• 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.
The "% of the time we prefer to establish a tradingpost if both are good." of Portugal's Duarte.ai file should be chnaged from 50% to 90%.

What's happening is often the Portguese AI after colonizing Cape Verde is then colonizing Nouadibuh or Tassaret instead of TPing them. This is costing Portugal a fortune. These provinces aree hard to colonize. They cost alot of money and have high costs per attempt too. Often Portugal will explore all the way down to Leone but still only be colonizing 1 of these 2 provinces, because it started colonizing them some time ago and just hasn't finished them yet. In fact it is usually just sending one colonist to 1 of these 2 provinces every year. If Portugal gets 100 colonists to successfully settle on one of these 2 provinces you can flush their colonization efforts down the toilet for the next 15 years or so.

This is real bad for the Portuguese AI as they spend a ton of money getting 1 of these 2 colonies up to 1,000 pop. And its bad once its up too as they get so little for these provinces as cities and get a nasty tech penalty hit for having another city.

I've pinpointed the time when most of these bad colonizations are beggining and it's usually during the reign of Duarte(1433-1438). I think what's happening is that the AI finishes colonizing the Azores and cape Verde and then wants to make another colnony instead of a TP, but the problem is the Duarte AI is not alowed to sail past Louga, so the AI often has to choose between Tassaret and Nouadibuh, if these are the only provinces Portugal knows on the west African coast by the time it wants to colonize again.

What it is doing once the colonization of 1 of these 2 provinces is started is that the AI is refusing to colonize or TP until it is finished and it often is taking a long time. It could be 1465 before Portugal even gets another city up if it tries to grab 1 of these 2 provinces to make into a city.

I've run the game with 90% instead of 50% and the AI is just TPing instead of wasting money on a city in 1 of these 2 provinces. Then once Duarte dies, Afonso V's AI takes over and the prefered areas for expansion are extended further down the west African coast, so it will usually just try to make a different province into a city by this time.
 
Norrefeldt said:
Should absolutely be changed.

Unfortunately the AI can still get bogged down colonizing these 2 provinces at later dates, but at least it is an improvement. Besides Portugal was colonizing Madeira and the Azores during Duarte's reign. The Azores are already colonized by this time in the game and the EU2 makers apperently never thought Madeira was important to make it in the game. So there is no justifiable reason for the Portuguese AI to be colonizing at this time anyways. It should just be TPing.

The EU2 crew really needs to let modders alter ToT shields, because this would help us immensely. And if they would let us add provinces to the game, and change the names of provinces, we could make things so much better. If they could let us make our own commodities and swicth comodities through events, thsi would be great too. How difficult is it for the EU2 crew to do this? Do you know?
 
Last edited:
From http://www.kanada.net/alluvial/gold.html
Gold from West Africa found its way into Europe as early as the tenth century and probably before. Most of this gold came by Sahara caravan to Barbary and thence to Europe, the original sources being the kingdoms of Ghana, Mali, and Songhai. It is said that much of this gold came from a region known as Wangara (a tributary of the Senegal River and noted for its placers), but considering the aurificity of West Africa it seems likely that the gold had a much more widespread source. In any event, one of the motives of the Portuguese voyages inspired by Henry the Navigator was to ascertain and exploit the west African gold. The Portuguese were soon followed by a host of English, French, Dutch, Danish, and Spanish entrepreneurs. It is thought that annually more than a quarter of a million ounces of gold reached Europe during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries from African sources. Based mainly on native workings, numerous gold deposits, both bedrock and placer, were rediscovered during the latter part of the nineteenth century throughout Senegal, Guinea, Sierra Leone, Ghana, Nigeria, and the other nations of the Gold Coast. The Precambrian auriferous Tarkwa conglomerates of Ghana were developed in a modern way during the period 1876-1882 by Pierre Bonnat, the father of modern gold mining in the Gold Coast. In 1895, Ashanti Goldfields Corporation began work in the Obuasi district of Ghana, developing the Ashanti and other mines, which have produced the largest proportion of gold since 1900 in the countries of the Gold Coast. All of these deposits are of Precambrian age.

250.000 ounces * 28,349 g/ounce = 7.01 tons / year

Another source lists the gold production from the New World per decade:
http://www.geology.ucdavis.edu/~cowen/~GEL115/115CH8.html
DECADE Value (million pesos) GOLD (tonnes) SILVER (t)

1503*1510 1.18 5.0 0

1511*1520 2.18 9.2 0

1521*1530 1.17 4.9 0

1531*1540 5.58 14.5 86

1541*1550 10.46 25.0 178

1551*1560 17.86 42.6 303

1561-1570 25.34 11.5 943

1571*1580 29.15 9.4 1119

1581*1590 53.20 12.1 2103

1591*1600 69.60 19.5 2708

The importance of Peru is seen by comparing the last two tables: all the gold coming from the Americas in the 1530s came from Peru because every other source had been worked out, or rather, the labor force that had been producing it was "worked out" literally to death. The Spanish regarded the Indian slave labor force as free, and in the end this threatened to prevent further exploitation of the New World when all the looting was over, and new production depended on mining.

A tonne of gold was worth about 10*12 tonnes of silver, so that gold represented over half the value of the bullion until the 1560s. The early peak in gold production marks the development of gold mines in Colombia, behind Cartagena.
Does anyone know the silver equivalent of one ton of gold at this time? I know it says 1012 (?) above, but then the rest of that sentence doesn't make sense. (When I read the page on Internet it said 1012, when I had cut it and pasted it here it said 10*12? Strange.) What is not accounted for here is the production costs. The American deposits were mined by indigenous slaves, while I guess most of the West African gold had to be bought in one way or the other.
 
Norrefeldt said:
From http://www.kanada.net/alluvial/gold.html


250.000 ounces * 28,349 g/ounce = 7.01 tons / year

Another source lists the gold production from the New World per decade:
http://www.geology.ucdavis.edu/~cowen/~GEL115/115CH8.html
Does anyone know the silver equivalent of one ton of gold at this time? I know it says 1012 (?) above, but then the rest of that sentence doesn't make sense. (When I read the page on Internet it said 1012, when I had cut it and pasted it here it said 10*12? Strange.) What is not accounted for here is the production costs. The American deposits were mined by indigenous slaves, while I guess most of the West African gold had to be bought in one way or the other.

I think it means 10.12. 1 gold ounce per 10.12 ounces of silver. Then what he's saying would make sense.

I've added this up and the gold from the new world would amount to about 1.55 tons a year. The silver however would be just under 10 tons of equivalent value so that totals about 11.5 tons of gold and silver of equivalent value. Elmina we know has about 3/4 ton coming from just it. With more gold coming from numerous other places. Also you got to figure that probably half the gold coming from Mali's 2 provinces was probably going to Timbuktu and not Portugal. So I think it's a safe estimate that west Africa had about 1.5 tons of gold anually with no silver of course.



So let's add the value of the mines of Peru

Azuay = 5 + 70
Ayacucho = 5 + 70
Potosi = 5 + 95
Tucuman = 5 + 95
Cuzco = 5 + 95
This totals = 450 value
And the value of mexico's gold and silver
Jalisco = 5 + 55
Saltillo = 5 +55
Michoagan = 5 + 75
Zacetecas = 5 + 95
this totals = 300 value
with Peru's = 750

Compared to West Africa's
Walata = 10
Jenne = 10
Leone = 40 + 10
This totals 70 value

This gives a ratio 10.5 to 1
The ration needs to be just 7.66 to 1

If Mali's mine's are upped by 10 each that will give West Africa a value of 90
and the ratio would then be about 7.8 to 1 This should be optimal. If the figures we've been digging up are acurate than making Mali's 2 mines value 20 instead of 10 each is justified
 
Norrefeldt said:
250.000 ounces * 28,349 g/ounce = 7.01 tons / year

No. It's 31.104 g/ounce (or 31,104 for Europeans :))


And of course there is still the question of whether it is metric tons or imperial tons.

32,150 ounces (troy) = 1 ton (metric)
32,666 ounces (troy) = 1 ton (imperial)

I do think the analysis is pretty good, but it ought to be applied to European gold production too.
 
The HC votes on the Arguin and São Tomé events are about to be concluded. The Arguin event already have 4 votes agains it, out of 6 cast so far, and will not be included in it's current form. The São Tomé event is still undecided, with two votes left to be cast.
 
I've noticed that the AI will still DOW with warmongering settings of 0. For Portugal this resulted in it DOWing the Kongo and Benin. This shouldn't be happening. I reccomend setting the relations of Portugal with countries like these to 100 in the nation file.

I'd also like to point out that I've experimented with this technique often with other countries too. What happens is the relations kick in as soon as they come into contact with an unknown nation given previous relation settings. This is a very effective way to inhibit ahistorical developement, like unwanted wars etc, that we don't want. I highly reccomend that this technique be used often in all situations that it could help.

You just add lines like these to the nation file.
relation = { tag = KON value = 100 }
relation = { tag = BEN value = 100 }
 
Well since the HC has set a precedent by vetoing my 2 event proposals for Portugal and west Africa it seems right to me to apply these same premises to other events that are similar, therefore I propose this event here be deleted. =
Code:
#Sugar in Azores#
event = { 
	id = 18026 
        random = no 
        country = POR 
	trigger = { owned = { province = 823 data = -1 } }
        style = 1 
        date = { day = 1 month = january year = 1452 } 
        offset = 25
	deathdate = { day = 1 month = january year = 1490 }
	name = "EVENTNAME18026" 
        desc = "EVENTHIST18026"
        action_a = { 
               	name = "ACTIONNAME18026A" 
               	command = { type = provincetax which = 823 value = 1 } 
		command = { type = treasury value = 30 }
		} 
       }
This event is very similar to mine that didn't make it into the 1.33. I propose instead that the Azores tax simply be raised by 1 in the 1419.inc file. I also propose that the tax of Fernando Po also be raised by 1 since the EU2 makers apparently made it low assuming incorrectly that slaves should be the main commodity there. When in fact it had large sugar plantations. 2 seems a bit low to me. Portugal did after all grow alot of sugar there. Afterall this was one of the reasons I made my event proposal for Sao Tome in the first place.

Sugar being grown in the Azores certainly isn't a bigger historical event than my 2 that were banned.

Also I would reccommend that the tax value of all the Carribean islands except for Jamaica, Puerto Rico, and the provinces on Cuba and Hispaniola aslo be lowered to 3. I see no reason why these islands should get 5 or 6 tax apiece. They were rather small islands after all and presently Fernando Po gets 2 only. I'm unaware that they produced sugar more heavily than the provinces I reccommended be omitted from this reduction. Their getting 5 or 6 tax apiece isn't really good for gameplay anyways as human Spanish players go out of their way to TP them all before Britain and France show up on account of their high tax value. Also this will discourage a human Portuguese player from going there early too as these islands are investment/profit wise the best set of provinces in the game to be colonized. This adjustment should curb the strong incentive for ahistorical gameplay here.

I would also reccommend reducing Mauritius and Bourbon to 4 as these islands were prety heavily colonized. I think it's fair they should be slightly more valuable than the east Carribean ones.
 
idontlikeforms said:
Also I would reccommend that the tax value of all the Carribean islands except for Jamaica, Puerto Rico, and the provinces on Cuba and Hispaniola aslo be lowered to 3. I see no reason why these islands should get 5 or 6 tax apiece. They were rather small islands after all and presently Fernando Po gets 2 only. I'm unaware that they produced sugar more heavily than the provinces I reccommended be omitted from this reduction. Their getting 5 or 6 tax apiece isn't really good for gameplay anyways as human Spanish players go out of their way to TP them all before Britain and France show up on account of their high tax value. Also this will discourage a human Portuguese player from going there early too as these islands are investment/profit wise the best set of provinces in the game to be colonized. This adjustment should curb the strong incentive for ahistorical gameplay here.
Way back there was some talk about doing this and changing the tax value by event when those islands historical became profitabe for sugar/coffee/tobacco etc plantation.
 
idontlikeforms said:
So let's add the value of the mines of Peru

Azuay = 5 + 70
Ayacucho = 5 + 70
Potosi = 5 + 95
Tucuman = 5 + 95
Cuzco = 5 + 95
This totals = 450 value
And the value of mexico's gold and silver
Jalisco = 5 + 55
Saltillo = 5 +55
Michoagan = 5 + 75
Zacetecas = 5 + 95
this totals = 300 value
with Peru's = 750

Compared to West Africa's
Walata = 10
Jenne = 10
Leone = 40 + 10
This totals 70 value

This gives a ratio 10.5 to 1
The ration needs to be just 7.66 to 1

If Mali's mine's are upped by 10 each that will give West Africa a value of 90
and the ratio would then be about 7.8 to 1 This should be optimal. If the figures we've been digging up are acurate than making Mali's 2 mines value 20 instead of 10 each is justified

I'd rather reduce the value of the CA/SA mines than up the value of WA mines. Too much money can be made of it already.
 
idontlikeforms said:
So let's add the value of the mines of Peru....

This gives a ratio 10.5 to 1
The ration needs to be just 7.66 to 1

I have sources with somewhat different numbers for the silver from the Americas. However, the source posted above appears to be for silver remissions to Spain. Setting aside the issue of smuggling which is probably quite small until quite late in the period, by 1600 a large proportion (1/4-1/3) of the American production went across the Pacific on the Manila Galleon. I think the discrepancy here isn't as glaring as it looks to be at first glance.

Well since the HC has set a precedent by vetoing my 2 event proposals for Portugal and west Africa it seems right to me to apply these same premises to other events that are similar, therefore I propose this event here be deleted.

This event is very similar to mine that didn't make it into the 1.33. I propose instead that the Azores tax simply be raised by 1 in the 1419.inc file. I also propose that the tax of Fernando Po also be raised by 1 since the EU2 makers apparently made it low assuming incorrectly that slaves should be the main commodity there. When in fact it had large sugar plantations. 2 seems a bit low to me. Portugal did after all grow alot of sugar there. After all this was one of the reasons I made my event proposal for Sao Tome in the first place.
There is one argument for the Azores event (which I basically agree probabnly should go), and that is that the Azores were the first place where widescale sugar production took place. Were they more of a model for the Brazilian sugar economy than Sao Tome? I have no idea, but they did precede it.

Also I would reccommend that the tax value of all the Carribean islands except for Jamaica, Puerto Rico, and the provinces on Cuba and Hispaniola aslo be lowered to 3. I see no reason why these islands should get 5 or 6 tax apiece. They were rather small islands after all and presently Fernando Po gets 2 only. I'm unaware that they produced sugar more heavily than the provinces I reccommended be omitted from this reduction. Their getting 5 or 6 tax apiece isn't really good for gameplay anyways as human Spanish players go out of their way to TP them all before Britain and France show up on account of their high tax value. Also this will discourage a human Portuguese player from going there early too as these islands are investment/profit wise the best set of provinces in the game to be colonized. This adjustment should curb the strong incentive for ahistorical gameplay here.
I agree that this issue needs to be considered, but I think it warrants it's own thread. If you don't want to I'll start one.
 
I found something else in looking for info comparing Sao Tome and the Caribbean islands. J. G. Frynas, G. Wood & R.M.S. Soares de Oliveira

Colonised by the Portuguese in the late fifteenth century, STP soon became the world’s largest producer of sugar . Yet, high rainfalls ensured that the sugar was of low quality, leading to the islands soon being eclipsed by higher quality producers in the Caribbean and South America. A 1530 slave rebellion, and raids by French buccaneers, resulted in the near-total collapse of sugar production. However, a plantation economy was re-established in the nineteenth century centring on cocoa and coffee.

and

Most observers have noted that STP’s history and political economy make it more akin to the Caribbean world then than to that of sub-Saharan Africa, where it is situated. Henriques writes of it in unambiguously singular a manner, emphasising its character as a « «novel society »» shaped by the « «rehearsal »» of new plants, sources of profit, techniques, forms of labour exploitation and forced importation of men. See I. Castro HENRIQUES, São Tomé e Príncipe :: A invençâo de uma Sociedade, Lisbon, Vega, 2000.
 
idontlikeforms said:
Sugar being grown in the Azores certainly isn't a bigger historical event than my 2 that were banned.

This event has a curious history. It was at first to give Portugal a refinery so that they could go ahead in trade tech. The Azores were chosen because they were the least likely (Tago excepted) to be taken in a war. The "Prince Henry" event came later, and the decision was that two manufacturies were too much. So the sugar event was scaled back to give the tax boost and cash.
 
Isaac Brock said:
There is one argument for the Azores event (which I basically agree probabnly should go), and that is that the Azores were the first place where widescale sugar production took place. Were they more of a model for the Brazilian sugar economy than Sao Tome? I have no idea, but they did precede it.

No the Brazilian plantation system is a direct decendant of the Sao Tome system and some its founding fathers so to speak were former Sao Tome plantation owners who left with the slave revolt you have an excerpt mentioning.

I've thought about making an event for that but am concerned that the HC would just shoot it down too as it seems unless an event can be made to have a big impact on gameplay no matter how important the history is, it may not meet the requirements set in the precedent of my 2 events being axed.

Isaac Brock said:
I agree that this issue needs to be considered, but I think it warrants it's own thread. If you don't want to I'll start one.

Well if you make one you know where I stand on it. I'd suggest just pasting my proposals in this thread over as a quote in the new thread. I'm very interested in whether or not these east Carribean islands really had sugar plantations on a scale that would justify 6 tax as other heavily agricultural provinces in the new world that are known for their large plantations often have a lower tax value. As far as I know the answer was no. Perhaps it might be good to raise a few of these a little. But as I've pointed out Cuba, Hispaniola, Peurto Rico, and Jamaica probably are justified in recieving their high taxes.
 
I believe that the high tax values are to ensure that the ownership of the islands is not a brake on tech advance, or even to speed it up. It makes them worth a fight, as well.
 
Having an event for Arguin isn't a bad idea in itself. It should be good for Portuguese trade, if not make it into a Portuguese cultured colony. Here's a suggestion.

Code:
#Settlement of Arguin#
event = {
id = 260049
trigger = { 
	owned = { province = 802 data = -1 } #Nouachkott
	control = { province = 802 data = -1 } 
	discovered = 1056 #the sea next to Nouachkott
	}
random = no
country = POR
name = "Settlement of Arguin"
desc = "In 1443 the Portuguese discovered a small island off the African coast and shortly thereafter built a fort there to divert some of the trans-Saharan trade into Portuguese hands."
style = 2
date = { day = 1 month = january year = 1443 }
offset = 90
deathdate = { day = 1 month = january year = 1660 } 
action_a ={ 
name = "A new market"
command = { type = treasury value = 30 }
command = { type = merchants value = 3 }
command = { type = trade value = 100 }
}
}
I changed the text since there will be no fort in the game anymore. A b-option also makes less sense. Feel free to suggest alterations.
 
Norrefeldt said:
Having an event for Arguin isn't a bad idea in itself. It should be good for Portuguese trade, if not make it into a Portuguese cultured colony. Here's a suggestion.

Code:
#Settlement of Arguin#
event = {
id = 260049
trigger = { 
	owned = { province = 802 data = -1 } #Nouachkott
	control = { province = 802 data = -1 } 
	discovered = 1056 #the sea next to Nouachkott
	}
random = no
country = POR
name = "Settlement of Arguin"
desc = "In 1443 the Portuguese discovered a small island off the African coast and shortly thereafter built a fort there to divert some of the trans-Saharan trade into Portuguese hands."
style = 2
date = { day = 1 month = january year = 1443 }
offset = 90
deathdate = { day = 1 month = january year = 1660 } 
action_a ={ 
name = "A new market"
command = { type = treasury value = 30 }
command = { type = merchants value = 3 }
command = { type = trade value = 100 }
}
}
I changed the text since there will be no fort in the game anymore. A b-option also makes less sense. Feel free to suggest alterations.

I don't really care make it if you like, but make not at war 1 of the triggers for AI benefit. The main point of Arguin is that it has a stone fortification. Withought that it would probably have failed.
 
EUnderhill said:
I believe that the high tax values are to ensure that the ownership of the islands is not a brake on tech advance, or even to speed it up. It makes them worth a fight, as well.

Yes but unfortunately they encourage alot of ahistorical developement as well, not to mention that they are exagerations in comparison to other new world province tax values.
 
I been doing some studying of AGCEEP events and this one here has some problems.
Code:
#The Dowry of Catherine of Bragança#
event = {

	id = 21079
	trigger = {
		OR = {
			exists = HOL
			exists = SPA
			}
		NOT = {
			vassal = { country = SPA country = POR }
			}
		exists = ENG
		NOT = {
			war = { country = POR country = ENG }
			}
		OR = {
			atwar = yes
			NOT = { stability = 2 }
			}
		OR = {
			owned = { province = 548 data = -1 }
			owned = { province = 732 data = -1 }
			}
		NOT = { event = 21080 }
		}
	random = no
	country = POR
	name = "EVENTNAME21079"
	desc = "EVENTHIST21079"
	style = 3

	date = { day = 23 month = june year = 1661 }

	action_a ={
		name = "ACTIONNAME21079A"
		command = { type = secedeprovince which = ENG value = 548 }
		command = { type = secedeprovince which = ENG value = 732 }
		command = { type = stability value = 1 }
		command = { type = relation which = ENG value = 100 }
		command = { type = trigger which = 21081 }
	}

	action_b ={
		name = "ACTIONNAME21079B"
		command = { type = treasury value = -200 }
		command = { type = relation which = ENG value = 50 }
		command = { type = trigger which = 21082 }
	}

	action_c ={
		name = "ACTIONNAME21079C"
		command = { type = stability value = -1 }
		command = { type = relation which = ENG value = -50 }
		command = { type = trigger which = 21083 }
	}
}
This event theoretically gives Tangiers and/or Bombay to England. How ever due to this trigger here,
Code:
OR = {
			atwar = yes
			NOT = { stability = 2 }
it often doesn't fire. The date is a one time thing so if on that specific date Portugal is not at war nor has a stability of 1 or lower the event simply won't fire. I myself haven't seen it fire once yet. This event is a great way to curb Portugal from being to powerful late game. Something that we really need to bear in mind as many of the changes I'm proposing for it will indeed make Portugal more poweful by this point in the game.

I personally think there should be no B or C option at all. Although I realize that may draw complaints so at least a B option should force Portugal to pay alot of money or something like that. Also I can't find the event it supposedly triggers in Portugal's or England's event files. Asfar as I know it doesn't exist.

I propose the trigger I pointed out above be reomoved.

Also there is another event just like this one that is just below it in the portuguese event file. It's basically the same thing and fires later if this one doesn't, except that there is no cessessions in it. But it's a 1 shot deal too and has the exact same triggers. I think it's unnecessary and I propose we scrap it.

Another thing why doesn't it have a royal marriage in one of the command lines. That is after all taking place here. I propose that be added to all command lines and I see no reason why there should be a C command at all.