Are you sure they will die? How many MP games have you played really? There's a lot more dynamism in colonisation in MP. That is not a non-issue at all, only ignorance can tell that. They would be the smallest (historically) of all the European CoTs, spawned in an artificial manner. This is not a good idea IMNSHO, so don't waste too much breath on it!Originally Posted by idontlikeforms
AGCEEP High Council Member The great unified mod - AGCEEP 1.57
Links to the first release of the HC map ICQ 174373941
I am sure they will die. Is there some other way you know of to make them live? What kind of problems do you think they will cause in MP? I have never played MP.
Lots of trade in them, Portugal will want that since it gives him 2 extra merchants. Having determined colonial CoT's in MP is as boring as it gets. I don't say AGCEEP is a very good choice for MP, but this would make it worse. Having Timbuktu removed would at least lead to an interesting race, that Portugal would probably win, but not without effort. Knowing that only Portugal can win it, no matter what the other players do is dull.
AGCEEP High Council Member The great unified mod - AGCEEP 1.57
Links to the first release of the HC map ICQ 174373941
Population cannot be added to TPs. And a TP has no fortress. Fortress building in key spots was one of the most important parts of Portuguese colonization.
A TP represents a very tiny part of the full economic and historic siginificance of Arguin. If it is just a TP a Portuguese player is then being robbed of playing out portuguese history. Like I've said before Portugal has 150 years or so to TP and coloniza Africa all to it's self. Capital sacking Lisbon for a map is ahistorical. I dread the idea of modifying the game in ways to just encourage this.
The consequences for an across the board ban on colonies benefitting from events is much more catastrophic than just Portugal not getting events for key events in Portuguese history. This could severely handicap the progress of the AGCEEP. I'd be shocked if many people supported such an idea.
Are most people playing MP? Is the AGCEEP primarily geared towards MP? Should small efffects that are bad for MP but good for single player be prevented? It seems to me from what I understand about MP that it is much more ahistorical then single player. Perhaps MP shouldn't be the main factor in deciding whether or not to implement new events. Or is this a minority viewpoint?
How exactcly will these 2 COTs be exploited in a MP game that you want to avoid?
If you play Portugal on normal level, not easy level, you will see exactly what Isaac and myself are talking about. The Spanish AI colonizes alot better than the Portguese AI. I think the biggest reason is funds and the next biggest reason is the places that portugal is forced to colonize having too many penalties etc. I simply can't except that Portugal has colonizing problems only to the extent that other european colonizers do too, in light of what I've seen playing Portugal. If I play Portugal on the lowest level, I can get big so fast, that you would be shocked at the statistics I could give you of my empire at certain points in the game. But on the normal level this doesn't happen. Portugal is in for a rough ride and the only way to get out of this is to kill Spain, or go for brazil or the carriebean right away. I'd like to make Portugal's historical path justifiable in the game. This is where I'm coming from.
Making more events makes the game more deterministic. I think Ideally, in the game, ahistorical paths should be discouraged and historical paths should be encouraged. So that the main objective of an AGCEEP player would be to follow the historical paths but diverge from it slightly here and there to accomplish even more.
I think if someone just wants a free for all style game based loosely on history they should play the vanilla but if they want a much much more historically accurate game then they should play the AGCEEP. That being said I think making events, even if some of them primarily effect colonies, should be a good thing as long as solid history or absolutely mandatory gameplay fixes backs them. If I just want to play a strategy game and don't care about history, I'll just play starcraft, EU2 has too many historical restrictions.
Portuguese success in Africa and Asia brings european affairs to every place where Portugal is at. Wars with other europeans can then involve parts of Africa and Asia more. Many quite historically justified potential events hinged quite stongly on Portugal owning peices of Africa and Asia.
Killing timbuktu before a Morroccan occupation is not histroically justifiable. So there will otherwise be no COTs in west Africa before this happens, if it happens. Because if it doesn't then the COT in Timbuktu should not die. It does get occupied by Morrocco fairly frequently as is though. SO thisshouldnt be a problem.
Ya if this is all the reasons for why the COTs not be allowed in the game then I''m gonna keep exploring the possiblity of incorporating them in the AGCEEP. I'm looking for really good reasons to ditch this idea, not just it isn't the greatest for MP, because of very vague reasons.
I've noticed that the AI Portugal never takes back the Cape Verde islands if they are attacked by rebels. Often this happens before it's a city and then the Portguese AI keeps colonizing it but never gets it back from rebel control. This of course hurts the AI because it loses this money. I would say this is currently happening about 50% of the time.
Would it be a good idea for me to script an event that is AI only that gives Cape Verde back to Portuguese control if the AI owns Cape Verde but it's controlled by rebels? Are AI only events like these going to pass through the highcouncil? I'd like to know because I can look for more quirks like this in the game and make AI only event fixes for them but I don't want to waste the time if they are going to be rejected. Can some of you high council guys let me know if it's appropriate to do this?
Ever so slightly OT....
How are you going to do this?
" Ignoring the root causes of terror, turning a blind eye to the oppression and despair of millions may be easier in the short run, but we learned on September the 11th, if violence and fanaticism are not opposed at their source, they will find us where we live." GWB
Sick of only the big boys getting the Dutch revolts? Try the Dutch Revolts Mod
Will making Cape verde be ceded to Portugal if rebels control it work?
I don't think so because the 'secede' command changes ownership, but won't change control unless it's controlled by the owner. Or at leat it does weird things.
" Ignoring the root causes of terror, turning a blind eye to the oppression and despair of millions may be easier in the short run, but we learned on September the 11th, if violence and fanaticism are not opposed at their source, they will find us where we live." GWB
Sick of only the big boys getting the Dutch revolts? Try the Dutch Revolts Mod
When I capture Socotra and it gets ceded to Portugal it shows me the message saying that Portugal captured it and it also shows the fires in the province from looting. I suspect it might work. I'll try it just to see later on today.
The first few sentences of Norrefeldt's post #64 sums up my impression as I read through idontlikeforms' posts. I must say that most of idontlikeforms' work seems great! Having said that, I don't think the Arguin event is truly capturing a situation that seems to be able to be represented in a better way, as Norrefedlt has suggested. Furthermore, I havn't read any real justification for the command lines in the A and B choices.
From what I'd read from idontlikeforms, it sounds like Elmina could be a colony, but that Arguin should definately not be. The 'big picture' of Arguin should be handled seperately and I don't even know if its possible to do that in-depth in the game. It'd be nice if we could somehow replicate the effects on trade it had though
My answer to the question;is a solid 'no'. My own reasons are as follows; although trading posts were oftentimes fortified, there is no solid tendency to withstand determined European, and even native assaults on them. Besides the fact that the provinces they occupy in-game are vast swathes of land and territory, and the TP in-game, IMO, is to represent a few isolated trading outsposts, whereun their destruction and the subsequent undermining of that country's 'controlership' and 'ownership' of the province at the hands of an enemy army or determined native assault is much easier to accomplish due to the fact of the TPs relative isolation and low population when compared to the 'colony' route, hence the ability to simply burn a TP in-game; burn whatever scattered (if more than one) fortifications and outposts that occupy the province obecause there're relatively few of them!
As for the second question;the answer to this one is more debatable, IMO, and I think should be handled in a responsible and appropriate fashion, primarily taking into consideration relative comparisons to the rest of the region. The population of the Virginia colonies exploded throughout the mid 1600s due to the interaction of three main factors; the Virginia company's implementation of the 'Head Write System' (i.e. introduction of private property ownership) shortly before its bankruptsy, large increases the price of tabacco in European markets, and falling wages in Great Britain. Can EU2 popualtion engine handle these booms? Not really. Thus IMO, in this example, a series of events - provided the requirements were met - should probably help such colonies out.
It appears my opinion on this mirrors Isaac's somewhat; basically Protugual should be considered somewhat of a unique case.
When it comes to colonization, the comments and conclusions about adding AI helper events are way too premature. AI tweaking via their files is the first line of reform, not the last. Getting the AI to perform as close as posible via tweaking the AI files, and then adding appropriate historical events (i.e. for both player and AI) is the most logical way to handle AI shortcomes. You can even have the two processes occuring at the same time. But I think it'd be a farce to make the goal of your event to help the AI first, without even acknowledging the role of the AI file itself.
EDIT: the Sao Thome event I think is easier to accept, but not in its present form, IMO, based on Idontlikeorms' rationale as posted in post #57. Who or what organization or Royal Charter, or stipulation was responsible for creating such a lucrative slave trade in Sao Thome? As slave trading was becoming a major commodity in those days, surely the events goals (population increases, tax bonuses) should have an event description that discusses this, while the event itself should have any appropriate triggers based on a historical analyses of circumstance for Portugual. No?
Should also mention that in no way do I mean to sound too harsh, the majority of the work in this thread is definately good!
Last edited by ribbon22; 07-08-2004 at 22:44.
I'm ecstatic that someone is actually listening to me and believes me too. Elmina did afterall function governentally almost identically to Goa and Malacca and no one would dare imply that these 2 colonies were only TPs.The first few sentences of Norrefeldt's post #64 sums up my impression as I read through idontlikeforms' posts. I must say that most of idontlikeforms' work seems great! Having said that, I don't think the Arguin event is truly capturing a situation that seems to be able to be represented in a better way, as Norrefedlt has suggested. Furthermore, I havn't read any real justification for the command lines in the A and B choices.
From what I'd read from idontlikeforms, it sounds like Elmina could be a colony, but that Arguin should definately not be. The 'big picture' of Arguin should be handled seperately and I don't even know if its possible to do that in-depth in the game. It'd be nice if we could somehow replicate the effects on trade it had though
Well as you all know I am not a high council member, but I'll give some advice if it will be taken. Like I've said in previous posts I am a team player. Although I may at times seem to be refusing to give in on an argument, this is because I genuinely believe that I have a better argument in those particular cases. However I haven't recieved any support in these 2 events other than Isaac being willing to accept it, even if he doesn't like everything about it. So in the event that the Arguin event is rejected, I would like to explain why I arranged it as I did and give a plan B if it is rejected in the end, so that a key portion of Portuguese and world history doesn't get banned from the AGCEEP even if my initial interpretation of how to implement it is.
I made Aguin have a fort because historically a fort was the primary ingredient that made Arguin work. I realize that in the game that a fort makes no money and in general fortress building in the game is severly undervalued and a level 1 fortress is way way over priced. Level 1 fortresses in general should be cheap. It's the high level fortresses that should be expensive. I made it a fort and not something else because I am extremely technical about study and interpretation of history, even if the game just can't represent what happened historically well.
Essentially Arguin made Portugal alot of money. If the event can't be represented in the game by a fort, then I reccomend that it be represented by a cash bonus, say a few hundred ducats with some history explaining why Portugal get's it(I can do all this if need be). It could have a small trade tech bonus, but I would strongly reccommend that it be small for reasons I'll explain if asked to(I don't want to put it here to avoid going into another extensive topic). It could trigger on Portguese ownership of Nouachkott(obviously with a TP) or if this just seems too deterministic to people, than it could trigger with Portuguese ownership of any west african coastal province starting from Nouachkott down.
Ideally I think for AI benefit this should only trigger if Portugal is not at war. But I definitely think it would be a shame if the history of Arguin is just banned from the game outright.
This is not correct. Fortified trading posts were usually there to stay. If the fort was small like something made from wood, then ya they could be destroyed without too much difficulty. But the forts in question were made of stone. No way in hell were the Portuguese leaving without a huge fight. History has unumerable examples of this. If a european fort was built of stone then the europeans were pretty much there to stay and yes it could resist determined assault by both natives and other europeans and this is exactly the premise for making them in the first place. In the game if a player is at war with Portugal they can march 100 troops down the coast of west Africa and burn all the Portuguese TPs. This a far cry from historically accurate. In almost every case where a trading fort of 1 european power was captured, the victors simply moved in themsleves right away and traded with locals themselves. After all the trading post was there because it was profitable. It would be foolish for the victors to not capitalize on this themselves unless they absolutely could not spare the men at the time. As I pointed out in post #67 of the Portugal and Indian Ocean nations thread, the EU2 concept of a TP is very subjective and largely fictional it bears very little resemblance to a trading post from a historical perspective and I should know I have read many source documents covering this sort of subject for Portugal, the U.S., and Spain as well as odds and ends things on this subject for these countries and others. The whole concept of a TP in EU2 terms throws a big monkey wrench in interpreting and applying history to the EU2 engine. Unfortunately it is a no win situation any way you look at it. I strongly suspect that if my critics here had read what I have they would have much less objections to how I've interpreted history on this subject. I do not think that I am being radical here. Because of these reasons I tend to view TPs as being more logically interpretted as simply representing unfortified trade of just about every sort so long as it was big enough and regular enough to be represented by a level 1 TP in the game.
I think we are very much in agreement here. Here's my take on it.
Events should be allowed to effect colonies. If they can't we as AGCEEP contributors will be making changes in the game with 1 arm tied behind our backs. The notion that half of Africa, most of south America and almost all of north America should have their history erased simply because no europeans lived there in 1419 seems rather prejudicial to me. Why should these regions in each game of EU2 that is played be almost entirely fictional and have only the most loosest resemblance to what happened historically? By no means was my intention in creating these 4 Portuguese events that I submitted, in which 2 of them are being called into question, to set a precedent for colonial events to be passed out liberally like Halloween candy. If some of my critics are afraid of this happening the solution is definetely not to ban all future events from having any impact whatsoever on provinces that are unoccupied in 1419. I think that all events should have SIGNIFICANT history or absolutely necessary game play fixes to justify their being added to the AGCEEP. I definitely do NOT support events for colonies being made into game events, unless they had a very big impact on the history of the country recieving it and preferably a big impact on world history as well. These 2 events definitely do.
I think my event here represents what took place well. The tax represents the tax on plantations and the pop represents a pop boost that it recieved historically. Giving ducats right away would be ahistorical. Trade tech bonuses would be historical but for gameplay reasons I reccommend that it be small. Perhaps an infra bonus would be justified as well. But it just seems silly to me that the province itself should not be effected by an event that happened there. It was a siginificant event historically even if my game event is not. I simply made it such a small effect because I was concerned that some people wouldn't like it as I didn't realize where people in this forum were coming from as well at the time that I created it.
Sao Tome was more known for it's sugar more than it's slave trade. Slaves wound up there to work on plantations that were extremely profitable, because of the plantation running techniques developed there and also because sugar was more scarce in europe at this time. Sao Tome's effects on slave trading was much bigger long term than short term. If my explanations here are inadequate please let me know? If you think the event should be altered how so?
I defintely agree. The Portuguese AI scripts over all I think are pretty good. I don't think there are alot of changes worth making in this area left though. I'd like to give a word of warning about AI only events for Portugal. The amount of AI only events necessarey to get Portugal to do what it did historically are going to have to be many and they will be big helps too. Are there enough people out there who want this to be added to the AGCEEP? It's alot of AI cheating.
As a footnote I'm done experimenting with temporary Portuguese COTs on the African coast. I'll explain why if someone wants to know, otherwise just take my word for it it's bad for gameplay in the long run even if it is more histroically accurate.
Last edited by idontlikeforms; 08-08-2004 at 06:10.
I've softened my position on Arguin a bit. Given the way your approaching this I'm willing to accept that if it's needed, it's needed. And I also agree that Portugal is a bit of special case when it comes to the AI file - the AI file can't be used very effectively for it to fight colonial wars, which the AI is pretty bad at anyway.
I'd like to nominate Idontlikeforms to the high council.
" Ignoring the root causes of terror, turning a blind eye to the oppression and despair of millions may be easier in the short run, but we learned on September the 11th, if violence and fanaticism are not opposed at their source, they will find us where we live." GWB
Sick of only the big boys getting the Dutch revolts? Try the Dutch Revolts Mod
Howexactly does this nomination work and what exactly will I have to do? I am a college student. the amount of time I can contribute to the AGCEEP will probably be cut to at least a 3rd of the amount of time I'm presently contributing. Although admittedly I am spending alot of time working on suggestions now.
I've got a couple of last minute changes I'd like to implement to 1.33 if it's okay with the HC guys. It's related to my submissions for west africa set and Portgual so far.
Change the "Native Tolerance Value" of Senegal(5) and Dakar(6) to 3
Change the "Difficulty for Colonization" of Senegal(4) and Dakar(4) to 5
The numbers in the parentheses represent their current stats in the respective categories.
The reason for these changes is because of one of the STUPID AI adjustment in 1 of the latest patches, the AI will massacre not too hostile natives. So presently Senegal and Dakar will get their natives slaughtered by a small Portuguese army sent their by the AI for this very purpose. The end result of this is that Senegal and Dakar having slighly higher percentages for successful colonization after depopulation and the AI will prefer them over places like Nouachkott, Leone, and Fernando Po. This isn't too big a deal if Portugal is doing well, other than it's annoying that they slaughter natives that aren't even that aggressive, becuase the portuguese AI will just then colonize the more historically important provinces right after them. But if Portugal engages in too many wars, the Portuguese AI may hit 1495 and have only Senegal and Dakar with colonies and the rest just TPs and this is unfortunately a problem as a colonized Leone in particular helps the AI alot.
With these changes I've watched the AI a few times and it will still TP these provinces at a good time but will colonize them after a few other provinces are colonized first. So it seems quite ideal so far.
Oh and if there needs to be some historical justifications, let it be known that Portugal did colonize these 2 provinces historically. Rather effortlessly too as many Portguese, usually from the Cape Verde islands, would move there and trade and cohabit with the natives. This produced large numbers of Mulattos in these regions as the natives recieved them well and weren't hostile at all. So an agressive level of 5 and 6 respectively isn't historically accurate. I interpret this of course to be represented by TPs not colonies. So having the AI leave them as TPs and not colnize them asap, I think is quite histrorically accurate.
And the AI seems to usually leave level 3 aggressivesness natives alone. 5 and 6 instigate a prompt massacering.
Last edited by idontlikeforms; 09-08-2004 at 15:13.
Some time ago Doktarr suggested that portugal should have an AI only event where if Portugal loses Oporto or Algarve in a war in the 15th century that Portugal should have these 2 provinces ceded back to them in exchange for Portugal becoming a vassal to the ceder. Well I've finally worked the event out and here it is. =
#Portuguese AI check#
event = {
id = 260089
trigger = {
ai = yes
NOT = { owned = { province = 434 data = -1 } }
}
random = no
country = POR
name = "Portuguese AI check"
desc = "Portuguese AI check"
style = 2
date = { year = 1419 }
offset = 30
deathdate = { day = 1 month = january year = 1820 }
action_a ={
name = "Portuguese AI check"
command = { type = trigger which = 260088 }
}
}
#AI help for a defeated Portugal#
event = {
id = 260088
trigger = {
ai = yes
}
random = no
province = 434
style = 1
name = "Vassalization in exchange for Oporto and Algarve"
desc = "Vassalization in exchange for Oporto and Algarve"
action_a = {
name = "Keep Portugal alive"
command = { type = secedeprovince which = POR value = 434 } #Oporto
command = { type = secedeprovince which = POR value = 442 } #Algarve
command = { type = vassal which = POR }
}
}
Heres how it works. First of all we want this to only happen between 2 AIs. So if the conqueror is human then we don't want him to not be able to keep Oporto and Algarve. And if the conquered Portugal is human then we don't want them to get to keep Oporto and Algarve in exchange for a vassalization that they can break relatively easy in the 15th century and then recuporate from the -3 stab. hit before it's expensive for them.
So the first thing that happens is an event checks to see if Portugal is an AI. If it is then the next event can trigger. If not the next event does not have the capablility to trigger.
After the Portuguese AI check is cleared if at any time the owner(not just the controller) of Oporto is not the same owner of Tago, then the Oporto owner must cede Oporto and Algarve to Portugal and it will recieve Portugal as a vassal. This will not trigger for a non-Portuguese ownership of Algarve only without Oporto. This is because Algarve is worth less than Oporto and if it is late 15th century, losing Algarve may actually be better for Portugal and than becoming a Vassal. Also Algarve is not very frequently captured without Oporto being Captured at the same time. This is because of the river around Algarve which often has to be crossed to get there. This makes Portugal often win in defensive battles of Algarve. Also I've noticed that the non-Portuguese AI rarely targets Algarve before Oporto anyways. And of course this 2nd event is AI only as well. So the conqueror must be AI not human.
I haven't tested this event yet. I know it will work though because for awhile I was stumped on Portugal vassalizing itself. I corrected this by putting the NOT line for Tago in the trigger requirements. So I encourage everybody to copy this event and test it out. Play a game and just keep your eye on Portugal. If Oporto is under siege, then keep an eye on the outcome of the war and whether or not Portugal get's vassalized. And of course how well it does after this too, to see if it's worth it. Personally I suspect Doktarr's idea will help alot and if it is a life saver for an AI Portugal then I reccomend that it be added to the AGCEEP, even though it is an AI cheat, because it will make such a big difference gameplaywise to have a functional Portugal almost every game. Comments anyone?
Update: Isaac Brock helped modify this event.
Last edited by idontlikeforms; 11-08-2004 at 22:54.
Of course
The first event should have the triggers of Portugal not owning either Argarve or Oporto. Otherwise this event can trigger when Portugal drops their connection or can't be subbed for, and remain in effect for the rest of the game. This event can then directly trigger the second one which will be ai=yes in the trigger. This way both Spain and Portugal have to drop simultaneously for it to fire.
The province ownership trigger is redundant with the "province =" line.
Why does one event die in 1820 and the other in 1515? If you do this as I suggested this of course becomes irrelevant.
Overall there is still the question of preventing this from happening when someone drops. Could be quite annoying, but I'm not sure how to handle it.
" Ignoring the root causes of terror, turning a blind eye to the oppression and despair of millions may be easier in the short run, but we learned on September the 11th, if violence and fanaticism are not opposed at their source, they will find us where we live." GWB
Sick of only the big boys getting the Dutch revolts? Try the Dutch Revolts Mod
But my point is that if (human) Portugal, at any time, loses his connection the ai will take over and the event will trigger. If (human) Spain has taken provinces from human Portugal, and at any time after this he loses his connection, the ai will take over Spain and the second event will trigger.
It would be much better if the event were designed so that both countries must be AI at the same time.
" Ignoring the root causes of terror, turning a blind eye to the oppression and despair of millions may be easier in the short run, but we learned on September the 11th, if violence and fanaticism are not opposed at their source, they will find us where we live." GWB
Sick of only the big boys getting the Dutch revolts? Try the Dutch Revolts Mod
Portugal would have to drop at any time between 1419 and 1515, even if SPain doesn't own any Portuguese provinces and then Spain would have to drop at any time after that.
Use "command = {type = trigger which = xxxxx}"
in the first event, add the ownership triggers in the Portuguese event, remove the date from the second event so that it can only happen when triggered by Portugal.
" Ignoring the root causes of terror, turning a blind eye to the oppression and despair of millions may be easier in the short run, but we learned on September the 11th, if violence and fanaticism are not opposed at their source, they will find us where we live." GWB
Sick of only the big boys getting the Dutch revolts? Try the Dutch Revolts Mod
Code:#Portuguese AI check# event = { id = 260089 trigger = { ai = yes NOT = { owned = { province = 434 data = -1 } } } random = no country = POR name = "Portuguese AI check" desc = "Portuguese AI check" style = 2 date = { year = 1419 } offset = 30 deathdate = { day = 1 month = january year = 1820 } action_a ={ name = "Portuguese AI check" command = { type = trigger which = 260088 } } } #AI help for a defeated Portugal# event = { id = 260088 trigger = { ai = yes } random = no province = 434 style = 1 name = "Vassalization in exchange for Oporto and Algarve" desc = "Vassalization in exchange for Oporto and Algarve" action_a = { name = "Keep Portugal alive" command = { type = secedeprovince which = POR value = 434 } #Oporto command = { type = secedeprovince which = POR value = 442 } #Algarve command = { type = vassal which = POR } } }
" Ignoring the root causes of terror, turning a blind eye to the oppression and despair of millions may be easier in the short run, but we learned on September the 11th, if violence and fanaticism are not opposed at their source, they will find us where we live." GWB
Sick of only the big boys getting the Dutch revolts? Try the Dutch Revolts Mod
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote