Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Test Of Skill

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Show only dev responses
Daniel A said:
OK, we continue with the present editing policy.

While you are up and reading the thread. WHat did you think about my vassal propopsition?

------------

Lordi's win is the end of the "song" contest. It is not song, it was a disturbance in the ether. :D
Click to expand...

The European Song Contest has gone down the drain the latest years, everyone is singing in english, which I think is wrong, as the task is to compete for your country, thus you sing in your native language. Furthermore, Carola (the swedish entry) is probably the worst we could send to the competition, as she is pretty much like all the other singers there, love songs in english. I have only two words for the people that dare to be different from the rest: GO LORDI. ;)
 
1 thing to say. Lordi ruled even tho he didn't represnt sweden:p

ok i figured out what i want to edit:D

my super AI produced way too many troops, making me pay more then i get in my monthly income to army up keep(well not more but close:) ). my troop limit is half of what i have at the moment. I talked to my sub wondering why the hell he built so many troops and he responded that i only had 14k cav and around 7k inf when he crashed. that's when i really started to like my ai for building 23k inf and 8k cav for nothing and wasting my money:)

so the things i want to edit are:
-Take away 23k inf and 8 cav to get down to the troop number my nation had before my sub crashed and get back my money if that's possibly. then it would be (8*15)+(23*9) = 327 ducats back if u all agree.
-then i would like to have sicily back:D

there's alot of other things like drastic raise in inflation and building forts all over my nation. but that's not important would have built forts my self anyway:). the only things that screw me up was the troop building + military maintance and revolting:)

well that what i want to edit. u guys decide if it's ok to edit it.
 
You deserve more than that. Naples should get some extra money at least, for us wronging you in the first place(kind of like a cheating penalty, except the opposite).

AI buying forts isn't helpful this early. You can't assault forts anyway, and most seiges take forever. You deserve more money ;).
 
Lyko, check your attrition losses. The AI is an expert of losing men from attrition. Just becuase your present number of men is X does not mean it was not X+Y at some time during the game. Never mid, I just cheked them myself and they were almost none.

Then make a nice list, like this, rather than writing a short story :)

1. +X to treasury
2. -Y inf, -Z cav
3. Sicily back
4. Inflation -X

And put it into your AAR. I want all edits to be in the AAR of the nation. If they are not there I will not do them.

BTW, what did your sub do the houes he played? :confused: This session was your best opportunity to do something. You had two 555 leaders and over 1000d in your treasury at the start. If Naples at any time had a good situation for attacking northward it was that session.
 
As only Tonio made a comment to the vassal suggestion I will implement it with his addendum (20 years instead of 10 years).

The new rule has been implemented into post 2 and it reads

2. Vassalship between humans.

If you are vassalised by another human
a) you must stay as a vassal at least 20 years (the vassaliser may cancel the vasssalship any time he wants)
b) you cannot enter any other alliance than that of your master
c) you may do anything you want
d) 5 manpower will be transferred from your nation to the vassaliser at the end of the session (regardless if the vassalisation still exists or not), providing your opponent asks for it in his AAR; this MP will be given to his capital province and taken from your MP richest province, and if the MP of that is not enough then from your next richest etc (alphabetical order used as tiebreaker)
 
Last edited:
there is nothing here about my old comments about embargo, TA and MA between vassal and master.

As far as i understand both Daniel and ArchMede took a destruction point of view, so we don`t have LO ?
 
The Arch Mede said:
I did exactly that. The first popup I got that told me a state of war existed was a combat report. (Actually, my immediate reaction was to click the goto button and order retreats) Since he joined an existing war, there was no DoW popup, only a message in the log. The first message I noticed was a chat comment (from Absolut?) asking if the war was real in response to seeing the log message. Almost immediately afterwards the combat popup appeared.

My thought process went roughly thus "Daniel has achieved complete tactical surprise. :eek: Don't stop to check the odds, you can trust his calculation, they are bound to be overwhelming, run away, RUN AWAY, RUNNNNN"
Click to expand...

As I wrote in the post where I gave you 24 hours, and which you have read and which preceded Aladar's post, I broke the RM I had with you when I entered the war. That you fail to comment on that in this your response to Aladar is less than satisfying.

If you, when you got the message of me breaking the RM (costing me -1 stab), did not check if the reason for this message was the obvious one, that I entered the war (and not that I took the stab hit for "fun" or "hate" or any other irrational reason); well then that was quite unskilful by you and any losses incurred by you because of this some 3 months later was well-deserved. Likewise if your message settings are such that you did not get the message in a popup and missed it because of that.
 
Tonioz said:
there is nothing here about my old comments about embargo, TA and MA between vassal and master.

As far as i understand both Daniel and ArchMede took a destruction point of view, so we don`t have LO ?
Click to expand...

OK, I add TA/MA. As for your 2nd item I do not understand what you mean. He has insulted my moral integrity in general and even accused me of cheating. That is unacceptable.
 
Last edited:
Lyko, check your attrition losses. The AI is an expert of losing men from attrition. Just becuase your present number of men is X does not mean it was not X+Y at some time during the game. Never mid, I just cheked them myself and they were almost none.

Then make a nice list, like this, rather than writing a short story

1. +X to treasury
2. -Y inf, -Z cav
3. Sicily back
4. Inflation -X

And put it into your AAR. I want all edits to be in the AAR of the nation. If they are not there I will not do them.
Click to expand...

well i wanted to explain to everyone that i wasn't fooling u guys:). so oh well

1. +X to treasury. Don't really know the number exept 327 for the troops i want to disband and for the forts also so that's 260*2. if u guys want to give some more it's ok.
2 -23k inf and -8k cav
3. sicily back!!!!!
4 hrrmm inflation -1 maybe don't want to be to take to much
5. capitanata and apulia. the AI is building forts there. money back and no forts plz:D (took KJ advise)
6. no Damn alliance with Byzantium and mozavia.:)
7. +1 centralization my sub dind't do that.


btw. I didn't get my dp sliders when i change country. i should have 2+land and +1 in cent instead of +3 in innovative

anyway:) the list got longer when i rechecked the save.
 
In the AAR thread Lyko, in your AAR post. I do not accept to have to look around in both threads for edits.

I will search the AAR thread for one AAR for each nation and then do the edits written in those posts, nothing else.
 
Last edited:
The Arch Mede said:
SQRT is effective at reducing the high extremes, but it makes little to no difference at the low end. The most effective way of damping at both ends with a simple formula is to average with previous values.

MT(n+1) = xMT + (1-x) MT (n)

where n is the session number, MT is calculated by the current or any other formula based on what happened in session n, MT(n) is the value used to generate leaders in that session, MT(n+1) is the value used to generate leaders for the next session and x is chosen to obtain whatever degree of damping by earlier tradition is considered desirable. X=1 is the current system, I guess anywhere between 0.5 and 0.75 would flatten the extremes nicely, while allowing a reasonably quick response to a change in strategy.
Click to expand...

I like this proposition a lot. I have thought about similar ideas. To inherit some MT from previous sessions appears entirely realistic, military tradition in a nation was not something that was entirely gone after say 15/20/25 years of time. If you were passive it would decrease but not to zero.

So following Archmede's suggestion (without the multiplier on the "inheritance on MT) the whole formula could be

Next session's MT = 2 + (previous session's MT )
+ ((number of military units lost in battle during the session * 20) / (number of military units in manpower pool cap at the end of the session * number of whole years of session))

Well, this is not going to work that good. Assume a 20 years session where you lose twice your MP pool at the end every session. Presently that means 4MT. But in this formula it become 6 (2+2+2).

Obviously we must tweak the formula.

Say we change the constant to 1 instead of 2. And apply a multipler on each of the two other as ArchMede suggested for the inheritance.

PSesMT = previous session MT
DIV = the division in the formula

Thus the formula become: 1 + PSesMT*0.5 + DIV*0.5

What we have done is to halve the influence from the previous session and from the current losses.

That makes 1 + 2 + 1 = 4 with the same example values. Same as today. Good.

Now imaging we have a player losing as much as one full MP pool (i.e. a MT of 3 today).
For him this means: 1 + 1.5 + 0.5 = 3, also same as today.

Then we could set the allowable interval at 2.5-4.5.

This looks just about right in my view.

Now the problem with provinces controlled by rebs/oppos which reduces the MP pool. I have a suggestion to solve that as well.

Considering the amount of work I do each week I believe I am justified to put one more burden on your shoulders. Assume you do not control all of your provinces. Then edit the save to give you control of all of your provinces. Just make Control-C on the row for owned provinces and then Control-V on the current line for controll provinces. Then load the game and run one month (I believe you may have to do that to have the correct number updated). That way you will get your theoretical MP pool cap.

If you control all of your provinces that provides MP (i.e. those in Europe and if anyone outside Europe only if landconnected to your capital) you will not need to do this edit and check. Most often you are at peace at session's end so then you do not need to do this edit+test.

How about this?
 
Daniel A said:
Now the problem with provinces controlled by rebs/oppos which reduces the MP pool. I have a suggestion to solve that as well.

Considering the amount of work I do each week I believe I am justified to put one more burden on your shoulders. Assume you do not control all of your provinces. Then edit the save to give you control of all of your provinces. Just make Control-C on the row for owned provinces and then Control-V on the current line for controll provinces. Then load the game and run one month (I believe you may have to do that to have the correct number updated). That way you will get your theoretical MP pool cap.

If you control all of your provinces that provides MP (i.e. those in Europe and if anyone outside Europe only if landconnected to your capital) you will not need to do this edit and check. Most often you are at peace at session's end so then you do not need to do this edit+test.

How about this?
Click to expand...

In regard to reb/oppo control, ignore it. There are far too many possibilities for people to make mistakes in doing the edits you suggest. The effect is small, and the damping will make it smaller. If it does look as if anyone is manipulating it, then worry about how to come up with a simple way to prevent it.
 
Daniel A said:
It is not. You are confused. They are quite apart. As I wrote in my invitation



Here is the link to that page.
http://www.europa-universalis.com/forum/showthread.php?t=243338&page=1



This is entirely inapplicable to the word "nice" as described by me above in the quote. As you can see I have defined what I mean with "nice" so there is no need for you to speculate about any other interpretation.



This is ridiculous. I ask for nothing but that you behave like when you go home to some friends for a nice board-game session. You will do your best to win the game, but you will be well-mannered. You will not accuse players of cheating, unless you have proof.



Of course you may vigorously object to me "strangling" you. I have not intended one sentence of my post as protesting against that. You have made several posts arguing for more nations to attack me. This is of course entirely acceptable posts, even more, they are welcome. I as well as anyone else want diplomatic activity.

That you so utterly misinterpret my post is a mystery.

To me, and I guess anyone else, a GM that uses his powers to enhance his own position in the game basically cheats. If you are of another opinion you may say so but then I guess you are alone in the universe and do not belong in our game. We want honest people in the game.



That I will use this glitch of yours to “cover” an attack would be exactly a cheat according to the definition above.

As I have written I did not see that you mentioned you had this problem and besides you had some 3 months notice before I attacked - plenty of time to ask for a rehost.

I expect an apology for this accusation of cheating.



Here I am not sure whether you mean
a) I deny although I have seen the chat
b) or that I merely intentionally try and avoid the chat to be able to deny



I pay very little attention to the chat for the simple reason that I focus on the game, not to be able to “deny” that I have seen what people write. And I can promise you that I will continue to do so. If you cannot accept this (and that Aladar assists in GMing) then this is not your game. If you need a GM then pause the game and call for his attention. Whether other GMs perform differently is up to them.

Item a) is an accusation of cheating while b) is merely insulting. Regardless if it is a) or b) an apology is again expected.

-----------------

Let me make this very clear: you may do anything in the game as the rules allow. You may do any diplomacy you want. You may portrait me as a devious, treacherous, megalomaniac player. But you may not make accusations of cheating unless you have proof.

You will be a fox and a wolf while playing and making diplomacy, but you will be a gentleman in your behaviour.

If you still, after reading this whole post, do not understand the wolf/fox-gentleman distinction and what is expected from you then I give up and you will have to leave the game.
Click to expand...

Daniel, I think you have missed my point entirely. Rather than continue winding you up by responding at length, I shall make two points and then not post on this matter again.

1) I made comments, not accusations.

2) I was, and remain, happy with Aladar's response to those comments. Where there are 2 GMs it seems to me to be appropriate to accept the response of the other when a dispute arises with one.
 
Arrg, the BB reduction award for AArs and being on time is too high. :mad: For an inflationist like myself - and who has good early monarchs to increase BB reduction speed - to see several of you low-inflationists with bad/medium early monarchs now choosing the BB reduction makes me wanna throw up. :mad:

But it is too late now, the train is on its track and we who suffer from the huge cost of winter attrition are the true losers in this game. Poor Moldavia will end up annexed. :eek:
 
it has been suggested here before but i mention it again because i think its a good idea: all human nations should get cores on all human capitals. having a cb on humans encourages players wars, player wars are generally a good thing and spice up the whole game.
what do you think?
 
Daniel A said:
Arrg, the BB reduction award for AArs and being on time is too high. :mad: For an inflationist like myself - and who has good early monarchs to increase BB reduction speed - to see several of you low-inflationists with bad/medium early monarchs now choosing the BB reduction makes me wanna throw up. :mad:

But it is too late now, the train is on its track and we who suffer from the huge cost of winter attrition are the true losers in this game. Poor Moldavia will end up annexed. :eek:
Click to expand...

Crybaby !

Seems you are not all that skilled after all :D
 
Cicero said:
it has been suggested here before but i mention it again because i think its a good idea: all human nations should get cores on all human capitals. having a cb on humans encourages players wars, player wars are generally a good thing and spice up the whole game.
what do you think?
Click to expand...

Sure Cicero. I must have missed that. Anyone else have anything to say about this idea?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back