Epigoni mod

[Hardradi]

Sure thing. I am starting to work on it again today.

Good, remember to take small steps.

In order to test if it works you can compare tech costs for naval tech with that of the other techs by using the tooltip for the tech progress bars. When I tried this all techs had the same cost except for naval tech (which was more expensive).
Not sure about 10%, a human player could probably handle that no problem but testing would have to determine if it works for the AI. Personally I always thought a tech malus was a bit wrong in the first place. I can see how standardization would mean less innovation. But on the other hand standardization also means it's a lot easier to switch out old components across the board so to speak.
Imo it's also a bit counter intuitive to give Carthage a naval tech malus compared to Rome. On the other hand I don't know any better malus and it does seem to me most decisions should have both good and bad consequences. I know too few of the modifiers for eu:rome to be able suggest a more fitting penalty (though I think it might be worth it to try out more modifiers from eu3 as some of them evidently work in rome as well).
Wikipedia has articles about the punic military that seems good enough for inspiration but I'm not able to determine anything about it's validity due to my lacking general knowledge of the time and/or place

An alternative penalty would have to be something other than a naval penalty. There just arent enough naval modifiers. As you said the innovation penalty stands for reason in a certain way and I guess this is proved by history in the case of the Carthaginians. The Romans innovated with the corvus the Carthaginains floundered and were eventually crushed at sea.

Can the cost of ships be lowered to 5? Right now, it is almost impossible for a small state to build a navy. There are several historical precendts for small states being able to build a large navy (Athens, Aetolian League).

Second, I read on wikipedia that Acarnania was part of Epirus, until the Epirote confederacy was set up, at which time it asserted it's independence. Aetolia also claimed the eastern portion of it, so perhaps Aetolia should be given a core on it?

Changing the cost of ships to 5 can be done easily in defines.txt. I am a bit worried about how it would affect the AI, would it spam out lots of ships and then not be able to support the maintenace costs. Its an interesting thought since it shouldnt imbalance anything else apart from making it easier to launch seaborne invasions. Perhaps someone could test it first?

On Acarnania, in 314 the Acarnanians under the direction of Cassander established a confederation of newly founded cities. The three cities were Suaria, Agrinon and Stratos the largest. Age old frontier disputes with Aetolia culminated in the partition of their country between Aetolia and Epirus in 243BC. The Epirote part of Acarnania recovered its independence in 231 after the end of the Aeacid dynasty in Epirus and set up a new confederacy (which included Leucas). Upon their declaration of independence their territory was invaded by the Aetolian League in 231BC. In desperate straights the newly reformed confederacy appealed to Demetrius the II of Macedon for help...

It would have to be split into two territories to represent this but this would make them more powerful than the Aetolians at the start which would be wrong. The cores are a good idea.

[Emperor Walter]

Changing the cost of ships to 5 can be done easily in defines.txt. I am a bit worried about how it would affect the AI, would it spam out lots of ships and then not be able to support the maintenace costs. Its an interesting thought since it shouldnt imbalance anything else apart from making it easier to launch seaborne invasions. Perhaps someone could test it first?

I can test it.

On Acarnania, in 314 the Acarnanians under the direction of Cassander established a confederation of newly founded cities. The three cities were Suaria, Agrinon and Stratos the largest. Age old frontier disputes with Aetolia culminated in the partition of their country between Aetolia and Epirus in 243BC. The Epirote part of Acarnania recovered its independence in 231 after the end of the Aeacid dynasty in Epirus and set up a new confederacy (which included Leucas). Upon their declaration of independence their territory was invaded by the Aetolian League in 231BC. In desperate straights the newly reformed confederacy appealed to Demetrius the II of Macedon for help...

It would have to be split into two territories to represent this but this would make them more powerful than the Aetolians at the start which would be wrong. The cores are a good idea.

[Emperor Walter]

Okay, I tested it and here were the effects:

1. No particular out of the ordinary abnormalities in regards to country expansion. Carthage did invade Epirus, but they already start with a large navy. Most countries with access to wood built up ships at a level mildly higher than normal. I suspect this is due to the fact that Ships are still one of the most expensive units in the game.

2. Particular caution in diplomacy was required in regards to states capable of building ships. These states now had the capability to build a navy capable of mounting an invasion of your homeland, rather than Naval powers simply leading to an endless blockade followed by a white peace.

3. This leads to the development of a new type of strategy-building a medium to small sized army and a large to medium sized navy, and using it to attack coastal regions. This brings about the formation of an empire built out of scattered, strategic regions. This is historically accurate-e.g., the Phonecians, and the Athens. States you are allied to with a powerful navy are now able to actually help you instead of just sitting there.

[Trin Tragula]

Cheaper ships might also make the storm event less harsh. I once lost over 300 ships to that event... The naval power balance was shifted away entirely for 50 years or so.

If you are redoing the map I would also like to place a low priority wish on increasing the amount of sea zones. Controlling the seas with just one megastack seem too easy at present (and I am guessing that sea zones don't increase the strain on the engine in nearly the same degree as land provinces do due to them not having any people or buildings in them and thus significantly fewer calculations). I would also argue that the more new ports you add the more the need increases for more sea zones.

Also if EU:Rome works anything like EU3 then maintenance cost is based on recruitment cost (and any modifiers to recruitment cost will also make maintenance cheaper in eu3).
If this is indeed the case in EU:Rome as well then it might probably be used to good effect to create generic naval recruitment laws for states other than Carthage (I'm thinking these would be directed at using slaves rather than citizens like the punic one though but again my grasp of this period is poorer than my interest in it ).

It's in general my opinion that the more laws, decisions, etc there is in this game the more diverse the states will be develop to be during the game which is exactly the area Rome needs to the most improvement in. There is currently no general decisions or laws that I know of that a country can take to profile itself as a "naval country" (apart from taking naval ideas). While few great powers of this era might have had this "profile" I'm sure some of the minors did.

An alternative penalty would have to be something other than a naval penalty. There just arent enough naval modifiers. As you said the innovation penalty stands for reason in a certain way and I guess this is proved by history in the case of the Carthaginians. The Romans innovated with the corvus the Carthaginains floundered and were eventually crushed at sea.

Yes and the 10% more expensive naval techs might actually work nicely to make Carthage have a better (cheaper) navy initially but eventually be surpassed (or at least would have to work very hard not to be surpassed) by Rome. This would be a very attractive mechanism from a historical point of view.

[821]

is the link for downloading v1.32b broken? trying to download it for 3 days w/o success, getting message "file unavailable"

[icydawgfish]

same problem, the link seems to be broken.

[Hardradi]

Okay, I tested it and here were the effects:

1. No particular out of the ordinary abnormalities in regards to country expansion. Carthage did invade Epirus, but they already start with a large navy. Most countries with access to wood built up ships at a level mildly higher than normal. I suspect this is due to the fact that Ships are still one of the most expensive units in the game.

2. Particular caution in diplomacy was required in regards to states capable of building ships. These states now had the capability to build a navy capable of mounting an invasion of your homeland, rather than Naval powers simply leading to an endless blockade followed by a white peace.

3. This leads to the development of a new type of strategy-building a medium to small sized army and a large to medium sized navy, and using it to attack coastal regions. This brings about the formation of an empire built out of scattered, strategic regions. This is historically accurate-e.g., the Phonecians, and the Athens. States you are allied to with a powerful navy are now able to actually help you instead of just sitting there.

That doesnt sound to bad. The only thing I am worried about is the last point.
I will reduce to 7.5 and see how that pans out. Thanks for the testing

Cheaper ships might also make the storm event less harsh. I once lost over 300 ships to that event... The naval power balance was shifted away entirely for 50 years or so.

If you are redoing the map I would also like to place a low priority wish on increasing the amount of sea zones. Controlling the seas with just one megastack seem too easy at present (and I am guessing that sea zones don't increase the strain on the engine in nearly the same degree as land provinces do due to them not having any people or buildings in them and thus significantly fewer calculations). I would also argue that the more new ports you add the more the need increases for more sea zones.

Also if EU:Rome works anything like EU3 then maintenance cost is based on recruitment cost (and any modifiers to recruitment cost will also make maintenance cheaper in eu3).
If this is indeed the case in EU:Rome as well then it might probably be used to good effect to create generic naval recruitment laws for states other than Carthage (I'm thinking these would be directed at using slaves rather than citizens like the punic one though but again my grasp of this period is poorer than my interest in it ).

It's in general my opinion that the more laws, decisions, etc there is in this game the more diverse the states will be develop to be during the game which is exactly the area Rome needs to the most improvement in. There is currently no general decisions or laws that I know of that a country can take to profile itself as a "naval country" (apart from taking naval ideas). While few great powers of this era might have had this "profile" I'm sure some of the minors did.



Yes and the 10% more expensive naval techs might actually work nicely to make Carthage have a better (cheaper) navy initially but eventually be surpassed (or at least would have to work very hard not to be surpassed) by Rome. This would be a very attractive mechanism from a historical point of view.

Yep, I am into adding extra sea zones, I added a few intersting ones in the last release.

Maintaining the navy should always be expensive, can you confirm if maintenace cost is based on recruitment cost. I have only pushed it down to 7.5 (instead of 5) on this basis?

I have added in a greek and punic naval law. I might open the punic law up to phoenician's as well. There is also a new government type called Maratime Tribe but I dont have any transitions in place at the moment. EDIT: Punic Sacred Band and General Levy Law also added.

I agree I will lift the naval tech penalty to 10.

is the link for downloading v1.32b broken? trying to download it for 3 days w/o success, getting message "file unavailable"

same problem, the link seems to be broken.

Yes, I am working on it. Not sure what the problem is, I reloaded the file and its still broken. I have uploaded and posted a link to another website in the download thread.

[Hardradi]

Hardradi, do you have a Wonder or some other modifier to reflect the Oracle of Ammon? I didn't see anything when I loaded as the Ptolemies. I figure if it's important enough for Alexander to go so far out of his way to visit, it's important enough to show up in the mod.

I did look at putting one in originally but couldnt find a graphic. I wll add it to the to do list.

[Trin Tragula]

Maintaining the navy should always be expensive, can you confirm if maintenace cost is based on recruitment cost. I have only pushed it down to 7.5 (instead of 5) on this basis?

Semi-confirmed. I don't have a lot of time to test now but atleast the maintenance cost was decreased when I passed the Carthaginian naval standardization law (I was using one of the bookmarks were Carthage starts at peace and the decision reduced naval maintenance from 0.18 to 0.17).

[tanathos]

First : great mod. It makes the game feel much more polished.

I'm not sure how doable this is, but I'd love to see some kind of algorithm where the more provinces you have, the harder it is to keep them under control if they're of a different culture (and even more if it's a different culture and religion. I skimmed over the mod changes but didn't see anything like that. Sorry if I missed it).

Also' I'd like to confirm that with 1.32c, the game runs much, much smoother for me than with 1.32b for some reason.

[jhhowell]

I've finally had a bit of time to play again. Thanks for the very timely 1.32c update!

Minor spelling bug - Epigoni has the Mamertines appearing as the "Marmertines". Tag MAR seems OK since the word is derived from "Mars".

Observations so far: Rome isn't moving north very fast, so far just to Apuani, home of the briefly resurrected Etruscans (the faction was annexed while the colonist was in transit, so they popped right back up a month or so later...). On the other hand they're showing no sign of wanting to fight Carthage either, just taking the Sicilian provinces held by minors. It's a bit heavy-handed, but maybe it would help to give Rome and Carthage cores on each others capitals?

Pontus may be a bit weak without the new coastal provinces. In my game they only managed to take one before being eaten by the Seleucids. They wasted a lot of time on inconclusive wars against Lesser Armenia early on. Maybe they got missions based on the vanilla Pontus setup, rather than missions to go after the new coastal minors first? Not sure how much attention the AI pays to that kind of thing, and I didn't watch closely enough to see who got what missions.

The idea tanathos suggested about events to make trouble for wrong culture, wrong religion regions sounds good to me. Not sure how to do it, though. Maybe have events hitting the loyalty of governors of such provinces? There'd have to be a colony exemption, though, since a couple of population attempting to civilize a frontier province aren't going to give a governor delusions of independence just because the assimilation event hasn't hit yet.

My experiments with tweaking the climate system have been mostly successful. This current game is one of the few where I'm not involved in the eastern Med action so I may be reading too much into the Seleucid successes, but there could be game balance reasons to keep the Fertile Crescent at modern-day infertile (Arid/Semi-Arid) modifiers. That would leave Milan, Helvetii, Vindelicia, North Scotland, and Armenia as the changes from the current version. Adding a "poor" modifier has worked well to make the useless desert provinces (Arabia, western Egypt, inland Libya) properly worthless compared to other Arid provinces, as well as distinguishing the Picts from the Volcae. I'm not sure adding a "rich" modifier is a good idea, though, since many of the obvious places to put such tags are in heavily contested regions that could upset game balance. If the Ptolemies could actually achieve historical results I'd be happier giving Antioch/Damascus/Phoenicia/Jerusalem a "rich" modifier. I'll probably start my next game without it, unless by then Hardradi has done his own overhaul of province modifiers that renders my testing irrelevant. Hardradi, if you want to take what I have as a starting point let me know and I'll post my edited files somewhere or email them to you.

Trin Tragula, I'd be interested to see your suggestions for modifiers focusing on growth rate (which I agree are usually too high in Paradox games) rather than tax modifier. I don't find +10% or +20% tax modifiers too high, personally, and part of my thinking in experimenting with a "rich" modifier was to make certain provinces more important and worth fighting over. The Seleucids and Ptolemies fought six wars over that rich cluster in Syria and Judea that I worried about in the previous paragraph, after all.

[Hardradi]

Semi-confirmed. I don't have a lot of time to test now but atleast the maintenance cost was decreased when I passed the Carthaginian naval standardization law (I was using one of the bookmarks were Carthage starts at peace and the decision reduced naval maintenance from 0.18 to 0.17).

That law reduces trireme costs so you must be right, maintenance is based on cost. I am not really sure that it matters, given that lower cost means more ships which means more maintenance.

First : great mod. It makes the game feel much more polished.

I'm not sure how doable this is, but I'd love to see some kind of algorithm where the more provinces you have, the harder it is to keep them under control if they're of a different culture (and even more if it's a different culture and religion. I skimmed over the mod changes but didn't see anything like that. Sorry if I missed it).

Also' I'd like to confirm that with 1.32c, the game runs much, much smoother for me than with 1.32b for some reason.

Thanks for the feedback, much appreciated.

Changing different culture and religion penalties is easy, there are some already in static_modifiers.txt file. You can also add in other modifiers. I have not changed any of the vanilla modifiers in Epigoni Mod (yet):

same_culture_group = {
	local_tax_modifier = -0.1		#10% penalty if same culture group but nothing else.
	local_manpower_modifier = -0.8		#-80% penalty.
}

non_accepted_culture = {
	local_tax_modifier = -0.3			#30% penalty if different culture
	local_manpower_modifier = -1.0			#100% penalty on manpower.
	local_revolt_risk = 1				#1% revolt risk!
}

different_religion = {
	local_tax_modifier = -0.2		#20% penalty if different religion and not in same group
	stability_cost = 1			#5$ more expensive for each province
	local_revolt_risk = 1			#1% revolt risk!
}

same_religion_group = {
	local_tax_modifier = -0.2		#20% penalty if different religion but same group
	stability_cost = 1			#5$ more expensive for each province
	local_revolt_risk = 1			#1% revolt risk!
}

One thing I have wanted to tweek is manpower but these modifiers are static, ie, a decision/law where you recruit from different cultures that comes with stability hit and revolt risk but higher manpower of course. I just havent got around to doing it.

I am not sure why the mod would be running smoother but I am glad to hear that.

[Hardradi]

I've finally had a bit of time to play again. Thanks for the very timely 1.32c update!

Minor spelling bug - Epigoni has the Mamertines appearing as the "Marmertines". Tag MAR seems OK since the word is derived from "Mars".

Observations so far: Rome isn't moving north very fast, so far just to Apuani, home of the briefly resurrected Etruscans (the faction was annexed while the colonist was in transit, so they popped right back up a month or so later...). On the other hand they're showing no sign of wanting to fight Carthage either, just taking the Sicilian provinces held by minors. It's a bit heavy-handed, but maybe it would help to give Rome and Carthage cores on each others capitals?

Pontus may be a bit weak without the new coastal provinces. In my game they only managed to take one before being eaten by the Seleucids. They wasted a lot of time on inconclusive wars against Lesser Armenia early on. Maybe they got missions based on the vanilla Pontus setup, rather than missions to go after the new coastal minors first? Not sure how much attention the AI pays to that kind of thing, and I didn't watch closely enough to see who got what missions.

The idea tanathos suggested about events to make trouble for wrong culture, wrong religion regions sounds good to me. Not sure how to do it, though. Maybe have events hitting the loyalty of governors of such provinces? There'd have to be a colony exemption, though, since a couple of population attempting to civilize a frontier province aren't going to give a governor delusions of independence just because the assimilation event hasn't hit yet.

My experiments with tweaking the climate system have been mostly successful. This current game is one of the few where I'm not involved in the eastern Med action so I may be reading too much into the Seleucid successes, but there could be game balance reasons to keep the Fertile Crescent at modern-day infertile (Arid/Semi-Arid) modifiers. That would leave Milan, Helvetii, Vindelicia, North Scotland, and Armenia as the changes from the current version. Adding a "poor" modifier has worked well to make the useless desert provinces (Arabia, western Egypt, inland Libya) properly worthless compared to other Arid provinces, as well as distinguishing the Picts from the Volcae. I'm not sure adding a "rich" modifier is a good idea, though, since many of the obvious places to put such tags are in heavily contested regions that could upset game balance. If the Ptolemies could actually achieve historical results I'd be happier giving Antioch/Damascus/Phoenicia/Jerusalem a "rich" modifier. I'll probably start my next game without it, unless by then Hardradi has done his own overhaul of province modifiers that renders my testing irrelevant. Hardradi, if you want to take what I have as a starting point let me know and I'll post my edited files somewhere or email them to you.

Trin Tragula, I'd be interested to see your suggestions for modifiers focusing on growth rate (which I agree are usually too high in Paradox games) rather than tax modifier. I don't find +10% or +20% tax modifiers too high, personally, and part of my thinking in experimenting with a "rich" modifier was to make certain provinces more important and worth fighting over. The Seleucids and Ptolemies fought six wars over that rich cluster in Syria and Judea that I worried about in the previous paragraph, after all.

Thanks, I will fix that spelling error.

Glad to her that Rome is no longer colonising to the north. Yes, I would like to add some event and mission chains so that Carthage and Rome go head to head. Will have to squeeze it in somewhere.

There are no specific Pontus missions in the game, so it is operating off the suite of generic missions. At least Pontus now has some room to develop. Later I plan to break it into three provinces, so that will give it a bit more strength.

On the different culture and religion events. This can be done using province events and triggers such as:

	trigger = {
		owner = {
			not = { culture_group = this }
			not = { culture = this }
			not = { religion_group = this }
			not = { religion = this }
			}
		}
	}

No doubt there are already conversion events that they could be based upon.

I am certianly interested in seeing what you have done with the "poor " province modifiers. It is certainly an easy way to distinguish between Arad and really Arad. It could also be more easily manipulated, ie, turned off when aqueducts are in place.

[Trin Tragula]

Trin Tragula, I'd be interested to see your suggestions for modifiers focusing on growth rate (which I agree are usually too high in Paradox games) rather than tax modifier. I don't find +10% or +20% tax modifiers too high, personally, and part of my thinking in experimenting with a "rich" modifier was to make certain provinces more important and worth fighting over. The Seleucids and Ptolemies fought six wars over that rich cluster in Syria and Judea that I worried about in the previous paragraph, after all.

I have been working with the pop growth modifiers for EU3, where pop growth in fact refers to the growth of the urban centre of a province (so not quite the same thing as pop growth in EU:ROME). What I did was to set the base pop growth to 0 and then made other modifiers (such as buildings, tax and manpower base) increase population growth. The population number in a province itself I set to act as a malus on population growth (so the population will reach a point were growth stops by itself).
In effect I made urban growth dependent on a lot of things (such as the richness of a province, the size of a present CoT, the amount of provincial buildings (which I interpret as how developed the administrative centre is)). I also made things like looting, winter, etc decrease growth.
In doing all this I was mostly using modifiers smaller than 1 percent (with a few exceptions).
The idea came from when I was researching historical urban population numbers for cities on an Indian map I made for my mod and the MM game. Unlike EU3 the real world did not see a constant 3% growth but rather the historical population of the cities in question tended to increase and decrease a lot dependent on a wide range of reasons.



Now this is only partially applicable to Rome as population growth does in fact incorporate the entire province. There is also no such thing as a provincial base tax or manpower to act set the "natural" population size in EU:Rome. But I still think that making population growth dependent on many small things is preferable to having a constant growth like is the case in most paradox games. This is especially true as manpower and tax income is entirely dependent on population in EU:Rome.

In my opinion no province should have exactly the same population growth rate as any other, the whole point of them are that they're different. Climate would make excellent modifiers for population growth (one has to keep in mind that even when the population in question is that of the entire province the growth modifier is as much a modifier of people settling in as it's a question of actual increased birth rates/decreased death rates).
As I stated earlier I think population growth is a much better effect to model the fertility of land (which is what the climate modifiers seem to be depicting currently) than a tax modifier as the base tax is already dependent on population. Using population growth modifiers would also mean that certain areas would become more populous than others automatically as long as they aren't continually plundered/and or underdeveloped.
If one was to apply the same reasoning for population growth to Rome as I've done in EU3 (and this is a big IF, I suppose ) climate could act as the modifier that set the base growth of a province on which other modifiers are then applied such as if the province has been looted, how highly developed it is, etc.
Total population could still act as a negative modifier that grows as the population grows making growth stop at one point (dependent on other modifiers such as the climate the province has). As the player removes barbarian presence, appoints a good governor, builds irrigation systems and increases civilization values growth might then again start increasing (and with it the value of the province).
Keeping your major population centres supplied with grain will also be a lot more important using a dynamic population growth model like this one.

Additional modifiers that are already present that could be used to effect population growth in the game would be:
barbarian_power
civilization_value
no_governor
corruption
coastal (currently unused)
non_coastal (currently unused)
tropical (already does affect population growth)
mild_winter
normal_winter
severe_winter
blockaded
no_adjacent_controlled
city_population
core
same_culture_group
non_accepted_culture
different_religion
same_religion_group
occupied
under_siege
looted
revolt_risk
nationalism (probably better left out in favour of revoltrisk, using both can lead to unwanted results)
foreign_rebels
desecrated
regional_troops (this one should definately have an influence on growth imho)
construction_tech_level
civic_tech_level
religious_tech_level

As EU3 doesn't allow global population growth modifiers I've not experimented with those but ones that might fit Rome at a glance would be:

stability
positive_stability
negative_stability (probably just one or two of these)

civil_war
war
peace
war_exhaustion (probably better than war)
tyranny
any of the ruler_party modifiers though that would have to be carefully tested

These are all static modifiers. I'm sure if one wanted to go this route to create a more dynamical population growth model there's also plenty of event modifiers that may be used to good effect.
It's also my view that the omen that increases population growth in EU:Rome is very overpowered. Taking it repeatedly can increase your population by quite a lot quite quickly.

Sorry about the long post (especially as I didn't give any set numbers, if one is to adopt the design I propose a lot of testing would have to go into which numbers to choose).
Even if the idea of a dynamic population cap isn't something you want to do I think you should consider the use of climate modifiers instead of (rather than in addition to) the base population growth currently in the game as well as the use of population modifiers below 1%.

[Emperor Walter]

I have some suggestions: The first one is about tradegoods. It would be too long to post here, so here is a link: http://www.filefront.com/16628361/tradegoods.txt . I have tested it, in OPM vs OPM warfare, it's basically the same as without the modifications, since they both have similar types of units. In OPM vs Countries that have Iron, it is much more balanced, and the OPM now has a fighting chance. This usually stops Sparta from going on a conquest spree in Greece. In OPM vs Major Power or Medium power, the OPM now has much more of a fighting chance, rather than it being a simple walkover. If these changes are adopted, I think that the following modifiers should be put on every country, referencing their historical method of fighting:

1-Emphasize the Sword-This countries military utilizes the sword as their primarty weapon. Example: Rome. Effects: Decreased cost of Heavy Infantry (Because it takes the least time of all of these to train a person to use it).

2-Emphasize the Spear-This countries military uses the spear as their primary weapon. Their main formation is the Phalanx. Example: Macedonia, Sparta. Effects: Increased Discipline (Because the Phalanx formation would increase discipline)

3-Emphasize Cavalry-This country uses Cavalry as their main military unit. Example: Parthia, Rhoxolani. Effects: Decreased cost of cavalry.

4-Emphasize Mixed Formations-This country uses mixed formations of Infantry and Archers. Example: Not sure if it's historical. Effects: decreased cost split between Infantry and Archers.

A decision should be made to allow them to change this, but only is they have high stability. It would make the country lose 1 stability, and cost a significant amount of money.

In addition, a modifier should be made just for historically seafaring countries, like Sidon or Carthage or Athens, giving them a decreased cost for building ships (because they would be experts at building them, thus saving time materials and money). This modifier could not be gained or lost.

A secondary modifier for each country should be made, reflecting their method of military recruitment.

1-Legionary system-Country has a full legionary system. Give give medium bonus. Example: Rome after the Marian Reforms.

2-Professional Army-Country has a full-time Professional Army. Give a minor bonus. Example: Sparta, Rome pre-Marian Reforms.

3-Semi-Professional Army-Country has a Part-time army, athough the citizens are expected to fight to defend the country. Example: Most greek Polis. No bonus.

4-Conscripted Army-Countries army is made up of conscripted levies. Minor penalty. Example: Not sure, but I am sure that it happened.

The modifiers for this should be able to be changed through the same method above, obviously going up a ladder thoigh, from least to worst.

My next suggestion is that we use the citizenship values from the SPQR mod. This was a great way to immerse yourself in the game.

Also, I think that Sparta should have a seperate government type. Aristocratic and Despotic monarchy just don't quite fit.

[Hardradi]

I have some suggestions: The first one is about tradegoods. It would be too long to post here, so here is a link: http://www.filefront.com/16628361/tradegoods.txt . I have tested it, in OPM vs OPM warfare, it's basically the same as without the modifications, since they both have similar types of units. In OPM vs Countries that have Iron, it is much more balanced, and the OPM now has a fighting chance. This usually stops Sparta from going on a conquest spree in Greece. In OPM vs Major Power or Medium power, the OPM now has much more of a fighting chance, rather than it being a simple walkover.

Yes, I like this to. It has alway annoyed me that barbarian hordes can field multiple units while you cant as a player. It will be in the next release.
Also is this from another older mod?

If these changes are adopted, I think that the following modifiers should be put on every country, referencing their historical method of fighting:

1-Emphasize the Sword-This countries military utilizes the sword as their primarty weapon. Example: Rome. Effects: Decreased cost of Heavy Infantry (Because it takes the least time of all of these to train a person to use it).

2-Emphasize the Spear-This countries military uses the spear as their primary weapon. Their main formation is the Phalanx. Example: Macedonia, Sparta. Effects: Increased Discipline (Because the Phalanx formation would increase discipline)

3-Emphasize Cavalry-This country uses Cavalry as their main military unit. Example: Parthia, Rhoxolani. Effects: Decreased cost of cavalry.

4-Emphasize Mixed Formations-This country uses mixed formations of Infantry and Archers. Example: Not sure if it's historical. Effects: decreased cost split between Infantry and Archers.

A decision should be made to allow them to change this, but only is they have high stability. It would make the country lose 1 stability, and cost a significant amount of money..

These sound more like national ideas.

In addition, a modifier should be made just for historically seafaring countries, like Sidon or Carthage or Athens, giving them a decreased cost for building ships (because they would be experts at building them, thus saving time materials and money). This modifier could not be gained or lost.

Agreed, standardised ship production is now open to:

				tag = CAR
				tag = SIN
				tag = TYR
				tag = ANS
				tag = CO1
				tag = NES
				tag = DEL
				tag = ION
				tag = PAI
				tag = OL1
				tag = SIP
				tag = AMI
				tag = AMA
				tag = CYA
				tag = RHO
				num_of_cities = 10
				government = maratime_tribe

A secondary modifier for each country should be made, reflecting their method of military recruitment.

1-Legionary system-Country has a full legionary system. Give give medium bonus. Example: Rome after the Marian Reforms.

2-Professional Army-Country has a full-time Professional Army. Give a minor bonus. Example: Sparta, Rome pre-Marian Reforms.

3-Semi-Professional Army-Country has a Part-time army, athough the citizens are expected to fight to defend the country. Example: Most greek Polis. No bonus.

4-Conscripted Army-Countries army is made up of conscripted levies. Minor penalty. Example: Not sure, but I am sure that it happened.

The modifiers for this should be able to be changed through the same method above, obviously going up a ladder thoigh, from least to worst.

These could be laws as the tie in with the progession, government types and size of a state. I put something in for Carthage similar to this, Sacred Band vs General Levy. Agreed a full system would have to be progressive.

My next suggestion is that we use the citizenship values from the SPQR mod. This was a great way to immerse yourself in the game.

I had a quick look. It looks fairly complex. Can you isolate all of the files needed for it so that we can see how it works?

Also, I think that Sparta should have a seperate government type. Aristocratic and Despotic monarchy just don't quite fit.

I have created a "This is Sparta!" mini-mod with a "spartan monarchy" and "spartan oligarchy" but it needs to be tested. Only characters from either ruling house (Agiad or Europontid) of Sparta can be the ruler of either form of government. Special events can switch the current ruler between either house. If for some reason a ruler from neither house appears the governement will revert to tyranny via an event. I have also developed five or so laws for the player to attempt to reform from the spartan oligarchy back to the traditional spartan monarchy (crushing the power of the ephors). The five ephors are "represented" by the five senate factions when sparta is in the Spartan Oligarchy form of government. They restrict the decisions of the kings. The Agoge system is also developed but needs testing.

The major area where I am hung up is on the titles for Spartiates and restrictions on positions, etc.

I might cut out the majority of the titles and see if the rest of it is working. Is anyone interested in testing it for me?

[jhhowell]

Hardradi, I have attempted to attach a zipped archive of my experiments. Properly the province quality stuff should be in its own files, but I don't know how to get those setup decisions to work so I just piggybacked on the climate setup file. Emperor Walter's tradegoods edit is much better than mine, so ignore that part. I don't understand why different_religion and same_religion_group have the same effects, so I halved the latter. As I've said I probably overdid the refertilization of the Fertile Crescent, and I didn't get the right province numbers for a couple of those empty Arabian provinces. Most of the rich/poor entries should make sense; I also included Crete as "poor" to try to reflect a reason for nobody to be much interested in the place until late in the EU:Rome period. I deliberately excluded major power capitals (Rome, Alexandria, Carthage, Seleucia) from the "rich" list since capitals accumulate large populations through the migration events so a positive modifier would seem unbalancing.

Trin Tragula, I like the look of what you've done in EU3. If I had the latest expansion I'd be tempted to fire that up and start playing a game with your population growth fixes. I doubt provinces hit the 999999 population cap with your modifiers in place... Porting this concept to Rome would be great and I'll start tinkering with some of those modifiers, though I'm probably not the best person to do it.

I like Emperor Walter's tradegood & military changes. I always thought it was weird that only certain provinces could produce useful troops. Imagine Rome somehow being reduced to a OPM, would they suddenly cease to be able to field new legions? I think not! On the other hand, I think the country modifiers (revamped Ideas or however they're implemented) should also include steep cost penalties for non-favored unit types. We don't want Parthians fielding armies of heavy infantry just like everyone else. I'm not sure how the AI decides what to build, but if it's simply by cost those Cavalry nations would probably need at least a factor of three heavy infantry surcharge. Rome should probably face increased cost for cavalry. The #4 mixed category should probably just be a default no modifier status for countries that don't have any of the rest.

[Emperor Walter]

Yes, I like this to. It has alway annoyed me that barbarian hordes can field multiple units while you cant as a player. It will be in the next release.
Also is this from another older mod?

The idea was from the Tribes and Empires Mod, but after using them, I realized that all it really did was devalue the tradegoods. Therefore, I changed it to give more significant bonuses.

These sound more like national ideas.

I agree, but it would have to be carefully structured to prevent things like Sparta trying to develop cavalry when they don't even have access to horses.

I had a quick look. It looks fairly complex. Can you isolate all of the files needed for it so that we can see how it works?

I am working on this, I have found most of the files, but it is possible that some of them are in othere event files.



I

[Zzrow Graff]

I hope this thread isn't the wrong place to ask these questions. I couldn't find the Cursus Honorum thread in the main User Mods section.

What are the prerequisites for character eligibility for becoming a legatus? I've got lots of characters in my Rome game and have no problems filling all other positions, but my 9/10-martial characters seem to rarely be available for legionary command.

Also, I reached level 1 construction technology and shortly after I became able to build forums and stockades. However, I'm at construction level 2 halfway to 3 and I am still unable to build agriculture. Is acquisition of specific building capability a random event made possible by reaching the required tech level? I'm wondering if I am just incredibly unlucky. If it was supposed to fire already, does anyone know a way I can make it fire manually?

Thanks in advance for any help, and thanks to Hardradi and gang for an incredible mod.

[Hardradi]

Hardradi, I have attempted to attach a zipped archive of my experiments. Properly the province quality stuff should be in its own files, but I don't know how to get those setup decisions to work so I just piggybacked on the climate setup file. Emperor Walter's tradegoods edit is much better than mine, so ignore that part. I don't understand why different_religion and same_religion_group have the same effects, so I halved the latter. As I've said I probably overdid the refertilization of the Fertile Crescent, and I didn't get the right province numbers for a couple of those empty Arabian provinces. Most of the rich/poor entries should make sense; I also included Crete as "poor" to try to reflect a reason for nobody to be much interested in the place until late in the EU:Rome period. I deliberately excluded major power capitals (Rome, Alexandria, Carthage, Seleucia) from the "rich" list since capitals accumulate large populations through the migration events so a positive modifier would seem unbalancing.

Thanks for posting. FYI, the decision is triggered from the REB - Rebels.txt file in the history/countries folder. Now we need an event, where if they have a poor modifier, that it will be removed if the province has "irrigation" or a "forum", something like:

province_event = {

	id = ????
	
	trigger = {
		has_building = irrigation 
		has_province_modifier = poor
		has_governor = yes
	}
	
	mean_time_to_happen = {
		years = 2		
	}
	title = "EVTNAME????"
	desc = "EVTDESC????"

	option = {
		name = "Let your governor take the credit"		
		remove_province_modifier = poor
		governor_scope = {
			popularity = 15
			loyalty = 10
		} 
	}
	option = {
		name = "Take the credit as the ruler of the nation."
		ruler = {
			popularity = 10
		}
		governor_scope = {
			loyalty = -10
		}
	}
}

Not sure about the religion similarity but I agree they probably shoudnt be the same.

I like Emperor Walter's tradegood & military changes. I always thought it was weird that only certain provinces could produce useful troops. Imagine Rome somehow being reduced to a OPM, would they suddenly cease to be able to field new legions? I think not! On the other hand, I think the country modifiers (revamped Ideas or however they're implemented) should also include steep cost penalties for non-favored unit types. We don't want Parthians fielding armies of heavy infantry just like everyone else. I'm not sure how the AI decides what to build, but if it's simply by cost those Cavalry nations would probably need at least a factor of three heavy infantry surcharge. Rome should probably face increased cost for cavalry. The #4 mixed category should probably just be a default no modifier status for countries that don't have any of the rest.

Agree, steeper cost penalties should apply for non-favoured units. How the AI handles this needs to be tested.

The idea was from the Tribes and Empires Mod, but after using them, I realized that all it really did was devalue the tradegoods. Therefore, I changed it to give more significant bonuses.

Did you change the recruitment costs? You could give a province with iron for example a cheaper recruitment cost for heavy infantry and province without it a dearer recruitment cost.

Last night I put in place four new tradegoods: furs and skins, ivory and tusks, olives, and grains and cereals (an uber form of grain). The uber grain isnt that uber, I have weakened the old grain. A province can import the original grain plus uber grain which equates to the old value of grain (value for population growth). Uber grain has been given to Carthage, Alexandira and Aetna(sicily), I also want to place it somewhere in the Ukraine or Pontus. These were the traditional grain hubs of the ancient world.

I am planning on triggering grain riots and war exhaustion type events off uber grain for big cities, if they dont have uber grain they will have problems.

I agree, but it would have to be carefully structured to prevent things like Sparta trying to develop cavalry when they don't even have access to horses.

I agree in general... but the Spartan's did field cavalry, see Battle of Sellesia and during the Pelop War and after. Obviously it wasnt a high level cavalry unit. I think even the last Spartan tyrants might have. A reformer king like Cleomenes shifted the Spartan state to more of a combined arms approach.

I am working on this, I have found most of the files, but it is possible that some of them are in othere event files.

In the event files try looking by date modified. That might help.

I hope this thread isn't the wrong place to ask these questions. I couldn't find the Cursus Honorum thread in the main User Mods section.

What are the prerequisites for character eligibility for becoming a legatus? I've got lots of characters in my Rome game and have no problems filling all other positions, but my 9/10-martial characters seem to rarely be available for legionary command.

Traditionally the Consuls of Rome were its generals. Governors could also command armies. Have a look at Post #3 in this Cursus Honorum thread:http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/...d.php?t=459808
You will have to carefully groom your better military men for the consulship.

Also, I reached level 1 construction technology and shortly after I became able to build forums and stockades. However, I'm at construction level 2 halfway to 3 and I am still unable to build agriculture. Is acquisition of specific building capability a random event made possible by reaching the required tech level? I'm wondering if I am just incredibly unlucky. If it was supposed to fire already, does anyone know a way I can make it fire manually?

Thanks in advance for any help, and thanks to Hardradi and gang for an incredible mod.

By agriculture do you mean irrigation? If so, you need level 1 construction but also it can only be built in provinces with: grain horses wine fish elephants spices cloth papyrus.

Thanks for your support.