• 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.
Ooh, I want in on this. Thanks for the notice about it Fodoron.

Election 1
1. B
2. A
3. A
4. B

5. Denmark, Venice

I'm very interested in watching the AGCEEP in action. Plus the Mac community needs to stick together, so I want to support you. :)

Election 2
1. C
2. A

lawkeeper is right---you can handle it and it provides the best chance for a mostly historical situation with the AI
 
Truth is I haven't noticed any difference between levels in EU2 except for the BB thing, the starting funds and that I get more DoWs at furious. To me the level of difficulty is set by the country. Granada at easy is a lot harder than Sweden at very hard.
 
Something I just thought of : General Policies of the country (ie, long term goals) could be decided at the beginning of every new monarch, and this would represent his 'politic program' (invade the Kaliphate :rolleyes: ).

Tough it might be difficult with Venice (as sometimes monarchs/Doges tend to shift in a matter of a couple of years). But could be used if the experiment is duplicated later with another country.
 
lawkeeper said:
Something I just thought of : General Policies of the country (ie, long term goals) could be decided at the beginning of every new monarch, and this would represent his 'politic program' (invade the Kaliphate :rolleyes: ).

Tough it might be difficult with Venice (as sometimes monarchs/Doges tend to shift in a matter of a couple of years). But could be used if the experiment is duplicated later with another country.

I agree with senator (in lack for other titles) Lawkeeper. It seems like a most prudent suggestion.
 
Assuming we play AGCEEP:
If you are prepared to include your new Granada events in AGCEEP, and feel like playing them (sometimes one can get tirde of a place by too much testing..) I would suggest Granada as my second choice instead of OE.
Haven't changed my vote for it, since I don't know if you think it's a viable option.
 
Perhaps it is time to think if we need any Participant Rules.

One question that comes to mind is that prescience, or knowledge of future events, although not as common as knowledge of undiscovered places, is a widespread ESP ability between council members. If we want this to be truly democratic and every vote to have the same value, we should discourage council members from claiming knowledge of the future as a way of influencing the vote of the other members.

I do not oppose that council members engage in arcane rituals to gain such prescience, while some other council members (or your humble servant for that matter) may have recollections from past incarnations. But such knowledge gained in unsanctioned and thaumaturgical ways should be kept private, upon penalty of being accused of witchery and brought under the most saint Inquisition.

I don't think we need to vote on this, but see if people agree or disagree. For many (me included), being surprised by events is a bonus, even if it slightly hurts performance. But more importantly, it is very difficult that people can vote freely if somebody says that they should choose one option because of future events. The right to be wrong is an important one. Therefore, if agreed, arguments for chosing one option should be kept within limits of present knowledge, even if the voter has an ulterior motive to prefer such option.
 
Last edited:
Norrefeldt said:
Assuming we play AGCEEP:
If you are prepared to include your new Granada events in AGCEEP, and feel like playing them (sometimes one can get tirde of a place by too much testing..) I would suggest Granada as my second choice instead of OE.
Haven't changed my vote for it, since I don't know if you think it's a viable option.

Granada and its new events are a viable option. In fact the only way for those events for not firing would be to disable them or to reinstall AGCEEP, since they are installed now in my computer.

My preferences have nothing to do. I said I would accept any country as part of the experiment rules. I want to play a country most people want to see played, even if it turns out to be the Xhosa.
 
Fodoron said:
Perhaps it is time to think if we need any Participant Rules.

One question that comes to mind is that prescience, or knowledge of future events, although not as common as knowledge of undiscovered places, is a widespread ESP ability between council members. If we want this to be truly democratic and every vote to have the same value, we should discourage council members from claiming knowledge of the future as a way of influencing the vote of the other members.

I do not oppose that council members engage in arcane rituals to gain such prescience, while some other council members (or your humble servant for that matter) may have recollections from past incarnations. But such knowledge gained in unsanctioned and thaumaturgical ways should be kept private, upon penalty of being accused of witchery and brought under the most saint Inquisition.

I don't think we need to vote on this, but see if people agree or disagree. For many (me included), being surprised by events is a bonus, even if it slightly hurts performance. But more importantly, it is very difficult that people can vote freely if somebody says that they should choose one option because of future events. The right to be wrong is an important one. Therefore, if agreed, arguments for chosing one option should be kept within limits of present knowledge, even if the voter has an ulterior motive to prefer such option.
You're strangling me. :p

But I have to agree with you : not knowing/looking at/remembering the historical events is a good RP idea.



But I hope I won't forget this policy... :rolleyes:
And would you allow extensive knowledge of random events and/or game engine arcanas ? :cool:
 
lawkeeper said:
You're strangling me. :p
:wacko: me tooooo :D lol

lawkeeper said:
But I have to agree with you : not knowing/looking at/remembering the historical events is a good RP idea.
I also agree with you Commander/President/Chief/Khan/whatever Fodoron, we must stick our voting to a present context... I mean, voting only with the actual situation in mind... that is why screenshots and economical, internal and diplomatical situation (or inmeadiate consequences) at the time, are prioritary information for us when we are deciding....

I think that perhaps we should start thinking (when voting or deciding) not only as EU2 players (meaning of taking advantage of the AI or knowing the tweaks that'll make us very powerful) but as senators or politicians of a country, with our own set of personal believes of a country should be like, more like political parties that think of a country should be centralize or decentralize, etc.... I don't know, perhaps I'm taking this very seriously :confused: ... what do you think??
 
the_genius said:
I also agree with you Commander/President/Chief/Khan/whatever Fodoron, we must stick our voting to a present context... I mean, voting only with the actual situation in mind... that is why screenshots and economical, internal and diplomatical situation (or inmeadiate consequences) at the time, are prioritary information for us when we are deciding....
And if you have the possibility, Fodoron, put your savegames on-line (you can find many great uploaders), to allow people to download it and have a look.

Yeah, I know, I'm simply waaaay too curious. :D

the_genius said:
I think that perhaps we should start thinking (when voting or deciding) not only as EU2 players (meaning of taking advantage of the AI or knowing the tweaks that'll make us very powerful) but as senators or politicians of a country, with our own set of personal believes of a country should be like, more like political parties that think of a country should be centralize or decentralize, etc.... I don't know, perhaps I'm taking this very seriously :confused: ... what do you think??
Yes, off course. Let CouncilMembers/Senators/Sages have their personal grudges against other countries, personal views on politics/diplomacy/economy. :)

Genova delenda est. :rofl:
 
Election 2
1.C
2.B

Although "coward" AI would be more historical, I like taking it up a notch to keep myself honest. On "coward" I tend to keep wars going longer and let my BB creep higher. On more aggressive levels, I have to bear in mind the fact that my neighbors will jump on me if I exhaust myself in an aggressive war. Also, a more ahistoric path would solve some of the "psychic councilor" problems that Fodoron referred to.
 
Fodoron has proposed that we not refer to event files, future monarchs, "Let's make sure we start preparing for Napoleon by 1750", etc. I concur, but with a bit of reservation.

In real life, big events rarely come out of the blue. By 1500, for example, one would likely be aware that there would be problems down the road in provinces that will later go Protestant. One aspect of EUII that bothers me is the fact that some very forseeable events happen without warning, forcing the player to either 1) check the event files and have too much knowledge or 2) fly blind and play as Dick Cheney--someone who can manipulate the monarch at will, but can't forsee many of the most obvious challenges ahead.
 
An update on the election 1, while we wait for definitive results is at the time of posting this:

Small (12/17), Christian (17/18), European (18/18), AGCEEP (10/17), and Venice (14/18)

While we wait for definitive results, we can start advancing on the premise that it is likely to be a small, christian, european country. Some things can be decided regardless of the final country played. Hence I will open some more elections to keep the council members bussy.
 
[size=+1]Participant Rules[/size]

The following rules are set by the participants and are subject to revision by them at any time.

The goal of this rules is to keep the game interesting and allow a more democratic functioning.

1) References to future events and/or their effects have to be avoided. While study of events or parallel playing is not discouraged, any knowledge thus gained or obtained from previous games should be kept private.

For example it would be acceptable to say that the Turks want to conquer Constantinopla because it was evident that they were moving towards it (had a core), and were expanding. It was just a matter of time.

It would not be acceptable to argue that a manufactory should not be built in a province because a future event will put one there. In the same line it would not be acceptable to argue against attacking a country because it is "somehow" known that they will be inherited in due time.
 
Last edited:
Does anybody have a list of available colors? My browser does not allow selection, and LightOrange gives me some kind of blue :confused:
 
Holy cow--that's a lot of things to keep straight. Is there any way to make the list shorter to order? Maybe I'm dreaming, but thought I'd ask.

As far as events go, I agree with your idea that we not use our knowledge as influence, but at the same time, its sort of impossible to "forget" things as we discuss them, so I hope you won't keep the Inquisition too warm for those of us who forget such things. :)
 
Code:
Election 2

1 ?
2 B

Code:
Election 3

Cores
Manufactories
Tax value
Manpower
Inflation
Technology investment
Stability
Ducats (available)
DP Centralization

With no number of event priorities specified, I just picked the ones I found most important.

BTW, I think roleplaying as a politician is an excellent idea (that of course should not be compulsory). It's going to be a lot of fun just pondering the inclinations of future Senator Horvendile! :D
(I'm such a nerd! But then again, aren't we all?)
 
Fodoron said:
This list will indicate that you are willing to pass on a free manufactory if it also means taking one stability hit, or that you would rather take a +1 stability accompanied with -1 tax value than the opposite.

The importance for each factor is both considered for the positive effect and for the negative effect. I wonder if I failed to explain myself and made it unneccesarily complicated :(

Ah. I see. I think I might have misunderstood you a bit there.