Random Events.

[Zander]

Size is one factor, yes, but I meant more countries that seem wracked with instability, when they're not supposed to have half the difficulties that they do. Russia and the Ottomans are two examples of this.

This is actually an issue with Paradox's stability model, rather than the events: the stability costs increase too much for nations like Russia and the Ottomans, such that stability hits that are reasonable for other nations are crippling for them. Ideally, the stability costs need to be lowered for those nations, or raised for others. Of course, that's not something we can do with a mod.

I completely agree with Isaac - reading the previous posts, I was going to suggest that we actively consider some kind of "order is restored" event that gives +1 stability, and triggers on having stab below 0. We could just as well complement that with another event that gives -1 stability and triggers on having stab above +1.

 

[unmerged(17872)]

-On average, real life countries have had stability of 0.

So France had periodic outbursts of armies of peasants who can defeat professional armies three times their size?

If you want rebels weakened then in exchange for a greater number of revolts then you are out of step with the rest of the community who quite clearly disliked playing 'knock out' with silly pop up revolts every month.

Stab +3 represents what you're reffering to as 'normal' as in it represents a state that is for all intents and purposes under control, it does not represent some pristine harmonious paradise.

One still gets 'unprovoked revolts', 'peasant uprisings', revolt risk that DESPITE being Stab +3 still result in revolts. If one has a different culture, different religion province then the loss of a single stab point at stab +2 can result in revolts.

As for having the country 'extremely pleased' with the government, I would have thought that was covered by 'Good policies' events and events which result in negative revolt risk periods, not screwing around with the stability scale.

Something which I'd finally point out is that this would just piss people off, if you're spending most of the game just trying to get to stab 3 only to have it constantly taken from you by silly events which constantly reduce it (across your entire country!), then it is just going to irk players into switching off AGPEEC after much cursing.

Stability of +2 to +3 should be viewed as the country being extremely satisfied with the government,

No it should be viewed as what it is, the highest (limited) stability a player can attain no matter how much they may want to go higher.

 

[unmerged(2456)]

actually stability +3 is way unhistorical for most large nations. Also because stability naturally rises having more destabalizing events vs. stabalizing ones is fine, but it shouldn't be lopsided.

I've sent the version to Jester to be added to 1.28 or whatever is the next version. This one is abasically renumbering with some corrections/modifications listed. Rebalancing wad done, but the key here was to get things renumbered.

 

[unmerged(9404)]

So France had periodic outbursts of armies of peasants who can defeat professional armies three times their size?

At stability 0 normally you don't have a revoltrisk. Only if you have more than three religions (2 before the reformation) you will have revoltrisk in a select few provinces and still very low.

Stab +3 represents what you're reffering to as 'normal' as in it represents a state that is for all intents and purposes under control, it does not represent some pristine harmonious paradise.

Johan commented once during the 1.07betas that stability 3 shouldn't be considered normal, stability 0/1 should be normal.

 

[unmerged(6159)]

So France had periodic outbursts of armies of peasants who can defeat professional armies three times their size?

Exactly. This happened to them on numerous occasions. Not too surprising when you consider what a 'professional' army was before 1650 or so.

If you want rebels weakened then in exchange for a greater number of revolts then you are out of step with the rest of the community who quite clearly disliked playing 'knock out' with silly pop up revolts every month.

I didn't advocate this, and seeing as how we'd have to hack the executable to do it, I can't really advocate it. But, to go slightly off topic, what I'd like to see is that rebels actually become a real threat to topple a countries governement. I think rebels who spawn rarely, but aggressively, and who aren't as tough in battle would be great. Much as the 'knock-out' game with revotls was silly, it served a very important game function, and nothing has really replaced it. But like I said that's OT.

Stab +3 represents what you're reffering to as 'normal' as in it represents a state that is for all intents and purposes under control, it does not represent some pristine harmonious paradise.

The 'normal' state of affairs for any country in the EU time was hardly 'for all intents and purpsoes under control'. The normal situation was 'seething with discontent, with various factions waiting for their chance to strike. So I stand by my statement - a state being 'for all intents and purposes under control' should be very rare.

As for having the country 'extremely pleased' with the government, I would have thought that was covered by 'Good policies' events and events which result in negative revolt risk periods, not screwing around with the stability scale.

I guess 'extremely pleased' was bad word choice on my part.

Something which I'd finally point out is that this would just piss people off, if you're spending most of the game just trying to get to stab 3 only to have it constantly taken from you by silly events which constantly reduce it (across your entire country!), then it is just going to irk players into switching off AGPEEC after much cursing.

And yet this is how the vanilla game works. I tend to agree with Sun Zi that there should be more events that do nothing to stability, however, I strongly disagree with the idea that there should be as many stab raising events as stab lowering events. The Paradox balance between the two is not bad, although I think it's a little too positive. The current AGCEEP balance is, to me, about right, although I'd like to see fewer radical swings one way or the other.

I think you're right that stability changing events that are triggered on stability DO run the risk of messing up game balance a lot. They would make low stability more attractive (to get free stab bonuses) and high stability less so. However, the current situation where almost all countries hum along at +3 stability is unattractive for a bunch of reasons - diplomatic expansion is much higher, and there are few rebels anywhere. In reality rebels were a constant problem, and countries could often opportunistically take advantage of neighbours problems. This strategy is unavailable when opposing the AI as it will sit at +3 indefinitely.

 

[unmerged(17856)]

If 'modiifying' means reducing overall, as opposed to simply fine tuning, I really don't like this idea. Countries, particularly the AI shouldn't run at +3 stabiliy all the time. One of the main reasons to have random events, in my opinion, is to keep stability low for medium sized countries. For one thing it makes a diplomatic strategy viable, without those stab hits it will be much harder to grow by diplo-vassalization. But more importantly it ensures that countries will generally be at mid to low stability.

modifying meant reducing some of those -3 stab hits to -2 and some -2 stab hits to -1. I think Jinnai was at one point going to look into that. Maybe's he's chanegd his mind on it. I just figured I'd leave him to it, that's all.

Isaac, you of all people should know that attempting to make everyone's stab at 0 or 1 is crazy talk because the AI snaps back up to +3 stab within months half the time. So unless we start making alot of them with AI = yes triggers, then increasing -ve stab hits will penalize players more than the AI. While agree with you about a +3 stab level being a rareity, I also would like to see -3 and -2 and even -1 a rareity, left to major events and occasional nasty random events. Like I said before, I don't know how some of you guys do it. The more you invest in stab, the more inflation attributes to it, and the more it costs to increase it the next time.

Anyways, I consider myself a moderate on this issue. But some of the random events have to be altered...some put way too much weight on DP sliders. One example is the "Noble Traitor is Caught" or something-er-other. Basically, if you are -2 or -3 stab, picking option A) "hanghim and confiscate his lands!" gives you a -2 to aristocracy!!! crazyness. oh and also a -3 stab and some gold I think. But at any rate, some random events like this one could be toned down to like -2 stab, -1 aristocracy. I like having major events do the major changes. An occasional crazy random event, sure, but not a whole slew of them.

 

[unmerged(17872)]

Exactly. This happened to them on numerous occasions. Not too surprising when you consider what a 'professional' army was before 1650 or so.

Nonsense, you put an army of 20k pitchfork wielding peons up against even a bunch of 60k flea ridden 'soldiers' and the soldiers should not be getting their arses consistently handed to them multiple times. That they are now is for gameplay reasons (reasons I can agree with), not historical.

I didn't advocate this, and seeing as how we'd have to hack the executable to do it, I can't really advocate it. But, to go slightly off topic, what I'd like to see is that rebels actually become a real threat to topple a countries governement. I think rebels who spawn rarely, but aggressively, and who aren't as tough in battle would be great. Much as the 'knock-out' game with revotls was silly, it served a very important game function, and nothing has really replaced it. But like I said that's OT.

We already have revolts that can 'topple' countries, many times I have seen countries governments overthrown, heck playing as the Byzantines the other day I almost got my arse handed to me during combination Nikolai's revolt + two bad random events mix.

The 'normal' state of affairs for any country in the EU time was hardly 'for all intents and purpsoes under control'.

Control is a relative matter, that 'relative' nature is determined by things like centralisation, stability cost and revolt risk.

THESE are what determines how well or even useful a 'stab +3' condition is.

For instance gettingt to stab +3 as Mecklenburg even during bad times is easy, as the Ottomans it is not, lose one stabilty or two as the Ottomans and it can be a real struggle to get back up to 3 with events popping making it more difficult or revolt risk raising revolts in unconverted provinces etc. As a human player when my stability goes below +2 in bad times I'm usually diverting all my reserach funds into restoring stability (hampering research) because I just know that if I don't then something is going to happen to lower it past zero.

The normal situation was 'seething with discontent, with various factions waiting for their chance to strike. So I stand by my statement - a state being 'for all intents and purposes under control' should be very rare.

No it shouldn't as it is a relative matter. If you want seething discontent then that is what revolt risk is for.

I guess 'extremely pleased' was bad word choice on my part.

Along with several other things so far.

And yet this is how the vanilla game works.

No it doesn't, if it did then you wouldn't be sitting here whining about stab +3 being too common, and yes I read you say you like the current mix, as do I (except for the problems I outlined earlier) but you're still whining about stability and thats what we're arguing.

As it is now stab +3 is an achievable goal one that can be reached with some sacrifice, it represents the best NORMAL condition for ones state that one can reach, how good this situation is depends on revolt risk, and how much it cost and will cost in future to get to stability +3 when one is taken below it.

However, the current situation where almost all countries hum along at +3 stability is unattractive for a bunch of reasons - diplomatic expansion is much higher, and there are few rebels anywhere. In reality rebels were a constant problem, and countries could often opportunistically take advantage of neighbours problems. This strategy is unavailable when opposing the AI as it will sit at +3 indefinitely.

Thats why we have revolt risk and revolt causing events, thats why we have varying stability costs.

Stab +3 represents the most 'stable' condition a country can reach, how stable it is of course is dependent on many other factors and is why we have so many things that affect revoltrisk and stability cost. Not to mention the extra events that are activated by these varying conditions, for instance one being high serfdom leading to more revolts etc.

 

[unmerged(10128)]

I think you're probably right that too many events change stability. What concerns me is that the overall trend (i.e., the average stability loss per random event) not be changed too much. As such what I'd prefer to see is that for every stability reduction that is eliminated a stability improvement is also eliminated from the event set (or a different event is given a bigger stability hit). Obviously I don't think that needs to be followed religiously, but I think the balance between + and - stability is about right.

yes. my points that stability is affected too severely in random events applies to both stability hits and stability increases.

Anyways, I consider myself a moderate on this issue. But some of the random events have to be altered...some put way too much weight on DP sliders. One example is the "Noble Traitor is Caught" or something-er-other. Basically, if you are -2 or -3 stab, picking option A) "hanghim and confiscate his lands!" gives you a -2 to aristocracy!!! crazyness. oh and also a -3 stab and some gold I think. But at any rate, some random events like this one could be toned down to like -2 stab, -1 aristocracy. I like having major events do the major changes. An occasional crazy random event, sure, but not a whole slew of them.

i agree. stability hit should only be given if the event really warrants it. i think random events should never create more than -2 or +2 stability. if it mustbe more than that, the random event should be a one in one hundred.

Isaac, you of all people should know that attempting to make everyone's stab at 0 or 1 is crazy talk because the AI snaps back up to +3 stab within months half the time. So unless we start making alot of them with AI = yes triggers, then increasing -ve stab hits will penalize players more than the AI. While agree with you about a +3 stab level being a rareity, I also would like to see -3 and -2 and even -1 a rareity, left to major events and occasional nasty random events. Like I said before, I don't know how some of you guys do it. The more you invest in stab, the more inflation attributes to it, and the more it costs to increase it the next time.

i dont think the AI ever recieves random events?

 

[unmerged(9404)]

i dont think the AI ever recieves random events?

It does as of 1.06 IIRC

 

[unmerged(10128)]

It does as of 1.06 IIRC

strange. do they get it with the same frequency as human? if they do, the average stab of AI nations should be something like +1, which is not the case (almost all has +3).

 

[unmerged(6159)]

When I tested it they got the random events at exactly the same incidence as humans.

Isaac, you of all people should know that attempting to make everyone's stab at 0 or 1 is crazy talk because the AI snaps back up to +3 stab within months half the time.

That's only true for the really small countries. AI stab costs are the same as human (unless the BB rules don't apply, I don't know about that).

Still you're right that making the system work in such a way that most countries were below 0 as often as they are above would clearly require radical changes.

Nonsense, you put an army of 20k pitchfork wielding peons up against even a bunch of 60k flea ridden 'soldiers' and the soldiers should not be getting their arses consistently handed to them multiple times. That they are now is for gameplay reasons (reasons I can agree with), not historical.

Headed OT, but that's not the issue. If you look at the Fronde, or the Free Companies, or the Huguenots, or many other instances of revolts in France, the revolters conssited of whatever unemployed soldiers were around. In fact one of the big justifications for changing the revolt system to what it is now was that rebels were never pitchfork weilding peasants (much as I like the icon) but rather military men who were every bit as professional as the royal troops (which is to say not very).

Anyway, while getting side tracked, the argument I wanted to make was that I believe it's very important that the random event set overall push stability somewhat downwards. I do think that the wide swings Sun Zi wants to get rid of are probably unwarranted, although the fact that most countries have sparse historical event sets means that removing them will remove the few chances you get to diplo-vassalize or annex. But that is perhaps not too much of a sacrifice.

 

[unmerged(2456)]

I do not believe the AI gets the full impact of BB stability penatlties, but i do believe they get it to some extent.

 

[unmerged(17872)]

Headed OT, but that's not the issue. If you look at the Fronde, or the Free Companies, or the Huguenots, or many other instances of revolts in France, the revolters conssited of whatever unemployed soldiers were around.

You're using the French wars of religion the wars where nobles raised large armies the throne of France was on the line and even foreign nations got involved as an example of your typical peasant revolt?

Get your hand off it and stop talking nonsense, what I said holds.

In fact one of the big justifications for changing the revolt system to what it is now was that rebels were never pitchfork weilding peasants (much as I like the icon) but rather military men who were every bit as professional as the royal troops (which is to say not very).

Oh so the rebels revolting over a meteor sighting now represent hardened mercenaries eh?, once again The system was changed because it was better for gameplay which in the end is more important than historical accuracy.

Anyway, while getting side tracked,

Yeah the above issue is now settled.

the argument I wanted to make was that I believe it's very important that the random event set overall push stability somewhat downwards. I do think that the wide swings Sun Zi wants to get rid of are probably unwarranted, although the fact that most countries have sparse historical event sets means that removing them will remove the few chances you get to diplo-vassalize or annex. But that is perhaps not too much of a sacrifice.

Well thats not the argument you did make.

 

[unmerged(6159)]

You're using the French wars of religion the wars where nobles raised large armies the throne of France was on the line and even foreign nations got involved as an example of your typical peasant revolt?

Where the heck did "peasant revolt" come from? And yes, I do think that the Huguenot wars, where the throne of France was never on the line until the death of Henry III, and which basically represented the armed continuation of struggles amongst factions of the nobility are entirely typical of what a "revolt" means in EUII. Peasant revolts were hardly ever a threat to the ruling class.

Oh so the rebels revolting over a meteor sighting now represent hardened mercenaries eh?, once again

Of course they are, otherwise why would they be so tough in battle? Of course the nobility is opportunistic, and if you think that the nobility was any less superstitious than the peasantry I'd like to see some evidence of that. Comets were a cause of great concern to all levels of society.

The system was changed because it was better for gameplay which in the end is more important than historical accuracy.

I think the first part is arguable. The present system presents much less of an obstacle to gamey rapid expansion, and doesn't allow revolts like the Netherlands, French Religious Wars and English Civil War to work as well as they used to.

If, from a historical point of view, the revolts are supposed to represent peasant revolts why did Johan switch away from the pitchfork icon for REB?

Well thats not the argument you did make.

If 'modiifying' means reducing overall, as opposed to simply fine tuning, I really don't like this idea. Countries, particularly the AI shouldn't run at +3 stabiliy all the time. ...

I had thought that this point here pretty clearly shows that my concern was always over the overall effect of the stab hits. As such I really thought that I had made that argument. Obviously you didn't see it that way. Could you explain to me how you interpreted that quote so that I can explain myself better in the future?

 

[unmerged(17856)]

To tell you the truth Isaac, even though I bitched about the new system too, when I played it, I found it to be better. Each RR increase now slashes your income from the province by 5% now, IRL, (or something like that) so the effects of RR are twofold. I mean, we only have to jack up the RR a bit to get the same rebel stomping effect with this new system.

 

[unmerged(6159)]

To tell you the truth Isaac, even though I bitched about the new system too, when I played it, I found it to be better. Each RR increase now slashes your income from the province by 5% now, IRL, (or something like that) so the effects of RR are twofold. I mean, we only have to jack up the RR a bit to get the same rebel stomping effect with this new system.

Look it definitely has it's advantages. But the income effects are quite big, and by the time you get a serious number of revolts your income (and therefore capacity to raise armies) is severely reduced. And the rebels take a lot of effort to beat. In the old system the rebels could easily take over and become independent if you left them alone. In the new system by the time you have enough rebels to 'liberate' the Netherlands you are in deep trouble.

Maybe it can be tweaked. And I don't think that forced 'whack-a-mole' rebel fighting was anything resembling a good way to slow expansion. But nothing much has replaced it - now it's the occasional revolt, which is a royal pain to actually defeat, but which can't cause extreme damage, and a biggish loss in income.

 

[unmerged(17872)]

Where the heck did "peasant revolt" come from?

Oh so such things as 'peasant uprisings' and 'unprovoked revolt' with the accompanying peasant description failed to tweak you to the fact?

The majority of revolts in EU2 are usually peasant uprising related in nature, it is a limitation of the engine that revolts aren't handled more specifically.

And yes, I do think that the Huguenot wars, where the throne of France was never on the line until the death of Henry III, and which basically represented the armed continuation of struggles amongst factions of the nobility are entirely typical of what a "revolt" means in EUII.

Then you're an idiot, the French wars of religion were major affairs and if you think them 'typical' of what revolts are in EU2 then you won't mind playing with a permanent 11% revolt risk for several years in half your provinces every game.

Peasant revolts were hardly ever a threat to the ruling class.

Exactly and neither should the majority of revolts in EU2 be, just as they aren't.

Of course they are, otherwise why would they be so tough in battle?

Because the good people at Paradox listened to their customers and decided that making it so would detract less fun from the game then having 'knock out' style rebellions.

I think the first part is arguable. The present system presents much less of an obstacle to gamey rapid expansion, and doesn't allow revolts like the Netherlands, French Religious Wars and English Civil War to work as well as they used to.

If, from a historical point of view, the revolts are supposed to represent peasant revolts why did Johan switch away from the pitchfork icon for REB?

I'm using the latest AGCEEP version and I'm still getting pitchfork wielding rebels mate, don't know what you're smoking.

I had thought that this point here pretty clearly shows that my concern was always over the overall effect of the stab hits. As such I really thought that I had made that argument. Obviously you didn't see it that way. Could you explain to me how you interpreted that quote so that I can explain myself better in the future?

"On average, real life countries have had stability of 0. Stability of +2 to +3 should be viewed as the country being extremely satisfied with the government, and should be RARE. Stability of -2 to -3 should be viewed as massive discontent with the government, and should be just as rare. Random event MUST be used to ensure that these conditions prevail.

(Now that I write it this sort of suggests putting lots of stability triggers into random events. At any rate I think that we need a lot of random event stability hits to keep countries below +3 stability)."

the current debate on rebels and their nature led on from this.

If you only want to address one point and not argue anything else, then don't bring up an argument on anything else.

 

[unmerged(6159)]

...
Then you're an idiot, the French wars of religion were major affairs and if you think them 'typical' of what revolts are in EU2 then you won't mind playing with a permanent 11% revolt risk for several years in half your provinces every game.

Well I do think that the typical revolt in the period involved some faction of the nobility in armed opposition to the authorities. This sort of thing was perennial in France, and most anywhere else. The Huguenot Wars followed this pattern, and were no more serious than, for example, the Fronde.

Exactly and neither should the majority of revolts in EU2 be, just as they aren't.

Peasant revolts were hardly ever a threat to the government. Revolts of nobles and occasionally cities absolutely were threats. This is what revolts ought to represent.

Because the good people at Paradox listened to their customers and decided that making it so would detract less fun from the game then having 'knock out' style rebellions.

I'm not disputing that endless wipy rebellions are absolutely no fun.

I'm using the latest AGCEEP version and I'm still getting pitchfork wielding rebels mate, don't know what you're smoking.

1.04 or 1.05 they changed it to the Pike icon, specifically because the revolts were not supposed to represent peasant revolts. They then changed it back when people were nostalgic for the pitchfork guy.

"On average, real life countries have had stability of 0. Stability of +2 to +3 should be viewed as the country being extremely satisfied with the government, and should be RARE. Stability of -2 to -3 should be viewed as massive discontent with the government, and should be just as rare. Random event MUST be used to ensure that these conditions prevail.

(Now that I write it this sort of suggests putting lots of stability triggers into random events. At any rate I think that we need a lot of random event stability hits to keep countries below +3 stability)."

the current debate on rebels and their nature led on from this.

If you only want to address one point and not argue anything else, then don't bring up an argument on anything else.

And, as I read it, my quote here is entirely consistent with my previous statement that I believe that random events need to push stability downwards. This is the argument that you said "was not the argument you did make". How do you read the differences?

 

[unmerged(17872)]

Well I do think that the typical revolt in the period involved some faction of the nobility in armed opposition to the authorities. This sort of thing was perennial in France, and most anywhere else. The Huguenot Wars followed this pattern, and were no more serious than, for example, the Fronde.

Yet obviously the vast majority of revolts in Europe were not anywhere near the severity of the wars of religion in France, the same applies in-game.

Concession accepted on this point.

Peasant revolts were hardly ever a threat to the government. Revolts of nobles and occasionally cities absolutely were threats. This is what revolts ought to represent.

I don't care what you think they 'ought' to represent, we're discussing what they do represent.

I'm not disputing that endless wipy rebellions are absolutely no fun.

Then you're kind of left pissing up a flagpole, as regards your desires for revolts then aren't you.

1.04 or 1.05 they changed it to the Pike icon, specifically because the revolts were not supposed to represent peasant revolts. They then changed it back when people were nostalgic for the pitchfork guy.

I've already argued and shown why revolts do not represent hardened mercs etc., your 'icon' excuse as you now admit holds no water in the current version either.

And, as I read it, my quote here is entirely consistent with my previous statement that I believe that random events need to push stability downwards. This is the argument that you said "was not the argument you did make". How do you read the differences?

Yet as anybody with two functioning eyeballs can see

"On average, real life countries have had stability of 0. Stability of +2 to +3 should be viewed as the country being extremely satisfied with the government, and should be RARE. Stability of -2 to -3 should be viewed as massive discontent with the government, and should be just as rare. Random event MUST be used to ensure that these conditions prevail."

This is what I've disagreed with, this is what you've argued over, if you don't want to argue it, then retract or bugger off.

I'm not falling for lame 'baffle them with bullshit' tactics Isaac, you brought up something with which I disagreed and have now argued over, you're now trying to claim the issue upon which your so called argument is based as separate from your argument, well its not.

 

[Havard]

Then you're an idiot, (...)

This is not the kind of argumentation we want around here. I suggest you read up on the Forum Rules, in particular the part about personal attacks, and reconsider your "style".

Havard
Forum Admin