Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

In Nomine - Sneakpeak #5 - 30th of April 2008

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.
Europa Universalis III 46143 EU3 - After Action Reports (AAR)
Show only dev responses
Personally, i dont stick to the Historical path generally, i prefer the 'What If' scenarios that you can play out, which is why i like the option for historic play...and turn it off, lol.

Also, how can you say that the graphics arent up to snuff? The new map looks great, (is it f12?)

You want great graphics, you should have gone for an unpatched MMG2 version, having giant soldiers instead of ships was 'interesting'.
 
Is a release date known for In Nomine?

I hope it's in mid June.
 
i have pre-ordered on gamersgate, but i havent been given a reg code yet
 
skippermonkey said:
Also, how can you say that the graphics arent up to snuff? The new map looks great, (is it f12?)
Click to expand...

I was commenting on the graphics of the original version. And how can I say it? Well, it's just my opinion.

You want great graphics, you should have gone for an unpatched MMG2 version, having giant soldiers instead of ships was 'interesting'.
Click to expand...

What on earth is MMG2??
 
sorry for bumping the thread....

Captain Frakas said:
I trusted that the old korean doesn't have the knowledge of mobile fonts. I was wrong.



It will be difficult to explain because of my bad english, IMHO, Europe beneficied to

-many many many more states. No true empire that can dominate the other. great rivality => economic competitivity spirit ; military competitivity spirit.

-A lot of european countries are naval oriented, and use the sea as a trade roads. A lot of private initiative in that sector so the states can't decide to stop this policy (as it was the case in China). => economic competitivity spirit ; naval competitivity spirit.

-The ottoman domination of the Mediteranean sea have triggered the need for peoples from Portugal and Genoa to explore the oceans for find new roads and new wealth sources. => best vessels for the oceans that can have many more great cannons (like Caraques and Kogghes) => sea superiority.

-In eastern country, the portugese trade also created wealth for the local powers, so nobody have really try to stop them to create trading post (it wasn't see as a first imperialism steps by the local powers).

-A lot of innovative capitalists burgerers. The european states doesn't really try to "control" them. (But have supported them).

-No technological speciality that permited a mix. of the various technologic paths.


While others civilisations have at this time suffers great political penality.
Click to expand...

I know I am getting in on this late and that it is kind of thread jacking (hopefully the mods will start a thread for this) but I have to chime in. I think that both sides in this argument are missing the main point that Marx add to this discussion. That both money, and thought, are responsible for progress. Without one you can not have the leisure to pursue the other. Money allows for less time in subsistence and more in the pursuits of the mind. The funny thing is that you also have to have a culture that will support the idea. As Adam Smith fans would suggest that is competition. Not necessarily just of goods, but also ideas. If your schools all have the same thoughts, without influence from others, they tend to stagnate.

If you look at the why when analyzing the falls of the Caliphate, the Ming, the like it is due to two major factors. The first of which is the inability to adopt new ideas, which is also the most important. Without this ability the "progress" of others will not always be adopted and they will leave you behind. The second is the fact that the more ideas change around you, and your policy is to reject them, the more that the lower class will revolt against you. This of course tends to have a spread effect.

If you look at the rise of the Arab/Muslim/North Africa empire you can see all of these elements at play. Because those empires had a Romanistic Assimilation policy they progressed faster. Ideas could be adopted by others in the Empire and if they worked they came up to a national type level. If they didn't they probably even died to history. The fact that they were also in contact with so many ideas help them to progress at a faster rate then those around them.

The reason for the fall was that of religion. It was not so much the Muslim religion, due to the fact that they believed in Church/State division, if you choose to call it that, much earlier. As long as you were of the monotheistic religions anyway. Of course it also helped the Empire with taxes on those that were not Muslim. The fall came when they starting hitting inside the "Christian Zone". Of course this thread is becoming something it is not so I will stop there.

Sorry for highjacking the topic...

EDIT: Oh and these are all things that the game is trying to accomplish and that is why I love it. You can seriously try to play out the progress theory in action. Great Additions.
 
phillosopher said:
I think that both sides in this argument are missing the main point that Marx add to this discussion. That both money, and thought, are responsible for progress. Without one you can not have the leisure to pursue the other.
Click to expand...

Are you referring to Karl Marx or someone’s moniker on this forum? If it’s the former I have to say your case is fundamentally flawed in that Marx’s main thesis was that power controlled the money (and means of production) and not the other way around. But yes this is wildly off the thread topic. :D
 
forlath said:
Are you referring to Karl Marx or someone’s moniker on this forum? If it’s the former I have to say your case is fundamentally flawed in that Marx’s main thesis was that power controlled the money (and means of production) and not the other way around. But yes this is wildly off the thread topic. :D
Click to expand...

Yes but what are the implications of his thesis. It is that money creates leisure, which creates progress. His thesis was that progress would be never ending if the forces that held the means of production would allow more of the top money (or in the best case all the money or no money at all) flow down so as to have low work needs.
 
Johan said:
In Nomine introduces a new concept called decisions. (...)

Here is an example of how decisions are scripted (...) .

Code: 
	establish_russian_patriarchate = {
		potential = {
			tag = RUS
			NOT = { has_country_modifier = russian_patriarchate }
			religion = orthodox
		}
		allow = {
			war = no
			NOT = { 151 = { owned_by = BYZ } }
			prestige = 0.2
			innovative_narrowminded = 2
		}
		effect = {
			add_country_modifier = {
				name = "russian_patriarchate"
				duration = -1
			}		}
		ai_will_do = {
			factor = 1
		}
	}
Click to expand...

As I am trying to convert many of my HRE institutions into decisions, I have some questions for you:

What does "ai_will_do = { factor = 1 }" mean?

Does it mean that the AI will do this in 100% of cases, if allowed?

Will the AI ever decide NOT to make a decision it is allowed to make?

Does factor = 0.5 mean it will do it half the time, but refrain from doing it, the other half?

If so, does the AI make its decision once, as soon as it is allowed to; and, if it decides to refrain from making the decision, will it rethink its decision, at a later date? Or is it a one-time only dice roll, yes/no?

I am also going on the assumption that modifiers can be applied, and that they will be multiplicative (same as in the example of the chance for the new advisor types to spawn, where 0*1 = never). Is that a correct assumption?

Any specific answer to any or all of the above will be much appreciated, since that would take tons of guesswork away from the conversion effort, and would make my life infinitely easier.
 
Helius said:
As I am trying to convert many of my HRE institutions into decisions, I have some questions for you:

What does "ai_will_do = { factor = 1 }" mean?

Does it mean that the AI will do this in 100% of cases, if allowed?

Will the AI ever decide NOT to make a decision it is allowed to make?

Does factor = 0.5 mean it will do it half the time, but refrain from doing it, the other half?

If so, does the AI make its decision once, as soon as it is allowed to; and, if it decides to refrain from making the decision, will it rethink its decision, at a later date? Or is it a one-time only dice roll, yes/no?

I am also going on the assumption that modifiers can be applied, and that they will be multiplicative (same as in the example of the chance for the new advisor types to spawn, where 0*1 = never). Is that a correct assumption?

Any specific answer to any or all of the above will be much appreciated, since that would take tons of guesswork away from the conversion effort, and would make my life infinitely easier.
Click to expand...

if ai_will_do is in total >0 it will do it.
 
mandead said:
What goodies will you shower us with today, Johan? :eek: :D :cool: ;)
Click to expand...

Johan is probably honouring the sabbath day by sleeping off a massive hangover like the rest of us. I just hope tomorrow is not a bank holiday in Sweden - it is here :) but I want an update dammit.

EDIT: Colour me bollocks, an update.
 
Last edited:
Balor said:
if ai_will_do is in total >0 it will do it.
Click to expand...

Thank you!

Does that mean that we can define conditions under which the AI will NEVER do something, by adding something like this?

Code: 
	ai_will_do = {
		factor = 1
		modifier = {	# defining excluding conditions
			factor = 0
			OR = {
				any_neighbor_province = { owned_by = THIS is_core = RLD }
				any_neighbor_province = { owned_by = THIS NOT = { is_core = THIS } }
				owner = { NOT = { ADM = 8 } }
				owner = { NOT = { DIP = 8 } }
			}
		}
	}
 
Helius said:
Thank you!

Does that mean that we can define conditions under which the AI will NEVER do something, by adding something like this?

Code: 
	ai_will_do = {
		factor = 1
		modifier = {	# defining excluding conditions
			factor = 0
			OR = {
				any_neighbor_province = { owned_by = THIS is_core = RLD }
				any_neighbor_province = { owned_by = THIS NOT = { is_core = THIS } }
				owner = { NOT = { ADM = 8 } }
				owner = { NOT = { DIP = 8 } }
			}
		}
	}
Click to expand...

yes
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back