrflag which = orthodox_tech }
		command = { type = setflag which = latin_tech }
		command = { type = domestic which = innovative value = -2 }
	}
}

 

[MattyG]

Lastly, the event to shift a country back from Innovative (latin) to Renaissance (orthodox) tech groups. Note that, with the exception of some nation-specific events (like that for the Order of the Scimitar) there is no standard way to drop from Renaissance to Conventional.

event = {
	id = 901040
	random = yes
	trigger = {
		flag = latin_tech
		ai = no
		OR = {
			NOT = { domestic = { type = innovative value = 1 } }
			AND = {
				NOT = { domestic = { type = innovative value = 2 } }
				countrysize = 30
				NOT = { countrysize = 60 }
			}
			AND = {
				NOT = { domestic = { type = innovative value = 3 } }
				countrysize = 60
				NOT = { countrysize = 100 }
			}
			AND = {
				NOT = { domestic = { type = innovative value = 4 } }
				countrysize = 100
				NOT = { countrysize = 150 }
			}
			AND = {
				NOT = { domestic = { type = innovative value = 5 } }
				countrysize = 150
			}
		}
	}
	name = "The Price of Empire"
	desc = "In order to control our great empire we have promoted conservative politices and supressed opponents, both political and ideological. With time this has limited innovation in our realm and we are no longer burgeoning with fresh ideas. We have grown in size, but the cost is a conservative political and social climate. [To raise your nation's technology group you will need to increase your Innovative domestic policy setting]."

	action_a = {
		name = "Excellent"
		command = { type = technology which = torthdox }
		command = { type = setflag which = orthodox_tech }
		command = { type = clrflag which = latin_tech }
	}
}