Random Events.

[Peter Ebbesen]

I Agree! There are already to much stability loss (or to less stability gain) from random event.

All else being equal, stability tends to increase. The only thing that prevents nations from running utopically stable +3 stability for centuries is stability loss from random events. Thus there is good and sufficient reason that there should be rather more stability loss than gain through events. Additionally, as is, the risk of stability loss through random events ties nicely into the innovativeness and serfdom slider choices; severely reducing the risk of loss would make innovativeness and free subjects a no-brainer.

 

[unmerged(6159)]

I also disagree with the idea that there should be as many positive as negative events. Particularly when it comes to stability, the negative stab events are one of the things that act as a drag on growth. This is a very good thing in my humble opinion.

Actually i hate the event when playing a major state as well. What kind of a ruler would take out a loan of 400 to give his latest fling a gift that costs 50 ducats???? Come on - there is simply just no connection to reality in this event!
If anything there should also be a trigger in the event that said that the monarch's adm<2 ... and even then he'd probably have some advisor/nobility that would stop such a crazy adventure into sheer folly!

The Palace of Te in Mantua fits this almost exactly. It was built by the Duke for his mistress at an extreme cost, and cosumed much of the revenue of Mantua for a long time while it was being built. There are plenty of examples of this sort of thing.

And anyways we can use cash command instead of treasury.

Does this work? I used to think that 'cash' couldn't go negative, but I was told that 'cash' and 'treasury' are identical. I can't remember if I ever tested it.

 

[Sikker]

The Palace of Te in Mantua fits this almost exactly. It was built by the Duke for his mistress at an extreme cost, and cosumed much of the revenue of Mantua for a long time while it was being built. There are plenty of examples of this sort of thing.

Arrgghh ... grumble mumble ... I doubt there are PLENTY of such examples, but still there seems to be at least 2 more than I had expected (though one might not be extremely relevant).
Even considering this, it is still my number one hate-to-get-event. And whether it actually DID happen once in a while it certainly did not happen as often as the random events make it occur in the game.
I vote that it gets the boot completely.

 

[unmerged(17856)]

Although the atwar tigger is a good idea...

implement it then, that should appease some?

I am with Isaac and Ebbessen for the most part. More stab losses than gains is fine. But there are more ways to lose stability than simple random events.

Virtually every game that I play start to finish ends up in the same horribly low stability situation. I don't play aggressively at all or anything, either. And I also don't always move my DP slider when I can. It boils down to the random events and subsequent stability inflation costs. I've had to raise stability via ordinary treasury sliders so much that the costs, 200+ years into the game, are such that it'll take 30 years to raise my stability point up just one. It is particularly frustrating to receive that point and then have it knocked down via a 'meteor sighting' or whatever. Now, I am referring to games with EEP, and Jinnai has changes alot of it so I have no comment on the new stuff. But, what I would do, is I would change all the -3 stab hits to -2. It makes sense for me game-wise, and rationale-wise, as there are major events that don't do as much damage or smply equals it, such as a civil war type situation, revolution type sequence, or the FWoR sequence. Pont being a -3 stab hit should be something left to major events, not random. I wonder if anyone else has this problem too. In all I think there's a healthy medium, leaning more towards what Jinnai's already done.

 

[Peter Ebbesen]

I've had to raise stability via ordinary treasury sliders so much that the costs, 200+ years into the game, are such that it'll take 30 years to raise my stability point up just one.

This has GOT to be exaggeration.

It is possible to run at less than 1 year stability regain at full investment for just about any size country once you have begun gaining some infrastructure and trade tech. (Though it is advisable to keep it at 4-8 months) In my experience, if it is costing people several year's worth of income in order to regain stability after the initial period of the game, they have nobody but themselves to blame: high BB, high inflation, innovativeness, and free subjects - or wanton conquest of different religion provinces - being to blame. (Indeed, I follow that strategy sometimes in stab=-3 games, where I never invest in stability save if absolutely needed to declare war. An exiting way to play: You never know when civil war will strike)

 

[unmerged(17856)]

nah, my DP settings are average I'd say, the only setting I have entirely in any extreme is quality setting. It NEVER takes less than I year to bounce back 1 stab point EXCEPT at the very beginning of my games. And even after the first stab increase I notice it takes longer for the second and so on. I have no idea how you can get +1 stab in less than a year near the end of a game even devoting all your monthly income to stab via treasury settings. My infation is never bad, I've never had problem with inflation, really. I sum the increases up to simply natural increases in costs each time you gain a stab via treasury, just like any tech increase. 3 decades sounds like an exaggeration, but I'm telling you, 5 years is like average even 100+ years into the game.
In my games I usually have to bank on major events to boost my stab near the end! who knows...

 

[doktarr]

(Indeed, I follow that strategy sometimes in stab=-3 games, where I never invest in stability save if absolutely needed to declare war. An exiting way to play: You never know when civil war will strike)

Indeed, although high centralization reduces the threat. I too love running at -3 stab - it allows you to concentrate on tecnology. Moreover, zero aristocracy, -3 stability, and a fat treasury makes you virtually immune to bad events. ("Political crisis? What crisis? And no cities, you can't have those old right back.")

 

[unmerged(17856)]

I was thinking about that stuff...with the beta, stab isn't as important anyways. So it won't be as bad a problem.

Now running with -3 stab with the old 1.07...?

 

[Peter Ebbesen]

Indeed, although high centralization reduces the threat. I too love running at -3 stab - it allows you to concentrate on tecnology. Moreover, zero aristocracy, -3 stability, and a fat treasury makes you virtually immune to bad events. ("Political crisis? What crisis? And no cities, you can't have those old right back.")

Of course, it does have the disadvantage that trade is nearly non-existant - at least in MP.

 

[unmerged(9404)]

nah, my DP settings are average I'd say, the only setting I have entirely in any extreme is quality setting. It NEVER takes less than I year to bounce back 1 stab point EXCEPT at the very beginning of my games. And even after the first stab increase I notice it takes longer for the second and so on. I have no idea how you can get +1 stab in less than a year near the end of a game even devoting all your monthly income to stab via treasury settings. My infation is never bad, I've never had problem with inflation, really. I sum the increases up to simply natural increases in costs each time you gain a stab via treasury, just like any tech increase. 3 decades sounds like an exaggeration, but I'm telling you, 5 years is like average even 100+ years into the game.
In my games I usually have to bank on major events to boost my stab near the end! who knows...

My stab recovery time usually peaks somewhere around 1550-1600 as an european country. The time when colonizing has just started, the heretic branch of christianity has not been converted, BB is relative high and economic techs are not enough developped, after that it slowly decreases to below a year

 

[unmerged(2456)]

Ok I have added a couple events from the list posted:

Defortification (Scaled)
Volunteers (added naval aristorcay gets warships, plutocracy gets galleys...it balances out esp in later game also...there are few enough just good random events)

Ones i am considering (Modified):
Military College Founded
Countryside Devasted
Sufi Tariqa
Kurdish Aga (if i can get a list of which provinces it would occur in)

The rest are either impossible (or nearly so) or just have generally not good results.

Right now just all the monarch and minster events are taken out from the 1st beta release.

What event is Heart over State? I couldn't find it with a general search through the file...

 

[unmerged(17856)]

My stab recovery time usually peaks somewhere around 1550-1600 as an european country. The time when colonizing has just started, the heretic branch of christianity has not been converted, BB is relative high and economic techs are not enough developped, after that it slowly decreases to below a year

yeah that sounds like what Ebbesen was saying. I don't know how that works though. I'll just have to play and keep a close eye on it.

What event is Heart over State? I couldn't find it with a general search through the file...

a search through the text.csv for 'heart over state' gave me this: EVENTNAME200038

...then looking to the eep 1.42a random event files i found them. I guesws they're graded after all. But still they could be toned down a bit, or eliminated, whatever you had planned Jinnai. So the event IDs begin with 94208, there are 6 of them and each moves up 1000.

# Written by Pierreluc

event = {
id = 94208
trigger = {
NOT = { countrysize = 4 }
}
random = yes
name = "Heart over State"
desc = "Sometimes a monarch would forget to govern while besotted with a mistress or a favourite, lavishing presents and neglecting state duties."
style = 0

action_a = {
name = "OK"
command = { type = treasury value = -15 }
command = { type = ADM which = -2 value = 12 }
}
}

event = {
id = 95208
trigger = {
countrysize = 4
NOT = { countrysize = 9 }
}
random = yes
name = "Heart over State"
desc = "Sometimes a monarch would forget to govern while besotted with a mistress or a favourite, lavishing presents and neglecting state duties."
style = 0

action_a = {
name = "OK"
command = { type = treasury value = -35 }
command = { type = ADM which = -2 value = 12 }
}
}

event = {
id = 96208
trigger = {
countrysize = 9
NOT = { countrysize = 30 }
}
random = yes
name = "Heart over State"
desc = "Sometimes a monarch would forget to govern while besotted with a mistress or a favourite, lavishing presents and neglecting state duties."
style = 0

action_a = {
name = "OK"
command = { type = treasury value = -50 }
command = { type = ADM which = -2 value = 12 }
}
}

event = {
id = 97208
trigger = {
countrysize = 30
NOT = { countrysize = 80 }
}
random = yes
name = "Heart over State"
desc = "Sometimes a monarch would forget to govern while besotted with a mistress or a favourite, lavishing presents and neglecting state duties."
style = 0

action_a = {
name = "OK"
command = { type = treasury value = -75 }
command = { type = ADM which = -2 value = 12 }
}
}

event = {
id = 98208
trigger = {
countrysize = 80
NOT = { countrysize = 200 }
}
random = yes
name = "Heart over State"
desc = "Sometimes a monarch would forget to govern while besotted with a mistress or a favourite, lavishing presents and neglecting state duties."
style = 0

action_a = {
name = "OK"
command = { type = treasury value = -150 }
command = { type = ADM which = -2 value = 12 }
}
}

event = {
id = 99208
trigger = {
countrysize = 200
}
random = yes
name = "Heart over State"
desc = "Sometimes a monarch would forget to govern while besotted with a mistress or a favourite, lavishing presents and neglecting state duties."
style = 0

action_a = {
name = "OK"
command = { type = treasury value = -300 }
command = { type = ADM which = -2 value = 12 }
}
}

 

[Peter Ebbesen]

...then looking to the eep 1.42a random event files i found them. I guesws they're graded after all. But still they could be toned down a bit, or eliminated, whatever you had planned Jinnai. So the event IDs begin with 94208, there are 6 of them and each moves up 1000.

Of course they are scaled. Just about every random event originating from a single source was scaled in the SSREM, and hence also in the EEP 1.42 when it updated random events based on the SSREM. (Including those in the SSREM/EEP subset 9x200-9x299)


I must admit that I am a bit surprised that the current random event file is based on the SSREM 0.9.4 or 0.9.5 updated for EEP and modified further, rather than the SSREM 1.0.0 updated likewise, but I am sure there is a logical explanation. (Most likely being that the SSREM in one form or another infests just about all random event files at the moment, in different versions )

As for the numbering system, it is simple, consistent, explained in the header, and is applied correctly for the SSREM events.

--------------
If the AGCEEP really wants to reenumerate all random events, please choose something that is as consistent.



Ps: I hate seing the few SSREM Superpower/BB events that made it in the cut being labeled as "Anti-WC events". That was certainly never my intention, and not only that, they are some of the tamer ones at that.

 

[unmerged(2456)]

Ps: I hate seing the few SSREM Superpower/BB events that made it in the cut being labeled as "Anti-WC events". That was certainly never my intention, and not only that, they are some of the tamer ones at that.

I did put a disclaimer on the header about the Anti-WC events that not all are ness bad...

 

[Peter Ebbesen]

I did put a disclaimer on the header about the Anti-WC events that not all are ness bad...

I just don't see how the severity of the events can justify such a header, honestly. While nostalgia isn't what it used to be, I have foggy recollections of much harsher penalties in your not particularly lamented Anti-WC thread - and you have even refrained from including the harshest SSREM badboy events - it just seems like false advertising, really.

 

[unmerged(2456)]

I did and i prefer them that way. Basically i cut them in half and make 2 of each event (rounding up fractions), The problem was, few people wanted to play with them wjem i has them so harsh, even though now many of the scaed events are devasting at high levels.

Of course that was before the scaling of the EEP events so i'll go back and check them out again as i am also in agreement that they should be tougher.

If they seem too mellow in comparison, i will probably up them again.

I suppose since there are some positive events, i could rename it to just "WC events"

I may also add some more later, but that is after i reasses what is there and after i implent the other events posted here.

 

[Peter Ebbesen]

I did and i prefer them that way. Basically i cut them in half and make 2 of each event (rounding up fractions), The problem was, few people wanted to play with them wjem i has them so harsh, even though now many of the scaed events are devasting at high levels.

Strangely enough, I never got any complaints about the "Torch of Liberty" events, but then their triggers are somewhat more complex than some of your old suggestions: You have to work hard to deserve them. (Though possibly some of them are nastier, the BB/superpower events are not intended in general to punish, but to challenge; a different design imperative from Anti-WC entirely).

Anyway, you do the hard work on the AGCEEP, so you are the boss.

EDIT: Any particular reason that 9x309 (Emigration to the new world) has an "ai=yes" trigger?

 

[Zander]

I'd like to suggest adding the following event:


event = {
id = xxxxx
random = yes
name = "Focus on Economy"
desc = "By avoiding unnecessary wars and expansion, we have been able to focus on repairing our economy and planning for the future."
style = 0
trigger = {
NOT = { badboy = 1 }
}

action_a = {
name = "Let us work to repair our economy."
command = { type = inflation value = -5 }
}
action_b = {
name = "Excellent! Let us plan for the future."
command = { type = infra value = 1000 }
}
}


Justification: small countries usually have the most problems with inflation in the current model, since even small expenses may require using the treasury slider. Additionally, any time spent at 0 BB is essentially "wasted" in the current system - with this event, spending time at 0 BB is slightly more feasible.
You could scale the infra boost for countrysize, but given that few expanding nations are going to be at 0 BB for long, it's probably not necessary.

 

[unmerged(6159)]

I like it. I would scale it for countrysize, and maybe add in a stability requirement as well. And possibly atwar=no, as it would be weird to get in the middle of a war.

In fact I'd recommend making it even more favourable, but adding in a BB point or two in the first option. (Other countries are jealous of our golden age?). That way you have to get your BB back down before you get the event again.

 

[Peter Ebbesen]

Justification: small countries usually have the most problems with inflation in the current model, since even small expenses may require using the treasury slider. Additionally, any time spent at 0 BB is essentially "wasted" in the current system - with this event, spending time at 0 BB is slightly more feasible.
You could scale the infra boost for countrysize, but given that few expanding nations are going to be at 0 BB for long, it's probably not necessary.

In MP, the countries that tend to have 0 BB are already the strongest countries. They don't have 0 BB because they are small or peaceful, they have 0 BB because they have CB on their neighbours, many cores, high DIP monarchs, or have already become bloated from eating BB-free pagan nations.

And they like spending time at 0 BB (or as close as possible) as it means a low stability cost, which is important for every nation that wants to earn a lot of money from trading by being at stability=3.

In other words, in the MP world it really rewards the countries that start strong irrespective of whether they are peaceful or not, and it certainly does not have anything to do with a country's general expansion or lack of same.

...I know that you probably only considered the SP case, but for MP purposes events that reward those who expend minimum BB while focusing on trading and maximizing techs are really, really, really, not needed. The rewards from maximizing the economy are already substantial enough.

(Actually, I think that goes for SP as well, but I can see the argument to the contrary)